cowards

As a Married Father in this state i cannot believe that this legislation has no respect for traditional values that i teach my child everyday. Shame on those who voted against this and we the voters should hold them accountable next election!!

I actually believe that the representatives that voted against this bill were brave, as they are susceptible to the anger of the ignoramuses in this state. Remember, we are talking about GOVERNMENT marriages. God is not marrying straights or gays in a civil marriage, it is a government official. If the GOVERNMENT is doing the marrying, they cannot discriminate among their citizens. TRADITIONAL marriages are safe and sacred in the churches where they are performed.

@for the people you can call me names all you want, but im respecting the values and principals that my father and mother tought me and there parents tought them and i will continue to teach my child what is right verses what is wrong with respect to traditional marriage so he wil not be disrupted by this radical society!!

Like I said, breeding ignorance. Plain & simple. What are you going to do if your child comes to you and tells you he or she is gay? Teach to embrace differences in people, not hate.

@ lisa If i do my job as a responsible parent and teach my child right from wrong and not allow him to be disrupted from this radical society then i wont have to worry about that will i!!

I am suprised that it took 4 posts before someone got called a bigot.
I am not suprised at all by the House vote. Guess a binding referendum would be out of the question..........
Bob

As a Human being, as a parent, as a Republican I'm very happy that this bill went down in flames and I'm also proud of those GOPers that voted against this bill

Ms Garcia votes against the people once again. Tomorrow she will vote against gaming. Ms Garcia please start representing the citizen that elected you.

@Patrick you talk out both sides of your mouth. In the town election you supported a man that could most likely sell beer to someones minor son. Yet you say same sex marrage is not ok. Which side of right and wrong are you on.

NATURAL LAW

Patrick = Ignorance.

@Peter I find Patrick a shallow man.

Here is the Roll Call of how representatives voted on HB437. A "Yay" vote is Ought to Pass, in favor of the bill.
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/Roll_calls/billstatus_rcdetails.aspx?vs=188&sy=2012&lb=H&eb=HB0437&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2012&txtbillnumber=hb437&ddlsponsors=&q=1&lsr=14

Where are we going?
How ironic that citizens of a country where diversity has been so embraced could not envision more diversification. You have to love America. Where else can a person who never had a job make laws for working people? Where else but in America can a person enjoy the status of "Minority" but vote against minorities? Is this not a great country?

Bill O'Brien voted in favor of repealing gay marriage. Vote him out!

DJ Bettencourt didn't even vote. Can't stand up for other people's rights, can you? That makes you a bigot just like your supervisor O'Brien. I'm a little surprised you didn't vote the way he did. I always took you for his clone.

All about jobs, is it? Shame on you both.

@Patrick a wise person noted that our elected officials put their hand on the bible and swear to uphold the constitution. They don't put their hand on the constitution and swear to uphold the bible. You have the right to your personal view of marriage. You don't have the right to impose that view on everyone who disagrees with you.

I think we will have to wait til the next candidates night to ask some of these questions. Patrick will just scream this is a personal attack on his family, etc,,,and stomp his feet.

Would all of you mind keeping your posts on the topic? This article appears on all the NH Patch sites so many towns are engaged in this thread, not just Salem. Thanks in advance for understanding.

You're in serious need of a purpose if you have nothing better to do than to try to effect the lives of free Americans on an issue that doesn't effect your daily life either way. The "sanctity of marriage" can mean all it needs to mean between you and your spouse...and that should be enough. Gay strangers marrying a few towns over doesn't effect that one bit.

Please, pretty please, Salem folks, keep to the topic! My in-box is overflowing with comments that have nothing to do with the article. We all get it now about Patrick and how you feel about him.

Regardless of what you say i love this community i volunteer on these boards i pay taxes and i am a hard working small business man with a communications degree in Television Production who once worked for ABC News. I am a stand up guy who would help anyone in there time of need so as you beat me up with your comments ask yourself if people said false things about you it would bother you as well so be nice!!

The Boy Scouts of American do not except Homsexuality for a good reason ,

@Rosemarie uncheck the box under the comment box.
Patrick has a habit of incerting his foot in his mouth thats why this and other blogs get consumed with antipatrick comments from Salem.

