I'm just glad Obama had the spine to final stand up for something he believes in, now he won't be able to try to win both sides. I hope he continues to be open about all of his beliefs so he will lose this November. Once the majority of people know who this man really is they will stop believing in his "change".

Based on the title "Area Lawmakers" I guess this is an OK piece, but from a journalistic standpoint there were plenty of quotes from both sides which would have balanced the article. Here is an example of a more balanced article showing not everyone agrees with what the president said. http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2012/05/09/ohio_lawmakers_react_to_obamas.html#jump

Here are the results of the state bans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type I think polls are inaccurate because people don't want to sound like "haters" to the pollsters, which shows the liberal agenda to silence the opposition is working. But when in a voting booth the truth comes out.

It's about time that Mr Obama has come around to this very obvious common-sense stand on a basic civil right in our country. If everyone can't get married, then no-one should be able to get married. Those who are still against same-sex marriage today are as biased as those who were against racial equality back in the days of Martin Luther King, Jr. Kudos to the President.

A vote for Mitt Romney at this point in time is a vote for sheer idiocy.

Nice one sided piece.

I think the issue is one for the states to decide not the federal government. I think a President and Vice President can state their views but the issue should be for states to decide.
I do think the time has come to stabilize all relationships and constricting what constitutes marriage continues to escalate the non-marriage rate among all types of couples. I don't condemn non-marriage arrangements morally but do question the effects on the community. People are not well grounded in most communities in any meaningful, sense from lack of participation in community organizations and politics to legally protected relationships. From this perspective I would provide marriage to all types of couples. I would hope this would promote more responsible actions in the community.
Also, I question what people's views actually are. Most of these issues have been put on the ballot by national organizations not groups of citizens within a state. They have often been aimed at helping social issue candidates get elected which was the case in Ohio. I tend to think most people are more open minded than they dare state in an environment where there are outspoken and often demonic language on the issue. I think polls capture that open minded and general fairness view of most Americans on personal lifestyles.

To continue my argument, I find it sad that state constitutions are amended so easily and so often by organized groups. One of the worse examples in Ohio was removing a tax from soda pop by a Constitutional amendment. Groups have learned well how to manipulate uninformed voters.
One doubts that many if not most of the voters had little understanding of some of these issues or the extent of the possible legal consequences of provisions such as the one adopted on same sex marriage in North Carolina. I doubt the legislators in Florida understood the legal ramifications of the self-defense law which was written by a national organization and passed in several states. Voters have even less understanding and most information distributed on an issue is often emotional and via sound bites. Doesn't make for an informed politics.

Just a thought: I definitely support the civil right of gay couples to marry and to have pension and equal inheritance rights with heterosexual couples. I do wonder why the Defense of Family folks don't address the effort of our high divorce rate among heterosexual couples on children and families

Ryan:
Thanks for the citations. I have several concerns with them. Most base marriage on religion, usually Christianity though the Old Testament sources are Judaic not Christian in origin. Some bundle free markets and limited government with concern for the family. This tends to portray government as something different than how we as members of a community govern ourselves. As civil society diversifies, so must our foundations. As a life long Methodist I have no problems per se with religion; but I don't want to see it supplant secular authority in the community. The need is to analyze the problems as citizens and not base policy in any single source other than our community.

Ryan:
I am not putting religion on a back shelf; rather it is a personal choice that the community ought to respect. However, addressing divorce, single parents, etc., is more than a spiritual call. I would hope more would belong to strong community organizations such as churches but if they decide not to then we need to use schools, social programs and other venues to address the issue as well. There is nothing wrong per se with either religion or government. When they mix in policies the result can be less than desirable. As Jesus wisely recognized, render onto Caesar what is Caesar's. Perhaps he would support the Buffett rule.:) I do worry about loosely connected people to their community whether they are Judaic, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, atheist, etc. Civic institutions need to support values and include not only our governments but churches, service organizations, schools, etc. The support should be positive and building not punitive and based on historic policies which had undesirable effects as well as benefits. The recent call in the Catholic Church for investigating organizations of nuns and having them focus on specific core theology does not promote community based action.

