Frank - Civil rights should not be put to a public vote. If they were, much of the south would likely still be segregated. The rights of the minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Frank - I just want to take a moment to point out that it shouldn't matter what it's called. Marriage was around long before Christianity, so that whole "Adam and Steve" bit doesn't really make sense. Also, if were going off of the whole Adam and Eve thing, where did the Blacks, Asians, and anyone else who isn't white come from?

"God created man in his image."

How often do you see God depicted as anything other than white?

Marriage Equality is very much a civil rights issue, this country has had many positive changes over time to provide equal rights to all citizens . . . we must continue to do so.

Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, just as interracial marriage was a civil rights issue. Sexual orientation is not a choice just as race is not a choice, so to deny marriage rights to someone because of their sexual orientation or race is discrimination, and it is wrong.

Civil Rights, by legal definition, are those rights that are guaranteed to U.S. citizens and residents by legislation and by the Constitution. While the term is often associated with the Civil Rights movement of the 60's it does not solely consist of that movement or any rights designed to protect minority races (Freedom of Speech is considered a Civil Right).

You do more injustice to the term and its history by narrowing the definition than you do by accepting that all U.S. Citizens deserve to be free of discrimination, regardless of their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

Yes, because Harvey Milk wasn't murdered because he was gay? Matthew Sheppard wasn't murdered because he was gay? Marcus A. Wayman wasn't murdered because he was gay? PFC Barry Winchell wasn't murdered because he was gay? Scotty Weaver wasn't murdered because he was gay? Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder weren't murdered because they were gay? Eddie Northington wasn't murdered because he was gay? Arthur Warren wasn't murdered because he was gay? Scott Amedure wasn't murdered because he was gay? Fred Martinez wasn't murdered because he was gay? I can keep going with a HUGE list. How naive you are, Shirley. This is VERY much a civil rights issue - and it is one that will lead to more tolerance than I fear your little ole heart can take. Keep in mind also that hateful rhetoric like yours leads our teens to commit suicide because they see no way out with all the hate. If you don't like gay people, don't associate. If don't like gay marraige, don't attend one. But keep your bigotry out of MY civil rights.

Well said Tom. I'm eagerly awaiting the day that I can see ALL of my friends marry the person they love.

so what you are saying is that gay and lesbians are not human beings. sorry shirley they are maybe its you who is not.

Well said.

Gay marriage is between two CONSENTING adults. It's not the abuse of a child or an animal. People like you are the sick ones.

Also, it's spelled hypocrites.

Come out come out come out Anthony! He who protests the loudest is the most guilty. Talk about someone being sick, to even have child molestation on the mind means something Freudian, cupcake. See? I can equate you to being one as easy as you can try to equate me to being one. ;) But an idiot never see's around unsound reasoning, so why wrestle with a pig?

Even worse is that poor anthony doesn't know what "hipocrites" actually means.

A crate full of "hipo's?" XD

I find child Molesers to be the cutest of the Mole People.

Please do not confuse pederasty or bestiality with homosexuality. Besides, you need to get the facts: the overwhelming majority of child (molesers) do not go after members of the same sex; they tend to molest the opposite sex. (Mabey) you need to get your facts before accusing others of being (hipocrits).

We can't get past it because the people that were raised as bigots in th 20th century aren't dead yet LOL Give it 30 years, like the black civil rights movement, and people will be looking back at this as ridiculousness.

LOL Tom. I was seriously thinking the exact same thing.

"The reason governments began issuing marriage licenses was to prevent black men from marrying white women, and laws that prevent same sex couples from marrying does the same thing"

Hogwash! Marriage licences were isssued way back in Roman times.It had nothing to do with marrying blacks. And, guess what? Gay marriages weren't allowed then either. In fact, even though homosexual acts against slaves were accepted, the same behavior between Roman citizens was not.

Marriage applications and reading of the Banns were required in Old England too. Again, it had nothing to do with marrying blacks. It was the church & their King's requirement. Approval of the king was required. Perhaps you should study some history before replying.

