Congressman Davy Crockett refused to vote for a modest stipend for a widow of an accomplished navy office. Why should congressmen 180 years later give a lavish pension to the homosexual lover of a disgraced and deceased colleague?

There is a libertarian position on gay "marriage." It's just not the position taken by many libertarians. News articles lamenting the inability of Gerry Studds's "widower" to collect more than $60,000 annually in a federal pension demonstrates why people who loathe government interference should oppose so-called gay marriage. Unlike sodomy laws, which prohibit voluntary conduct that at worst poses direct harm only to those consenting to it, bans on gay marriage represent a constriction of big government. They prevent a small minority of people from coercing the objecting majority to recognize and subsidize unions they reject.

Had the disgraced Congressman and Dean Hara sought out any Unitarian minister to bless their union and then call it a marriage, society might have a semantic quarrel with the couple, but no quarrel so pressing as to prevent Mr. and Mr. Studds from calling their own arrangement a marriage. But that's not what Studds and Hara sought when they entered into a Massachusetts Marriage in 2004. Their aim was more ambitious, and intrusive. They not only wanted to compel society to recognize their union as a marriage, which not even the people of their home state have voluntarily done, but they also wanted society to fork over the financial benefits heretofore reserved to those who join in the union capable of regenerating and advancing a healthy society.

Gerry Studds never understood why his colleagues publically condemned his plying a seventeen-year-old underling with drinks and bedding him. From the grave, he probably doesn't understand why society doesn't see fit to pay off the man he shacked up with in his last years. Perhaps Studds is turning over in his grave at the denial of benefits to Mr. Hara, as he literally turned his back to his Congressional colleagues who censured him. But America has beat him to the draw. Every state where the issue of gay marriage has come before the voters has rejected gay marriage. This includes such places as Michigan, and Oregon, and California--not exactly homophobe central.

Although the right of the people of Massachusetts to decide on gay marriage has been usurped, the right of the people of the United States has been exercised. The Defense of Marriage Act, passing both Houses of Congress with 5-1 majorities and signed into law by that noted moralizer Bill Clinton, clearly absolves the federal government, and the states therein, from recognizing homosexual unions.

Why is Gerry Studds, from the grave, still trying to push his morality on the rest of us?

This is real simple: a man can not marry a man so the spousal "husband" / "wife" (????) relationship does not exist. So, Studds' pension has nobody to pass it on to. The taxpayers are not responsible to support somebody's carnal pal.

Why do members of Congress get pensions at all? I like the Davy Crockett reference for that reason.

Marriage is legal in MA. Studds and Hara simply exercised their rights as Massachusetts citizens to marry. I don't see anything fiendish about it on their part. The path to which gay marriage became legal was pretty crummy, but the MA SJC spoke and there it is.

I can easily see Hara taking this to court and winning the pension.

Yeah, it's f'ed up but yes it is. But isn't the claim of Studds' pickle pal under Federal law? Don't believe it will be overriden.

Riddle me this Bat Man: why do people spend millions to get a job paying thousands?

Yes, it is federal law. It seems possible and even probable to me that a court would find that the DOMA is unconstitutional.

First – I agree with the absurdity of Hara's media spotlight, and pray to God he does not take this court in order to bash DOMA.

On another topic...

"Had the disgraced Congressman and Dean Hara sought out any Unitarian minister to bless their union"

Reading this, I can't help but recall the gay wedding I went to in 2001 in a conservative, redneck, and small town in Idaho. There was the couple, a church, a priest, family and friends, and a wedding bell. Afterwards, there was a reception and a honeymoon. There are two children in this family.

There is no such thing as a "ban on gay marriage", "anti-gay marriage amendment", or "protect children from gay parents". Gay marriage happens all the time, and will continue to happen for all time. The only way I can see the banning of gay marriage and gay parents is to exterminate homosexuals.

Rather, these amendments and laws instead say that these unions and their children do not have certain legal privileges. I wish we used this more accurate language in our rhetoric and on our ballots.