Now back to subject here in Salem we will be voting out Ms Garcia, Mr Bettencourt and Mr. Elliott. The citizens of Salem And the GOP members in town opposed this bill. We tossed Garcia once and we wll do it again if she does not follow the wishes of the people. Same sex couples do not harm anyone end of storie.

We made national news for all the wrong reasons.

http://news.yahoo.com/nh-house-weighs-gay-marriage-repeal-vote-192554825.html;_ylt=Ap9zeCqrUyTORZol0NUFTaLyWed_;_ylu=X3oDMTUwN2Q2N3BoBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDQXJ0aWNsZSBOZXdzIEZvciBZb3UEcGtnAzEwMmIyMzA1LTE3NWMtMzNiNS1iNWYyLTUxOGJjYzFmYzZhOARwb3MDNgRzZWMDbmV3c19mb3JfeW91BHZlcgNkOWQ2NjNhYy03MzhiLTExZTEtYmUyZi01Yzk5M2NkMjMyYzU-;_ylg=X3oDMTM1dmxva3YxBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDY2JkYjgzZmItYWU5MS0zZmY3LTk3ZGYtNDJlZmFmNGVkYTQxBHBzdGNhdAN3b3JsZHxldXJvcGUEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3

"They don't like gay love because it's not what they do and it's not what their neighbors do and therefore it must be evil and wrong and bizarre, and, being Americans, if we don't understand something we either kill it or ban it or poison it or vote against it about 1,000 times until we exhaust every possible angle of idiocy. And then last thing we do, the very last thing of all, is to finally, reluctantly, nervously welcome it in. A change finally happens, a switch is thrown, a new generation sweeps in and wonders what the hell the big deal was in the first place, and we wake up to a world that says: Wow, I guess that wasn't so bad after all. We should've allowed that gay marriage thing a lot sooner." -- Mark Morford, SF Gate

Times are changing. The bigots are falling farther into history's dustbin every year.

Patrick, we need to get the government out of marriage entirely. Using the government to try to force society to match your own preferences is not appropriate.

Let people have whatever ceremony they want, and call it what they want. We don't need the government trying to license or impose control on people's relationship decisions. We no more need the government to define "marriage" than we need them to define "friendship", "dating", etc.

I am glad this bill did not pass -- but what I'd really prefer to see is a "civil unions for all" bill.

What is important is that the gay marriage will remain in place. Secondly we have an election this fall. Many towns will be in new districts. It is the perfect time to evaluate how well our reps responded to the real needs of NH not expending needless energy on something that affects only the parties involved. There is a good sign, if the repeal of gay marriage can be stopped by a huge bi-partisian effort imagine what other good things can happen with the right reps and house leadership

The state has no business handing out marriage licenses. By doing so, it has increased the scope of its power. Voters also have no business deciding who can and cannot get married. Marriage is both a secular and and religious matter, but it is not one for the state. The state has an interest in the protection of children and in the enforcement of contracts. We should let couples contract with one another and let them call that relationship what they will. Getting the state to approve of or deny such marriages is irrelevant and does not sanctify them in any way. The winners here have a hollow victory and a status that is not the state's to give or take away.

The Boy Scouts will not except Homosexuels in there Groop for a good reason .if you read the scouts oath MORALS jumps out at you ., We have kids to think of here Not a so called marrage Betwewn 2 men or 2 woman or a woman that thinks she is a man or a man that thinks it s a woman and so on and on ,I cant see a child in a tent with a Homosexuel under no conditions Or adopting a Female child with 2 homosexuels Men thinks of the child when you say marrage ,not about what 2 crazys will do and want acceptance Marrage is to give a child a name and a home and family members that are all related , Not a bunch loons

There's really no point in arguing with people who aren't going to change their beliefs. There will always be those people who teach their children to hate everything about homosexuality. Luckily, those people are getting fewer and far between, but they're always going to be there. This is a topic that enrages me like no other because my brother is gay and has been through a lot because of intolerant people, but I've really learned to save my breath. There are still people in this country that teach their children to hate black people, etc. The hate will never end. You just have to choose to ignore and not associate with these people and know that you're a better person than they are.

Oh...and some people should probably use spell check before posting their ridiculous comments.

Again folks, I need to remind everyone to refrain from making any personal attacks. We've had to take several comments down today that were of a very personal nature.

