Jun 6, 2012
Print This Post
A same-sex ceremony between a lesbian couple in the base chapel at Fort Polk in Louisiana has created a storm of controversy among conservative religious leaders and a growing number of lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK. CLICK HERE TO JOIN!
“The liberal social experiment with our military continues,” Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) told Fox News Radio. “A same-sex marriage-like ceremony should not have occurred at Fort Polk, especially since the people of Louisiana have made it abundantly clear that our state does not recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions.”
Fort Polk is in Fleming’s congressional district. The Fort Polk Public Affairs Office and the Army did not return numerous calls seeking comment.
The ceremony was conducted about three weeks ago by a chaplain for the Disciples of Christ, according to Ron Crews, executive director for the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.
“It was kept quiet,” Crews told Fox News Radio. He said the service was conducted in the military chapel, under the authorization of the chaplain’s denomination.
So if the same-sex ceremony was approved by the military – why the outrage?
“It raises the issue that Louisiana is a state that has a clear definition of marriage,” Crews said. “By allowing this on military installations, this means that chaplains in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq could conduct same sex ceremonies like this. How will this look to our coalition partners who do not approve of same sex unions?”
Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) authored legislation that would prohibit same sex ceremonies on any military base. The House approved the bill but the Senate has yet to take action. Akin told Fox News Radio that it doesn’t matter what you call it – what happened at Fort Polk was a gay marriage.
“It’s outrageous and illegal,” he said. “This appears to be a case where political agenda has trumped the rule of law, which is absolutely unacceptable.”
Akin, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, is questioning the legality of the ceremony on the Defense of Marriage Act, which was recently overturned. However, last years the Defense Dept. gave permission for same-sex unions to be held on military installations.
He accused the Obama administration of “trying to drive their liberal and gay agenda through the military.”
“The federal law specifically prohibits this and even the advocates of going to same sex marriage in the military said they were not planning to do this. In every regard this is over the top,” he said. “In every regard this is over the top but I think it reflects the general direction that Obama and the liberal Senate want to take things.”
But a spokesman for American Veterans For Equal Rights, said gay and lesbian military personnel deserve the same rights afforded heterosexual troops.
“Considering that most Americans go about their daily lives and haven’t lifted a finger to defend freedom, I think the least this country can do is give equal benefits and equal rights to those who are serving their country,” Denny Meyer, the group’s public affairs officer told Fox News Radio.
He accused lawmakers like Akin and Fleming of “fomenting” hatred towards gay troops.
“They should be ashamed of themselves to try and deny the basic rights that any American has,” Meyer said. “The people opposed are using the military to foment hate and bigotry and divisiveness in America.”
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) accused the Dept. of Defense of lying to the American people.
“This happened despite last year’s assurances from the Department of Defense that state law recognized only traditional marriage would be respected and upheld,” Huelskamp said in a statement. “They clearly lied.”
Fleming said the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has made incidents “like this inevitable.”
“My frustration is compounded by the fact that a social agenda, which has nothing to do with military readiness or our national defense, is being imposed on our men and women in uniform,” Fleming said. “This appears to be a promotion of an agenda utilizing military facilities. We don’t envision the purpose of the military to be a test tube for social changes in this country.”
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, a Marine Corps veteran and former Louisiana legislator, said the ceremony was a clear violation of DOMA and accused the Obama administration of trying to toss “aside the marriage laws of forty-four states.”
“This ceremony at Fort Polk is further evidence that Congress must act to reinforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and make very clear that the military should not be exploited to advance this administration’s social agenda,” Perkins said.
Kelly Boggs, a spokesman for the Louisiana Baptist Convention, called the ceremony “troubling.”
“That military base is located in a state that has registered strong opposition to same sex marriage,” Boggs told Fox News Radio. “It seems like it could be a tacit endorsement by the military of same sex unions.”
Crews said the solution is for the U.S. Senate to pass the House bill banning such ceremonies. Until that happens, he said all military facilities, including chapels will be “sexual orientation neutral.”
FOX News Talk
One should also understand that if that ceremony took place on the grounds of Fort Polk, it is not on the soil of the state of Louisiana. It is on federal property, and is not under the jurisdiction of the state of Louisiana.
“It raises the issue that Louisiana is a state that has a clear definition of marriage,” Crews said. “By allowing this on military installations, this means that chaplains in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq could conduct same sex ceremonies like this. How will this look to our coalition partners who do not approve of same sex unions?”.
So am I reading this right, or is he saying that since Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq might disapprove of same sex unions, that's a reason that they shouldn't be allowed on military bases. And group Louisiana with those three to boot. I'm pretty sure those countries don't approve of having Christians there, should we ban Christian military members from those bases? Of course not, that reasoning is atrocious.
"as a 100% disabled vet I had lots of female soldiers around who I would of loved to shower and live and sleep with" – Rick. You make me sick! professing your orientation on the internet! Go back to your dark ally titty bars and keep the fact you need to sleep with hookers to get laid to yourself – pervert!