Larry and Ryan: This is an interesting conversation. Marriage has both a religious and a civil and legal consequences and connotations. As one raised in (and married in) a very traditional, small town Methodist church, I value the role of the church in child rearing and in building community. However, churches and church doctrines differ. My church and many others welcome gay couples into their communities. However, I would never suggest that a religious community that objected to marrying gay couples should be forced to do so. I do not think the groups you cited are evil for not recognizing or encouraging gay marriages. I do believe that my church should be allowed to marry gay couples and that gay couples married in that church or in a civil ceremony should be accorded the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.
It seems to come down to respecting each others firmly held religious beliefs - mine and yours - and to protecting the principal of separation of church and state.

The legal rights associated with marriage are civil rights and should be available to committed gay couples. I have friends who have been in a stable relationship for 25 years and raised well-adapted, well behaved children, who have paid into Social Security and a pension fund and who will not get survivor benefits if one of them dies. A divorced spouse - if married for 10 years - receives spousal benefits after the divorce. I believe well grounded families benefit society as a whole and should be encouraged. I agree with Larry that committment to family and connection to community are our strengths. I thought your remarks were well put.

Makes me sick....it's immoral!!!

Who says it's immoral and who has the right to decide what's moral and immoral? While I was raised in a catholic family and agree marriage should be between man and woman, I also believe its the right of these couples to decide on their own if the want to be married and if so, should not be denied anything any other couple is offered. It's not up to us, the state or federal government to decide. It borders on discrimination.

Brian, you're right. Currently, by law anyone can get married. The difference being that in Ohio gay marriage is not recognized by the state. Anyone is free to have a private ceremony. You ask who has the right to decide what's moral and Immoral? the citizens of every state make that distinction at the voting booth. And they have.

I'm sorry...God has the right...and he always will

Won't get my vote..that's a fact

I hate to be a jerk but, I'm sorry Pamela you sound like an idiot. Here's why, go read Leviticus; not just the couple of passages on gay people, but the whole thing and tell me whether or not you are following all of the laws that are listed there. Now that you have done that, flip to the new testament and go find what Jesus has to say about gays. I'm pretty sure you won't find anything. We do not follow the laws in Leviticus anymore, we eat shellfish, give women (roughly) equal rights, we cut the size of our hair, we don't stone people for not being virgins on their wedding day, we don't own slaves, if we don't do any of those things why do you stick to the gay parts..that don't even mention lesbians...so I guess lesbians are going to heaven along with narrow minded, hypocrites who think that banning gays from the benifits of marriage will make gay people go away, or let God know that you are not okay with "gay lifestyles". In reality if you read the word of God carefully you will see that it is through him that we all face judgement. So please do everyone a favor Pamela and read your scripture, decide what other parts of Leviticus you will start to obey; I mean that's only fair, and wait for the rapture.

Oh I'll wait for judgement day...and I know God is the ONLY one to judge...I feel sorry for everyone who thinks Jesus would approve...I'm out and not dealing with liberal idiots in this town...that's the problem here TOO MANY liberals...oh and btw...I was raised in a Christian church...and I believe in all that is preached by them...out!

I think you totally missed my point. It is that if someone wants to use 2 or 3 scriptures to justify the denial of something they may not agree with I call them a hypocrite since they are most likely not following the surrounding scriptures. Also, we do not follow (typically) the laws of leviticus anymore and Jesus never mentions gays, so where am I incorrect? People have been using a variety of passages from the bible to deny rights to marginalized people for centuries! We tend to call them bigots and racists these days, and someday the people using their personal beliefs and oppinions to deny the protections and ammenities that legal marriage would grant to gay people will be called what they are. Bigots and homophobes.