In your desire for "equality," you voted to burden single persons in terms of their taxation, insurance, and inheritance rights. Two singles who are friends cannot get a married persons tax break, nor can they share the same insurance policy. You all may wish to consider how your retained "freedom" enslaves others--if even at a price that you feel is negligible and must be born by those single people.

Just for chuckles sake: Adam and Eve were not married. Neither were all the folks doing all that begetting in Genesis. Look for the date of the first marriage. Marriage is about civil rights. PS most bigots and homophones are dependents of the same. In the words of Ron White, "You can't fix stupid!"

That is homophones!

Auto correct is killing me!

Ha! Homophones scare the heck out of me too! Morning and Mourning. What is up with that! Maybe our reps in Concord can take that up next and stop taking up this stuff that is already decided.

The Boy scouts must be Homphobes as well ,Because then dont permit Homosexuals in there groop ,As it should be .

Can you see a man dressed as a Woman or a Woman that thinks its a Man or any combination of this to a Drag Queen That will now say we are married, and will adopt childern ,Can you see placeing a child in that so called family? . Family is about childern ,and Blood Relations ,uncles and aunts and so on ,Not a man that thinks its a woman and will to be the childs mother, in some adoption scam ,This is all about the kids ,I would hate to see some kid say that my mother, dressed as a woman in Drag . I dont care what you want to be or call it marrage Just stay off the kids

ForThePeople

7:50 pm on Wednesday, March 21, 2012

...now put the mirror down.

Funny thing is I am not the one using a screen name to hide my identity

taxpayer

3:17 pm on Thursday, March 22, 2012

Sorry Mr. Gill you are wrong about the Boy Scouts not letting homosexuals in their group. They don't let homosexuals become scoutmasters. They don't question the sexuality of their members. But they are homophobes for not letting gay men become scoutmasters. Many, many children grow up with gay parents. I bet you couldn't tell which kids those are though. They are like any other child. If a child is raised in a warm, loving environment then they are more likely to succeed at being a well adjusted adult. The sexual orientation of the parents does not make a difference.

Sorry they are not homophobe but smart, they know the number one manner of converting another to homosexuality is recruitment and they do there best to make sure it doesn't happen. As an aside the word homophobe is a way of bullying those who know that homosexuality is a perversion. I can't speak for others but I know I won't be bullied.

tax payer your wrong .
.
The Boy scouts law,/ oath (,Morals ) Is the part of the pledge that the boys scouts pledge too ( Not scout masters) Read the Scout oath ,The catholic church does not permit homosexual weddings as well .homosexual life does not fit in a family married setting ,There are No blood relations ,and no creative life .

I cannot believe what has been written on both sides. I have no idea which side has made the best case.

So, Robert, you wrote "so let them get married if they want the tax breaks." I was not referring to people who are dating. Rather, I was talking about two uninvolved single taxpayers. Are you arguing that equality of opportunity is enough equality?

ForThePeople

5:29 pm on Thursday, March 22, 2012

It would interfere with the message, David. The only reason to get my personal information is to personally attack me with it, stalk me, or otherwise harass me in my private life. Besides, this name is better than my real one...Like I said..coward

Robert J. Recio

5:44 pm on Thursday, March 22, 2012

The Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ both permit gay weddings. I wasn't aware that our laws had to conform to the Pope's edicts. There is a reason why we separate church from state. Your church is free to define whomever they wish to deny the sacrament of marriage, but Catholics are not free to tell the rest of the world how to interpret the Bible or the universal call for God's grace. And, for the record, if family creation was that important to marriage, we'd have fertility tests instead of blood tests. It's a union of mutually committed people. That's about love and love is always a sacred thing...scripture is not open to interpretation, however very few have the ability to read it contextually ..no scratch that they do, they just don't want to,

Nice David!
Scientists describe virtually everything that is alive as animal or plant. So, if you're not a plant then you are an animal! In fact, you are a specific kind of animal called a mammal. Know what you all have in common? Your mothers have breast milk that can feed young; you have hair or fur; and you are born live instead of inside an egg or case! In fact, human mammals are born not only alive -- but kicking and screaming!

Rational people recognize differences in all living things. It would be irrational to think every human is the same. Just a thought, oops!