A study showed that a large percentage of Americans believe that up to 25% of the populace to have some sort of homosexual orientation. The true number is less than 3%, and goes up to about 5% if you count folks who have "experimented" in their past, such as at college. NOT 25%, not even 10%. Why do so many Americans believe the number to be so high? Why are we forced to go through these troubles? Because the media and Hollywood have been pushing an agenda upon this country. Protections for a minority to be safe from violence is one thing; forcing, through governmental regulation and deceit, the majority to not only accept unusual behavior, but also to LIKE it, is PROOF of an agenda. The real question is WHY? Why spend so much resources on such a small number of people? WHY? Disruption of society is why, disruption and disorder. This nation was once the most powerful on earth, but now we have started slipping…and this sort of thing is the EXACT REASON why. All this has occurred at the direction of the Democrat Party as a way to pander for votes. The TRUTH about homosexuals in America needs to be told, and it can go back to being the NON-ISSUE it should be. If the Democrat Party wants to get votes, let them do so on REAL issues such as the economy and jobs, and not on "gay marriage" that affects so few people and causes problems for so many.
In the end we will see who was right when we stand before God and give account for our lives. As for me I will support what God's word says about sin. The bible is clear about same sex relations, adultery, murder, lying, judging, idol worship and etc.. You don't have to agree but it doesn't change what God says.
and tell me, does this "god", who says he is forgiving, still cast down gay Christians who believe in his "son", even though they are sinning?
What ever happend to conservatives that actually believe in conservative values. Such as smaller Government and freedom of religion. This was a private comitment ceramony, there is nothing illegal about commitment ceramonies in the state of Louisiana an. Not to mention this was a ceramony promoted by the religious institution. Seems like these guys only belive in Freedom of Religion is when it promotes their own social agenda.
How confusing is this a church conducts a ceremony using Jesus Christ name. What Bible are they reading?
Americans are crazy and Fox News Americans are even crazier….
I guess I am just lost on why folks are outraged here, and even more lost as to the basis for it. Is it not true that our our men and women of the armed forces fight for the very protections that the ultra-right wing seek to take from certain members of our citizenry? It has always been my understanding that since the Revolutionary War through the wars we are entered in today that our troops and military leaders have fought and DIED to preserve our American way of life and the freedoms that our Constitution affords to ALL PERSONS. The Declaration of Independence is clear 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." We now read "men" to include women, and to include persons of all races.
The 14th Amendment to our Constitution, states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." ALL PERSONS ARE CREATED EQUAL AND AFFORDED EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. I don't think that it can be made clearer.
Now can anyone can tell me why that does not apply to a citizen of our nation just because they are attracted to the same sex? Jerry Sandusky, Charles Manson and Bernie Madoff all received equal protection under our laws based on our Constitution and the American principles that we hold so dear. So dear in fact that Americans HAVE DIED ON THE BATTLEFIELD to protect them. So if Jerry, Chuck and Bernie get equal protection under the law, why does a gay person not deserve the same?
This same-sex couple has given more to this nation by their service than 90% of this country, and yet these politicans sit in judgment of their desire to marry, a right that all other heterosexual couples have and frankly take for granted. My question to these reps would be who the hell do you think you are?
Individually, gays and lesbians do have the same protection under the law as everyone else. They all have the same privileges (individually) as any other citizen in this country. Their lifestyle choice in and of itself is not a crime by man's standards. When they attempt to force it upon others they are infringing on the rights of those people. Since you quoted the from the Declaration of Independence (and opened the door) I can use the same term – Creator. Anyone who claims to be a Christian and chooses this particular lifestyle is committing a sin – one that our Creator has deemed. Anyone who claims to be a Christian and condones this lifestyle according to our Creator is just a guilty of the sin. Our Creator, whose name is God has told us through his son Jesus Christ that we are to love the sinner but hate the sin. Any true Christian knows this and should live by it.
Individually, gays and lesbians do have the same protection under the law as everyone else. They all have the same privileges (individually) as any other citizen in this country. Their lifestyle choice in and of itself is not a crime by man's standards. When they attempt to force it upon others they are infringing on the rights of those people. Since you quoted the from the Declaration of Independence (and opened the door) I can use the same term – Creator. Anyone who claims to be a Christian and chooses this particular lifestyle is committing a sin – one that our Creator has deemed. Anyone who claims to be a Christian and condones this lifestyle according to our Creator is just a guilty of the sin. Our Creator, whose name is God has told us through his son Jesus Christ that we are to love the sinner but hate the sin. Any true Christian knows this and should live by it.
