Prominent Lesbian Activist Admits “Gay” Agenda Is To Destroy Marriage

Liberals don’t believe in the word “agenda” unless the context is some vast right-wing conspiracy to overthrow the government. But liberals don’t have agendas. And the managed media on television don’t have agendas either. They’re just reporting the facts.

There’s no hidden agenda behind the homosexual movement to “legalize” homosexual “marriage.” They just want equal rights. They want to get married just like heterosexuals do, and there’s no reason homosexuals should be treated any differently. After all, we’re all human. It’s just that we have different “sexual identities.”

What do straight people have to fear anyway? Allowing homosexuals to enter into “covenant relationships” with one another isn’t going to affect straight marriages. The institution of marriage isn’t going to change if we let anyone and everyone who wants to get married get married.

Well, their agenda is hardly hidden anymore. About a year ago, a Russian and U.S. journalist and LGBT activist by the name of Masha Gessen gave a speech at the Sydney Writer’s Festival that exposed the not-so-hidden agenda of the “gay marriage” movement. The audio is just now surfacing:

 “It’s a no-brainer that [homosexuals] should have the right to marry. But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. [resounding applause]. That causes my brain some trouble. Part of why it causes me trouble is because fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there. Because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change. And that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.”

 So there you have it. At the heart of the “gay rights” movement is an attempt to dismantle the institution of marriage. Not that we didn’t already know that. It’s just that usually they’re not so open and honest about it.

I always wondered the real reason that homosexuals wanted to get married. Why would they care about an institution rooted in Christianity? Why would they care about establishing a covenant relationship with another person for purposes way beyond mere friendship?

Because they also seek cultural acceptance. And they want to reach that through legislation that will attempt to force the Church to accept them too.

Their whole campaign for acceptance has been rooted in spite. And for that reason, I think that once every state votes in favor of “gay marriage” or there’s some federal mandate, homosexual interest in getting “married” will fizzle.

Once it’s legal everywhere, homosexuals won’t be as excited anymore. The thrill will be gone. And by that time, the “law” would have dictated that marriage shouldn’t be reserved for anyone in particular, that anyone who wants to get “married” should be allowed to, and the institution itself would have no real cultural significance. It wouldn’t mean anything anymore to be married. And that’s what the homosexual community wants.



Tagged with 

    If homosexuals have their way, they would seek to ban heterosexual marriage and relationships.

    It truly is a mental disorder.

    • Mark Olympia

      Yep. Revenge is going to suck for traditionalists. It's coming.

      • Bobseeks

        What goes around comes around. Once Americans get fed up with the consequences of satan's homosexual agenda there will come a backlash that may eliminate the scourge of sexual perversion.

        • jong

          It has always worked that way. And as far to the left it will swing to the right. That means look forward to all the gays being in a hospital or deported for a very simple reason. They are a public health menace.

      • Randy Renu

        HA HA HO HO HO HA the fine print.

      • jong

        Rather its you whose head will decorate my porch silly little fool

      • George J

        Okay. Let's say you guys win. The U.S. becomes a Marxist Utopia, marriage has gone the way of the dinosaur and all is right with the world.

        And then, you guys will have kids. And your kids will naturally rebel against your "establishment" because that is what kids do. They will want to change things and make a new world and a new society - one that they think will be better than the one you and your cohorts struggled so hard to build.

        And, guess what! You will fight them. You will oppose everything they do and you will not understand why the reject everything you tried to build up and maintain.

        In short, you will have become "Conservatives".

        Be careful what you wish for my Liberal Marxist friend - you might just get it!

    • Shermer

      Why on earth would they want to ban heterosexual marriage?

      • Bobseeks

        Because they are evil.

        • John

          They wouldn't. Bob just thinks anyone he doesn't like are evil and out to destroy him.

        • Bobseeks

          Liar - homosexuals, like all liberals, are out to destroy everything good. Fortunately, Jesus will undo the evil of the liberals and their sodomite allies when He returns. When that happens, those who continued in their sin because they were "validated" by lying, liberal scum like you, will turn on you when they learn of their fate.

        • John

          Why is homosexuality different than any other sin in the bible? Why don't you think those sinners are out to destroy everything good too? Have you never sinned in your life Bob?

          Or is it not about any of that and you just hate gays?

        • Beethoven

          You do have a valid point there. The Bible does lump homosexuals in with other people like liars, thieves, murderers, adulterers. We should be consistent and treat them all the same.

          However, I think the distinction is that our society still condemns (somewhat) murder, stealing and lying (unless the government does it, then it's ok). It's the stuff relating to sexuality that we're supposed to accept. In that regard, if we're consistent, we should have the same distaste for homosexuality that we do for adultery and fornication.

        • John

          So does that mean you guys will support banning marriage by those who commit any of the other sins too? Looks like no one will get married.

          Nah, it's more fun when you guys pick and choose what messages from the bible you feel should apply to everyone, including non-believers, while at the same time sinning on a regular basis.

          Nothing like a hypocrite!

        • Randy Renu

          For once I might just agree with your brain dead comments.

          Yes, as one who NEVER attended a public/government school and raised a Baptist I have seen my share of "pick and choosing from the Bible...."

          It is NOT right and you're not a good example to point that out. Once again, you continue to use the excuses and faults of others to justify your behavior.

          WATCH MY LIPS: For ALL have sinned and have come short of the Glory of God...." Do you have any idea what this means? Of course not. You're life revolves around YOU.

          Let's leave the judgement up to someone qualified....and that is NOT you.

        • John

          So if everyone sins, why should homosexuals be especially punished?

        • Bobseeks

          Asked and answered - You go around and circles, proving the falseness of your argument, and your own lack of anything approaching intellect. You are nothing more than a useful idiot being manipulated by evil.

        • John

          So because people exercise their freedom of speech, that means they should be treated extra harshly for their sins?

          Wow, you sound very anti-American Bob. The others on this site won't approve of you.

        • jong

          Yes we will. We know the source of the lie. Bob/John/Lonny

        • Randy Renu


          What part of SIN do you NOT understand? Sin is sin and God does not "classify" one sin as being worse then is ALL sin and you're at the forefront of it.

