Funny how you conveniently ignore the fact that Republicans are far more opposed to same sex marriage. Or maybe you didn't notice this linked poll off of the Pew Forum link: http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/2012-opinions-on-for-gay-marriage-unchanged-after-obamas-announcement.aspx

Republicans are anti same-sex marriage by a margin of 70-24.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

Pretty sure you meant "the right" as to who is continuing to oppose equality. Almost no one on "the right" in Annapolis voted for the bill, and most of the money is coming from organizations which typically support "the right" on social issues.

Any opposition from "leftists" is likely from people who think marriage is a waste for anyone.

Edit: I should add, JD, that you specifically may certainly be supportive of same sex marriages - and good on you if this is the case. It is, truly, the more conservative stance to take.

Many Republicans can't seem to get their heads around this, though. They are too busy trying to interject religion into government wherever they can.

JD ... what are you smoking? Our country was built and based on religious beliefs. That is what our forefathers stood for.

NO2O... Our forefathers stood for FREEDOM. Not religion.

Ashley, why did they leave England? I seem to remember something about religious persecution.

Joe ... don't confuse Ashley with facts

They left to have the freedom to practice whatever religion they wanted. The key part of that being the freedom part.

"Our forefathers stood for FREEDOM. Not religion."
"They left to have the freedom to practice whatever religion they wanted."

What a dichotomy.

The point is they came to this country for the freedom to pursue the life they wanted, not to have someone tell them what to believe in. You'll notice religion is left out of the Declaration of Independence.

Religion was NOT left out of the Declaration Ashley, at least not America's Declaration of Independence. I am sure you have been out of school fewer years than I so you should know better that that.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

I hope you read the rest of that document Ashley and read a lot more as well before you post such nonsense again.

Who is "Nature's God"? There is no mention of a religion itself in the document. Fun fact: A lot of our forefathers practiced Deism. If you're not familiar with that it's a religious philosophy that God never intervenes in human affairs or suspends the laws of the universe. They also reject supernatural events like prophecy and miracles. Essentially they believed that a God built the universe, but left it to run itself.

You'll also notice that after the only mention of "God" you brought up is the following: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Notice that part that says "their creator".

OMFG Ashley!!

What? Don't like having pointed out that forcing your belief on everyone goes against everything this country stands for?

And before you guys jump onto the "their creator" part, it's relative. Your creator to you may be some God, to others it's a different one, to others it's the people they call their parents. It's subjective. This country wasn't founded on religious principles, it was founded on the belief that we are all free to pursue our lives how we wish and to be happy.

Dam Joe, You know the truth too, but you know they think they know better, why did they leave England? not the King! he was a puppet

Joe, he's back

@Ashley If you didn't you will now. GOD is a generic Plus I even been told from Muslims "your God is our god too" Go to the library and ask for a book on God and see what answer you get!

That's my point Arbutus. The freedom of choice. No specific religion mentioned. This is not a "Christian" nation. It's a mixed bag one, there are people of many beliefs in this country, that's what our founding fathers intended. I think it's absurd that any religious group would try and impose their beliefs into the law. The law is meant to be in favor of ALL the people, not just those that hold a certain religious view. Marriage isn't exclusive to Christians and the argument that this country was founded on religious beliefs is getting old. The bible said it's okay to have slaves, but you don't them out harvesting the crops anymore, do you?

Religion and government shouldn't be mixing at all. Ever. A lot of people will fall back onto saying that the ten commandments (Do not kill, do not steal, etc.) have been the basis for our laws, but the truth is that those principles are ones that every person can live by and they aren't any more exclusive to Christianity than marriage is.

Ashley, it was about and break away from the Pope Who controlled England thatis what is overlooked in history, Deism, promotes reason and freethinking, and argues against institutionalized religion in general and Christian doctrine in particular. Da Vinci Vs. Ben Franklin? Pope locked up Da Vinci, Franklin on the other hand was able to produce inventions for advance human kind. Da Vinci was ruled by religion and stifled! So Freethinkers & free speech the Pope hated the American Catholic because he had no control of there free speech and questioning his authority. Nature, Common Sense, DEISM is not a religion but Philosophy, Franklin in his autobiography Franklin makes it clear that he was a Deist. Nonetheless, it is also apparent that Franklin had great respect for the teachings of Jesus. Franklin had this to say a month before he died in a letter to Ezra Stiles. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. It took to the time of JFK and his assertion to God not the Pope …Common sense!

You have completely missed my point.

Ashley, I got your point I'm just telling you how and why your point was created by the FF,

Incorrect. The Puritans were not fleeing the Pope. England was Anglican at the time, but had extremely restrictive laws about who could conduct religious ceremonies and forced people to attend official services. Learn your history.