Tom Barnes: " We can't get past it because the people that were raised as bigots in th 20th century aren't dead yet"

And this is not a bigoted statement? P-lease! I'll tell you what it is. It's just one more example of the jump on the anti christian, anti-conservative band wagon. Just another (yawn) intimidation tactic against anyone who disagrees with this issue.

Sorry, but it doesn't work with me. I'm against this issue for many reasons and I make no apology whatsoever. I'm proud to stand up for my beliefs. All your childish name calling doen't bother me one bit.

Old Nurse 2 - I didn't mention 'christian' or Christian in my statement - you ASSUMED, and we all know what happens when you ASSUME. FYI: I am a Christian (capitol C!). I know plenty of folks in my personal life that are against same gender marriage, and many are athiest or agnostic (yeah, I keep a broad circle of friends with varying opinions and ideology... it keeps me on my toes and thinking). So, you are way off base with your ASSUMPTION. The word 'bigot' isn't name calling. Let's look at the definition:

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

So, by definition, I am correct. If someone takes it as insult, well, it's because they are ignorant of the meaning. Now that you are educated on the meaning, don't feel belittled by it. Accept it and own it. Heck, I have my own bigotry - even within the gay community (just ask any of my friends... they will tell you that I most homophobic gay person they know!). This doesn't make me a bad person, it just means that I have work to do on it. But here is the difference in my bigotry and those on this string: I accept that I fall short and I am willing to work on my own intolerance and bigotry. And in THAT lies the difference between you and me as well.

Old Nurse 2 - you seem to think yourself a historian. Take a read:

http://www.jinxiboo.com/blog/2009/5/3/when-same-sex-marriage-was-a-christian-rite.html

@Old Nurse 2 I was referring to the united states issuing marriage licences, and the Romans did not issue marriage licences because most marriages among the upper classes were arranged and the government did not do anything with the lower classes. You may be thinking of when the Roman Catholic Church began issuing Marriage proclamations

Kids today won't bother with marriage in the future because straight people have made such a rotten mess of it. A divorce rate over 50% in this country - and climbing? Ridiculous that straight people think they have done a wonderful job and showed how "Holy" it is, indeed. They haven't seen a good example of how a relationship works or how to stick to it and work out problems with a spouse.

Franking, you are correct except for one thing. Most of the younger generation in the area I've spoken with just roll their eyes when the subject comes up, meaning that they already aren't giving a second thought to it. They seem to have integrated change far better than the older generations!

According to that logic - The state is in the way of my happiness and discriminating against me for being married since ditching my husband is what I'd have to do to be eligible for the displaced homemakers program. The state is discriminating against a mom and an adult child who may want to marry for ease of issues related to heirs. The state is discriminating against fundamentalist Mormons and Muslim people for not allowing them to have more than one wife. The state is discriminating against bi-sexual people for not allowing them to have a spouse of each sex.

Franking - nice try but you sound like a fool.
Here we go: "discriminating against me for being married" You chose to get married. Others do not have that choice. "discriminating against a mom and an adult child who may want to marry for ease of issues related to heirs." Incest is illegal, being gay is not. "discriminating against fundamentalist Mormons and Muslim people for not allowing them to have more than one wife." "discriminating against bi-sexual people for not allowing them to have a spouse of each sex" Polygamy is illegal being gay is not. Maybe the government should ban fat people from getting married. We know fat people raise fat kids. Fat people are bankrupting our health care system with all their fat related illnesses (Diabetes, heart problems etc...) What about the toothless? They shouldn’t be allowed to marry either. Let’s discriminate against anyone not like us. It will make for a better place.

Snakes are smarter than that I thought. Sodomy laws were overturned nationwide by a SCOTUS decision in a Texas case.

Time to come out of the grass, Snake. Maryland courts overturned the Sodomy laws in 1998/1999 and the Supreme Court overturned the rest of the states (13 or 14 of them) that still had laws on their books in the landmark case of Lawrence vs. Texas in 2002 or 2003. Regardless when, there is no law outlawing same gender relationships with the exception of marriage.

