Nice diversion. NOT

It´s about jobs jobs jobs. You know that three letter word that Biden uttered.

JOBS

Why don´t Republicans push to have government get out of the marriage business? Make it so government agencies only recognize civil unions. In my opinion, marriage is a religious item.

It appears that a lot of the people in politics are mercenaries. After all, they need jobs and will probably take one, even if they don´t agree with the employer on issues. If I were a candidate I would, to be safe, consider all of them snakes, and evaluate them over time, before hiring anyone.

Conservatives ought to applaud support for gay marriage. This one does. I´m sorry if it offends your religious views, but the government should not be in the business of deciding with whom adults may enter into contractual obligations based on gender. If two adults freely sign the document, end of story.

He probably should not come out of hiding, ever

Extend it further. marry your irish setter. Your favorite pair of shoes. Your mother. Your sister. Your mother and your sister. Better yet go marry yourself.

Understand this for what it is--- another backdoor attack on people of faith. People of faith, you know, like the people who founded this country.

Apologies in advance if this offends your friends at the happy hour. I know that those bitter clingers embarrass you among your friends who listen to NPR, but feel free to come to services sometime and find out for yourself.

The strong quiet antiChristian, antireligous bent of Romney supporters continues to become more clear.

Marriage provides the nest in which society repopulates itself. It grows new citizens. It should only be for a male and a female. All others can enter into legal partnerships with powers of attorney but gays cannot reproduce together and should not pretend ´marriage´.

As always, Himself speaks w/clarity and sense. As for #4, any notion needs to be anchored in reality. How many would accept the opinion that the Planets are shaped like cubes not spheres? The Family Unit is pre-historic and the core institution for the socialization of children and the self-regulation of sexuality; bedrocks of societal stability and civilization. As such, protecting the Family Unit is a core conservative tenet; having nothing to do w/one´s religious impulses. Homosexuality is the antithesis and enemy of the family and subversive of civilization and society. Principled conservatives instinctively grasp this and reject the Zeitgeist in the name of trendy appeals to inclusiveness and tolerance.

how is that big tent working out for ya. kinda smelly in their?

#8 also speaks for me. No social conservative can possibly be ok with gay marriage.

First thing, some people here need clarification. It is not "Gay", it is "Homosexual". By using the word "gay" to describe homosexuals, you are submitting yourself to being brainwashed by purveyors of political correctness, and detaching yourself from truth. You are merely playing a leftist game by their rules.

Former Romney aides supporting homosexual marriage should come as no surprise to any of us. There were many of us who knew what was going on as far back as the primaries, but many here didn´t want to hear of it. They were happy with a RINO in an elephant suit running for President because he was "electable".. Now that the country club set has botched yet another election, many of them see no reason to wear their mask anymore with all of this talk about "re-branding the Republican message".

At least this list serves to let conservatives know who they can no longer trust or support.

One last thing.. I find it highly disturbing that so much intellectual and political resources have been expended (and continue to be) on an agenda that is a sexual perversion that has no demographic borders, and only accounts for barely 1% of the population.

Get the government out of marriage. Marital status should be none of the government´s business. There should be no preferential treatment one way or the other. It is none of my business what two people do if they are not harming me. My objection is that a judge is forcing this down out throats. And as long as social conservatives keep dragging these issues into court, judges will be only too happy to enact sweeping national legislation from the bench.

@ haters, I am drawing a distinction between the religious ceremony "marriage" and the government-enforced mutual contractual obligation that two adults, in many states only a man and a woman but in others and several nations, simply two adults, that we call "marriage." I have no beef with honoring the religious ceremony, but cannot fathom how folks reconcile this government discrimination and the 14th. Imagine that you may enter into a durable power of attorney relationship, but the government attaches all sorts of stipulations eliminating the people you´d most like to choose. I´d also be fine with government eliminating marriage licenses and associated benefits entirely.

"haters" was simply internet slang. I also believe everyone is entitled to their opinion on this (or any other issue) without being called names, so please accept my apology in advance if that slang term offends. Cheers.

OK, if government is out of the marriage equation, then no joint tax returns, spousal benefits from Social Security, testamentary shares for widows or widowers, rights of spouses to make health or burial decisions, joint property, rights in divorce. But wait...take all that away and no gays would want to get married!

#15. Again, Jena hits it out of the park; as it´s always been about the MONEY.

Thanks to posters who stand for the traditional marriage. Anyone who pretends that multiple marriage, man boy, man dog, is not down the road is deliberately blind.

Another underlying issue here is what homosexuals want and why. The old joke is that homosexuals don´t want marriage, they want weddings. If only that were true. If homosexuals just wanted to solve their legal concerns, we could easily do that. I suspect, however, that what homosexuals really want is to remove what they perceive as a societal prejudice against homosexuality. And this is profoundly misguided.

Marriage did not arise from any desire to discriminate against homosexuals. Homosexuality was irrelevant. Marriage is a social institution designed to solve a natural problem: How to make men and women behave in socially responsible ways where sex and children are involved. It is by definition and purpose a heterosexual institution. When homosexuals seek to redefine marriage to remove what they perceive as a social stigma, they are not only missing the point badly, they are tampering with an institution that is essential to a healthy society around them. And, notwithstanding all of that, if heterosexual marriage continues to break down, where is the next generation of happy, well-adjusted homosexual life partners going to come from? Homosexuals need strong traditional marriage more than anyone; they just don´t realize it. Ironically, for people so carefully attuned to close-mindedness in others, they can´t see past their own orientation.