JD: This is why I included my second comment, to cover that base, but I appreciate you clarifying your own personal view on this.
It just struck me initially as very suspect, even a trolling attempt (heh), at pointing out that some on the left still don't support this.

There is nothing "independent" about demanding a special tax break and tax status for a relationship that's of no benefit to the state. It's not even any benefit to families. In fifty years it won't matter if Uncle Bill and Uncle Bob were "married" to each other or not, because they're a dead branch on the tree.

Counterfeits cheapen the real thing.

"Multiples" ? How about marriage of people to their pets? Or their favorite house plant? Or people and their I-phones? (That would come naturally).

Joe, How about you stop this ridiculous argument. Sex with animals or marriage to animals has no more to do with gay or lesbian relationships than it has to do with heterosexual relationships. You make yourself look idiotic when you put for this argument.

Mark Patro, excuse me!!?? I said noting about animals sir.
M Sullivan brought that into it not me sir.
An apology is warranted!

Love it when the fools compare consenting adults to an animal or an inanimate object.

My apologies Joe, that should have been directed toward --> M. Sullivan

Thank you Mark.

Ken have you ever considered the possibility that the brainwashing was of you and was done over hundreds of years?

"You either get in line or you are ostracized for your beliefs" - isn't that what has been done to homosexuals for thousands of years? Ostracized is a mild term in some cultures, executed is more accurate.

Don't waste your time, Paul. From the moment he wrote "liberal school systems" it became clear he's another one of those people who blame all the country's problems on the left and believes the right can do no wrong. We could explain things calmly and logically, but it wouldn't matter: he's made up his mind already. That's what happens when you let Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly do your thinking for you.

Brainwashed by the liberal school systems? YES I have to agree. BUT homosexuals have no control over their behavior? to a degree but if you look into Genetics Genes correspond to regions within DNA and that is just as having cancer in family history,even American Indians had them. but this issue is about the word "Marriage" not what people do behind closed doors.The Flaming homosexual can not change there genetics. We have to not accept ,respect but tolerate and let them live there lives. I don't like IN YOUR FACE PROUD liberal homosexual "actions", not the life style. and some of my homosexual friends agree with my statement. The word "Marriage" I don't want to redefine that word PERIOD!
Find a different title that will give them the same rights. and keep religion out of it that is ur personal belief and not judge other.

Says the guy who's been brainwashed by thousands of years of religion that's factually impossible to prove (or disprove, for that matter).

That's rich.

I find it interesting that Gibbons feels that schools do not have a liberal bias. Obviously he has not been paying attention to the curriculum being taught in schools. To teach anything that is religion based is not permitted in public schools. The school system is being run by unions not by the parents. It appears that he gets all his news for NBC or CBS and heaven forbid (if that offends ... to bad) anyone, be it Bill O'Reilly or anyone else has a differing opinion.
One other point (this should fire liberals up) in order to accept same sex marriage as law the law against sodomy must also be eliminated. hummmmmmmmm

NO2O - where have you been living. I hate linking to Wikipedia but it is accurate enough for this purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

What rhymes with hummmmmmmmmm, dummmmmmmmmmmm!

That was about 10 years ago.

FIFA. I stand corrected however if you read the dissenting opinion it states Scalia wrote that if the court was not prepared to validate laws based on moral choices as it had done in Bowers, state laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity would not prove sustainable.

Personal attack ... must be a Obumer liberal. Tax and spend, tax and spend

NO2O - did you read what you posted. If masturbation was illegal almost everyone would be a criminal, I hope! Dumb post and Scalia exhibited more of why he belongs in a zoo.

Kenneth you are absolutely right. The children are being bombarded with men kissing men and women kissing women in a sexual way. "The New Normal" is a TV program that shows gays and lesbians in a way that makes children think the actions of these people are moral. "Pretty Little Liars" and "Glee" are two more programs that expose children to this kind of behavior. This behavior is not normal...it is against nature.

Goes against nature? LOL I'm sure that's why there are all these animals that display homosexual behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

http://www.livescience.com/1125-homosexual-animals-closet.html

So what? Any American can donate to who they desire just as you do. If you don't like who they donate to don't buy their products. Quite a simple concept.

Being against ChicFilA for theIr Christian stance is the same for being against GLAAD for their gay rights stance. Everyone is entitled to their belief system whether it's your belief system or not. You are being just as discriminatory.

Tree - does not compute. Those against Chick-Fil-a's owner's anti-gay position don't believe so because he is Christian. He could be an atheist for that matter. They don't like the fact that they support anti-gay groups. Doesn't matter if they are Christian or not.

Still waiting Frank for you to show GM paid back all their taxpayer money.....