Anne Ripley – first, the term "Creator" does not mean your Christian God, but rather appeals to many religion – i.e. the whole point of freedom of religion. Secondly, you miss my point. Any particular religion can have its beliefs, whether they are racist, bigoted or whatever. The problem comes when you are talking about a Nation, not a religous sect, denying rights to one group and not another soley upon the basis of their sexual orientation. If you want to call yourself a "christian" and to you that means that you exclude certain people based upon their sexual orientation, then frankly you and your congregation have that right. However, just as the US government can't discriminate against you for being a "christian," they cannot under the law discriminate against a gay individual. To disallow someone the right to marry, whicih is a legal right of contract under our laws, is unlawful. I am what you may call a Christian (I attend an Episcopal church every Sunday) and I know God's teachings and Christ's love for us, and what He tells me is that discrimination in any form against one of God's children is unacceptable and adverse to His will.
When our forefathers were creating this country there were many who practiced different religions. They all had different beliefs (spiritual) and had their own way of worshiping. I do not believe any one of them said or believed they each had their own creator (God). I believe that was the one thing they all agreed on. What they could not agree on was how they should worship, i.e. some felt thay Saturday was to be the Sabbath, some felt that you had to dress a certain way, others felt it was acceptable to have more than one wife, and others felt that it was necessary to stay clear of technology. The reason for many of the immigrants coming to America was to flee religious persecution in the native country. This, to be is the bases behind the point of freedom of religion. The government could not tell the how to practice their religion. Unless I missed something they all agreed on one Creator – God. This country was founded by christian men on christian beliefs. So I disagree with your interpitation of their meaning of the word creator. I am a christian but do not claim any religious denomination. I attend a Non-Denominational Christian Church every Sunday morning and Wednesday Evenig. I still do not believe any civil rights (mentioned in the constitution) have been violated. I have seen many on here refer to the 14th ammendment. The 14th ammendment was written to abolish the BLACK CODES the the southern states had put into law after the civil war.
Who gives a rats ass what our coalition partners think about anything! That seems to be the problem these days, we're giving too much energy to what some radical fundamentalist regime thinks (who incidentally consider women and young girls as objects to be sold or traded or mutilated). And for those folks in this great country who spend their time obsessing over what other do, well, obviously they have meaningless hate filled lives and nothing better to focus their attention on. How about the elderly in this country who eat pet food for survival or choose food over medication, how about kids who go to bed hungry and homeless or both, how about someone with cancer who chooses to die because they don't want to put their family in the poor house. How about spending some energy on those things instead of obsessing about what's going on in someone else's bedroom or giving a rats ass about our 'coalition partners'. They should be damn happy to have us as a partner, not the other way around. Property's cheap in Pakistan and cheaper in Iraq and Afghanistan for those who prefer the politics and social policies of those coalition partners.
Now all of a sudden these people give 2 shts about the leaders in afghanistan and pakistan opinions of us. People like Atkins are nothing better than the American version of the taliban. Forcing their religious morals and beliefs on everyone else against their will.
If you think that sticking one mans weener in another mans butt is cool keep it to you're self because it is a sick and perverted act to the the rest of us. Think about it.
No, thanks, I'd rather not think about it. Apparently you spend a lot of time thinking about it, though.
Any idea why people use the bible to spread hate?
Homosexuality is one of three things, a disease, a mental defect, or a choice. It is perverse and an affront to the natural order of things.
Allowing them to marry in a state where it is not allowed is an affront to states rights.
This is a non-story. The ceremony was private. The chaplain AGREED to hold the ceremony. The military, feds, and the state still do not recognize the marriage. So why all the fake outrage?
Because it is once again being thrown in our faces for a statement. So private that the news got ahold of it somehow? Yeah. Please.
every needs to get their head out their ass.. for your infomation I was there they did no harm to anyone all they wanted to do was show their love for each other and people got their head soo far up everyone elses ass and wants to ruin what should be happy for them and just take that away.
Just to state the facts here. It is against Federal law for such an event to take place on a military base. So if the Base Commander knew this was happening, along with he Chaplain, and the couple, they should be brought up for court martials. You cannot choose which laws you will obey and which you will not.
Not such law exists. The Feds will not recognize the marriage, but there is NO law that states a chapel cannot hold a ceremony like this. You are really confused.
Not such law exists. The Feds will not recognize the marriage, but there is NO law that states a chapel cannot hold a ceremony like this. You are really confused.
Not such law exists. The Feds will not recognize the marriage, but there is NO law that states a chapel cannot hold a ceremony like this. You are really confused.
Not such law exists. The Feds will not recognize the marriage, but there is NO law that states a chapel cannot hold a ceremony like this. You are really confused.
A. Military. Base. Chapel. Did you not see that he said that? I don't think he stuttered. It's very possible that there is a base order regarding it but who knows. All I see is a couple trying to make a statement. Nothing more.
It's funny to read all these comments from stupid hicks. Don't like this marriage, fine, but you will have to get used to it. It's just the beginning LOL.
Patrick, hate to disagree. There is. It's call DOMA and it is the law of the land. Passed by congress sign by Bill Clinton.
That defined marriage as between a man and a women. It did not outlaw chapels from performing ceremonies that have no legal binding.
Gays shouldn't be allowed to serve to begin with. Numerous potential recruits a year are disqualified because of mental illness, but because the Left has created a protected class out of this sickness in order to further their agenda, we now have hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people enlisting in the military and even using military resources and chaplains to make their delusions a reality.