          Take my word for it, we will ALL be held accountable for our sins. For some of us (you not included) we will be forgiven, and God has stated He will never again remember our sins if we ask Him to forgive us and we repent.

          You are one breath away from eternity. Think about it.

        • alephtav

          John, it is not "punishment" to refuse to change the definition of marriage. We don't change the definition of "employment" to include burglars. To be "employed" you must obtain your wages by legal means. To be "married" you must be a one man, one woman pair.

          This doesn't make homosexuals any less valuable as people or citizens. They can live with each other all they want. It means we are not going to force social, religious or political institutions to change the definition of the central unit of our society. We will not change a definition that has stood for five thousand years of recorded history to accommodate the lifestyle choice of two percent of the population.

        • John

          Actually, the definition of "marriage" was:

          1. That you got married for wealth and status, not because you actually loved the person (see: arranged marriages)

          2. That you "purchased" the wife by form of her dowry.

          3. That women were the property of their husbands.

          What about those "definitions" of marriage? You want traditional marriage? That is traditional marriage.

          But you guys are just against homosexuals and try and hide behind this "traditional marriage" propaganda. You fool no one.

          Slavery was also the norm, but it was changed. Tradition is not a good argument. Come up with a better one to defend your bigotry.

        • alephtav

          I'm not talking about tradition. I'm talking about Biblical definition, which includes none of the things you mentioned. The Bible describes a mutually supportive, loving relationship: "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church." Read Song of Solomon, for crying out loud. No "ownership" or repression there. Just a horny husband and wife who are hot for each other!

          So how do you believe we should define marriage? How far do we go with "redefinition"? You obviously think we should include homosexuals. What about bestials? Necrophiliacs? Threesomes? Foursomes? Should we eliminate restrictions based on age? Species? And what do you base your definition on? If you say, "Progressive thinking in society," that's no better argument than tradition.

          And again, it is not "hate" to say that I disagree with your lifestyle choice. It IS hate to call someone names. (And I'm addressing that to people on both sides of this argument.) :)

        • John

          Ok. Show me where in the bible it says that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. You say the Bible says marriage should be mutually supportive? Is this what you mean by that?

          Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:21-24)

          You know that the argument you use when you ask where we should draw the line is exactly the same one used against interracial marriage in 1967? This was the argument used and it lost, which allowed for the legalization of interracial marriage

          "It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

          How does it feel using that same argument again today to discriminate against gays?

          The laws against bestiality or necrophilia or polygamy are all independent of one another. But you make them out to be all related. As if for some reason, legalizing homosexual marriage would make us question why we made the others illegal in the first place. None of them have anything to do with homosexuality. Why would we say that if homosexual marriage is made legal, we should reconsider why we made bestiality illegal? Or polygamy? Why would we say "hrm, after all the good reasons we came up with to make this illegal, we should just scrap it because homosexuals can get married"? Can you explain that?

        • alephtav

          Sure. Genesis 2:23-24 says, "The man said, “This is now bone of my bones
          and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."

          God didn't make another man out of Adam's rib, he made a woman. This verse was quoted by Jesus in Matthew 19:5, so it's not just an "Old Testament thing." :)

          If you are saying that bestiality, etc. is a separate argument from homosexual marriage, then it is hypocritical of you to link it with interracial marriage (which is NOT supported in the Bible). Actually, bestiality and the like is a more closely-linked argument, because the issue is sexual preference, not innate physical traits, like skin color. So, I am not using the same argument.

          And again, it is not discrimination to say that we won't change the definition of marriage to accommodate two percent of the population. It IS, however, harassment to expect us to do so and to say that we are "bigots" because we refuse to accommodate a sinful lifestyle.

          Also again: I respect your right to be gay. I expect you to respect my right (and the right of Christians) to adhere to the Bible.

        • John

          None of that says anything about marriage being only between a man and wife. And if you want to bring up the old testament, I will gladly produce plenty of great passages about polygamy.

          I didn't link bestiality with interracial marriage. Bigots in 1967 did. And you are doing it again today.

          Homosexuality is no more "sexual preference" than heterosexuality is. Not sure why you even try and bring that up.

          Two percent isn't accurate, the number is closer to 3.5% of the US population being gay. That represents 11.7 MILLION people that you and people like you are discriminating against.

          Homosexuality is like any other sin. Do we ban murders from getting married? or liars? or adulterers? or those who worship false idols? No, we don't.

          How does homosexuals getting married go against your right to adhere to the Bible? What in the world are you talking about? It doesn't affect you at all, just like your marriage, if you are married, doesn't affect them at all. Get over yourself and let people live their lives in peace, you bigot!

        • alephtav

          As I said, the side that calls names is the side that is demonstrating hate. You yourself described homosexuality as "sin." That's how I can say it is "sexual preference." Sin is choice. Your own words.

          Okay, 3.5%, not 2%. Should we change a societal definition to accommodate 3.5%? 51% of the vote made Obama our president last year. What should we do to accommodate the 49% that didn't want him to be president?

          As a homosexual person, you are currently free to live your life (in peace) any way you choose. You can even call yourself "married" if you want to. The issue is, you want everyone else to call you "married" too. It is you who want to interfere with the beliefs of the 77% of Americans who call themselves Christians. Funny, I'd like everyone to call me a "millionaire." Suppose I can get legislation passed to make that happen?

          As to your other argument: murderers are not asking society to change their definition of homicide, nor liars asking to change the definition of truth, nor thieves asking to change the definition of employment. Only homosexuals are asking to have the definition of marriage changed. For what purpose? You are free to live your life. Leave us alone and let Christians live their lives in peace.

        • John

          Not my words. The bible's words. I am not a Christian and many others aren't either.

          11.7 million people are being denied their rights. And you think that's not important to consider?

          You still haven't shown me any biblical definition of marriage, yet you claim it so. Further, why should we make laws based on the Bible?

          Two reasons why they want to be able to get married:

          1. They don't want to be second class citizens.
          2. You receive many benefits (somewhere in the thousands) from getting married. Homosexuals are denied these rights federally, even if their state allows for same sex marriage.

          Who is stopping Christians from living their lives in peace? You are such a god damn hypocrite. It is YOU who won't let people live their lives in peace. Yes, I said GOD DAMNED hypocrite.