We are not really waiting Frank. We all know you lied.

short and simple! my issue is changing of the definition marriage that all, because it is not the same and requires a simple non-discrimination wording but not marriage!

That's just it. True conservatives have no issue with same-sex marriage.

Look if you are into bestiality, that's on you and I urge you to seek medical help. The laws on the books preventing it are based on animal cruelty. Paul you may very well love that Irish Setter but from an anatomical analysis, your attempts to engage in sexual contact with that animal will result in physical harm to the dog. That is rationale behind the laws and why you should seek help.

Frank has proven once again he is 9 years old.

JD,
I don't believe I mentioned that this marriage would be consumated, did I? Why did your mind immediately run to the gutter? Sick.
Frank,
Are you saying that my dog is not my "loved one"? You seem to be implying that marrying my dog would be perverse in some way. Who are you to judge? Or is this just not "normal" for you?

Paul,

A court will easily void a marriage if one of the parties refuses to consummate the marriage.

Maybe this whole discussion is a little beyond your grasp if you weren't even aware of the legal and physical aspects of love.

JD,
Neither of us plan to have the marriage voided but thanks for your concern. I guess cancer patients and paraplegics that can't consummate their marriages should never be allowed to marry either? Glad you have such a firm grasp on the legal system.

Paul is trying to get you to fall for the old straw man argument, make a proposition that no one is seriously proposing to bolster his argument. Go back to the World of Oz to visit your straw man.

Straw man, FIFA? I think not. See the wikipedia link. Our numbers may be small but we are growing!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93animal_marriage

I guess you guys are not too comfortable with this idea but maybe someday you will be forced to accept this and have to provide taxpayer funded services for us animal lovers. I'm thinking of naming my dog "Harvey Milkbone".

Paul - yes straw man. No one is seriously proposing animal marriage.

You reference a "Wikipedia" as your support? Come on. From this Wikipedia page the first disclaimer is"

"This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2011)"

Then they list 10 "known" cases in all history. Classic example of straw man argument. Ridiculous. Cowardly Lion please come save me from the Scarecrow ("Straw Man")!

FIFA,
I figured you knew how to research on the internet, so I didn't include all of the other references. The point is (obviously lost on you) that just because this group is a minority doesn't mean they too shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us, correct? Or are you going to write the new marriage laws as you see fit?

Paul, like I said, it is a straw man argument by the very definition.

No one is seriously proposing allowing man-animal marriage. I can't make it any clearer, have a great day.

" That Irish Setter understands me like no one else ever could." Sounds like true love. I wish you all the beast. ;)

FIFA,
No one needs to "propose" allowing man-animal marriage. It's already been done. You still miss the point so it is best that you just bail out.

I'll let others judge your need for beastiality. Woof woof, through you a bone?

FIFA,
Pretty sure the beastiality issue has already been discussed (no need there) and the correct spelling is throw, not through. GED in your future?

Guess you know how you get your bones.

"through you a bone?" Where is the Language Nazi when it is a progressive?

Chris,
I desperately need my government to tell me what to do and how to live. And you should need that too! You don't need to have any opinion or desire to live by any standard other than the one that they know is right for you. The government will decide if any special interest or squeeky wheel out there has become big enough to be politically viable and worth their attention (votes). This has nothing to do with what you want. You and your moral code as an individual don't really count.

Agreed.

Why is perfectly legal to enter a business contract with any straight, gay, white, black, man or woman you choose but illegal to marry one?

And sorry to post off-topic...

tom jode - substitute the word "slavery" for "marriage/same sex marriage" and "be a slave" for "get married" and "slaves" for "couples", and this has nothing to do with racism. Really.

You can do the same with voting rights, etc. Really.

FIFA,
Where do you get your anti-reality drugs?

Paul you talking to me? You are the one with the fetish for the Irish Setter. Guess you like long hair too.

Paul will probably get a cage and a leash for his new spouse too. He'll have to be careful when he goes to the new dog park. His Irish Setter spouse might want to "stray". I hope his health plan has contraceptive coverage.

I guess the concept of sarcasm is a new one for FIFA. I'd say go look it up in the dictionary, but I'm pretty sure that is a new concept for him too.

I'm pretty sure that Frank and FIFA look an awful lot like Beavis and Butthead.

I really hate to inform you but behind closed doors they are jumping up and down for this decision to pass. No Catholic Priest should be required to perform them? no because those leaders over centuries believe in it, but with there reputation and why they are not on the regular data base? http://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbydiocese.html......bet you never saw this! out of site out of mind.....former RC

And I'm sick of people saying they are sick of having "the gay lifestyle being jammed down" their throats. All gays want is to be treated equal...not separate, but equal (i.e. civil unions)...just equal. Why is that so hard to understand?