Despite the fact that males and females are strictly separated in the military, I'm sure these nuts will still be housed together like people of the same gender are, because the military is afraid to be called out for discrimination for allegedly "singling two men out because they're gay". The whole "gays in the military" situation reeks of hypocrisy and double standards.
Here is my question on this? What will happen to the heterosexual soldier when he does not have the back of his fellow homosexual soldier on the battle field or vise versa. Will they be prosecuted for not upholding the code of the US Military? Remember this is being forced on all soldiers of all persuasions without the soldiers being able to comment because you cannot question your officers or presidents judgement.
I would hope that if a solider allows another soldier to be harmed because of lack of action he/she is prosecuted.
I agree, but the problem is you have to prove it was dereliction. Are we socially putting our soldiers in harms way?
Ah the soothing sound of the death rattle of bigots and freedom-haters. I know its disturbing for you to realize that DOMA will be fully overturned soon and that anti-gay legislation will soon be regarded as unconstitutional discrimination, but its time to accept it. Courts are overturning it left and right and its a metter of time before SCOTUS does the same. History does not shine favorably on groups of people trying to restrict rights. Its much kinder to those trying to protect and enshrine rights.
Also, take this debate back in time and the vast majority of you would likely be against interracial marriage and interracial military squadrons. The arguments were IDENTICAL, you just need to replace 'gay' with 'black'. People felt military racial integration was a social experiment and served no tactical benefit. They complained that liberals were forcing this experiment on them and voters clearly opposed desegregation (which was actually true in the south). Nonetheless, we still disregarded those complaints and permitted desegregation in the military as well as interracial marriage. And we were right to do so, just as we are right to do so now.
The law states that no marriage may take place on Fed Property that would violate the DOMA act. Military Chaplains' have asked since the repel of DADT what is the law. They have been told the policy hasn't changed. It is still the law.
You are still wrong. All DOMA does is define marriage between and a man and women and states that individual states or the Feds are not required to recognize gay marriages. It does not limit what chapels or religious institutes can do.
There is a place for folks that want to be committed to loving relations that are not"Traditional"! Marriage (male,female) has it's place in the Word and should by no means be altered.
James Baccum, obviously you have never deployed. We are not allowed those things strictly because it is against the Islamic law in Afghanistan. NOONE, including locals are allowed these things. Also, if you haven't worn a Military uniform, you don't rate an opinion on this.
Every citizen of the US has a right to voice their opinion on OUR military. Thank you for your service, but try to remember the rights you are fighting to protect.
Every citizen of the US has a right to voice their opinion on OUR military. Thank you for your service, but try to remember the rights you are fighting to protect.
Every citizen of the US has a right to voice their opinion on OUR military. Thank you for your service, but try to remember the rights you are fighting to protect.
Every citizen of the US has a right to voice their opinion on OUR military. Thank you for your service, but try to remember the rights you are fighting to protect.
Yes, they have a right, but the voices that should be most heard are the ones ACTIVELY serving or have served. Get a grip. So what you're saying is that as long as my rights agree with yours it's all fine? Get off the bandwagon. I'm sure if I told you I disagreed with it completely that would be wrong, and infringing on your rights. Please.
Yes, they have a right, but the voices that should be most heard are the ones ACTIVELY serving or have served. Get a grip. So what you're saying is that as long as my rights agree with yours it's all fine? Get off the bandwagon. I'm sure if I told you I disagreed with it completely that would be wrong, and infringing on your rights. Please.
I have the right to disagree, and so do you. Doesn't mean I need to change the law because YOU disagree.
No one persons voice should be given more weight than any others in this country. By choosing to serve in our military that does not give a person anymore say than the average citizen.
Brian Zittritsch Who is asking you to change any laws? You read way too much into my comment. Is that a habit of yours? Putting words in peoples mouths is not the way to have a conversation.
Hell yeah Facebook arguments. Let jay rant if he wants. I don't think nay Sayers on his comments will do anything but invoke pointless arguments
This is only the beginning, it’s only going to get worst. America along with its military will tolerate itself into extinction. The Bible has warned us that this behavior is unnatural. I'm soooooooo glad I retired and don't have to deal with a weak cross dressing commander.
We are glad you retired as well. We do not need children in our military.
Patrick Mares Because you would know right?
Working on a military base I would know yes. A vast majority of the men and women that serve our country are very mature. Obviously Derek was one of the few that is not.
Because he disagrees? So what, he's entitled to his opinion, and so are you. That does NOT make him wrong for disagreeing. It just makes you look like a hypocrite.
Brian Zittritsch Hypocrite? His comment about cross dressing commanders was childish. It is childish to stereo type gay people in the manner he did.
While yes, I agree that you can't stereotype all of gays like this, and I certainly wouldn't as I have met gays that do not fit that bill whatsoever, I do think he was referring to a specific type, however yes he was stereotyping.
