Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and there is no reason at all to change that now. This radicalized liberal onslaught in the media won't work because Americans have grown tired of having this issue forced on them at every turn. Once Obama is gone, this issue will die down once again and rightfully so. Gay people have no business trying to redefine a historically heterosexual union. Of course they won't settle for civil union because this is an attack on religion using misspent and cowardly political correctness. I will vote against it every time because gay extremists have hijacked marriage just to attack normal society.

0/10, try harder.

Actually, badsteed, is right; gay marriage would redefined the institution of marriage. Just like allowing interracial marriages redefined marriage, or how divorce redefined marriage, or how legal equality for women redefined marriage, or how common law redefined marriage into a property contract, not a religious sacrament. The historical trend has been less governmental interference in marriage, not more.


More to the point, thought, this will be a non-issue in 10 years because right-thinking Americans are coming around to accept gay marriage, 53% of Americans favor it: http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Ti…

It appears only knuckle-dragging Republicans and old people still hate The Gays and think you can catch it if they sneeze on you.

THIS VIDEO IS OLD NEWS.

The fact that this is at all still controversial just pisses me the fuck off.

#1: sad troll-shot..."Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and there is no reason at all to change that now."

Have you ever heard of the concept of "equality"? Civil rights?

At the very least, can you suggest a single data-based or logical argument against same-sex marriage? You kinda forgot to do that in your rant. ("It's always been that way" or "God told me so" don't count.)

Why don't you re-think this one for a while-- drop your reactionary, fear-mongering, discriminatory bullshit just for one minute-- and then rejoin us in reality. You might not even end up on the wrong side of history, that way.

God has nothing to do with it as far as I'm concerned, saggy ass. And I made my points sparkling clear. Just because you have comprehensions problems (likely due to mental illness, sorry man) doesn't mean I'm not right. Gay people have no business trying to redefine a heterosexual tradition. This is about simple, ugly greed and I will never vote for it. Also, gay people aren't exactly good neighbors nowadays. Look at the attack on the Mars Hill church. That building is beautiful and churches actually help their community. This radical shit won't work. Gay people are now proving themselves to be greedy, self-interested zealots who are just as bad as Fred Phelps himself.

We shouldn't put gay rights to a popular vote because it's a civil rights issue. But it's totally okay to put the millionaire tax to a popular vote? Of COURSE people are going to vote to take someone else's money. Is that supposed to be fair?

Why even specify a percentage? Just let people fill in the blank: "How much money would you like to appropriate from other people?" That'll end well.

@10 Marriage is a "fundamental right" and I mean that in the constitutional sense. Fundamental rights (e.g. the right to vote, due process, free speech, etc.) cannot be infringed upon unless the given reason by a state or the federal govt. can withstand strict scrutiny.

The level of taxation is not fundamental; therefore, it can be raised/lower by legislation or referendum without infringing anyone's rights. Any tax is constitutional, unless that tax was used to punish a particular class of people (i.e. poll taxes) . Yet I doubt anyone would argue that the 1% are a protected class.

America is a society that redistributes wealth; it always has been, always will be.

@11 - What else is there to say about a broken window? Other than the troll, is there really any disagreement?

@12 - You're right, and well said. It just feels wrong, is all.

"Just because you have comprehensions problems (likely due to mental illness, sorry man) doesn't mean I'm not right."

What in your tirade is there to comprehend? Your concept of tradition is dead. You generalize against gays. You are a discriminatory, illogical troll.

My comprehension problems are very real-- because you don't make any sense. I would be mentally ill if I took you seriously, but I don't. There are simply people "like you" in the world, whose hateful voices will fade and never be remembered.

My concept of tradition is not dead and it isn't up to gay people to dictate the debate by cowardly using political correctness to bring credence to their dangerous lifestyle. That's right. A recent CDC report clearly shows that gay males are 50 times more likely to spread AIDS than their heterosexual counterpart. That speaks volumes. First, any group of people that is THAT reckless should not ever be taken seriously when it comes to defining a monogamous relationship. Second, gay people have no business redefining a tradition they had NO PART in creating. This is an attack on religion and heterosexual people by greedy, manipulative people who are trying to garner support by beating people over the head about "equality". Here's a tip. Gay people can marry. They just need to marry someone of the opposite sex. Any comparison to "civil rights" insults women and blacks who truly struggled throughout our history. Trying to hijack those noble causes makes people like me sick and unwilling to vote for this. EVER.

@15 Actually, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among gay men is more than 44 times that of other men. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/f…) Not that this matters, since at no in American history has the right to marry been contingent on a person's health.