Right wingers sure do like to imagine things getting jammed down their throats.

Barbie: No one has ever said or implied that rape of boys is acceptable.

and more to that story....
.http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20120801/OPINION/308010055/Penn-State-case-bad-priests-even-worse

Occasionally, a commenter will write something that is easily dismissed with a head shake and a ping of sadness that they never attempted to actualize themselves.

Then sometimes, just sometimes, the ignorance and lack of empathy you so clearly demonstrated causes me to question the meaning of life it the world is filled with such rot.

Troll Alert, Barbie JoKo is making first posts today. Just a troll, igniter it.

Yes, but a funny one, that's why I left it.

Like an Alcoholic' children scenario, they become predictors or self destructive or a survivor

about my comment prior but that has nothing to do with Genetic's and how the brain is wired, for adults and there choice,

but the sick minded that cause people a destructive life style and issues of trust!

Please.
No one is louder and more self-righteous then "The Religious Right".

If homosexuals hadn't been repressedfor the past 40 years, by..you know...the religious right...maybe they wouldn't be shouting about this stuff now that they are finally getting some traction?

Of course, at some point it has to stop, but I don't think we're at that point yet.

@Tim? You used the collective term, "we" in your post...are you gay? I'm honestly not being snarky when I ask this, but if you ARE gay, what is it exactly that you want from society that you don't already have? I mean, I'm just curious. If gay marriage were universally accepted, then would gay people the world over declare victory and be happy? Will they have finally achieved everything they want? If you're NOT gay, can someone else answer those questions? Note to all: Trolling/name-calling replies will be ignored.

Also, I didn't write that it was strictly gay people shouting from the rooftops and intolerant; I was speaking in generalities. But since you mentioned the religious right, I might as well point out that their incessant preaching and pontificating on a variety of moral issues has caused many people to drift away from supporting their veiwpoints; this could very well happen to other groups who do the same.

And props to you for your post about Chick-Fil-A. In addition to their quality food, I also like them for the variety of fundraising that they do for schools, childrens' groups, rec centers and other pathetically under-funded organizations.

Actually, Chic-Fil-A is one of the healthier fast food places to eat at, if you skip the waffle fries. A challenge, for sure. They are too good but most trips I can.
It's why limiting my Chic-Fil-A consumption over the past year or so has been somewhat challenging. See, this whole anti-gay thing with Chic-Fil-A is old news. For whatever reason, it's only now getting traction because they removed all doubt.

It's always busy because the customer service is always great and the food is considerablybetter then most classic fast food. It's got nothing to do with what the founder believes in, or doesn't believe in.

It's classic business principle: Provide a quality product at a reasonable price and people will buy it. Why buy a craptastic sandwich from other fast food places for the same price or more?

All those fantastic Christians ready to pass judgement ... Yeah, that's what God calls us to do

Would God not bless Canada because they legalized same sex marriage? Is he certain of the border to ensure some random Canuck hiking in Alberta doesn't accidentally cross into Montana and pick up some blessing that rightly should have been awarded to a 'Murrican? There are places up in them mountains, you don't even know what side you are on.

And then what does God do about Windsor Ontario? The city is actually south of Detroit. Does he have to put some crazy English on his blessing like a pool ball to make sure Canada doesn't steal Michigan's grace?

Whew, theology is tough!

Mom, you make me ill.

Frank - why resort to name calling? I'm a bigot because I ate at CFA today? Do you have some evidence for that? And obesity? I weigh 140 lbs soak and wet. Also, why would someone working their way to an early death be OK with you?

Stereotype much?

"why resort to name calling?"

It seems to be all they have to offer. Are you surprised?

That's funny! Joe the Pig, aka Mr. Homopromo.

Thank you so much FIFI for proving my point better than I ever could have.

oh boy, this should be good...

Going to get hit out of the park. Swing away Frank!

Frank, switch hitter?

The post @ 11:29 AM was kinda funny too.

Why? Is that not freedom of choice in its most powerful form?

LOL

Topic...Campaign finance reform...

this ^^^^^

here here!!

The US Constitution is silent on marriage. And marriage is not a civil right.

Right, because the distinction between consenting human beings and farm animals/credit cards is a really fuzzy, slippery slope. Good grief. I really hope this comment was a joke poking fun at homophobic people.

How about using a term like "Modified Marriage" for all other than Man & Woman..?

maybe some education

http://www.wcti12.com/Woman-Marries-Seattle-Building/-/13530288/13622564/-/bpncqnz/-/index.html

Buck: Separate but Equal isn't going to cut it. It didn't in the 60's, it won't now.

John T: It's only cheapened to those who are morally deficient.

So, are you?

Ashley: That is positively nuts

Tim: I absolutely agree. Just proving a point though ;)