It's fine that you're against marriage equality. Speak against it. Refrain from marrying a woman. I can tolerate your speech and your decision to not get gay married. I can tolerate your being part of a church that believes homosexuality to be a sin.

I don't have to tolerate your wanting to impose your beliefs on me. The United States is not a theocracy. No marriage equality proponent is suggesting that we force all churches to accept same sex marriages. We're just saying that gay men and lesbians deserve equal treatment under the law, and that means that the right to civil marriage must be extended to us.

I bet you'll censor this comment. I notice there aren't any other comments here. Can you tolerate a discussion about this, or is your comment form a ruse?

If person A can do something and person B can't, if person B wants to and person A can STILL DO IT, what is person B taking away from person A?

That's a logical fallacy. Civil gay marriage being legal does not impose any law on you personally. Your church isn't forced to perform gay weddings. You aren't forced to watch gay weddings. You don't have to know, talk to, be friends with, gay couples, if you don't want to.

If gay marriage becomes legal, do heterosexuals still get to visit their loved ones in the hospital without having to worry about being kicked out because you "aren't family?" Are they still eligible for spousal health insurance and social security benefits?

Please, tell me again how I'm a bully because I want to visit my fiance in the hospital without fear of being kicked out.

No, Heidi, David is not trying to impose his beliefs on you, just some logic. In the US, we have this thing called the separation of church and state. The church doesn't get to write law, and the government doesn't get to interfere with church. This entire argument is more about semantics than it is about anyone's beliefs. What supporters of gay marriage are truthfully looking for, are the same rights to protect someone they love and have sworn their lives to, that straight marriages have. Would you be happier if the state removed itself from the word marriage? No one get married under the state, they on,y get rights of union. Marriage happens in a church. Would that satisfy you desire to protect a word?

Can you read? He JUST SAID that no one is trying to force the church to accept, perform or even acknowledge same sex marriages. He is not, we are not, trying to force our beliefs on anyone. We are simply fighting for our civil rights. That means fighting to keep your beliefs out of our lives.

Friends of the Conservative Agenda: It ceases to amaze me the level of bias those opposing our point of view excercise. As a writer, especailly on the Internet, i have often received the very attitude these individuals project.

Just pray for them, for they possess false wisdom leaning on their own opinions. True wisdom is God's Word. And God's Word speaks out against many life-styles from idol worship to homosexual marriage. God never says He is against the individual...just these life styles. AND THIS IS ALL WE ARE OPPOSING....NOT ANYONE WHO ENGAGES IN SUCH LIFE STYLES - AND THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM AND WE WHO SUPPORT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS WE OBJECT TO ONLY THE LIFE STYLE NOT THE PERSON. THEY ATTACK US ON A PERSONAL LEVEL WHEN THEY CALL US NAMES THAT DEGRADE.

Let's get the gov't out of our bedroom. Gov't needs to get out of the marriage business completely. No more check boxes for Married/Single.

To all of you using the statement "separation of church and state", I say that you are very uneducated as to how this came about. I urge you to study the history of Justice Hugo Black and his opinion in Everson v. Board of Education. The separation was originally written to protect the states from the Federal Government. And do not use the letter from Jefferson to he Danbury Baptists as proof.

To Dan and Brian and the likes below. You say I have the right to think the way I want. OK, I have used an analogy with rape, before and pedopilia etc. and your responce is always the same cliche, "that's not the same". Well, to those who believe in GOD'S word, it is the same, "sin". You all have been made so wonderfully, and amazing. But your allowing the deceiver of all time (Lucifer, satan, the devil) to lie to you about life. I can only tell you the truth, for the Holy Spirit lives in me. You will only know the truth youself if you seek "GOD the SON"(Jesus Christ) who came to show what the Father is like through His example of living. He loves you more than you can imagine. But to receive eternal life with Him you must repent and to do this you must know what sin is and then act. Your life here is the only time you have to learn His word and ask for forgiveness.
Anna Marie is also loved by GOD beyond human understanding.

Dan - I appreciate your educated, respectful statements. The way in which you speak differentiates you from those referenced in her writing. The problem with too many people who have an agenda is instead of arguing valid statements, they attack with name calling and hate statements. That is her point here. We don't all have to agree but we should all be respectful. Showing hate and disrespect will not win the support of the majority. Your question about sitting and example of someone that had been punished for refusing to marry a couple is being actively discussed in New Hampshire. As an added statement, it had been the fear of the religious community for years. While the world wants to use the statement "separation of church and state" to prevent religion from interfering with political views and to keep religion out where it isn't wanted, as soon as region refusing to tolerate state, the demands change. There really isn't any such thing. Region is punished for not accepting political agendas. Hence the current Hobby Lobby's battle with the affordable healthcare laws. Here is the New Hampshire example I referenced and I will find more. http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/02/02/same-sex-marriage-and-the-sacred-right-to-refuse-service/

http://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/photographers-guilty-of-discrimination-for-refusing-to-shoot-same-sex-weddi

Unfortunately the reality is that rarely does establishing new rights not limit another right. In this case it will limit religious freedoms if same sex marriage becomes legal

David Lauri,
You are actually wrong about not forcing the churches to accept gay marriage. What do you call our national government forcing military chaplains to performing gay marriage. Are these not part of the church?