        • alephtav

          Mm-hm. Yelling, swearing and calling me names. And you are asking for tolerance and peace? How tolerant are you?

          I didn't say you were a Christian. I said you called homosexuality sin, which you did in several of your posts. Sin, by nature, is choice.

          No one is being denied any rights. No one is a second class citizen. Again, you are currently free to live how you choose. The alcoholic is free to live life inebriated, but it is not "hate" to deny him the privilege to drive a car. Marriage is not a constitutional right, it is a societal institution, based on Biblical definition. (Whether you believe the Bible or not, doesn't change the fact that our country was founded on it. If you don't like it, feel free to move to Turkey. See how free you are to practice homosexuality in a Muslim country, where they kill homosexuals.)

          Federal economic handouts are not a right, either. They are instead an abomination to our economic policy. If we truly followed the Constitution, no one, homo- or hetero-sexual would receive Federal entitlements.

          I'm not certain how you are denying that the story of "woman came out of man and the two became one" is not a clear definition of marriage, unless you are willfully closing your eyes and saying, "I can't see it!" Can you tell me how you read that passage differently?

        • John

          I am not tolerant of intolerance. Why should I be?

          I don't believe in Christianity meaning I don't believe in what you call a sin. Are you trying to impose your religion on everyone?

          Marriage IS a right. Do some research before posting BS?

          The United States Supreme Court has in at least 14 cases since 1888 ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. These cases are:[36]

          Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
          Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
          Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) Marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man” and “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
          Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
          Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
          Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
          Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974) “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
          Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
          Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977) “[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
          Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
          Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
          Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
          M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996) “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
          Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

          Can you show me this biblical definition of marriage? I'm still waiting. Your story is from the old testament, first of all, which doesn't apply to Christianity from what I'm told. is that wrong? Second, it talks about man and woman coming together. Great. Grand. Super. Now where does it say that is the only way allowed?

        • alephtav

          How is it "intolerance" to say "you are free to live the life you choose" as I have repeated over and over?

          You called homosexuality a sin in several of your posts. I am not trying to impose my religion, but you are imposing your beliefs (that homosexuality should be given special privilege) on society.

          In every one of your Supreme Court rulings, no sitting justice imagined that someone would one day apply their words to homosexual marriage. You are expecting sexual preference to be named a protected class in the eyes of the law. The Supreme Court criteria for a protected class is that they must be economically deprived, politically powerless and have immutable characteristics, none of which apply to the wealth, political power and lifestyle choices of the homosexual community.

          The Old Testament certainly does apply to Christianity, in that the Law shows us our sin, pointing us to Jesus, which is the story of the New Testament. Where does it say that is the only way? Many places. First of all, every time marriage is discussed, it is clearly and only stated as a man and a woman. Yes, polygamy was practiced (against the Law), but each one was a separate marriage. Marriage is one man and one woman. Secondly, there are many places that clearly state that homosexuality is sin. For example, Romans 1:27 says, "the men gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameful acts with men." That's pretty clear.

          But then, you said you don't believe the Bible. May I ask what you base your beliefs on, then?

        • John

          They aren't free to live the life they choose. If someone told you that you aren't allowed to get married, would you say you are free to live the life you choose? Of course not, that's ridiculous!

          Now you speak for Supreme Court justices?

          I am not asking for any protection under law. There are plenty of Christian churches who would happily marry same sex couples. Why should the government tell them they are not allowed to?

          Still waiting on you to show me where in the Bible it defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. Why are you ignoring the parts of the old testament that talk about polygamy? Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. Is that what you mean by the definition of marriage?

        • alephtav

          Again, you are free to call yourself "married." You are not free to force everyone else to do so. I have given you ample proof from scripture and you keep saying, "still waiting." If you're going to ignore truth (which you already said you regularly do, as you don't believe the Bible), I don't have time to play your game anymore.

          You are asking for protection under law - you are asking for the law to redefine marriage to accommodate your lifestyle, which represents 3.5% of the population. You are asking to be a protected minority.

          Churches are currently allowed to practice however they want to - marrying gays, dancing with snakes, whatever. Why should the government tell them that they have to ignore scripture and marry homosexuals? Forcing all churches to perform homosexual marriage would be the government telling churches what to do.

          I also already addressed polygamy. You are either not reading my post, or you are just playing a child's game of, "Nuh-uh!" Again, I do not have time to play this game.

          My main question for you (which you continue to ignore) is, "If you don't believe the Bible, what do you base your beliefs on?"

        • John

          Who is forcing you to do anything? Again, how does gay marriage affect you in any way?

          I'm not asking for the law to redefine marriage. Each state defines this for themselves. There is no overarching "law". Federal laws, like DOMA, withhold benefits from same sex marriages.

          Even if a church wants to marry a gay couple, they can't in states where gay marriage is illegal. Why not? Why is the government telling the church who it can or can't marry?

          You didn't address polygamy. You said "it was legal then". So what? It is clear that polygamy was allowed back then. You said you are for the definition of marriage in the bible. That means you are for polygamy.

          It's none of your business what I base my beliefs on. Just like it's none of my business what you base yours on. I don't care. Live your life and let others live theirs.

        • alephtav

          Redefining marriage would force every church to perform homosexual marriages against their moral teaching. As I stated earlier, your homosexuality (or anyone's) does not affect me. You are free to be who you want to be and even to call yourself "married." Just don't expect the rest of us to.

          You are correct in stating that currently each state defines this for themselves. What legislation are you desiring then?

          I did address polygamy. I said it was practiced in the Old Testament, against God's Law. I never said it was "legal then." Go back through my posts.

          It is important what you base your beliefs on, if you expect others to subscribe to them, which you obviously do since you have spent all day arguing with me. If you have no external truth to base your beliefs on, but just "That's how I feel," how can you convince anyone to agree with you, unless by chance they happen to "feel" the same way? And how is it a good idea to base a society's behavior on feelings?

          It may be none of my business what you base your beliefs on, but if you want to convince others to agree with you, you'd better decide that matter for yourself.

          You said "Live your life and let others live theirs." As I have repeatedly said, you (and all homosexuals) are free in this country (more so than in any other) to live your life as you choose. However, if you choose a lifestyle that is anathema to the beliefs of others, don't expect them to accept you.