I'm a staunch, and stubborn, conservative with three posters of Reagan in my house. But I do not deny the reality of committed gay unions and families. Denying reality is a Liberal pastime. Decent, moral, gay families exist. They increase in their frequency decade to decade. They are not visible in mainstream politics or entertainment. How is a political descendent of Lincoln supposed to respond?

I would really love to see the GM issue put to a vote. The consequences of decisions made by a few rogue judges are bound to continue to affect and put a strain on business and government services alike. Unfortunately, the courts and liberal politicians have been fairly successful in turning Mass. into a model of socialism and diversity at the highest order of political correctness.

That's a real sweet story Anthony. Bruce and Bruce with two non-biological kids, a dog and a little cape with a white picket fence. But, it can ever only be a legal agreement where allowed. Not a marriage which is specifically defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Definitions can change.

Make-believe: "Bruce and Bruce with two non-biological kids, a dog and a little cape with a white picket fence."

Real: Alex and Jared, 1 biological child 1 adopted child, a dog, and a boring, standard fence in the backyard.

I'm more impressed when arguments are based on real units of study, rather than make-believe.

Have there been recent developments in human reproduction that I'm not aware of? Two men can have a biological child? Amazin.

Yeah OB, guess it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

"Definitions can change."

Then the word "marriage" used of partnerships between men and women and also of partnerships between men and men is completely equivocal. You might as well argue that the surface of a tree and the noise a dog makes are related because both are definitions of the word "bark."

"They are not visible in mainstream politics or entertainment."

Well, I happen to think that the presentation of gays and of gay familial arrangements receives rather broad, and friendly, treatment by mainstream entertainment. I don't see any room for gay people to complain here.

Now, how about the presentation of responsible black men and women, and of stable committed monogamous black couples? How about Christians and Christian families? How about people who reject the culture of contraception? How about those homosexuals who chose to live chastely? Those are all groups who get gross under-representation (or unfriendly representation) by mainstream entertainment and politics. Happy, responsible gay relationships, on the other hand, get much more play than these groups do, and I don't think are any more common.

Do I think the traditional definition of 'marriage' is a union between one man and one woman? Yes. Do I think its in society's best interest to promote this definition? Yes.

Once again, no artifact of the American government can control society’s definition of 'marriage'. There can be no "Department of Definition Management". Why you want to give our government this power is beyond me. Would you like an amendment to the Constitution to enforce a traditional definition of Christianity?

In this case, the only thing our government can do is grant privileges and take privileges away. And this is what I wish our debate was about, because 'gay marriage' (in its most literal meaning) is out of the American government's control, unless it exterminates gay citizens. When talking government, let's talk privileges. The morality of the relationship can be discussed where the morality of other people's relationships are often discussed - the Inquirer and E!.

To be clear, my argument is:

1. That marriage should be maintained in law, not constitutions, as an institution between man and woman. I’ll support this until the day I die.
   
2. The debate is whether or not to grant privileges to gay families, not whether to ban gay marriage. The latter would require an extermination, not a referendum.
   
3. Banning citizens and their children from some of these privileges is cruel, unjust, and unnecessary (such as hospital visitation, medical decisions, insurance, etc). Call it civil unions, call it domestic partners, or call it deregulation of privileges.

Nice post, Dan. Finally someone hits on the real issue: It's all about the money.

And let me tell ya'll somethin'. You think you've got a bad job? Try being the guy that has to act as the "witness" when two guys have to prove they're really fun-boys (as opposed to scamming the system for benefits). Damn thing's gonna be like an episode of Three's Company. Only Mr. Ferley's gonna get an eyeful, lemme tell ya...

I've posted this before, but it's brilliant enough (the dialogue, that is) to repeat.

From Monty Pythons The Life of Brian, here is an apt scene.

REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man --
STAN: Or woman.
REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.
STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: I want to be one.
REG: What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me "Loretta."
REG: What?!
"LORETTA": It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
"LORETTA": I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
"LORETTA": It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
"LORETTA": Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
"LORETTA": [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Two men can no more be "married" than Stan can have babies.

I understand how Reg feels. When he makes his argument, he gets sniffles and nonsense in response. When I make my argument, I get make-believe stories and Monty Python in response.

It is not biologically impossible for a Priest to say, "You're now married", to same-sex couples; easy counter to Ralph the Funny Man. (Gotta say I love Monty Python tho :)

You may not agree with that Priest's conclusions, and I want you to have that right. In fact, I don't want the government to agree with the Priest either.

But... I also don't think you should be able to tell this committed, monogamous couple that they have no visitation rights. I don't think demanding prohibitions on their private insurance, especially when children are involved, is the Constitution's role. Call it civil unions, call it domestic partners, or call it deregulation of privileges, whatever.

How is a lifelong partner visiting their lifelong partner in a hospital a threat to heterosexual marriage? Tell me what I am missing, please, because I just do not get it.

Anthony, with every post, you get further and further out there....."It is not biologically impossible for a Priest to say,..." What does biology have to do with a "priest" (must be an Episcopal one) marrying anybody? Nothing. Nothing at all. The "priest" could be a one legged blind hermaphrodite and still bless a union that doesn't conform to what marraige is. No?

Still trying to figure out how Alex and Jared had a biological child together. Think Reg might be on to something there.

Your interestingly worded sentences aside, I think you meant to say that, while it is biologically impossible for a man to have babies, it is not biologically impossible for two men to be "married." I disagree.

Marriage is (the meaning of the word "marriage" is) a particular sort of relation between a man and a woman. For that same relation to exist between a man and a man, one of those men would have to be a woman. That's biologically impossible, is it not?

What's more, the telos of marriage is procreation. Procreation, then, is essential to marriage. And try as he might, "Loretta" cannot bear children.

So, whatever relation (if any) a priest creates between two men by uttering "You're now married," it isn't marriage.

I have to say, I'm tired of all this discrimination. I used to work in construction, and I had to quit that job, because of certain reasons.

I used to wear little shorts on the job and the guys they would fire little pipes and bricks and bottles of beer at me and whatnot.

And I don't go that way.

You know what I'm saying?

asdf: "What does biology have to do with a "priest" marrying anybody?"

My comments were in response to the Monty Python joke, regarding a man being biologically incapable of carrying a child. My comments were to show that this is a weak comparison to marriage - biology has nothing to do with a priest officiating a marriage; just as you said. And to clarify: Elijah (child in question) is Jared's biological son.

Ralph: Every dictionary on earth may define 'marriage' as between a man and a woman, and I'd personally agree.

Nevertheless, you have real lifelong couples, real children, and real priests participating in an institution in which they define as 'marriage'. You cannot ban this behavior. So tell them they are jokes, unreal, and phony, and pass laws to back you up. I don't disagree with this, yet your responses seem like your are defending this from me - I agree with ya, move on.

Tell me why you will also prohibit hospital visitation or restrict insurance policies for these lifelong couples and their children? That's the part I don't understand.

The biggest decision human beings make is who they share their intimate lives with.

When government intereferes in with that decision, that is Big Govenment Bullying of the worst order.

"The biggest decision human beings make is who they share their intimate lives with." -Hehe...

This certainly shows a culture gap. How about...

"The biggest decision human beings make is if and how to worship God."

And for people from whom the latter seems correct, the former seems, well, obscene.

"Nevertheless, you have real lifelong couples, real children, and real priests participating in an institution in which they define as 'marriage.'"

Suppose they define themselves as "condors." Are they entitled to protection under the Endangered Species Act? Of course not.

"You cannot ban this behavior."

If I am in agreement with a majority of my fellow citizens, of course I can. Every society in human history has regulated sexual mores.