Marlinda Garcia, Bob Elliott will definitely get my vote at the next election. I have no intention of defending my convictions in support of traditional marriage cause honestly I don't have to. This is a free country last I checked, and these folks represent my interests. Call me every name you can think of because honestly that's how the game is played these days (i.e. when you disagree with someone you launch personal attacks, and call them names). Note, I've made no attacks on anyone with a differing opinion. Simply stating mine.

"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117920/Gay-marriage-human-right-European-ruling-torpedoes-Coalition-stance.html?ITO=1490"; European Court of Human Rights rejects gay marriage as a right. Are they bigots? Some people, including me, believe that there is no such thing as gay marriage. Gay marriage is like a square circle: it is a contradiction in terms.

That is one of the greatest things about our country. I have not called anyone a name. But let us be serious, if you make a remark like "Gay marriage is like a square circle:" you have just insulted everyone that understands or believes humans are different.

(i.e. when you disagree with someone you launch personal attacks, and call them names). You may not say you have dirt on your hands but if you have someone else do your dirty work step down from the soap box!

Funny how many in the GOP say they want the Government out of our lives--as long as it suits their opinion. Kudos to Republican Ruth Griffin.
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120320/GJOPINION_0102/703209974/-1/FOSOPINION

Note to our 3 Reps from Ward 1 Nashua:

Voting to remove rights already granted by the state has been adjudicated and found to be against the Constitution. This would be an expensive and losing fight.

Bringing up the same issues 2 years in a row is not good use of your time and our money - not to mention energy, good will - or good press.

People who do not approve of Equality are expressing a personal belief and not governing us well, as they are not there to pass laws that hurt their constituents.

And lastly, studies have been shown that people who express fear and loathing of homosexuals are more likely to be afraid that they might too have homosexual tendencies. Just sayin'

The comments on this story are getting out of hand. Please watch your language, and do not make derogatory or personal attacks against people because their opinion differs from yours.

Question for those pro gay marriage folks.. if trying to ban gay marriages are a violation of rights as you claim, tell me how do you feel about the law that was struck down concerning protecting those who refuse to perform such services.. are you concerned about THEIR rights? Or are you perfectly happy about their rights being trampled by some angry gay who sues them for not performing such services. See that is the thing, no matter how you look at it SOMEONES rights will be violated.

If the argument is that the state has an interest in promoting solid families for child rearing purposes, there are other ways of doing this. Do you all really want a stranger at some department in the state to write up a list of dos and do nots for you to determine if you are married? Will even a vote in your favor give you legitimacy? You are putting your neck in the noose by demanding that strangers sanctify your relationship. You are also asking strangers to decide your post marital property split. Why, if you want personal freedom, would you do this--unless you were bribed by tax, insurance, and inheritance benefits that are a "gift" from the state. You forget that, if your tax rate drops, someone else's must rise or we must borrow that money from China. If you truly want freedom, tell the state to get out of marriage and find a group or church that will give you the status you desire. Our families will not fall apart if we do not buy marriage licenses from the state, and we are all able to contract for our rights in what we would now call a divorce.

David has an interesting point. If I were a town clerk--and wanted to keep my job--I would sign the marriage certificate. I am not required to do so by law, but I would likely lose my job. If I were a pastor, I would not perform such a ceremony. I think it is true that a homosexual's right to marriage does not translate into a right to force me to sign a certificate or to preside at the wedding. Again, I suggest you all think about who and what is marrying you and who is giving you the piece of paper. Without financial benefits, why get the state involved? Without a religious aspect, why get married when one could form a romantic partnership on a legal basis with a contract? It seems to me as though we are all hoping to get money and status out of allowing the state to decide the rules of marriage and divorce.

For all of you who are happy with state sponsored marriage, consider this, would you rather enter into a contract that spelled out what you and your partner expected financially, or would you rather take your chances with a judge hearing two likely angry parties armed with lawyers and then having that judge make the decision? Why do you so willingly roll the dice? Even if the courts were evenhanded, why take the risk of being treated unfairly, when you can have an agreement in writing before or during marriage? Where is the freedom in taking the risk of the court decision?