          I do not expect you to accept my Christian beliefs or make any accommodations for them, why do you expect me to change the definition of marriage for you?

        • John

          Churches can refuse heterosexual marriages currently. So what are you talking about? If the pastor doesn't agree to it, they won't be married, no matter if hetero or homo. So there goes your first argument. Not a good start.

          Again, who expects you to do anything? How does it affect you in the slightest? You still haven't answered.

          Are you saying that if the bible didn't tell you that murder was bad, you wouldn't be able to come to that conclusion on your own? That kind of argument takes away all credit to man. Are you not able to think outside the bible? Can you not come to any conclusions on your own? I think it's really interesting that conservatives and libertarians say they are all about individual freedom, but most of them are religious and take all their cues from the bible. Not much freedom after all.

          Again, I don't expect or want anything from you. Accommodations? You mean receiving the same rights that you have is an "accommodation"? Wow. So you basically operate in a hierarchy where gays are below you and you are absolutely fine with it. You are a twisted person. But I knew that when you used the exact same argument against gay marriage that was used against blacks. The EXACT same argument. You would have fit in well in 1967, you bigot.

        • alephtav

          I have answered your accusations over and over. You refuse to acknowledge the fallacy of your arguments. For the last time, interracial marriage is not banned because it deals with inherent traits. A black man is still a man. A black woman is till a woman. Marriage is one man and one woman. Always has been, always will be. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. There is no scientific, religious or empirical evidence of any kind to indicate otherwise. In fact, in 2009, a government medical journal published a survey that showed that 40% of homosexuals stated that they became homosexual after being sexually abused as children. That's not "born with it."

          And yes, if the Bible didn't say murder was bad, it would be an acceptable practice, as it has been in many primitive societies that had no knowledge of the Bible.

          Of course churches can refuse homosexual marriage. But if our courts change the federal definition of marriage, that will no longer be the case. You do want something from our society. you want the definition of marriage changed. You want us to say that your sinful behavior is normal and should be celebrated. Should we do the same for alcoholics? Kleptomaniacs? Rapists?

          Also for the last time, homosexuals are not "below" me or anyone else. on the contrary, homosexuals as a group have a higher income level, education level and employment status than the general population. How exactly are they oppressed? You are free to practice your homosexuality. you are free to call yourself "married." But you are pouting because the Christians will not ignore the Bible and marry you in the church? Pass me a hanky.

          Let's make a comparison. The federally funded school system will not allow me to come in and preach to the students. Should the Supreme Court change the definition of "school" to allow me to do that? It's the same argument.

          And again, you can't resist the name-calling. A classic position by someone who has run out of logic and is losing the argument.

          Thank you for an enjoyable debate today. Despite what you may think, I respect the fact that you are passionate about your position. And I respect you as a person. I mean it, I truly enjoyed debating you. I appreciate having a discussion with someone who disagrees with me and has strong convictions. It helps me think on both sides of the argument. :) I wish you well.

        • DrZarkov99

          The government doesn't ban any church from performing gay marriages. That's a myth. What the state does do is refuse to recognize such marriages as legal for the purpose of tax deductions or estates. However, those things can be accomplished by other legal means.

          So what is the "gay marriage" crusade about? It's about devaluing the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage, and that has one of two purposes: either it's a vengeful crusade against state and social institutions that have shunned gay relationships, or it's strictly aimed at gaining the advantage perceived granted to conventional marriages by state institutions.

          Since the latter can be gained easily by legal means, it has to be the former. Gays are angry and bitter against their heterosexual relatives and a state dominated by heterosexuals, and see the current media frenzy as a means to enact that revenge. Have fun with that.

          I'm more concerned with the "poisonous fruit" of gay success, as promoters of incest and pedophelia are already launching their missions using the gay marriage victories as their example. Live with that.

        • John

          Yes it does. Some state governments had made same sax marriage illegal. Meaning a church in that state, even if it wanted to marry a gay couple, which many do, they are not allowed to. The ceremony would not be recognized.

          What is the gay marriage crusade about? How about obtaining the same rights that you have? Is that a good enough reason? Or do you think you are superior to gays and deserve more rights than them?

          "Since the latter can be gained easily by legal means"

          What legal means? DOMA is the law as is a ban for same sex marriage and many States. What legal means are you talking about?

        • jong

          Once again GOD does forgive the repentant heart. You flaunt it in GOD's face. Hell awaits you.and that is a message from GOD read your bible if it does not burst into flame in your hands

        • jong

          And yes homosexuality is a choice not genetic defect. You gays have tried for years and have come up empty on that one.

        • jong

          Ah once again race is brought in. Sorry john/bob/loony that was debunked the last time. Homosexuality is a disease. Black is something that no one do anything about. One is genetic one is environmental. You still lose.

        • Bobseeks

          John - your display of ignorance and deceit would bring shame on any decent person. Like all liberals you bring out the word hypocrite when you argue from ignorance. Sinning is a fact of life in a fallen world. What separates Christians from unbelievers is their desire to change and their willingness to repent. The Christians I know are far, far better people than the non-believers I know. Non-believers stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of hitler, stalin, mao, pol pot, gosnell, and obama - all examples of the very worst of humanity.

        • John

          Show me which part of my post was ignorant or deceitful. I know sinning is a fact of life. So why are you hating on homosexuals so much and ignoring the other sins? Or do you also support banning marriage from those who commit other types of sin? If not, you are a hypocrite.

        • Bobseeks

          Once again you introduce deceit - is that all you can come up for an "argument"? That fact is, homosexuality is not worse than any other sin. HOWEVER - we do not have highly organized, well financed groups advocating for the lie that their sin is acceptable. If murderers, pedophiles, thieves, and rapists were trying to force these sins on us as being "normal" and acceptable, they would meet with the same resistance as homosexuals. And yes John, I have sinned and I have repented of my sin because I was not surrounded by lying scum like you who tried to tell me I was not sinning. Finally, like all liberal liars, you equate the truth with hate because you have no answer to the truth other than your lies.