Too funny Patrick, if you don't think there will be cross dressing in the military once the military is totally corrupted then you are being naïve, because I met a few, but they couldn’t do it openly when I was in. Plus if someone wanted to cross dress in uniform are you going to tell them that they are wrong, of course not. When you stand for nothing you will fall for anything, and you guys are falling hard.
You crusty bigots have no respect. Show some guts and congratulate these soldiers. For dedicating their lives to defend this country, to stand up to adversity, and for finding someone to spend their lives with who shares in their common goal as Americans. Quit whining because you don't love your neighbors or you can't stand the fact they exist. They do. And they are going to do what gay people do. If marriage and commitment is the ideal for most people then we should all be encouraging everyone to take part, not passing Unconstitutional laws against US citizens. Besides, how is someone else's marriage anyone else's business? When a politician takes the oath to uphold the Constitution they have a duty to defend the Constitutional rights of all citizens. ALL. Not just some. Not just the ones they like. Not just the ones that subscribe to the same religious beliefs. Not just people of the same race. ALL OF US. I find that the more and more antigay bigots speak, the more and more RIDICULOUS they sound. We all know gay people. They are coworkers, friends, and family. We all meet gay people every day, whether some of us realize it or not. Do you think that being cruel to these people or denying them Constitutionally mandated rights would change the fact that they actually exist? Or is it just that you all share a common goal to make their existence miserable? You all need to ask yourselves why this bothers you SO much, especially when it has nothing to do with you. What purpose does harboring that kind of resentment serve? It certainly doesn't benefit anyone.
You crusty bigots have no respect. Show some guts and congratulate these soldiers. For dedicating their lives to defend this country, to stand up to adversity, and for finding someone to spend their lives with who shares in their common goal as Americans. Quit whining because you don't love your neighbors or you can't stand the fact they exist. They do. And they are going to do what gay people do. If marriage and commitment is the ideal for most people then we should all be encouraging everyone to take part, not passing Unconstitutional laws against US citizens. Besides, how is someone else's marriage anyone else's business? When a politician takes the oath to uphold the Constitution they have a duty to defend the Constitutional rights of all citizens. ALL. Not just some. Not just the ones they like. Not just the ones that subscribe to the same religious beliefs. Not just people of the same race. ALL OF US. I find that the more and more antigay bigots speak, the more and more RIDICULOUS they sound. We all know gay people. They are coworkers, friends, and family. We all meet gay people every day, whether some of us realize it or not. Do you think that being cruel to these people or denying them Constitutionally mandated rights would change the fact that they actually exist? Or is it just that you all share a common goal to make their existence miserable? You all need to ask yourselves why this bothers you SO much, especially when it has nothing to do with you. What purpose does harboring that kind of resentment serve? It certainly doesn't benefit anyone.
Yes, just because our opinions are different from yours we're all bigots, yes that must be it.
When your opinion involves dehumanizing others and when your opinions lead to legislation that seeks to deny people the right to equal treatment under the law, as guaranteed by the Constitution, then yes that makes you a bigot. My opinion is that everyone deserves the same rights. That in no way serves to take anything from you or other straight people. The opinion that gays are inferior, or that they don't deserve to be treated with dignity, or that they aren't entitled to the same legal rights and social responsibilities as you is far different from mine. I read all this crap about the gay agenda and bla bla bla. But that's what you don't seem to understand. You don't hear anything from the gay "agenda" that dehumanizes your existance. The gay agenda is about equality. For everyone. It seems to me that the anti-gay agenda sole purpose is to make life harder for gays. To pass laws that hurt gay people and that don't help anyone at all. Who benefits from this? How does belittling the existance of millions of people help anyone at all?
LOL, are you kidding me?! It's quite obvious its of no use arguing, all I said was simply you're a tool for thinking everyone against you is a bigot. Grow up.
Equality? Everywhere I've seen gay rights organized they want to be treated differently (and by differently I mean they want to be treated special). I have to keep my mouth shut if I don't like it. Gays can say whatever they want, but OH MY GOSH if I were to say something against their beliefs? Equality my a$$
My point is that there is no rational basis for anti-gay discrimination. The notion that somehow those beliefs should be reflected by the law as it pertains to the lives of other citizens is seriously flawed and is contrary to the ideals of "equal protection of the laws" guaranteed by the Constitution. So yes, if you don't agree that all people are deserving of the same respect both socially and legally, that makes you a bigot.
I see the 1-10% with my beliefs actually discriminating (instead of having an opinion), and I see the 1-10% with other beliefs discriminating against those with my beliefs. Don't pretend bigotry is on one side of the isle. The problem is both sides of the argument.
How does two women getting married, who you don't even know, affect your life in any way? So why do you believe that you should have some sort of say over how those people live their lives? I don't get it. Because their relationship has nothing at all to do with you. And the laws that restrict their rights, those don't affect you either.
I'm not talking about the general population. You're avoiding how I described bigotry affecting both sides. I could say the same regarding religious beliefs and how they affect that person directly. It's a stupid argument to have calling someone a bigot because they believe in something when all you're doing is looking like a hypocrite.