Fong hit it: ultimately, it's about the green. And that's really the point. Certainly, two men who think they can marry and do can't be stopped from having a ceremony (unless you're in Iraq, Iran....). But, legally they mostly do not have the advantages that real marriage offers. Thankfully the Fed does not legally recognize this nor should it.

Not saying that Studds and Hara didn't "love" eachother (yuk) but at some point it had to be considered that Hara would be taken care of financially if Studds went to that big Ramrod Room in the sky.

As there is no way for two men to procreate and procreation is one of the main qualifications to define a union as a marriage, the ability has to exist for a couple to have children. If they can't, the prerequisites for collecting the death benefit are not met.

Jack Torse, you're killing me. Haven't heard from the Jerkys in a while.

Heres an idea: Remove the needless and useless expansion of government beauracracy into the realm of marriage alltogether.

Then there won't be an issue at all.

"Then there won't be an issue at all."

There would certainly be less of an issue, but would there be no issue at all? I'm thinking of the following sorts of examples: A man has children from a marriage with a woman, gets a divorce from her, and then "marries" (in a State that recognizes homosexual "marriage") his homosexual partner. Tragically, the man dies but he does not leave a will for his estate. Finally, the State that the man resided in at the time of his death does not recognize "marriages" (or even "unions") between homosexuals.

I do not consider probate court a "needless and useless expansion of government."

Anthony: "You cannot ban this behavior."
Ralph: "If I am in agreement with a majority of my fellow citizens, of course I can. Every society in human history has regulated sexual mores."

Wow. You would live in an America where police enter churches and arrest the participates in a ceremony? Or is there another effective way to ban Priests from saying, "You are married"?

Both Ralph and adsf, I am not arguing the definition of marriage. On the definition, we agree. Please move past this. Tell me why you will also prohibit hospital visitation or restrict insurance policies for these lifelong couples and their children? That's the part I don't understand.

"You would live in an America where police enter churches and arrest the participates in a ceremony?"

This conflates two separate issues, viz., the law and its enforcement. That said, I don't think I'd have a problem with that manner of enforcement. Similarly, if the participants were using illegal narcotics during the ceremony, I wouldn't have a problem with police entering the church to enforce the law.

"Tell me why you will also prohibit hospital visitation or restrict insurance policies for these lifelong couples and their children?"

Homosexuals are barred from visiting people in hospitals? They're also prohibited from buying insurance? I'm incredulous. I think you mean to ask "Why don't homosexual consorts have the rights of spouses?" Well, "Why don't people have the rights of condors?" I'd guess because they're not condors.

I have noticed over the years that whenever Flynn posts on the homo marriage issue he gets interesting commenters who never post otherwise. Are you being kept tabs on by the Log Cabin crowd?

I find it odd that Anthony thinks the reality of homosexual male life in this country is genteel and bourgeois, rather than tormented and tragic. The suicide rate, drug addiction rate, domestic violence rate, etc., stemming from the cross of such a traumatized psyche as haunts the homosexual is much more the reality. Life is hard enough w/o having such a powerful psychological burden as the homosexual orientation weighing one down. I feel bad for them (all 2-3% of the population worth). How to help them should be the issue, not how to reward their destructive behavior through frauds like pretending they can have "marriages" to each other.

Ralph, great Condor reference, cracked me up and is a spot-on comparison.

I think what Anthony is getting at is that, contrary to the Mark Foleys, George Michaels, and Barney Franks, there are plenty of gay guys who don't prey on teens, pass out at the wheel every weekned, and allow male prostitutes to run brothels out of their home. Perhaps his, and other gays', advocacy of gay marriage is a way protesting that kind of activity. There are gays whose advocacy of gay marriage is a ruse (I say this based on one prominent advocate's previous promotion of three-way marriage). But there is an argument that the denial of marriage within the gay community fosters promiscuity. I'll let Anthony speak for himself, but there are many gays I've met along the way who don't fall into a cookie-cutter mentality, just as I suppose many gays have discovered conservatives who don't fall into an assembly-line version of what a conservative is supposed to be like.