        • John

          Bob, I think you're going senile. You don't make much sense. I said that according to the bible, homosexuality was a sin like any other sin. That is the truth, so what are you rambling about? Where was I deceitful in my post? Please show me or admit you are a liar.

          Are liars denied their rights to marry? Are adulterers being banned from further marriage? Are fornicators being denied their rights?

          No, they aren't. Want to know why? Because it has nothing to do with it being a sin, it has to do with pure hate for homosexuals.

        • Bobseeks

          Liar - you are trying to imply that there is no difference between what the homosexuals are doing and what the other "sinners" are doing. That is a flat out lie. The other sinners are not forming politically powerful groups to force their sin on the rest of us. But, you will lie and lie because that is all you know how to do.

        • John

          Force their sin on the rest of you? How are they doing that? Are they coming to your home and telling you to become gay? Are they strapping you down and making you have hetero therapy?

          Bob, did it ever occur to you that you might just be a hateful person? Why not own up to it like a man?

        • Randy Renu
        • Randy Renu

          Hey Troll...stop using the word "GAY" and of course, as we've discussed earlier, use only a small "g" when referring to YOUR god.

          Let's call it like it is. Gay means happy. Perverted does not. Perverted is something else isn't it John?

          For the class John, can you define PERVERTED and how that word applies to your life and personal choices?

          We all know how happy you are. Let's now discuss how perverted you are.

          I see you're saving a little money by trying to reuse. Good thinking.

        • jong

          Not at all. He has a very clear vision and who is the enemy. And who lies. Like you using several different id's are only lying to yourself we know who you are Bob/John/Lonny

        • aemoreira81

          How do you go about banning heterosexual marriage and relationships, however? (This question is also directed to @ICOYAR:disqus .)

        • jong

          You attack like they have been attacking for the last fifty years. With out such attacks upon the structure of this society many things would not have happened such as the election of Obama. But, of course in their dementia they dont realize that they are a dead end unless they recruit from schools and make sure the people involved(children) dont know what they are getting into. These people are called chicken hawks.

        • Shermer

          But what is their reason for wanting to ban it?

        • jong

          Very simply power. Part of the illness that demands to be on top(pun intended)

  • Shermer

    "Why would they care about an institution rooted in Christianity?"

    Is Mr Hodges claiming that the Jews didn't get married?

    • Beethoven

      Yeah, because things that are ROOTED in Christianity are not ever found anywhere else.

    • jong

      Good point

  • John

    It's her opinion. She doesn't speak for the LGBT movement. There are many heterosexuals who also are against the institution of marriage. Does that mean they speak for all heterosexuals? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.

    Stop the propaganda! Thanks!

    • Beethoven

      Then why the "resounding applause?" Did you listen to the audio? So it's just her opinion and the opinion of everyone there that applauded. Other than that, no one else believes it.

      • Bobseeks

        John is a liar and does not care about the truth.

      • John

        I feel like you might be trolling me, but I'll bite.

        The title of the panel was “Why Get Married When You Can Be Happy?”. So I'm guessing the applause was from people who shared her beliefs? Who says the applause was from homosexuals? Are you able to differentiate between gay and hetero applause? Because that would be cool.

        • jong

          And who says that there were anything but homosexuals in the audience and they love to have both their egos and other things stroked with little accomplished. Just like you Bob/John/Lonny

        • fliteking

          King Troll states: "I feel like you might be trolling me,"

          As usual, another liberal looking to "shift the blame."

          John pretends Heterosexuals would attend an LGBT event and applaud the suggestion of marriage needing to be destroyed. John is a simpleton who thinks everyone else is as easily persuaded as he is.

          John is taken seriously . . . only by John.

        • Phillip_in_TX

          John is a WMD (Weapon of Mass Distortion).

        • fliteking

          Indeed. And a Jabroni too.

    • jong

      She most certainly does. Gays are a disease and like drugs the people that have it enjoy it with out the realization of what the outcome is. Violence, pedophilia, AIDS, other disease besides AIDS that lead to average life expectancy of 43 years of age. Immorality and unethical behavior that has been condemned by GOD himself. IF they do not change and repent as some have they are up for the lake of fire in their near future.

    • Ray - Jesus is the Son of God.

      2 Timothy 3:

      This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their ownselves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

  • NewCreationDave

    We are the modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah. And yet, folks misunderstand the sin of those 2 infamous cities to be sexual perversion. Not at all. Their sexual perversions were just symptoms of the greater malady. Rather than embrace and obey God, they became arrogant, overfed and unconcerned. (Ezek 16:49) We are an arrogant, overfed and unconcerned nation. And we are headed down the same path to destruction. Sodom and Gomorrah didn't see it coming - and neither do the vast majority of this nation's people. Even many/most of those who don't endorse or support the evil will be shocked. They think that it is enough to apply their common sense in disagreeing with the surrounding evil. Many Christians fall into this trap, also! Folks, THERE IS SOMETHING TO BE DONE ABOUT IT!!!!!! GOODNESS GRACIOUS - WAKE UP!!!

  • Randy Renu

    Guess what? The "institution" of marriage has been on the decline since the late 60's when everyone started living together and "free love" was on the rise. Today, the perverts have picked up the ball and are running with it.

    Once people started living together as a means to avoid the penalties of marriage and the risk of divorce, marriage was being diluted and soon to become a thing of the past.

    You can get married in the eyes of the one needs the State to approve it and you certainly do not need a license.

    • jong

      And one of the leaders of this in his writings was Robert Heinlein in Stranger in a Strange land. He was a libertarian. Paul and his bots are much the same way in taking the Constitution with out the morals and ethics given it by the writers. Obama is more straight forward in that he is gay himself along with being a muslim. I truly wonder what the founding fathers would do with such a ignorant piece of garbage:)

      • shamu9

        since when did the Kenyan Kommie Klown Admit to Being a Pfag??

        • Randy Renu

          He didn't. We just assumed.

        • jong

          Very good question. "John" is not its only ID on these posts. They also include but, are not limited to Bob and Lonny both are known homosexuals out of their own mouths(writings in this case of course). As for Obama look up Larry Sinclair and the down low clubs that Wright was running alone with the arranged marriage of the muslim and the wookie.

      • Randy Renu

        Yep. You're right.