Not really. I call someone a bigot if their point of view in some way belittles another persons existence. If they believe that for some reason the law should reflect that, then that definitely makes them a bigot. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. The notion of equality for gays in no way diminishes the rights you have. That is the difference. Everyone has rights but I think that individual rights cease to exist when they begin to infringe on the rights of others.
It's really a never ending circle of BS, I agree with your last point wholeheartedly, but the same exact argument can be made for those that are religious. Just look at the whole picture before you assign blame to any one person or group.
It has everything to do with religion. The two women in the article were essentially blessed in a religious service. There are many denominations in this country that affirm gay relationships. It is the fact that those who believe that their restrictive religious beliefs should be applied by the law that I find disturbing. If anything preventing gays from marrying not only infringes on the individual rights of those people but also infringes on the religious rights of entire congregations across the country.
Restrictive religious beliefs? I do remember reading somewhere "Freedom of Religion" but I could be wrong. It doesn't matter that they may be restrictive, all that matters really is equal rights. My point is just assigning "bigot" to those that are "restrictive" is essentially assigning yourself, as "gasp" a bigot. On the should be applied to law part, I believe in equality until I start needing to treat someone special, that is NOT equality. What is essentially wrong with someone being gay? Nothing, but my being told I have to treat them special, is. It is exactly why your particular argument in that case is bias towards a single group.
How is allowing two gay people to marry treating them special? Straight people can get married. That's not asking for special treatment. That's asking for equal treatment. If all of a sudden gay groups were trying to take away the right of straight people to marry, then I would be equally appalled. But that is not what's happening. What is happening is that gay people are being singled out for mistreatment under the law because some people believe the law should reflect their own beliefs and not treat everyone the same. Please, if you can manage to find some evidence that proves that by allowing gay people to marry somehow takes away the right of straight people to marry or to practice their religion as they see fit, I'd like to see it.
I never said it did take away that right, not once. Have you ever been in the workforce? The military? Do you know what sensitivity training is?
You're missing the point, getting married in itself isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the rest of society having to walk on eggshells and treat them differently than everyone else.
You're missing the point, getting married in itself isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the rest of society having to walk on eggshells and treat them differently than everyone else.
You're missing the point, getting married in itself isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the rest of society having to walk on eggshells and treat them differently than everyone else.
LOL. I do. The problem is that we are talking about biased law here. So if you understand that then how do laws restricting the rights of gays to marry mesh with the concept of "equal protection under the law" outlined in the Constitution?
What special rights are you talking about?
Treating differently how? It is about being treated differently but not in the way that you are imagining. It's about being held to the same degree of respect and responsibility as anyone else.
Special rights? Special treatment is what I'm talking about. We're getting away from the original argument, however I agree with the concept of equal protection under the law, and laws restricting it do not mesh with the concept. I can speak directly from a certain standpoint on special treatment, and I'll refrain from doing so for my own reasons. The point is there shouldn't be a need for sensitivity training at all. Yet there is, regardless if its needed, or not. Being a bigot is simply someone who is utterly intolerant of a creed, belief or opinion. My original argument is simply don't go around flashing the word to a group of people, and being intolerant yourself, you should probably think about your word choice more smartly in the future.
Subscribing to the belief that some people should be treated differently, for whatever reason, is bigotry. Not supporting those who believe that, is not. Have you read the comments on this page?
Homosexuality is a sexual perversion right there with necrophilia, pedophilia, and zoophilia. It is an affront to the natural order of things.
According to who? You don't know what you're talking about kid. Being gay has absolutely nothing to do with any of those things. I would suggest that you take a course in basic biology. Homosexuality is as naturally occuring as people who are left handed. Get your facts straight.
Chris, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention social responsibilities. As for legal rights you have the same rights as I do. And if you understood the constitution you wiould know that the people referred to are ones of a different race and or religion. Being Gay is not a race nor is it a religion so no one is violating anyone rights.
Chris, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention social responsibilities. As for legal rights you have the same rights as I do. And if you understood the constitution you wiould know that the people referred to are ones of a different race and or religion. Being Gay is not a race nor is it a religion so no one is violating anyone rights.