Dan, I appreciate your rational and measured perspective.

Ralph: "Homosexuals are barred from visiting people in hospitals?"
Yes! Until domestic partnerships were recognized in some places, this was a frequent problem. A lifelong partner was not seen as 'family' by many hospitals before then. Unfortunately, many of the new Constitutional Amendments ban not only marriage, but domestic partnerships as well, and thus a likely ban on hospital visitation (it gets even more complicated when the hospital is in another state). How does this save heterosexual marriage?

Ralph: "They're also prohibited from buying insurance?"
My word was 'restrict', and there are restrictions. Of many, the one that seems most unjust to me is restricting a lifelong parent (clarify: known within the family as 'parent') from covering his/her lifelong nonbiological child. While this is possible in some areas as 'second parent' adoptions, this too will be negatively impacted and likely eliminated with the Constitutional ban of domestic partners and civil unions. How does this save heterosexual marriage?

Again, recall my premise that gay lifelong partners and parents exist and will continue to exist.

Ralph: "they're not condors"
Again, you return to the definition argument, aka 'it is because it is'. A lifelong partner must be banned from visitation by the State because that's just the way it is - is this an accurate summary of your case? Let me know. Or can you give me a clear relationship between A) a lifelong partner visiting a lifelong partner in a hospital and B) significant harm to the institution of heterosexual marriage. I'll remind you, once again, that I agree with your definition of marriage. I am talking about privileges.

And let me clarify your position one more time: You believe police should enter churches and arrest priests and members because of their verbal, religious communication amongst themselves, and absent of any physical abuse or illegal contraband. Did I hear your correctly? What do you think would be a suitable punishment?

Now, again I ask: how does a lifelong partner visiting a lifelong partner or lifelong child in a hospital cause the institution of heterosexual marriage significant harm? "Because Merriam-Webster said so"?

"There would certainly be less of an issue, but would there be no issue at all? I'm thinking of the following sorts of examples: A man has children from a marriage with a woman, gets a divorce from her, and then "marries" (in a State that recognizes homosexual "marriage") his homosexual partner. Tragically, the man dies but he does not leave a will for his estate. Finally, the State that the man resided in at the time of his death does not recognize "marriages" (or even "unions") between homosexuals." -Ralph

It wouldn't be an issue-if government did not recognize any marriage, one way or another. Or rather, if government took no stance on marriage, and accepted it simply as a private contractual agreement on which it had no right to be making pronouncments of recognition-or lack thereof, in the first place. It would remain an issue of defining a will inheritor, but I don't think it would be specifically a gay marriage issue.

In regards to Dan's post, I could see the argument about pensions, if one were to oppose pensions for widows/widowers of any kind, period. But if you mean that heterosexual widows/widowers should get pensions, but homosexual couples should not, I think that is difficult to justify as a libertarian position.

Wow.

So this is what happens when God enters politics.

First it was the slaves, now the gays.

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property."

(Exodus 21:20-21}

Some morality.

You Christian thugs were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."

Ephesians 6:5

So this book was so obviously wrong about slavery, what on Earth makes you haters think its right about gays?

Utterly rediculous.

The libertarians are right, and I hope they take over the Republican party and sends you immmoral Christians back to first century Judea where you belong.

"Heres an idea: Remove the needless and useless expansion of government beauracracy into the realm of marriage alltogether.

Then there won't be an issue at all."

Bravo. Individual churches can decide.

"But there is an argument that the denial of marriage within the gay community fosters promiscuity"

Since when does Dan Flynn get to decide what two men do behind closed doors and how often they do it?

Abousloutly rediculous.

hehe... What is "rediculous" is your hatred of Christians. And don't you think that after the Exodus quote it would have been more honest to say, "Jewish thugs"? Ah, some bigotry is acceptable, and some isn't, among the party of tolerance.