        The founding fathers would have flogged Obummer to within an inch of his life....and enjoyed every minute.

        Please pray for John the Troll. He is having some health issues.

  • Nunyer Binnis

    We already knew this.

  • nickRay

    The real threat to traditional marriage comes, of course, from fundamentalist heterosexual Christians and their "straight agenda." I have as much proof of that as this moron Hodges and his moron guru Glenn Beck have for their argument about gay agendas for marriage. Here it is:
    The morons Hodges and Beck can't answer their own rhetorical question about how anybody else's marriage impacts on someone elses. The DoM crowd has been thrown out of court countless times on that basis alone. Nor can they argue with anything like a straight face that Gessen is representative of the gay community any more than this polygamist is of mainline Christianity. She obviously isn't, as any measure of support for the institution of marriage by LGBT people shows. Marriage obviously isn't for Gessen any more than it is for this straight Christian polygamist and his four wives. But so what? What business is it of Hodges, or Beck, or you or me or the government? Either you're a real conservative and therefore for personal liberty or you're a CINO and demand the state enforce your theology and beliefs on others. As long as its consensual and otherwise legal the government (and these rightwing hacks) should mind their own business.

    • DrZarkov99

      The institution of marriage was never about the couple, but about their children. Protection of the innocent, in the form of a contractual commitment by those who produced them, was the purpose of a spiritual bond. You are correct that the government shouldn't be involved, but since children that are the product of an uncommitted relationship often end up as wards of the state, the state got involved.

      Tax incentives are a poor excuse to encourage a couple to remain together for the sake of the children, when it should be a moral commitment, whether religion plays a part or not. The problem I have with the "gay marriage" crowd is with their dishonesty. Either they're trying to inflict revenge on conventional society for being shunned for so long, or they're trying to take advantage of the "perks" they resent that society has bestowed on conventional heterosexual couples. A homosexual couple who admitted that would gain my respect.

      Legality bears some responsibility, and the poisonous fruits of "gay marriage" are already starting to crop up. Polygamy has already been proposed as an equally legal relationship (and one I have no problem with, so long as the primary agent of that group has the resources to support the whole "team"). More troubling has been the noises from incestuous or pedophile promoters (like the NAMBLA crowd), and I'll leave that for others of your ilk to ponder.

      • nickRay

        There is actually very little reason to believe marriage is about children. It seems mostly to be about controlling women's sexuality as an end in itself and enforcing patriarchal relations of power. If it was about kids why aren't the Bible-thumpers up in arms about sterile people marrying, or old people? Of all the marriages that cannot produce children its only the gay ones that gets them thumping. And what's dishonest about homosexuals wanting to get married? They say its a civil rights issue, and it is certainly that, whatever else people think about it. And marriage doesn't privide perks. It offers real tangible benefits - including significant tax advantages, legal rights, including the right to the partner's medical information, access to health insurance and a host of other things. Its the bigots who are being dishonest - hiding their biases and arrogance and chauvinism behind Jesus's skirts (never married, hung out with 12 guys... makes you wonder) and trying to leverage the state to do their dirty ugly work for them.

        • Randy Renu

          Idiot. Off on a tangent. Talking about taxes, perks and health care records.

          The issue Einstein is the definition of MARRIAGE. If you don't like the tax law, the perks or access to health records and insurance,....write your congressmen and change the law. You are entitled to all civil rights and privileges due you under the constitution. Don't like it, be a pervert in Iraq.

          Marriage is all about procreating the earth. Try to do that by having anal intercourse with your butt buddy.

          If everyone practiced perverted (homosexual) behavior, the entire population of the earth would die out in less then 100 years....sounds like a perfectly normal and natural behavior to me.

          By the way, it's not GAY. It's PERVERTED. Let's call it what is really is shall we??

        • nickRay

          You being too stupid to understand what the ban on marriage does to LGBT legal rights doesn't make it any less unconstitutional and the Supreme Court will soon rule exactly that. You can take that to the bank. You're even too stupid to understand what marriage is and isn't. It sure ain't about procreation. People been procreating long before anybody came up with marriage and will procreate long after its gone. But here's the thing: At this point you just don't matter. Nobody cares any more. The supremes are obviously going to return Prop 8 to the California supreme court where it will remain dead, and rule narrowly against the glaringly unconstitutional DoM. That will allow the states to decide and they're deciding to do the right thing. 10 staes already have already legalized gay marriage and many more will follow. Public opinion has shifted decisively in favor of the constitution and decisively against you and your hypocrisy and ignorance and hate. You've lost already. (That makes you both a bigot and a loser. Congratulations.) Justice does eventually win out over oppression, and that's what's happened to the likes of you. And when you and your ilk eventually die the country and the world will be a better place for it and you'll just be a fading blot - like Jim Crow and the Japanese internment - on the American conscience. Nobody will miss you and everybody will try mightily to forget you. That's all you've got to look forward to. Have a nice day!

        • Randy Renu

          You're quite the angry name caller. I've always been fascinated that when the perverts can't present a "winning" argument they start yelling and name calling...or just start rambling on about every other subject under the sun in hopes of confusing the real issues.

          Keep up the good work.

        • nickRay

          make that stupid AND a hypocrite. Don't like being outed as a pig? Maybe you shouldn't start a reply to a post with the word "idiot," you idiot.

        • nickRay

          make that stupid AND a hypocrite. Don't like being outed as a pig? Maybe you shouldn't start a reply to a post with the word "idiot," you idiot.

        • Randy Renu

          HA HA HO HO.

          You're funny....and REALLY stupid.

        • Ron Powell

          It's not 'gay' marriage, it would be homo marriage, lets's not ruin a good word like gay which means happy or fun. There is a reason women and men are made differently in case you haven't noticed physically and mentally. They complement each other. Think about it. It has nothing to do with Japanese interment or Crow or Buffalo Bill...