In America, the right marry is a secular right which is separate from the religious sacrament. It's been that way since the Pilgrims arrived in Massachusetts in the 17th century (http://books.google.com/books?id=tnMa1-t12…).

Churches have always been allowed to recognize only those heterosexual marriages that adhere to their dogma, but what they cannot do is determine which heterosexual marriages can be considered *publicly* valid. If states recognizes gay marriages, religious institution *would not* be forced to recognize those as valid. That's something even the Pilgrims understood.

Finally, the struggle that racial minorities and women faced for marriage equality is a fair comparison. Not only have both groups been denied the ability to enter into marriages of their choosing, the denial of their rights were justified with discriminatory, bigoted and religious arguments. It was only after 1967 that a person of one race could marry someone of a different race. It was only after 1969 that women could divorce their husbands without an onerous process.

You're entitled to your dumb opinions, just keep your profound ignorance about the institution of marriage to yourself. K THX, BAI.

@16: Just because you so badly want to believe in something doesn't make it true. Honestly, ever since Sam Adams lied to get elected, I don't trust anything the gay community has to say. They had the chance to recall an admitted liar and allow Portland to rebound and go with another leader that Portland can trust. What happened? Liberals and the gay community rallied around Adams like flies on a dung pile. Now Portland is in serious decline. No jobs. The schools are closing and underfunded. So excuse me if I'm not all teary eyed about the plight of liars and arrogant dictators who lie to people about "equality". I'll say this again. GAY PEOPLE CAN MARRY. THEY JUST NEED TO MARRY SOMEONE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX!!!!!! Not into that? Too fucking bad. At least you have the opportunity. It is the lifestyle choice of gay people to relate with their own sex. Also, it doesn't make gay people an expert on relationships considering the overwhelming evidence that gay people engage in acts of sex that seriously can affect their health. That's like a person who is dying of lung cancer trying to tell people not lead a healthy lifestyle. Dumb as hell. I'll never vote for gay marriage as long as the common theme in the gay community isn't compromise, but a hostile takeover of a tradition they didn't help create. Quit attacking your fucking neighbors losers. That is the moral to this story. If gay people and their little mouthpieces want to continue to attack marriage, I will be there to help set the record straight. Literally and figuratively.

Marriage was predominantly created and made important by men, so conceivably a lot of gay men "helped create" the institution of marriage in the way you describe. Unfortunately, they existed in a time and place in which they were culturally incapable of coming out of the closet.

@17 The argument that gay men should marry women is not very practical. But it's also disturbingly similar to the defense used by white supremacist who opposed interracial marriage.

They defended anti-miscegenation laws as "natural" and "equally" applied to all races. So white people could marry white people, black people could marry black people, Asian people could marry Asian people, etc. They claimed that no one was excluded from the institution of marriage; they were just limited to marrying people of their own race.

This argument was ludicrous when applied to race, and it's equally ludicrous when applied to gay people. Current marriage laws do discriminate against gay men and women and it's only a matter of time before the rest of America recognizes it too.

#1 - yes, and slavery was an accepted part of human history until 1865 (in the United States).

Your appeal to tradition falls flat; marriage's purpose has been to united two families through one of their members.

In addition, your fundamentalist and Catholic churches have been using the state to enforce their crabbed views of morality; views that have traditionally been hundreds of years behind civilized society.

BTW, I married an opposite-sex partner 6 1/2 years ago, in a secular ceremony, to a Jewish woman. (I have not been in a Catholic church except for somoene else's wedding or funeral since I was 12.)

Hijacking the actually civil rights struggles of blacks to fit the gay agenda is outrageous and insulting. Black people were enslaved. Gay people have never been enslaved unless that's how they get down in their own bedroom. This is typical of lying gay people and their supporters. Like with Sam Adams. This is detestable and Adams has really lost a ton of support from normal society and that is why he isn't running for office again. Same equation applies here. When gay people and their most fervent supports lie about their intentions, they will continue to lose support.

Like a ferrell cat, if you don't want it to keep coming back don't give into the temptation to feed it. Ignore it. It will soon loose interest and go away. But of course do feed it if you find it to be cute in a dumb, vacant kind of way. I personally don't find clowns to be cute at all. This one trolling the comment board here is a particularly disgusting carbon emitter of shit, piss, and half digested driveling thoughts.

Of course, sacklash, you don't have an opinion about the article nor do you put forth any effort or any reason to dispute my claims. Your petty diversion tactics only underscore your inability to form a rational thought. I pity people like you. You're merely a sheep in a world where shepherds rule you. Since I feel sorry for you, let me give you some advice. Learn both sides of an issue and comment objectively from the heart. If you can't manage to do that, YOU are the troll. I'm only setting the record straight.