What are you talking about?

One of those quotes is Old Testement, the other is New.

Its not bigotry to point out that the Christian Bible has some terrible things in it and should not be the basis for our policy towards homosexuals.

"You Christian thugs were wrong then, and you're wrong now." -HeHe

The radical Christian movement was the anti-slavery movement in America. The Christian political movement was forming American abolitionist parties as early as 1775. You are ignorant of history.

No Ben-T I know that abolitionists were mostly Chrsitians.

So were slaveholders.

And the Slaveholders had the scripture on their side, and that's why it lasted so long.

And BTW the same wing of Christianity that saved the slaves (northern Protestents) is the same one that is letting gays marry and become clergy.

The wing of Christianity that spent centuries justifying Slavery, and then another century justifying segregation(Southern Babtist, etc.) is the same wing that is trying oppress gays.

You are ignorant of history.

They don't have scripture on their side. The New Testament section you quoted, is, in its context, part of a book which is telling all people to obey their superiors.

Either you're dishonest or ignorant enough that you didn't read the rest of the very short book of Ephesians. From you're past behavior, I'd say dishonest.

No I don't think its dishonest to say that slaveholders cited that passage as a justifcation for slavery.

Its pretty unambiguous even in that context that God implicitly condoned slavery. Why would he mention slaves without making mention of his desire to see them free?

And He condones it explicitly in the Old Testement.

Mosaic law doesn't apply in Christanity, so that is quite irrelevant.

The message of Ephesians is that one should suffer the sins and injustices of this world gladly, in the knowledge that one will be united with Christ after death.

Whether slave owners used it, quoted out of context, to justify slavery is irrelevant. It is not what the passage says.

Wrong Wrong Wrong.

Whatever the explicit message of the passage in the larger context, it is certainly implicit that God doesn't seem to mind the fact that slavery exists.

Even in context, that passage show's that the Christian god is pro-slavery.

He's wrong about that, and he's wrong about gays.

"He's wrong about that, and he's wrong about gays."

You're ability to be funny is limitless. I hope God is listening. No doubt he'll learn as much from you as we do.

"Even in context, that passage show's that the Christian god is pro-slavery." -HeHe

Please answer the question. Are you a liar or are you stupid?

Ben-T, HeHe's theology, or at least his interpretation of the Scriptures, is as accurate as Jimmy Carter's recollections of the effectiveness of his North Korean diplomacy.

By HeHe's standards, God must have approved of the Spanish Inquisition because Torquemada persecuted and tortured "heretics" in His name. He references Eph 6:5 without any recognition to verse 9 and its admonition to masters to treat their servants in the same manner. He totally ignores (or is ignorant of) the subject and purpose of Paul's letter to Philemon, the return of Philemon's runaway slave Onesimus and the impact of slavery on an early Christian church whose membership was composed of both slaves and slave owners.

HeHe simply doesn't understand, nor can he, that the Bible's basic message is freedom in Christ, as evidenced by two other verses which mention slavery he failed to quote, Gal 3:28,29: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

That's what you come up with?

"Freedom in Christ"

What BS.

The Bible condones slavery, get over it.

"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever."

Exodus 21:2-6

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."

Exodus 21:7-11

"The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."

Luke 12:47-48

That last one has Jesus santioning the beating of slaves.

Freedom in Christ indeed.

What a violent, petty, simplistic religion.

Not much better than Islam, although I have to admit the Koran is worse when it comes to these passages.

And yes actually the Spanish Inquisition was entirely defensible through the sriptures:

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."

2 Chronicles 15:12-13

"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."

Deuteronomy 13:13-19

Freedom in Christ Indeed!

You can try to explain away these passages with pseduo-intellectual gobbly-goop if you want, but thier CLEAR, true meaning is right there in the text.

The Bible is a silly guide to morality, it has zero credibility with any thinking person not mesmorized by thier parents' "faith".