I tried not to respond to these comments. I managed not to for a day and a half, but then I foolishly started reading some of the comments that have been flooding my inbox. Now I can't help myself. I will try as hard as possible to choose my words carefully so my post won't be deleted, but I can't make any promises. First of all, I hate to be the grammar/spelling police, but if you are going to concern yourself with how homosexuAls live their lives, please learn how to spell the word.....last 3 letters are A L S. Secondly, its not smart to post comments about things that you have not educated yourself about. What is all this nonsense about gay couples adopting children and then one of them dressing as a woman and embarassing their kids? Now that I'm looking through the posts, it seems this person's comments have been deleted, but I think most of you know who I'm talking to. I know several gay couples who have children. Some of the couples are 2 men and some are 2 women. The men are men and the women are women. Their children are straight. I also know several children whose parents are straight couples and from a very young age it was clear that they were gay. Did their parents turn them gay? No. Were they turned gay by someone they know? No. Were they "recruited"? No. When a 5 year old boy would rather play with an Easy Bake Oven than a fire truck, let him do it. Let children be who they are and teach them to love themselves. Cont......

See, this is the essence of good parenting. Love your children. Encourage them to be who they are and to love themselves no matter what. Tell them that they're beautiful and perfect just the way they are. People are concerned with children being hurt by having gay parents, but let me ask you this. Imagine there is a gay child reading these comments right now. Imagine what you're doing to that child who already feels different and is scared to tell anyone. Who is really hurting the children that you're so concerned about? I already stated in an earlier post that my brother is gay. I love both of my brothers more than life itself. He tried to commit suicide 19 years ago. He didn't try to commit suicide because he chose to be gay and then hated himself for it. He tried to commit suicide because he was born gay and was taught by the church that it was wrong and he should be ashamed and he's going to Hell. He tried to commit suicide because he didn't know what to do. Because he felt like he couldn't tell anyone who he truly is. He felt like he had nowhere to turn. Its because of people like some of you. Luckily, he's ok now and more accepting of who he is, but still not fully there. Don't even try to tell me that being gay is a choice. Don't even think about it. I am disgusted by some of the comments on here. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. Try looking at yourselves and your faults before judging everyone else.

Karen: I am sorry for your brother's experience. We should try as often as possible to have a level of disourse in this country that demonstrates greater tolerance of the rights of others to disagree. I believe that homosexuality is stated to be sinful in the Bible. Therefore, I would not marry homosexuals. I would not have voted either way on this bill as I do not think the state should be involved in codifying marriage. Therefore, I have stated my belief, and I hope I have done so in a respectful manner. I do not feel any guilt in how I have behaved towards the homosexual community by what I have stated nor how I have stated it. I realize that you would like a world in which everyone encouraged and supported homosexuals. I think that you may have to settle for some tolerating their behavior and some hating it. I hope that those who merely feel extreme dislike without any religious basis will learn to be less violent in their attitudes. I understand that you feel that the church has hurt your brother. Although I do not know the circumstances, I believe that a Biblical church would tell your brother that his behavior is sinful, but that he, like all the other sinners in the church, was very welcome to hear God's plan for the salvation of these sinners.

I would also add that I would like those who feel they have a religious basis to make their case, but to tone down the anger.

Thank you Dennis. Yes, my church taught to "hate the sin, not the sinner". But here is where the problem lies, by telling someone they're sinning by being who they are, you're teaching them that unless they change who they are, God will never forgive their "sins". Here is where the problem lies: They can't change who they are, nor should they have to. Its the same thing as the church saying "being a woman is a sin and unless you repent and pray and ask God to change you, there's no hope for you. We don't hate you, we hate the sin". I know that there will always be people who people who have negative feelings towards homosexuals. I just hope that some day, they will be the minority. If you don't want to marry homosexuals, that's completely fine. That's your choice. They can find someone else who will. You're entitled to your beliefs.

I appreciate the point you have made. If humans are born homosexual, then, as a Christian, I have a few ways to explain this. One would be to assume that this is part of the corruption of nature caused by the Fall. What one would do if one is born this way would be to refrain from practicing this behavior. I cannot imagine how hard that choice would be. Alternately, I could decide that the Bible is either mostly wrong or that it is seriously corrupted. While I am willing to entertain this idea intellectually, this leads me to arguments such as ones like "The Old Testament has mistakes, but Jesus was real.' Again, I would want to hear from unbaised sources as to whether the Bible was wrong in this way, and hopefully, how it came to be wrong. Lastly, I can decide that your brother had tendencies towards homosexuality but these tendencies could have been battled by your brother. Again, I am not in his shoes. As our understanding of why some humans are homosexual and some are not grows, I hope to better understand this question. Such questions are worthy of study by all. I wish your brother well and, for his sake, hope that I am wrong about the Bible and homosexuality. I have no beef against people behaving thusly if such is permissible to God. I hope that it is.