@David Lauri--"No marriage equality proponent is suggesting that we force all churches to accept same sex marriages."

That is a complete lie and you know it. It is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that the WHOLE POINT of the gay marriage agenda is to attack religion and traditional values. How many times have we read in the media about gay couples attacking a member of the clergy for refusing to perform their marriage ceremony? And please note that Anna has the courage to NOT censor your post.

John, FYI! It has already been ruled by TRADOC as well as the US Congress, that Military Chaplins DO NOT have to preform a same sex marriage. In fact they dont even have to allow them to use the chapel or church in which they serve as the resident Chaplin. This was set into motion by no less then the US Congress back in 2012 and can only be overturned BY the US Congress. The President CANNOT require it to be changed because Article 1 Section 1 of the US Constitution BANS him from doing so. This was printed in the Army Times-Stars and Stripes-Navy Times-Air Force Times and all other military newspapers and magazines printed by the Military Times Company out of Virginia. If you dont know what your talking about John, then PLEASE dont say anything!

Brent, your sarcasm is noted, but illustrates the illogic of your position. To use divorce as an arguement in favor of re-defining marriage is simply wrong. By your logic, one would say that if someone were intent on redefining cars to include skateboards, the opponents are wrong because they are against car accidents. These things are utterly unrelated. Divorce is a tragedy (I know) but to say that the institution must be changed at the most fundamental level in all of human history based on some people's failures is insane.

Interestingly, however, Massachusetts has been allowing gay marriage for such a long time that the effects have obviously been well measured.... yeah, right.

"Dan Savage and his followers thrive off of hate-filled rhetoric. They actively use smear tactics to silence those who refuse to accept their agenda. It's ironic that someone who actively fights against bullying bullies others in his spare time. It's sad that he does not tolerate views that differ from his own, like a good, tolerable Liberal." THIS SAYS IT ALL....

Ok Grant, go to the top of the page and look at the replies. Even you cannot deny these are smear tactics.

Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice. -- Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Ergo, "You're intolerant for not tolerating my bigotry," is not a valid argument.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is wrong! Tolerance of evil/immorality is cowardice. Those who promote that which is destructive to human dignity must be opposed (that does NOT mean they should be treated with less dignity!) Morality is not a religious idea, it is a philosophical one that deals with understanding what is good, uplifting, & in the best interest for all of humanity. Heterosexual relations are NECESSARY and good for the continuation of the species, for the stability of society, for the good of the children, AND for the spouses. Unfortunately the nature of humanity does not support homosexual relations to the same degree. Also the promotion of SSM degrades the nature and substance of true marriage by setting up a counterfeit

Bradi, easy. "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." Ergo, she is a bigot. That was fun.

Also, I love the armchair lawyering by thinking you can define what a "legal" minority is. At least you admit you're intolerant. = cowardice. Thanks for making the point for me.

Tim, straight marriages do many orders of magnitude more denigration to marriage than SSM's. Don't kid yourself. Straight people hold no authority under the current joke of the marriage system. And your religious-based opinion has no power in this conversation, as much as you love to use the flying spaghetti monster as a crutch.

Be careful, Heidi. All this defense of Anna kind of makes you look like a lesbian.

Amanda, I wish what you have said was the case, but in many situations the libral view point tramples all over the conservative. Such as forcing gay marriage to be performed by military chaplains who have sworn duty not only to Country but to God, and since God states this life style He abores how can on in service to Him go against His Word? Similarly, why are Christian values not permitted to be taught in pulbic schools, whereas homosexulaity is dominant.

And there are many more examples such as these, such as the photographer who did not feel she could photograph a gay wedding due to her Christian believes...the gay couple slammed a lawsuit at her. And had the ACLU backing them. Shouldn't she have a right to accept or refuse whatever jobs she wants to do?

Most librals seem to lack a true understanding of the depth most Christians take their faith...and politely alllow us to have these believes without degrading us with words like bigot, dimwit, dumb ass, stupid, etc. etc.

Imagine, for a moment, that you're denied the right to something that someone else enjoys, and this denial is based upon your traits that you cannot control. You would struggle with avoiding PC, even-keeled debate because you're actively being denied a fundamental right that your neighbor enjoys.

You have every right to your belief that gay marriage is wrong. The people leaving those comments have the exact same right. Where we differ, and where you're off base, is that you also have the right to deny someone else something that you can enjoy, based solely on a difference in an uncontrolled trait.

