I have a feeling he was always for it but just like any other politician he did what was necessary to get elected. Just like I think Romney is a bit more liberal on some of these issues than he is letting onto because he is in the midst of a campaign. We have seen Bush's & Cheney's reverse their stance once their political employment was over. I think eventually same sex marriages will be legal as sentiment seems to be heading that way. Even my 7 year old daughters see some of this stuff on the news & ask why if 2 people love each other & are happy together & are not hurting anyone why are there people who do not want them to be together. Personally with all the crap going on in the country I could care less who is marrying who. We have a few gay couples as friends (seems to be growing) & they are as much or if not more responsible than some of our traditional marriage friends. Some are foster parents waiting to adopt & honestly they will make great parents. All it takes is tolerance , accept people for who they are. Like I said , just sitting here watching the news & it is filled with murder , all sorts of crazy crimes , people losing their homes , looking for jobs , some crazy guy in the middle east just wants to make bombs to blow up planes .... these are problems that need to be addressed. If these couples are just law abiding people who just want to live their life , just let them. Some of these people who are so dead set against them probably have so many skeletons in their closets as well.
But yes , these politicians just need to take a stance & state it & be done with it.

If you think sentiment has changed, why was same sex marriage defeated soundly recently in North Carolina.
Same sex marriage was defeated at the polls in several states. But the liberals do not honor the will of the people they keep pushing until they finally win one election. Then they will say, "It's over the people have spoken, no need to vote anymore."

Homosexuality is condemned by the three major religions of the world. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all condemn homosexuality as sin. No matter how much the liberal media pushes their agenda, the majority of Americans have more respect about what the scriptures say about homosexuality than what Obama or the liberal media says.

Well I don't see the three major religions having any relavance in determining laws. Gay marriage if polled now would probably be a losing issue. I don't understand why to me its like outlawing carrots, what harm are carrots doing. Eventually I do think more and more states will vote it legal. The youth seem to be inclined to accept it and tolerence has definitely improved over the years. I don't see this trend not continuing. As for the "will of the people" that is not the final say, the supreme court decides whether a law violates the constitution. While it irks me a lot of the times when the people are overruled and seemingly dangerous precidents are set. Situations such as these where the will of the people denies the rights to the minority should very much be overruled. That's just my opinion though.

I get it, but I think the desire of gay people to have marriage is more for show than because they actually want to get married. They say they want to be able to take care of their partner's affairs if they pass away etc and that's fine. No one should have a problem with that, but that's what civil unions are for.

The way they go about it doesn't win over fans, walking into churches and acting rowdy, comparing the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement of the 60s. It's pretty much a joke.

I really don't care about gay marriage either way. I'm more concerned with issues that affect my pocketbook. But I find myself irritated by the LGBT movement and their approach. They can be just as hateful as the people they accuse of being hateful.

Ya some good points Rich. I don't think its necessarily all for show it would depend on the person and how important marriage is to them. There's also the school of thought that with marriage they're labeled as something other than normal and a big part of the campaign is to change this perceived view of Americans. Sometimes it goes too far but i understand the theory. But its certainly wrapped up in politics and the broader agenda of promoting gay rights adultrate the mssage sometimes. Proponents do get pretty snarky some times and this certainly doesnt help. The whole you aren't for gay marriage then you're a biggotisnt productive or particularly insightful. I think the sensationalizing of pro choice pro life on both sides is even worse. Cooler heads prevail, but I do see it getting irritating when a lot of the arguments against gay marriage are fallacies or based on religion but coming back with ad hominim just makes people stubborn and defensive.

Agreed.



I'm not a fan of the folks that mix religion and politics either. Neither those that want to legislate morality nor those that are clamoring to have Christmas trees removed from airports.

Its all about votes and money, plain and simple. Its not a coincidence he did it before a major fundraiser and at a time when his campaign needs to boost revenue and shore up base votes.