I respect your beliefs and your open-mindedness. I, personally, have come to believe that the Bible is a book written by people a long time ago and nothing more. Do I believe that a man named Jesus of Nazareth lived? Yes. Do I believe he was the son of God? No. I believe he was a good person, but I no longer believe in God. In my opinion, if you can't believe ALL of it, then you can't believe ANY of it.

Try looking at the New City Gay march ..The pilgrimage of the insane .

My problem with your logic is that Jesus did miracles and claimed to be God. If he was not, he had to have been insane. A deluded man who was not what he claimed to be would not be worthy of worship. He would thus be merely a man. If part of the Bible is shown to me to be plainly false, I would then have to deal with a corrupt Bible. Based on the evidence of the resurrection, I would still believe in Jesus, but I would be less sure about each event. I would be like a Muslim who wants to incorporate the power of Jesus by calling him one of the prophets of Allah, but who rejects his central claim to Godhood. Again, Jesus is an insane man to claim to be God if he is not. Thus, at the very most, he becomes a man who was both wise and mentally ill. With miracles, such a man is worthy of historical attention. If the miracles were misreported, we have nothing worthwhile in the New Testament.

@James Gill, no one wants to hear what you have to say. That's why your posts keep getting deleted. @Dennis I don't know where the truth of it all lies. No one does. I guess we'll find out some day :-)

FTP; As you swing the word "bigot" around, are you accusing me of such in order to silence my words? I have stated how I feel and why I feel that way. Would you prefer that I keep my beliefs entirely to myself, and if so, which one of us seeks to censor and bully the other? You are free to be a fascist if you like, but I prefer dialogue as this country ought to be a marketplace of ideas. Tolerant debate is what I offer. What have you to add?

Not at all.

I wanted to silence your viewpoint at the Statehouse through voting, and that's what happened. Your religious-based bigoted argument against homosexuals had a potentially disastrous impact, not only on individuals that want to love each other (and with all the benefits that come from that) but on how homosexuals are perceived in New Hampshire. It is bullying to treat people like that, Dennis. You don't understand the impact of your argument and your actions; it singles out a group of people because of your beliefs and to go one step farther and try to revoke their rights under the law, what do you want me to say? That I respect your beliefs? I don't. I don't care if I'm speaker of the house, majority leader, minority leader, representative, or just a normal citizen, I'm going to vote against bigotry every single time.

But this is different than silencing free speech. I don't want to silence your right to say the hideous words and expressions. Go ahead and say it. I also have free speech, and with mine I'm going to point out that you are indeed a bigoted person for saying it. And, describing someone as a bigot is like calling a KKK person a racist. I'm not beating you over the head with it. I'm pointing out what your behavior is called. It's definable, and let me provide that link for you here:

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

Oh, I can take your word. You use it easily as a battering ram. You have neither strengthened my opinion nor weakened it. I believe what I believe. If you wish to debate Biblical interpretations, that might be an intellectual discussion worth having. In loving my neighbor, I have told you the truth as I understand it. If I am wrong, you have nothing to fear from my words. If I am wrong, however, you still need to deal with the fact that I have the right to speak them. You would have me doubt the Bible and so, self-censor in order not to become one of "them." I hope that you will gain some grace as you age and that you will eventually have the common sense to allow others to disagree with you--even in areas where you feel you are certain. Otherwise, you will hear only what you allow others to speak to you. But here I am again, giving you good advice, and doing unto others, Would you prefer that I lie and tell you to take a male lover?