If you believe in the sanctity of marriage, fight divorce. Fight for the return of dowries and fathers selling their daughters. You can't arbitrarily pick a point in history where the definition of marriage is convenient to your argument and then claim tradition from that point onward.

Mike, you imply disparity where none exists. If you feel you're being denied the right to marry, go find a girl and try it, it will work. Likewise, if I wanted to "marry" a guy, I couldn't. We have the same rights, you just don't like them. The marriage arguement has nothing to with equal rights, it has to do with altering definitions to suit popular culture.

As for your historical comparisons, divorce has nothing to do with redifining marriage to mean something it has never meant in all of human history. If you want to argue about history, lets talk about the "open, tolerant" ancient societies which had no problem with incest, pedophilia, and homosexuality. How'd they turn out?

Simple, it is a lifestyle and not genetic. Therefor we have always regulated lifestyles. It is not as hard as you try and make it sound to be or as unreasonable Anne.

<<Mike: You have every right to your belief that gay marriage is wrong. The people leaving those comments have the exact same right. Where we differ, and where you're off base, is that you also have the right to deny someone else something that you can enjoy, based solely on a difference in an uncontrolled trait.

If you believe in the sanctity of marriage, fight divorce. Fight for the return of dowries and fathers selling their daughters. You can't arbitrarily pick a point in history where the definition of marriage is convenient to your argument and then claim tradition from that point onward.>>

THIS. So much this. The problem with using a religious text as the benchmark of "proper behavior" Anna, is that like most Christians, you are cherry-picking what you like from it. You should not be "teaching" men, wearing pants, or mixed fabrics. You have to take it all...not just the parts you find suit your agenda.

As to Dan Savage, you are offering your personal opinion about him offering his personal opinion. And this is my personal opinion about you...we all have opinions...if you don't like Dan's opinions, don't listen. But mud slinging seems contrary to what you posit is your personal belief state. Again, you are cherry-picking from your religious text to suit what you'd like to do at this time. What happened to turning the other cheek etc...?

That's easy. Just as counterfeit money dilutes the value of real money.

Anna, if you find Dan's syntax offensive, and many do, may I instead direct you toward John Corvino? He is a philosophy professor who has chosen to use a much different conversational model than Dan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-corvino/post_4434_b_2718837.html

I personally enjoy reading Dan, but I think perhaps you want to actually achieve conversation with people who disagree with you instead of just causing more sensationalist controversy? If so maybe you can stop pointing fingers about who has insulted whom, there has been enough of that from everyone involved in this debate, and contribute something substantive.

As to the content of your video, I might just post a video response.

Some people are rude on the internet. Stop the presses! The argument made in this post is fundamentally stupid. Because some people on the internet insulted you, the other side is illegitimate? Not really. There are plenty of Christians out there who call gay people "fags", scream that we're going to burn in hell, give misinformed screeds about how disgusting we all are, and even Christians who assault or kill us for being gay. Someone online calling you a bigot barely even registers.

And sorry, but calling your views, which necessarily imply that gay people are inferior, "bigoted" isn't some awful bullying. It's the truth. You didn't make any fact-based argument in your video, you just quoted random statistics about marriage without making any causal (or even correlative) connection between them and gay marriage. Why do you disbelieve the studies that support the opposite of your positions? Why do you discount the experiences of real gay people? It isn't because you respect us. We conclude that you have some kind of problem with gay people because it's the simplest explanation for your behavior.

And sorry, freedom of speech doesn't have anything to do with people arguing against you or insulting you. That's their freedom of speech as well. Meanwhile, what about the freedom of religion for people who belong to religions that DO want to marry gay people?

Ok bradidontcarewhatyoursexprefis, you made a stupid statement and I challenge you to prove it. If you are so sure of your stance then tell us the who-what-when and where and make sure that you use an indy source as no "pro gay" source will be accepted. Show us when and where Homosexuals were killed by Christians as you claim. If you cant then we know who is lying and who is so desperate that they must lie to make a point. And that is the person that looks you in the face in the morning from the bathroom mirror. So go ahead...we are waiting for you to prove your statement or admit that it is only your OPINION!

Name one marriage statute that requires "love" as a prerequisite. Peoplel have the same rights to marry, they just don't always like the choices. Are you in favor of polygamy? What if I "love" two women who love me back? Are you saying we're inferior? How about marrying your sister? Are these people oppressed? I say "no, they are not." We have a term called "marriage" which means something. Why do you insist that we must change the meaning of a term to make you feel better about your personal choices? Who's the one pretending to be oppressed?

Poor little straight girl, getting picked on by the mean ol' gay man! Why can't he just understand that gays have no rights or reason to exist, because Jesus said so?