Actually you are wrong. The Constitution provides for due process of the law and equal protection under the law for all U.S. citizens. Laws that discriminate against gay people such as the Defense of Marriage Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the myriad state marriage bans are in direct violation of these Constitutional principles. I'm not sure where you get your info from, because Fox News is not the best place to obtain "facts", but multiple federal courts have already declared all of these things unconstitutional. It is only a matter of time before they reach the SCOTUS. What you need to remember is that the law is not supposed to reflect personal bias and is supposed to be equally applied. These laws are biased and are designed to discriminate against people who are gay. That is where the anti-gay bigots are losing. They are losing because they cannot legally prove that discriminating against gay people serves any legitimate purpose other than to reflect their personal bias against gay people, which is illegal. These laws do not affect people who are straight so they are not "protecting" anything. The only people who these laws affect are people who are gay, and that is why they are unconstitutional. The logic you're following is flawed and is designed to lend legitimacy to personal bigotry, which through over two hundred years of legal precedent has been found over and over again to not be admissible in court. So you can justify your beliefs however you like but you cannot prove that your beliefs serve any purpose other than to lend legitimacy to the fact that you hate gay people for no good reason. Sure, you could say that your beliefs are based on the bible, as the people who propagate such nonsense often do. However, the bible isn't admissible in court either. Because we base our laws in this country on the United States Constitution and it clearly states that all U.S. citizens are entitled to "equal protection under the law" and "due process of the laws". So in what fantasy do you live in that you actually believe that the law is applied equally to people who are "straight" and people who are "gay"? Because it blatantly isn't.
Jesus: Love everyone, do not judge, and treat everyone with kindness and respect.
Person in the crowd "What about gay's, or people of other faiths like Muslim or Atheist? And how about people from other nations?"
Jesus: Did I stutter?
It's called Make up your own Bible. Everyone can play!!!
It's called Make up your own Bible. Everyone can play!!!
It's called Make up your own Bible. Everyone can play!!!
This entire sordid affair with its detractors on both sides is the product of government intervention where it never belonged. The government has no business being in the marriage licensing business; it's not a constitutional role, and never has been.
Remove the ridiculousness that has forced marriage as a recourse.
-repeal the inheritance tax.
-give visitors rights to whomever a patient requests.
-institute a fair-tax system.
The fix to this is not layering on more laws, the real fix is less law. Let's get out of the marriage business altogether. I mean, what's next… the government defining my friends too?
No thanks, I want less.
That sounds like a reasonable idea to me, but that will never fly with the fundamentalists. Their marriages deserve tax breaks, automatic hospital visitation, immunity from testimony in court, etc. Gay marriages get none of these things, which is exactly what the fundamentalists want. As long as heterosexual marriages get preferential treatment before the law, you can bet that gay people and their allies will be clamoring for equal treatment.
I agree with you Patrick McGarvey, in time this will be the primary downfall of a once great military. As you can see it won't just stop with allowing gays in the military, they now want to get married, adopt kids they can't produce, crossdress, engage in Bi-sexual or multi individual/couple relationships, etc. It will indeed get a lot worse, thanks Bill/Obama.
Thanks, 35 and holding
, at least that's what I keep telling myself.
Ya know it is funny how we, as a nation of rules and laws, have a government that is currently ignoring those rules and laws left and right. Not just on this issue, but on not enforcing illegal immigration, becoming a socialist and welfare state, ignoring the Bill of Rights. We have processes to overturn laws and rewrite the rules…but this administration and Congress just ignores all of that and goes straight to "we take what we want, when we want".
First off, DOMA no longer applies. It is a law that has been found unconstitutional by 5 Federal judges and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. Based on this, the US Justice Department is no longer defending it. Secondly, the US DoD issued guidance in Sep 2011 authorizing military chaplains to perform Same-Sex Ceremonies on US military installations. The Base had no choice but to allow the ceremony unless the chaplain felt it violated his religious beliefs. No law was broken here. If the base did not allow the ceremony, they would be in clear violation of the DoD directive allowing the ceremony.
First off, DOMA no longer applies. It is a law that has been found unconstitutional by 5 Federal judges and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. Based on this, the US Justice Department is no longer defending it. Secondly, the US DoD issued guidance in Sep 2011 authorizing military chaplains to perform Same-Sex Ceremonies on US military installations. The Base had no choice but to allow the ceremony unless the chaplain felt it violated his religious beliefs. No law was broken here. If the base did not allow the ceremony, they would be in clear violation of the DoD directive allowing the ceremony.
This pisses me off so much. No one should be able to tell you who you are able to marry. Straight people are getting divorce left and right here in America while you have the Gay and lesbian community fighting everyday to be able to get married.
See this is the main reason that people don't want anything like this to happen in their state. It always happens like this you give in to don't ask don't tell and that's not enough for the homosexuals it is always a I want more situation. People know this. They know it homo marriagies are legalized then that won't be enough it will always be more more more. This isn't about equal rights it's about being treated better than everyone else.And they know people don't want to see this, so what do they do? They push it into everyones face and say why can't you just treat us the same while they wear assless leather pants.
This was a private event. It was not made public until people who SOUGHT out the story made it public. Being treated the same is not asking for special rights nor is it asking to be treated better than anyone else.
Troy Millay – It wasn't even in the public until Todd Starnes reported it. Sooo…how are homosexuals "shoving" an "agenda" in our faces? Omg, they want to get married. It's the end of the world!!! You know marriage is not a right – correct? It's a privilege. The government does not HAVE to recognize ANYONE's marriages. None. Shit if I was in Congress I'd say let's get rid of all federal benefits for married couples. That would save some money too. Why should you get rewarded fro getting married? Plenty of people are in committed relationships without marriage LONGER than those who do get married. It's not a big fucking deal people.