If sodomy laws still stand, then they can be struck. Simple. End of problem. Besides, the word has been misapplied.

Sodomy can still apply for 'unwilling' acts of same sex. I suspect that's how it's enforced these days.

This stuff isn't difficult to figure out folks. Unless you're just a homosexual hatemonger looking for bad excuses to keep them down temporarily.

That's so true. Because of SOME crazy arguments being made against gay marriage, ALL people who are opposed, regardless of their reasons, are simply mindless animals without the power of reason. How open minded and tolerant of you!

Not true, Phil. I have actually had private emails and discussed openly sam gender marraige and why it is important. Most have remained bigoted (understand the meaning of the word, please) in their stance, and that is ok with me. They have decided to LISTEN to the other side instead of drone on and on... the 'droners' are mindless ones. I actually can appreciate a respectable argument AGAINST same gender marriage. What I can't accept is when they put God into it thinking they own God and can judge FOR God. ;)

There are no respectable/valid/reasonable arguments against basic equality and civil rights.

And what you do not seem to realize is how some of us, many of us, do not believe in "sin," as they are based on rules set in a book many find to be fictional, contradictory to their own beliefs, or imperfect. Either way, sins should not be judged by men or the government, and should be regulated by those who actually believe and attempt to follow them.

Me, I feel as if glory-holes are just that, and certainly not caves which end upon the pitchfork of an envious goblin. I feel as if your rules, your ideas of what are right and wrong, are nonsense- and I certainly would hope my government would not take them into account because they agree not to upon swearing to uphold the constitution.

It is fine for you to worship God, but to dish-out intolerance upon others because of your choice is simply mean-spirited noise which, despite how softly projected, ruptures the eardrums of all those who disagree with you.

Stop hindering others because you can't see beyond your faith. Stop harming others because you can't understand your faith. Stop assuming others believe in sin, and please, please, please don't confuse believe in sin and being moral as one.

Hmmmm. 'God' never spoke of marriage. Man wrote down on paper what they THOUGHT 'God' would say about, with the exception of "A man shall leave his mother, an woman leave her home" which was a parable about a straight relationship where gay marriage wasn't mentioned. It was a conversation with Jesus explaining divorce for straight couples (Matthew 19). So, when people have this discussion with me, I have to remind them to compare apples to apples. Jesus actually said nothing about gay folk. Yes, I know the tyrant Paul had a lot to say. But I don't particularly put a lot of creed in letters exchanged with churches as being part of God's doctrine (to me Paul was a bully, like many posters on these boards). BUT! we have to step away from the theology argument because the bottom line is that we cannot as a society legislate personal morality based on the Bible. We do have a separation of church and state. If we didn't, we would be no better than Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq... the list goes on and on. Turkey has shown that you can have a core belief system (in their case Islam) and STILL have a secular government.

that should have said "God never spoke of gay relationships in regards to marriage"

Amen Deneen!
Also, people who are divorced should have no say in this matter. They are failures in the eyes of god and will not be going to heaven anyway.

Another group that will not be going to heaven are the tattooed and pierced people.

The Bible warns us against tattoos in Leviticus 19:28 which says, "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord."

I will be organizing pickets outside the Harford County tattoo parlors. These people must be stopped. We need to make tattoos illegal. The Lord said so!!! All these kids with tattoos are going to heII. The bible says so and we do not pick and choose which verses to follow.

What does the Bible have to do with public policy again?

Yep. Just like those pesky mixed marriages opened up so many cans of worms.

You need to educate yourself a little on the history of marriage, Mom. It's ok that you don't know the history, just take a moment and research that marriage has evolved over those thousands of years. Most recently, you, as a female and the children that you birth, are no longer property. Gay marriage actually use to be accepted. http://www.jinxiboo.com/blog/2009/5/3/when-same-sex-marriage-was-a-christian-rite.html

Your 45 year old son lives at home with you? Yeah, good job raising your kid. lol

volunteer mom you better watch out.Those dang followers of the devil are all over. First they destroy our children with rock & roll. Next they will tell you that you should be able to marry your pet Rottweiler because you love each other.

http://www.wcti12.com/news/30329815/detail.html

That would be an article about a woman "marrying" a building, and yes, it is a real story.