Also, where in 1 Timothy 1:10 is there a mention of gays? I mean my bible is in english and all so I may be having trouble reading it. Or my years of working for a church organization, perhaps all of those hours of bible study are against me. As far as I know there are 2 specific references to gays in the bible, sure, I could be wrong but 1 Tomothy 1:10 isn't one of them.

The Bible also speaks a lot about gluttony.

Obesity, which results from gluttony or chronic overeating, is against the will of God. The Bible condemns overindulgence in many things, including food. Proverbs 23:20-21 says: "Don't associate with those who drink too much wine, or with those who gorge themselves on meat. For the drunkard and the glutton will become poor, and grogginess will clothe them in rags." Here, as in other verses, gluttony is placed in the same category as other sinful behavior.

There is a lot of good information in the Bible if you take the time to read it, but I find it entertaining that those who defend gay marriage will quote the Bible, but infact, are sinners themselves and don't follow the Bible completely. The Bible doesn't have categories for sin. So, again I say, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

I did not mean defend gay marriage, I meant 'oppose'. Sorry for the typo.

I hate to see people such as Pamela exit a discussion. Saying what you think is truth and then refusing to listen to others is destructive of community.
I find it difficult to believe in a God who only gives the truth to a small group of people who happen to stumble into the right church while condemning all others on this and other planets who don't share that particular set of beliefs. My religious beliefs are personal and I would not want to impose them on others just as I don't want others imposing their religious convictions on me. I may convince others that my beliefs are better than what they believed previously but that cannot happen by force and should not happen through the secular law.
Thanks for all who have participated; this is a great discussion.

I did not miss your point. You say that since we don't follow every law given by God to Moses under the old Covenant that we have no right to single out a few of those laws and still abide by them. I will fill in the blanks and say that since Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the law (through his death), we're no longer bound by the law (old testament), but by a new covenant. The New Testament was given to us through Jesus Christ and that is where I cited 2 passages. If or 2 or 3 isnt enough, how many do you need? 4, 6, 8? 10?

1 Timothy 1:9,10: We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

Amen Brian! This is one of those topics where you have to kind of get past the religious views to get to the actual issues. There are churches that will perform gay marriages, most notably the UCC whom I was formally employed with. That being said, while the UCC as a whole is fine with gay church members, pastors and marriage it does not make every congregation follow this ideology. I think the same could be for any church that does not wish to perform gay marriages etc. Now, since there are many benefits to being legally able to marry it would be nice for states to allow it as long as religious entities were granted the power to not perform ceremonies that they did not agree with. Thus we would be honoring the separation of church and state. Civil liberties should not be denied to a small group of people based on a majority group’s religious beliefs. After all there are already states that have allowed gay marriage and I have not seen the sky open up and plunge demons and frogs on anyone.

Brian, by your logic, we have to throw out the entire Bible and all of it's commands because we're not perfect beings. That's silly. I think gossip is wrong even though I sometimes do it. Just because I or anyone else can't live up to God's Holy standard doesnt mean there shouldn't be a standard. I advocate for upholding the standard, even if I cannot live by it. The difference is that i'm willing to admit that I can't and I ask forgiveness. Others want to change the standard so their actions wont be considered wrong. If you think homosexual behavior is ok, that's your choice. If you believe the scripture to be accurate, then you have to accept all the words therein. If you pick and choose what you accept from the bible, you're in essence professing that you know better than God.

Ethan, I have not said whether I agree with homosexuality or gay marriage. I am not picking and choosing, but you are the one picking and choosing. If you or any one else is obese, you are committing sin. If you over indulge in alcohol on a regularly basis you are committing sin. One sin is not better than the other. I have not let my personal opinion on whether I agree with homosexuality or not, but I am careful about casting stones at others.