FTP: You have asked me what I would call voting against homosexual marriage. We have to first go back to why marriage is state licensed in the first place. We Americans have decided that the state benefits from marriage as it helps stabilize society and promotes the well-being of children. Again, politicians decided this. Now, you would have these same people decide if your marriage is equally or nearly equally valid. If you agree that they should have the power to offer marriage to some people, you are also allowing them to deny marriage to some or all people.
This is a way to lose our freedoms. However, given this situation, one could vote against marriage for homosexuals based on the logic that these marriages do not benefit the state in the same way as heterosexual marriages. Thus, such a person who made such a calculation would not be a bigot, but rather, a usurper of power--albeit one foolishly granted that power. If such a politician merely consulted their own feelings about homosexuals and voted against or for it, that would also be wrong. We should not grant power to people because we like or dislike them. The final argument, that of the civil rights advocates ignores the question of whether these marriages benefit the state. By changing the reasoning for the marriage equality, you destroy the whole point of marrying in the first place. You have won your right to marry, but it is not a right the state can give--without burdening the non-married.

Again, in my opinion, the state has no business handing out benefits on the basis of "love." If I were single, I would understand that I was not being treated equally. As a married man, I understand that my children and my fortune are utterly in the hands of some strange judge should I ever divorce. This is madness, but I did not fully understand the situation when I married. We need the state to get out of marriage and you are welcome to marry whomever you choose at a ceremony performed by whoever is willing to do so. I have stated to you my religious objection, and you find my statement of it so horrendous as to be shocked that I should dare to even voice it. This is the aspect of censorship and bullying to which I object. While I would not recommend taking a male lover, it is your right to do so.

FTP: I do not see how you have tried to silence me by voting. I am not a representative and did not vote. I would not have voted at all because I believe that we are all better able to decide what marriage is than a bunch of elected strangers. I do not get my marital status from the state and nor would I seek it there. You have tried to silence my ideas by calling me names. This is the tactic of the uneducated and powerless. You seek to shame me into retreat, The worst that I have said to you is that you should not take a male lover. Rather than euphemize, I told you straight out what I think you should not do and why you should not do it. If saying so in such a graphic manner offends you, it seems to me that you would prefer we use soft, polite words that have far less meaning. In any event, we cannot agree, and I hope that you will stop attacking your opponents and learn to attack their ideas.

All marriages--if recieved from the state in any way--burden the society. Those who are not married pay higher taxes and have fewer insurance rights. Not being in love, they cannot form a similar partnership. If any of us are slaves to others, are not all of us? Your homosexual marriage may or may not meet the state's guidelines for what benefits the state. You, however, want to get in on the gravy train at the expense of singles. We all need to step away from this unfair treatment of others and remove the state from the business of granting licenses and running divorce courts. That way, you and I are not burdening others and, also, what you do involves me even less. We would both have the freedom to contract or not with our partners, and to have whatever ceremony a willing person would give us in order to be married. What is the harm in trying to increase the freedom in this country-other than denying ourselves the benefit of burdening the singles?

I think I answered in saying that politicians should not use just their feelings for making decisions. Otherwise, if I have homosexual friends, I vote their way, and if I dislike them, I vote against them. I would hope that the leaders are calculating their understanding of the costs and benefits to society of adding homosexual marriage. If they do so faithfully, they are not bigots. If they vote based on their feelings, either way, I think they are giving or taking away rights from a group of people wrongly. If they give those rights wrongly, would that make them bigots? Possibly. If they deny those rights due to personal feelings, they are bigots. As far as you disagreeing with my religious perspective, I object to your immediate use of the word bigot. I am not in the same position of the leaders and I do not have the same standard of care they have. If I wish to believe the Bible and disagree with homosexual marriage, I am within my rights to do so. I would actually be in a tough position if I thought the state had an interest in marriage. In that case, I would attempt to do the calculation in my own mind-trying to leave my religious feelings out of it. I would not deny you homosexual marriage in an attempt to change your behavior. Jesus was a fan of free will and so am I.

The usurpation of power comes when we citizens give the state power it does not need. If we were to look at the costs of divorce, we could easily see that the uncertainty of settlements is a huge driving factor in the costs to these couples and their kids. Marriage is now a toss of a dice for many of us. Some like the uncertainty and hope to be able to squeeze more out of a judge than their husband or wife would ever have willingly agreed. Such a system burdens us all.

I hope that I have cleared up my comments, as my desire to remove state involvement in marriages of all kinds encompasses heterosexual marriages as well. The state should enforce contracts signed by married persons, as well as reasonable child support schedules established by the married people themselves. The court should, however, enforce minimum child support amounts needed to keep children off of state assistance.