        • nickRay

          Too bad for you eh? Homosexual men have claimed the word gay as their own and, according to all the dictionaries, they now own it. Look it up. And congratulations on your keen deduction that male snd female anatomies are different. what does that have to do with getting married? Sure ain't about kids. According to the census bureau fewer than half of hetero married couples have children. So why aren't the good and pious christians demanding those be prohibited? And if breeder couples are so complementary, kindly explain the staggeringly high divorce rate please. You'd think the Holy Hypocrites would be busy legislating against that, but they're too busy divorcing each other to defend marriage against that I guess. The connection between Holy homophobia and the other stains on the national conscience is just that opposition to LGBT rights is going to end up the same way. Even Bill O'Reilly, first among Fox blowhards, is now pretending he was never a bigot. Why? He knows a sinking ideological ship when the water's around his knees and he is abandoning ship. Face it. Its over. Y'all lost. In court and in the court of basic American decency. Go down with your ship if you want to. Nobody else cares.

        • Ray - Jesus is the Son of God.

          If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

          Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. Romans 1: 24, 25, 26, 27.

          The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 22:5.

          Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 7

          Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. 1 Corinthians 6: 9.

          Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. 1 Timothy 1:9,10.

          And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev 20: 15, 16.

          Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Leviticus 18: 22, 23.

        • nickRay

          That's my point exactly. Thank you for, acidentally I'm sure, making it for me. The only grounds for laws denying LGBT citizens the right to marry, among others, are Biblical ones. And that's a constitutional abomination. Period. That's theocracy, not democracy, my Bible-spouting friend, and that's not how the USA rolls. You can't use the state to inflict your bizarre and ugly religious beliefs on others. LGBT people have first amendment rights too - and they also have 4th amendment rights, which DoM flagrantly violates. Love it or leave it baby.
          As for the Bible itself, I mean face it. There's all kinds of ridiculous, vicious and just plain weird stuff in it. Leviticus, which you cite as one justification for your bigotry, also bars dwarves from approaching blind men(21:20). Then there's the command in Exodus (35:2) to put to death anybody working on the Sabbath. (Don't try this with a New York cop on Sunday patrol. It won't turn out well.) The point is not to ridicule the Bible but to point out just how selective you and the allegedly Christian Right are when it comes to deciding which snippets of the Bible are GOD'S COMMAND and MUST BE OBEYED and which ones are kinda, you know, a long time ago. Why decide the Bible commands you to persecute and abuse gays and lesbians? It equally compels you to throw stones at the cops on duty on Sunday, doesn't it? Why aren't you doing that?
          There are many beautiful and humane passages in the Bible - transcendent ideas about the power of faith and forgiveness and love. But you didn't quote any of those. Isn't "do unto others" in there too somewhere? Love thy neighbor? As you do unto the lowest you do unto me? Blessed are the meek? Judge not lest you be judged? What happened to Luke 4:18-19 when Jesus declared that "He has sent release the oppressed"?
          Anything? Ring a bell?
          Just a thought here but if Jesus really is coming to free the oppressed don't you think y'all should stop oppressing people? Pretty much this whole thread has been a good example of why an ever-growing majority of Americans think Tea Party-type conservatives are sanctimonius, nasty, narrow-minded bigots and hypocrites. On this evidence at least, they're right.

        • Ray - Jesus is the Son of God.

          Isaiah 5:20
          Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
          that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
          that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

          Isaiah 5:21
          Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes,
          and prudent in their own sight!

          Galatians 6:7
          Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever
          a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

        • nickRay

          1 John 4:20 "If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen."

        • Wolfy Ghalkhani

          (more typical hate speech from a liberal ) marriage is marriage if you dont like it then dont get married. In today's world, American women bang whoever, dont marry, have kids with whoever and no one bats an eyelash. (dont worry when islam prevails, women will feel like they've been transported back to the 7th century) As far as benefits go, an individual can get them anywhere anytime without a partner. For those of you who never thumbed through the bible, marriage was and remains a sacrament of love between a man and a women (yes Virgina, children need if at all possible a mom and dad under the same roof) who will hopefully be blessed by completing the circle of life with a family if reproducing is possible. Sadly, Americans have gotten away from the tried and true ethos of love and committment and family as the deterioration of our society clearly demonstrates .

        • nickRay

          Never mind that you bible thumbers have entirely unconstitutionally made it impossible for something like 10 percent of the population to enter into "the tried and true ethos of love and commitment because of pure hate. We equally won't be minding the glaring hypocrisy of the Christ-shillers in taking exactly no steps to prohibit divorce or breeding outside marriage. No its only homosexuality that gets your righteous dander up and that gives the lie to all your arguments

        • RedMeatState

          there are no mirrors, paintings, or pictures on the walls of your apartment, are there?

        • nickRay

          You seem to be kinda fixated on interior decorating. Why is that, meats?

    • Randy Renu

      So what's your point?

      • nickRay

        Only that this hack Hidges is sucking all this out of his thumb. There's as much evidence to support the idea that polygamy is a fundamentalist christian plot to destroy marriage as there is to support the ever-popular wingnut conspiracy theory about homosexuals somehow trying to do the same by securing their human and civil rights.

        • Randy Renu

          ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

          You have all the civil rights protected under the constitution just like everyone. What part of that do you NOT understand?

          Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Not two perverts.

          There is NO plot, well perhaps in your little delusional mind, and Christians are NOT out to destroy marriage...they are out to protect it.

          I'd love to see evidence of, "The Polygamy Plot". Starting, Sylvester Stallone, Michele Fifer and dead cameo appearances by Doris Day and Elvis Presley.

          Always work WITH the drugs Nicko. It's makes them much more enjoyable.