1) YOUR tax dollars? Really? Because we don't pay taxes?
2) Of course we want to claim each other on our taxes. We have families, too, ya know. Why, I myself have been in my relationship (civil unioned, Aug 11, 2000 in Vermont) and have 2 teenage sons. Why wouldn't we want to a tax break if we are living the same life that straight families live? We can already do so on insurance (bigotry doesn't reach that far).
3) There is a HUGE differene, Mom. You received your tax breaks when he was a kid. Your son WILL get an estate tax break when you drop dead. No one gets their parents SS money.
4) Stop arguing apples and oranges. You've enjoyed your tax breaks with in the framework of a straight marriage. We aren't asking for our children to get what you and your child cannot. We are asking to get what you receive because of being married and having a family. Nothing more.
5) Just because you are straight doesn't make you entitled.

and this fight has nothing to do with religious beliefs or moral decisions...its all about greed and the "entitled" world we live in now!!

Wait a sec... I can't laughing here at this ridiculousness you are posting - and I am doing my best not to insult you, BUT!!! You think we asking to be entitled and yet you, as a straight person in a marriage with children, received those entitlements??? Seriously?!?!?!? Talk about GREED! You got it, we can't and you call US greedy? REALLLLLLLY? OMG...

Volunteer Mom, just stop now. You're embarassing yourself.

AMEN Shirley!

...when first we practice to deceive. So I ask: "Who is the deceiver?"

Shirley - I agree. God help us to become a more just state and nation where everyone has legal equality.

Well said Monica..

I believe it's just the way the update system works on patch. You're not actually subscribing to updates of the article, but rather the comments of the article.

this forum structure is an absolute mess. It's what we have, though.

We are not a Democracy, we are a Republic. Minorities, under the very definition of a Republic, are to be protected from the majority. You either support what the Fore Fathers established or you want a whole different country. Make up your mind. Remember, there could be something about you that will be next on the ballot.

Democracy:
•Involves the government ruling and making laws for the "greater good" of all people, they may abolish personal rights in doing so.
•Democracy is government by and for the people. They may or may not be republics--that is, government limited by constitution or charter.
•The tricky part of "democracy" is defining "the people" and then deciding what counts as "by the people" and what counts as "for the people." In a sense, that could be considered the content of democratic practice.
•Citizens are expected to participate more actively in a democracy.

Republic:
•Involves the government using and abiding by the constitution heavily. Personal rights are respected and cannot be taken away. This helps to avoid tyranny and mobocracy (the majority makes laws and governs by passion, prejudice, or impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences).
•Republics are the common and "standard" type of governments found today, not democracies, despite what many people (who may not know the definition of either) think.
•Just as democracies may or may not be republics, republics may or may not be democracies.

(con't from above)
The difference between Democracy and Republic:
Democracy and Republic are two forms of government which are distinguished by their treatment of the Minority, and the Individual, by the Majority.
•In a Democracy, the Majority has unlimited power over the Minority. This system of government does not provide a legal safeguard of the rights of the Individual and the Minority. It has been referred to as "Majority over Man".
•In a Republic, the Majority is Limited and constrained by a written Constitution which protects the rights of the Individual and the Minority. The purpose of a Republic form of government is to control the Majority and to protect the God-given, inalienable rights and liberty of the Individual.
•The United States of America is founded as a Republic under the Constitution.

Peter - Well said!

The founding fathers also realized that pure democracy was nothing more than a fancy term for mob rule. They knew that the majority was not always right. They gave us a country not ruled by the majority, but ruled by law - a nation of laws, not of men. Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address in 1801 said, "Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable;...the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression". The law provides protection when the majority is wrong.