Omg Evan! The whole point of this is to admonish people who are picking and choosing parts of the bible to justify their bigotry and not really taking the entirety of the scriptures into their lives. If you want to point out 1 Timothy 1:10 which you think admonishes gays and ignore 1 Timothy 6 which advocates slavery, then you are either a hypocrite or you think slavery is ok, but gays are not. Which is it? Or, can some people just be faithful and stay out of politics where their misguided viws are ruining peoples lives. Perhaps we can just not judge people on behavior that does not cause harm to another consenting adult? Will gay marriage ruin the santity of all marriage and have people start trying to marry their pets? No! But will treating people unfairly and denying civil rights hurt this country and make us all seem like a bunch of idiotic zealots? YES!
Religion is a personal choice, we all live in America and all worship differently if at all, it is not fair to use those personal choices to promote racism,sexisim or homophobia!

Brian, if your obesity is caused by an addiction to overreating, then perhaps it is a sin. I'm not going to split hairs on that. But my point still stands. If you're an unrepentant sinner, then I agree, you have no right to throw stones. If you're a Christian, you can advocate for God's standard to be upheld and not be a hypocrit. Otherwise, we might as well have only laws that everyone can live by so we are not biggots, hypocrits, and in this case homophobes!
I also can't expect an unbeliever to live under the same Christian standard I choose to, and that's why I said that we as a people decide on the standard of morality as law at the ballot box. In this case, we (Ohio) and and many other states have affirmed the traditional definition of marriage with legislation.

Cherise, the issue of slavery and your misinterpretation of 1 Timothy 6 is a separate issue. You're setting up a straw man every time you say that the bible is used to justify biggotry. I have some gay friends and I'm not a biggot. They would love for the state to sanction their relationship. I do not agree with them. They also go to church and claim to be Christian. God loves everyone regardless of sin. it's the sin that God hates, not the person. That's why I don't hate gay people. You seem to suggest that believing the Bible in it's entirety means you have to hate others who sin or wish for the return of slavery. I don't agree.

History will look back on these times just as we look back in shock on those people holding up signs to deny integration, interracial marriage, and other civil rights. I am sure of it. Those people used many of the same arguments that people are using these days. It's sad really.

@Ethan As a Catholic it is my responsibility to spread God's word; however it is not my job to spread hate or to judge those people who don't want to listen to my message. Not everyone has the same religious beliefs as mine, but just because I believe in them strongly they should not be made into law to stop others from doing something I may or may not agree with. These are the choices each of us has to make as adults and we will be held accountable for those choices when we meet our creator. God bless.

Brian, please call my Evan. Ethan's a nice name, but not mine. I dont disagree with you about spreading hate or holding a non-Christian to the same standard I would a Christian. Where we part ways is the idea that my faith or Judeo-Christian values have no place in our legal framework. That's not historically been the case. Redefining marriage or protecting the definition doesnt fall into the category of spreading hate. Don't you agree?

Brian, you'd have to double check me, but I think we passed an ammendment in 2004 to uphold the definition of marriage. One my pet peves is everyone (right and left) saying states are passing bans on gay marriage. I don't believe a single state has passed a ban on gay marriage. They've only affirmed the traditional definition of marriage as that between 1 man and 1 woman.

Evan. I apologize about the name, not even sure where I got that.

Redifining marriage, while not hateful, is doing so to fit the needs of individual/Christian beliefs and values and does discriminate against others who don't have that same view. Reconstucting legislation or ammending state laws with wording that protects them against law suits is still discrimatory in my eyes.

If everyone believed gay relationships were a civil right, your view would be the reason to change the traditional definition from what it is now. At present, a majority dont see it that way. That's why it's been upheld by the voter in all states it's been brought to a vote. Will that change in the future? time will tell.

Maybe we should just fix them, right? You probably believe that you aren't born gay and that it is a choice they are making on their own.

Maybe stem cell research is the answer after all, but then those same conservatives would have to change their stance on that too. Okay, great conversation, but I need to move on. Great weekend everyone.