        • Guest

          thats the great thing about Randy. Once he gets the stupid bit in his teeth he runs with it! Care to explain how LGBT rights are protected under the constitution when DOMA specifically violates over 1000 of them? I know there are some mighty big words in the following: some as many as and 6 letters! But do the best you can. (By the way. I didn't say there's a polygamist plot to destroy marriage. I said there is as much evidence of a polygamist plot as there is of a homosexual plot. Which there is, since in both cases there is none. but its OK I don't actually expect you to be able to read for comprehension. via Wikipedia's DOMA Impact section:

          "The General Accounting Office issued a report in 1997 identifying "1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor".[31] In updating its report in 2004, the GAO found that this number had risen to 1,138 as of December 31, 2003.[32] With respect to Social Security, housing, and food stamps, the GAO found that "recognition of the marital relationship is integral to the design of the program[s]." The other major categories the GAO identified were veteran's benefits, including pensions and survivor benefits; taxes on income, estates, gifts, and property sales; and benefits due federal employees, both civilian and military. Among many specifics, it noted the rights of the widow or widower of the creator of a copyrighted work and certain financial disclosure requirements that include the spouses of members of Congress and certain officers of the federal government. Education loan programs and agriculture price support and loan programs also implicate spouses. Financial aid to "family farms" is restricted to those in which "a majority interest is held by individuals related by marriage or blood."[31]

          Because the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) controls most employee benefits provided by private employers, DOMA removes some tax breaks for employers and employees in the private sector when it comes to health care, pension, and disability benefits to same-sex spouses on an equal footing with opposite-sex spouses. ERISA does not affect employees of state and local government or churches, nor does it extend to such benefits as employee leave and vacation.[33]

          Under DOMA, persons in same-sex marriages are not considered married for immigration purposes. U.S. citizens and permanent residents in same-sex marriages cannot petition for their spouses, nor can they be accompanied by their spouses into the U.S. on the basis of a family or employment-based visa. A non-citizen in such a marriage cannot use it as the basis for obtaining a waiver or relief from removal from the U.S.[34]

          Following the end of the U.S. military's ban on service by open gays and lesbians, "Don't ask, don't tell," in September 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted that DOMA limited the military's ability to extend the same benefits to military personnel in same-sex marriages as their peers in opposite-sex marriages received, notably health benefits.[35] Same-sex spouses of military personnel are denied the same access to military bases, legal counseling, and housing allowances provided to different-sex spouses.[36]

        • Randy Renu


          Am I supposed to be impressed with this drab??

          Watch my sign language: Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN and your rights as a citizen of the US are protected under the constitution; even if you live with someone. Imagine that??

    • Wolfy Ghalkhani

      the problem is the left doesnt mind its own business! Man, these freaks of hate are on a mission. they want to dictate culture to those who wish to follow the dictates of Christian beliefs. what they hope to do through the legalization of gay marriage is to shut our churches down. Gay marriage will be given legal status under the law. Gays will demand to marry in church. the church will not allow it because homosexuality is an abomination (the forefathers knew one day the state would try to interfer with the church and thats the reason for the 1st amendment) Gays will scream hate crime and the state will close the church. there you go- Christianity demolished. Guess what will take its place? you guessed it. Islam. there goes not only the neigborhood but the country as a whole. And thats exactly what the marxist islamic left has been yearning for all these years. Man, we are so screwed.

      • nickRay

        But how dumb are you? You high holy christians make it illegal for a category of person you disapprove of to get married but THEY are dictating culture to YOU? what a joke. Its almost as brainless as tying equality in marriage to islam. Muslims being SO pro gay agenda, don'cha know (rolling eyes).

    • RedMeatState

      it must be difficult sleeping at night with all that angst!!!

      • nickRay

        Naw. But thanks for your concern. After a few minutes ridiculing the rednecks on this blog I'm relaxed and ready for some shuteye.

  • glock 19 fan

    The agenda to destroy marriage goes hand in hand with the MSNBC speaker who declared that our children belong to the community and not to the parents. Sounds to me like another way to scam us into accepting communism.

  • Jarhead0369

    Are you kidding? Who needs the help of gays? Heterosexuals have been doing a great job of destroying it all by ourselves.

  • Wolfy Ghalkhani

    its all part of the plan to de Christianize America. when that happens then the constitution can be more easily dissolved, and then America will cease to be America. Sisters and brothers, please take a stand. we dont have to follow the dictates of the left. they are perverted and corrupt. they have no sense of humanity. they could care less about the unborn or children. they care only about destroying Christianity and imposing a marxist-islamic style NWO. we need to fight back and hard. its not to late.

  • Doug Hensley

    I think it was Lincoln who observed that "there is a great deal of ruin in a nation." The same goes for marriage. It's part of human biology. Government can tinker at the margins but the institution is effectively indestructible.

    The "homosexual community" is not so unified as to be capable of having an agenda for the wider society. Not on taxes, not on war and peace, and not on whether government should offer a helping hand to the contract side of marriage.

  • Ron Powell

    It's no secret that the breakdown in family values and morals will lead to the downfall of this country because anyone who has studied history knows, this country was founded on religious principles.
    There will be deniers and liars but when you get the "Who Cares" attitude, you are part of the problem. Men and women have different qualities and as parents, impart these qualities to their children, whether it be strength, emotion, tenderness or bravery, it is something not available in a homosexual 'marriage.' The push for the abolition of the DOM plan is part of Alinsky's rules for radicals implemented by Obama.

  • RedMeatState

    We cannot break God's laws; we can only break ourselves against God's laws!

    These people are delusional in so many ways; the only thing they will destroy is themselves!!
    Marriage, capitalism, and all things good will survive and thrive and they will be gone!

  • RedMeatState

    I'd like to point out a parallel. The Cloward/Piven Strategy was organized with the agenda to 'destroy capitalism' by overloading the system! HA!
    the only thing Cloward/Piven will destroy is socialism! Using socialist policies to create enormous "entitlement" programs to drain the government will only collapse the government and the Federal Reserve's reserve currency! It will not, and cannot, destroy "capitalism".
    Capitalism is the free exchange of commerce among individuals, it has little or nothing to do with government unless a government engages in those principles itself.
    However, the C-P Strategy intends to "destroy" "capitalism" by creating an enormous, socialistic government bureaucracy that will consume itself!
    Do they not see the irony in all this?
    Do the proponents of "gay marriage" not see their own irony and contradictions themselves??

  • DenisKhan

    “When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes” “Kill the one that
    is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to” (Quran 26:165. “If a man
    also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an
    abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon
    them.” Leviticus 20:13.The Muslim world will never accept Gay marriages and

    • Ray - Jesus is the Son of God.

      Many muslims are indeed involved in sodomy and child rape.

      • mamasview

        Yes, it seems that their definition of "homosexual", like many other things, is unique to their Muslim culture. They can sexually participate in any perversion and not be considered deviant as long as they have a wife (or more than one). They are considered good, holy men no matter how atrociously they treat their wives and female children.