Worship the Lord if you like, but don't take moral intsructions from this book and force them down ther people's throats.

Oh and Ben-T, I'm not a liar.

You can look these passages up if you want.

You don't have to just take preaher's word for for it, read it yourself.

"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again."

Deuteronomy 13:6-11

Yes. This kind of "morailty" is what led to the Spanish Inqusition.

Spin that Mr. Pious.

John 15:6

If you can't figure out how something like THAT lit the fires of the Inquistion, you need mental help.

Hehe-- it still seems that your hatred of Christians is based mostly on the Jewish part of our scripture. Interesting you don't use this to attack Jews...

Also, only fundamentalist sola scriptura types will have trouble with your passages, and that is a vast minority of Christians.

I don't think I'm attacking anyone here, but yes the Jewish scriptures are just as bad.

The difference is that its not the Jews who are trying to push their agenda onto society- its the Christian Reich.

for the record, there are some wonderful things in the New Testament and Jesus- the man- certainly taught many worthwhile lessons.

But my point here is that the Bible is not a perfect book, is not the summit or source of all morality. Indeed it contains many immoral and inhuman precepts.

As a consequence it has no place in the debate about homosexuality, and its believers need to get down off thier horse and wake up to the suffering thier ignorant hatred of gays is causing.

I can't speak for any body else, but personally, my ignorant hatred of gays (read: my judgment that homosexual acts are sins against man and nature, and cause harm to self and society) is not "based on" the bible. In fact, tho you have attacked the bible and Christians here, I do not recall either Mr Flynn or any of the other posters quoting the bible to condemn homosexual acts. (I don't even recall any of the other posters really condemninig homosexual acts. Wasn't this a discussion of homosexual "marriage" laws?)

Was this a preemptive strike, or was it just presumptive stereotyping on your part. I think you have an image in your head of the father/preacher from Footloose, and you see everyone who disagrees with you in that image.

Thank you, skeptic, for putting the discussion back on track.

Ralph, I believe the ball was in your court before Hehe distracted us. Please continue.

Oh really?

Would you care then to state the rational, scientific case against gays?

And Democrats signed off on DOMA because it was an election year, not because it was the right thing to do.

We can all thank our respective Lords that Barney Frank will be a comitee chairman in a few months time.

This is a debate about Religion.

Religious superstition fuels this anti-gay crusade, just as it lit the fires of the inqusition, and piloted the attacks of September 11.

It's time to end this Religious Reich.

Cowards.

Defend your faith if you dare.

(Not that such an odious moral ode is worth defending)

Ralph: "condors", "hamsters, and "bicycles"

Just to clarify: We are talking about humans here; the sovereignty of man.

Using animals to justify a position could be applied to many debates.

It's actually kinda humorous to use animals rather than reality, a la Gary Larson. I wonder how a pro-animal-debater would counter Jefferson by supporting a monarchy: "It's ridiculous, you could just say all hamsters are created equal." Or, "Governments are not instituted among Condors, to derive just powers from the consent of the governed. That is the domain of our King!"

Now, again I ask: how does a lifelong partner visiting a lifelong partner or lifelong child in a hospital cause the institution of heterosexual marriage significant harm? "Because Merriam-Webster said so"?

And... interesting discussion, BenT, Obi, and RC. I often wonder about the relationship between a 97% majority deciding privileges for a 3% minority, and the role of courts and constitutions. Although I wish the legislative process was used in all cases (particularly in the gay privileges arena such as in the NJ case), I struggle with the tyranny of the majority as well. It's a gray area for me and I have a lot to learn.

Anthony the answer is religion.

These people believe that they won't go to heaven if they don't follow the teachings of some book written 2000 years ago.

Unluckly for gays, whoever wrote that book put a few anti-gay comments in there.

Thus their hatred.

Its unbelievable.

Anyone who believes in Science, rather than the ancient scrawls of Judea can treat gay people fairly:

http://economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8074843