Cory Booker explains exactly why a majority population should not be deciding civil rights issues for minority populations. I could not explain it any clearer than this.
http://front.moveon.org/cory-booker-nails-marriage-equality-in-5-minutes/#.T609ASLr7aU.facebook

In regards to the Bible and slavery. Here are a couple great links. Some of you may not know your history. Slavery back then was significantly different than what it is now.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

If you want some good fact based reading Lee Strobel has some great ones. Case for Christ and Case for a Creator are very powerful. They are a great resource for people searching for the Truth and they equip believers to stand up to the standard talking points the unbelievers have been taught.

Born Gay? I like this article, it explains how it is becoming "trendy" to experiment. When you mess with fire you can get burned. People may be born with tendencies but this "free love" and "anything goes" society that the left is trying to push is causing many more confused, misdirected and non anchored kids to come down on the wrong side of the fence. Humans are easy to sway, especially when they are hurt and looking for love. It is just sad so many choose this harmful lifestyle.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/columns/mating/10521/

Siiiiigh...

Ok, I'll bite. Yes slavery was different, but so were views on homosexual behavior. Just because it was a different type of slavery doesn't mean it was this great way to live, or that we condone it now in any form. In that way we part from what the bible says about slavery and we decide to not partake in it in any form riiiiight? Please don't quote "Romans" to me anymore; even theologians have a hard time translating what is going on with Paul’s letters. Bible scriptures are notoriously miss-translated from the original texts and meanings. In fact if you see any bible with the word homosexual in it, be assured that it is not correctly translated as there was no such word in Hebrew. Some biblical texts concerning gays can be translated mean male prostitutes, men who take on a female role during sex (a no-no in those times since females were second class citizens at best), having any sex that is not for procreation, having sex with child slaves. It pretty much depends on who’s doing the translating and what they know of the historical context and language of ancient Hebrew. The entire point I have ever tried to make here, and I’ll say it again, is that the religious views of any group of people have no place in deciding the civil rights of another group. You can quote scripture all day long and make whatever case you want about religion, the fact is that we live in America and the civil needs of the few should not be dictated by the personal views of the many.

Cherise,
Did you read either of the links? The Bible clearly does not condone slavery.
Civil rights of a group? Who gets to define what groups should have equal rights? There are a lot of deviant groups out there, if they reach a certain percentage of the population should they have equal rights? Who defines moral standards? Where is the line drawn? How many people have to support NAMBLA before it has "equal rights" The facts are that some things are right and others wrong, most of those lines have been determined through morals established by religion. The fact that we even publicly have a group like NAMBLA shows how our morals have been eroding over the last 50 years. Here is a fun one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia the men and woman just want freedom to love and have a mutually beneficial relationship, where is the harm?
Moral standards need to exist for the benefit of society as a whole. I was talking with someone earlier today and mentioned that procreation is vital for survival and he disagreed saying that is why we have immigration?!?@? Free love folks seem to just be short term pleasure seekers and they don't care about the long term damage their acts could cause.

Bottom line for me is, do whatever you want in the bedroom but don't try to convince people it is normal. Just because it is growing in popularity and dems have joined in because they have nothing else to offer, doesn't mean it is right and should be taught as normal behavior. Whether you believe we evolved or were created, our parts line up for male & female not male and male or female and female, just because their are abnormalities in other species doesn't mean it is more than just that, an abnormality.
In regards to the Bible and other sins, I agree too many people, including myself at times, try to "look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Just keep in mind it doesn't mean their isn't a speck in their eye...