There is a reason 98% of Americans and 99.99% of the rest of the planet aren't homos.We werent born that way and choose not to be. If you cant figure it out that's you're problem. We don't have to like it or vote for it. And it doesn't make us biggots or bad people. Moral wrongs aren't civil rights unless you force it upon us.Homos are not a race or a gender. You choose to make an issue out of being queer because the rest of the planet knows better. its not normal that's why they call it queer…Quit trying to blur what's right or wrong. Oh ya, Did I use God? Did I spell everything right. Now don't go killing you're self over this and blame me or us homophobes.
Patrick, I am sure you are you know all there is to know about DOMA. I just deal with this about once a week and know a number of military chaplains including some that serve in the Office of the head of chaplains that have told me this is the policy.
There is a bill that has been introduce in congress that would allow Chaplains not to be force to conduct such "marriages" of those in the military if such "marriages" were allow to take place on military bases. It is in committee being held up. Some members do not want to have to vote up or down on it. The bill is based on Doma that states marriage is between one man and one women thus to do what was done at Fort Polk is illegal. When youenter the military you swear to uphold the laws of the land. Thus the action done by the Chaplain at the base is a violation of your oath and you can be court marital.
Holding a commitment ceremony is not ILLEGAL! The State and Fed Govt. just do not recognize the union as a marriage.
I went to a military base recently and I saw gay personnel. I saw an obviously gay medic treat others and did not see a single person refuse his treatment on the numerous occasions I was there.
They could die and get injured for their country so I'm pretty sure they can tolerate others.
Since their ceremony was not legal, it was just that. Are we really going to legislate so that gay people can't even throw a party of committment?
Yes, I think the right wing fundamentalists would like that. They would like to see gays thrown in jail. It took a decision of the Supreme Court (Lawrence versus Texas) to stop them.
Fark these liberal scumbags.
Fark these liberal scumbags.
DADT Repealed but the Lefts War to Politicize the Military Continues http://bit.ly/p83Wm1.
The Homosexual Agenda and the U.S. Military http://bit.ly/kGXSll
Male Rape in the Military http://t.co/S7TtnSQ.
Homosexual Soldiers a Security Risk http://bit.ly/egZ6xl.
Vets protest plan to opening military to homosexuals http://bit.ly/dRrtWb.
Activists in New Gay Military Now Demand Cross Dressing Rights http://bit.ly/qAJEak.
Sexual deviant magazine to be distributed to military ‘free of charge’ http://bit.ly/nOFOJQ.
Angry homosexual activist behind WikiLeaks treachery http://bit.ly/hv7vX7.
Sexual Deviant Soldiers sue government over ‘partner’ benefits http://bit.ly/uhvcPv.
After DADT Repeal, Cross-Dressing is Next http://bit.ly/rdCVxw.
Patrick, you are right and I am wrong. I just check again with Douglas Caver who was The Army Chief Of Chaplains and served in the Army for 38 years. When the President and DOJ decided they did not have to obey the law and defend DOMA and they had DADT repealbeginninginf September 2011 it became legal to do such "marriages". Douglas Caver has some pretty hard things to say about what this has done to our Chaplains. Sorry I was operating on pre September 2011 info. It is against La. law and the state possible could bring charges.
I don't see the big deal! If it's not recognized in Louisiana OR the DoD (because regardless of what the POTUS or DOJ say, the DoD does NOT recognize same sex marriages because DOMA is in effect still). AND the mainstream news isn't even reporting it so who actually made a big deal about it? Not the homosexuals. Not the liberals – a damn conservative.
Tom, what Louisiana law does it break to perform a gay marriage ceremony?
Let's just come to a compromise. A man and a woman getting hitched is a marriage. A man and a man or a woman and a woman getting hitched is a fairriage. Problem solved.
Gary Kinman – Oh you're so witty! (Rolling my eyes). How about we just call everything a civil union. If you want the religious aspect you go to a place of worship.
People should be able to live their lives they way they chose as long as they don't harm others. Enough said!
There are thousands of gays in our military. They work just as hard as everyone eles, they do NOT effect our mission. So why does it matter who they go home to every night. They will be togethre weather any one likes it or night. I have fought beside many gays and it did NOT effect the way our mission was carried out. They do NOT force thier life style onto any one eles. So what is the big deal? I feel so sorry for the people who can NOT except people who are diffrent.
Eric in Louisiana the laws says that marriage can only between a man and a women.
The law says nothing about a marriage ceremony. It is not illegal to have a ceremony.
Homosexual couples are a disgrace to the state of Louisiana. Kick them out and send them to Cali.
With the exception of some parts of New Orleans, Louisiana is a disgrace to the entire planet…. They should be kicked toward Antarctica….
New York should be shipped to Iran since it is already a Dumpster! Brooklyn with it.
I'm far more concerned about Islamic terrorism than I am about a few gays being joined in a Civil Union.
What God calls an abomination is an abomination!!