Again, you do not understand what my side of the fence is. I would not have proposed either a bill to legalize homosexual marriage nor one to end it. I believe that I have the right to speak my beliefs, but in this matter, I would not seek to give or take away the right to marry. I do not believe the state should have that power.

If the young black man, shot by someone of Hispanic heritage, was shot because he was black, that would make the shooter a bigot. It would also make him cruel and a coward. The shooter may also have had actual bad encounters with black youths in the past, and so, was not reacting simply to the presence of a black person. He also may have been an opportunist who was pleased to have the chance to take a life. I hope that the court will get to the bottom of this case and that the truth of the shooter's motives will come out.

Finally, you must now come up with a way for people with religious objections to homosexual marriage to express these objections. You have called my words hideous, and yet, it would appear that nothing short of silence would appease you. I am ending this conversation for now. By the way, i am still waiting for your response about firing all the liberal teachers in Bedford and replacing them with conservatives, because you seem to argue that it doesn't matter who teaches the kids. This idea flies in the face of everything I have ever heard from the ACLU about black achievement connected to black teachers in the classroom. I am interested to read your explanation in the coming days.

@JeffD, you're right, there are two sides to every debate. Dennis Taylor is someone who is on the opposite side of my viewpoint, but he makes his case in an intelligent way. James Gill is spewing out nonsense. The fact that anyone would defend him is beyond me.

I am curious to know about the deleted posts. Were they deleted by the web-keeper, or by the poster himself, or by other posters (if other posters CAN delete posts, which I doubt).

To the moderators of this board: Healthy discussion and banter is a good thing. I have no problem with people having a different opinion than me as long as they are as respectful as I try to be. Being extremely offensive, insulting and blatantly rude and disrespectful should not be allowed. It's pure hatred. In my opinion, this whole article should be deleted or people should not be able to comment on it. Its not going to stop. Not with the likes of David Campbell and James Gills around. I don't know their stories, but they're bad people. Very bad, hateful, spiteful people.

Robert: You have state that I MUST get the state to validate my marriage so that I can get financial benefits. I have argued that such a system diminishes my freedom. Not only do I have to pay for a license, I must also subject myself to the whims of a judge should I decide to terminate that marriage. I believe that the state should not set rules for what is or is not a marriage. Couples should contract with one another as though they were in a business partnership. The courts should seek to enforce those agreements as they would business ones. The state does have an interest in making sure that the children receive enough support to keep them from being a financial burden to the state. If we did things this way, married individuals would have to document their agreements and would understand that they had to be vigilante to enforce their rights. Morevoer, marrying a wealthy person would not create a payday for the less wealthy partner, unless both parties agreed in writing during the marriage. Couples who split without a written agreement would have to look at whose name was on what and split it accordingly. For items that were hard to trace, the couple could split that evenly. Issues like infidelity and long time suffering would be irrelevant, unless such things were a breach of a written contract--with agreed upon penalties.

@ Oedipus. In answer to your question, YES.

Robert: You are arguing from a perspective that the state should hand out marraige licenses and provide survivor's benefits to widows and widowers. This view of things is discriminatory to single people, who do not share in these benefits. Moreover, why can't individuals buy private insurance to take care of their spouses? As far as the contracts go, couples could use them to clarify expectations and would likely resort to the courts with roughly the frequency that business partners do. However, if parties need to go to court, isn't it fairer that they should go to dispute a particular contract, as opposed to hoping that their judge will view their marriage as they do? When one divorces, one has to lay one's wealth, income, and children at the feet of the court, hoping to get a particular settlement. Courts should only enforce basic child support and enforce the child custody agreements in the contract documents. After all, the court has no interest in the child visitation schedules--who lives with whom--prior to a divorce. We have allowed the government unneeded power and our decision to do so is a burden on our economy.

When I say you are OBAMA DUMMIES I mean that in the best possible way. I am giving you credit for being so dumb in a spiritual sense.You being spiritually dead just don't know any better! Dummies can't think for themselves they are programmed by others that's why you need all those links. You guys are the weakest links.

I'm suspending any further commenting on this story due to some extremely inappropriate comments.