I, too, am exhausted by the dialogue but enjoyed all of it. More of this is needed in all our communities. Too often people just leave a sound bite, or "I agree" or "I disagree." This was a true discussion.
Bottom line for me, Ryan, is I support my religious beliefs with the Bible and public policies in my community with the Constitution and discussion. I find morality in both but don't want to dilute my religious beliefs to fit the community or have the community legislate on a religious basis. As a citizen in a democratic republic I have both a public and private life. The latter is nobody's business unless it directly affects them. The former is a joint enterprise with fellow citizens and requires exactly the discussion we have been having. Sadly, such discussions seldom occur even when voting on issues.
As Brian noted thanks all for a most enjoyable citizen experience. This is the essence of a republican (small "r" not the large "R" of the party) life.

Ryan, it's people like you who really take this issue and use it as a way to spread your personal beliefs. Nice way to compare cinsenting adult gay people to pedofiles, but your argument holds no merit. SInce marriage is a contract you have to be of an age to legally consent to marriage and clearly 12 year old boys are not of age, sooooo. To marry a dog you would have to grant a dog legal standing and rights as a human being capable of making decisions and signing paperwork...sooo. So stop being ignorant and realize that 2 adult, human gay people have just as much right to the civil liberties afforded through marriage as any other 2 humans. Whether you think gays are normal or not is not the issue, smarter people have already decided that by taking homosexuality off of the list of mental illnesses in the DSM. This is not and should not be a religious issue, unfortunatly this country has way to many people who cannot seperate their personal idology from what is fair for all americans.

*sorry about all those typos..it's still early.

Cherise,

I don't think you are paying attention to the homosexual movement. The age of consent is being lowered as much as it can in small increments.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/sep/10090110

Calls for Lowering of Age of Consent to 14 - it is currently only 16 there.

This movement is sick and more people need to stand up and say it is wrong.

Have a great weekend everyone.

Okaaaaay, I'm sure that website that could be editied by anyone regardless of credentials or credible evidence has all of the answers. I'm also so sure it's gay people wanting to lower the age of consent and not pedofiles. I'm sure if you read anything other than that horrible propganda you might understand that there is a difference. There was another group of people who used hate mongering, fear and false propganda to sway foolish sheep into following their cause. It was the Nazi's. And on that note, I bid you farewell this conversation is too one-sided for me. I like talking with people who actualy have a clue about the world Ryan. Good luck in life!

Cherise,

I have to post again after reading " I'm sure that website that could be editied by anyone regardless of credentials or credible evidence has all of the answers". Your head is in the sand. People that are yelling fire are being told the smoke is not really there...

Here is Peter's site, the one fighting for it to be lowered from 16 to 14. He claims he doesn't want kids having sex this young but just doesn't want it to be illegal.

http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/an-age-of-consent-of-14.htm

What does any of this nonsense have to do with two consenting adult Americans?
I will put this two you as elementary as possible so that you understand. If you have two 21 year old gay adults and two 21 year old straight adults they are not given equal civil liberties. This has nothing to do with any of the crap you keep posting. This is a civil liberties issue. Marriage isn’t just a contract with god, there are certain legal benefits to marriage that all Americans regardless of sexual orientation deserve. All of your ridiculous rhetoric about the age of consent and zoophiles has nothing to do with that fact. There are already laws in place that protect animals and children in this country from signing legally binding contracts, such as marriage. Please discontinue the rest of your foolishness, it’s not even noon and you have given me the same type of headache I get when I try to explain to my 5 year old why it’s not okay to run into traffic. Please just stop. If you want to live in a country that does not separate church and state (and people like you make a valid point why there are so many reasons to do that). Then please feel free to move to Iraq or something. Just stop trying to pretend that you have any answers that make sense because “the internet says so”. Please!

Ryan likes to gay bash. Search him on google, he has a reputation for being a gay basher. Just as he would not provide business services to a gay or lesbian person, I will not use his business, in fact, I will let others know to do the same. Word of mouth is more powerful than your negativity and ignorance. Now I am going to have sweet dreams thinking how nice it will be not to converse with people who spread hate and try to tell me they're good Christians.

People who are the biggest and loudest gay bashers are generally closet homosexuals themselves.

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

Let's not get personal, folks. We just don't allow it.