I agree John. let the will of the people prevail. If the minorities are to rule the land, who is going to decide which minority is to have the final say? The courts or judges which may have an agenda depending on their political bent? If that were to be the case there could be anarchy.

Under George Bush, eh? Know your history if you are going to argue a point, please. It was Sept 21, 1996, under Bill Clinton. 2ndly, the Fed Court just struck down DOMA yesterday. Readup. "Study to show yourself approved" means more then learn a Bible verse - it means to actually have knowledge so you don't end up being called out on wrongful information. ;)

Johnathan - you either believe int he princicples set down by the founding fathers or you do not. You can't have it both ways. And if this were to be turned down in referendum, Prop 8 overturned will be used as precedent and will have the same sticking points that I have made. The referendum would be overturned and then same gender people could file lawsuits against the state, demanding monetary rewards. Let's be smart. Do we really want to have our taxes go up in the name of bigotry? And you either believe in small Government or you believe in large intrusice Government. Take your pick.

And yes, the citizens will decide!!!

James - I think you meant to say there is no need to argue with a bigot. Trying to get a bigot to listen to reason is impossible.

Mr. Foley. I find it interesting that in one breath you tell Volunteer Mom that it is impossible to get gay people to listen, then in your next breath you tell Mr. Barnes that you are not interested in his opinion. Do you not recognize the inconsistency of your own position? Mr. Barnes and I do not agree on all fours on this issue, but I know his children, and sir they are some of the most respectful teenage gentlemen you could meet. Perhaps you would be better served sticking to the issue at hand, politely, and not questioning the "normalcy" of Mr. Barnes's children.

They do recognize them in bits and pieces. Thats the problem. But fran, could please be honest and explain to me how giving same gender couples the same entitlements as their straight counterparts affects you (and i mean really affects you) perhaps that would be a jumping point to understanding. You've seen what i and other supporters have said about how it affects us to not have the entitlements and rights. So how does it affect you and your life and marraige/relationships? I honestly am curious.

franking - So it is okay to discriminate if you do it for financial reasons?

Ok, hear me out: Aren't we ALL the taxpayers paying for them? And, as in my case, we also have families. If she didn't work, that was a choice of hers - whatever the situation - it comes down to it was her choice not to.

Please refrain from 'cheapening' your stance by belittling others. Let's have a frank, open discussion. Unless that is not what you are here for. Potshots aren't going to get your reasoning across or gain any understanding.

The potshot was a reference to "conterfeit" and "cheapen." ;)

I agree, I think the law stinks in regards to financial benefits. I have had relatives with a sick spouse actually divorce because it was the only was to get benefits (this was many many years ago). This is something that should be taken up separately, as legislation not against anyone, but that is PRO family. See, I am ALL about family. Family is the strength of this country. And, whether it is straight led households or gay led households, I think they should be reaffirmed by proper laws. But, see, these are two different issues. One is about equality IN marriage. The other, your side, is about the unfairness put upon families to keep strong. We are actually on the same side of the coin, Fran.

I do want to add that the origin of marriage wasn't to protect women and children. It was about owning someone. I don't know how old you are, nor do I know if you read my comment about my mother having to ask her husband and have him sign off on paperwork in order to have an operation. That's ownership - not protection. Granted, we moved away from that, but it wasn't until the mid 70's when we really started to do that. Heck, back then I wouldn't have supported same gender marriage for that very ownership concept. It's sick.

Tom, did you miss my sarcasm? You usually always see it. Must be early today <[;-)))

Yep, I missed it. I vowed to stay away from the Patch at this point after watching people like Roope and Foley attack venomously anyone that they can, including children, and the Patch allows it. I've already sent a letter off to their NY corporate headquarters since the comments aren't being moderated or following TOS
•is threatening, harassing or that promotes racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual;
•promotes or encourages violence;
•is inaccurate, false or misleading in any way;

Yep, they are allowing it to happen and it's time to put a stop to it. So, sorry if I missed the joking... I'm exhausted by the bullys (let's call it what is it) and their bigotry.