I think both candidates will say whatever is politically convenient after first checking to see which way the political winds are blowing. Its why Obama has a history of voting present and Romney has a history of being on both sides of the fence.

I know religion is a sensitive subject, but some of the comments on here are incredibly naive. If you don't legislate morality, then what do you legislate ? We have laws against murder, we have laws against stealing. Both laws are a moral issue.

The question is, what is an individual going to base his morals on. America was founded on the
Judeo Christian laws found in the bible. The Ten commandments were the foundation stone of this country. Most, but not all of the founding fathers were Christians. In fact the Supreme Court declared in the late 1800's that America was indeed a Christian nation.

To say that religion has no place in politics, is again incredibly naive. Please don't mention the separation of Church and State quote, because that statement is not found anywhere in the constitution. That was a statement made by Jefferson in a personal letter to a friend. What Jefferson and the founding father's were concerned about was keeping the Government out of the Church.

First of all, thank you for calling my comments incredibly naive. That's a productive way to start dialogue. Insulting the intelligence of others and condescending to differing viewpoints is a terrific way to get your views heard, understood and respected.

Second of all, thank you for not taking the small amount of time it would take to discern my comments. When I talk about legislating morality, I am clearly not talking about making murder illegal. To think otherwise is incredibly naive.

Rich, this is not directed at you personally. But to believe that religion has no effect on society, or any place in society, is just wrong. I was not being condescending when I said "naive", I just couldn't think of a better word to communicate the point I was trying to make. I did not call you stupid or insult your intelligence.

I still stand by my statement that every law is a moral issue. Gay marriage is a moral issue. And no matter what the social liberal media says, people whose conscience are shaped by scripture will never view gay marriage as honorable.

I am not trying to cram religion down your throat. I respect your freedom to believe whatever you want. In turn, I believe I have to freedom to express my conscience.

Rich , your posts in this thread are in my opinion right on the money.
Politics & Religion should not be mixed. Religion has become big business. Funny how politicians find religion only after they get caught being immoral.
Live & let live.

Alright here I go. Obviously religion has a place in society, our countries founding etc. I just don't believe it has a place in determining laws. Plus you have to take into account that the protestant founders came here to avoid religious persecution in England so you could make the argument that this fact also influenced the writing of the constitution alomg side their Christian values.

I won't accept the argument that anything should be law because of what a religion dictates. I don't think anyone would accept that to tell the truth. I need a tangible reason why a law should be made it would have to be to be against something that infringes on someone's rights in some way. That's my threshold. Even if we take the bible Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, only Paul and writers of the old testament did. If we were to make homosexuality illegal might as well make shellfish, working on the sabath, and adultery (which i would say is more immoral) illegal. Where do you draw the line?

Doesn't make the tone of your post acceptable.



It does, often times negative.



That's like saying "I wasn't insulting you when I called you an idiot."



Morals and religion are not mutually exclusive. In fact, if you look at history and even today, there is a lot of immorality in religion.



And one not worth my time discussion at length.



And I have the freedom to point out that your original post was disrespectful and condescending.

I'm just joining this discussion and I have to say that I totally disagree on your points above.

Laws are supposed to be defined based upon rights set forth in the constitution, not the "morals" of lawmakers, citizens or anyone else.

I also disagree that you aren't "trying to cram religion down your throat." I'm not gay and gay marriage laws don't effect me personally, but the only arguments I have heard against gay marriage are religion based, and this is therefore an attempt to legislate religious beliefs. That I am steadfastly against. And that doesn't even take into account I haven't even heard a sensible religious based argument on the subject.

I have an argument against gay marriage that is not religion-based.

And that is that if gay people want the right to marry, they have no clue what is good for them. To allow them to marry would be inhumane.

Haven't they suffered enough?

You are absolutely right. Their sex lives will end. We shouldn't allow them to subject themselves to marriage.

I want to marry my dog, then maybe my cat.

Gary Johnson. That is all.