It seems that the " Gay Community"is not all that nice. We have our thoughts but don't you dare have one that is different.
Chill out dummies, you can't rule the world even if you want to.

look up the legal definition of marraige and WHY it was regulated to begin with THEN get back to us about who gets to and who dont. what do your need to get a license for example.........

Are you trying to equate 1) your support of the government prohibiting me from marrying the person I love with 2) people calling you names? Get off the cross, honey. Let us know when you've experienced real intolerance and discrimination by having your constitutionally guaranteed right to equal treatment under the law denied by your government.

You got that wrong, it looks like it backfired on you who are attacking Anna as the ones attacking her are getting their heads handed to them.

and you did nothing but post snide vindictive things about gay people all week, including Dan. vindictiveness scares me, it can be very nasty, and you've proven that.. all under a blog about faux marriage, with rainbow font, designed once again to show gay people their lives have no value and are laughable to you.

The video is vapid. Gay marriage does not hinder any of the things you claim to support about straight marriage.

If one is so pro-marriage, why do they actively protest so much about a fraction of one percent of potential marriages instead of actively protesting the 50+% divorce rate. The answer is simple math. You're acting anti-gay far more than you're acting pro-marriage.

Thousands of years of tradition? You must be referring to polygamy, as that is the only marriage tradition to have existed that long.

Even to this day religion allows for marriages between a man and multiple women. That has, in fact, been the most traditional form of marriage throughout human history, along with the marriages being arranged by the parents.

The bible doesn't just sanction polygamy, it advises on how to do it right. It also mandates marriage between rapists and their victims.

The thing you incorrectly call "traditional" between one man and woman is not even as old as our own government. The Harvard football team literally has traditions older than that.

So comparisons to anti-miscegenation laws are plainly false on the basis that "skin pigment is not the same as gender" but it's justifiable for you to expect us 'radical egalitarians' to explain why marriage shouldn't extend to "animals or inanimate objects?" Because after all, it's perfectly reasonable to compare homosexuality to bestiality right?

How does MORE marriage undermine a "culture of marriage?"

Yes, Dan Savage's blog IS tolerant. Mr. Savage respects straight people and straight marriage. He thinks all people should have the right to marry the partner of their choice.

But when you are vocally supporting laws that restrict the rights of your fellow citizens, do you honestly believe that we are "intolerant" for speaking up (sometimes angrily) against your words?

Dont want to be classified as hetrophobe Homa Sapiens, then stop being one. You cannot be bigoted about homosexuality. All Dictionaries and Encyclopedias state that being a bigot means being against a race-creed-color-disability-or religion. At no time does it or do they mention homosexuality. As such by the English Language there is no ability to be a bigot against a lifestyle. Sorry, your name calling does not work.

Age gives you one huge advantage if you're lucky to live long enough and smart enough to pay attention: you see how individuals, groups of people, and even societies repeat patterns. When I look at you, and read your words, I'm reminded of growing up knowing people who did things like this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/02/50-years-ago-the-world-in-1963/100460/#img37

And how embarrassed almost every one of those people were not long afterwards, and how they could not believe that they had played a part in harming so many others. The internet has a long memory, and what you say and do now will live as long as the internet lives. I pity you.

Ok, where exactly does it say in our national laws (Constitution, etc) that there is some mythological right to marry or it is a human right? Better yet show me a treaty that was passed by the US Congress that would make it part of our national laws or require states to follow it. You cant! As such this claim of yours is YOUR belief and not backed up by any law or treaty.

There will come a day when all these perverted dysfunctional sub-humans will be eradicated. I look forward to that day so that I may partake in the festivities. We can turn their rotting corpses into earth worm food at the county landfills after it's reached full capacity then later into parks where married families can go. A man and his wife and their children. No homosexuals, lesbians, pedophiles. Won't it be great.

Amen

So, if "love is love" regardless of gender .... should not a "right" to marry be extended to ANY individuals who are "in love" .... regardless of the circumstances of their birth? IF "love is love", a brother and sister should therefore be allowed to marry .... IF they feel they are in love .... right? How can we justify criminalizing incest, IF the individuals involved feel they are "in love"? No doubt someone will bring up the "but they will have deformed children" argument. But, such a couple would not have to conceive children together. There is such a thing as birth control .... even if occasional "accidents" happen. Would all the people who support homosexual marriage .... because the individuals feel they are in love .... also support the "right" of genetic siblings to marry, who also feel that THEY are in love? If one feels that they should have the right to marry whoever they are in love with, why should siblings, fathers and daughters or sons and mothers be denied that "right" .... IF they feel they are in love?

As gets pointed out every time this feeble comparison is brought up, the bible endorses polygamy. It even tells us how to do it right.

It also MANDATES marriage between rapists and their victims.

Tell us how YOU feel about these pious, bible-endorsed ideas.

Gays say they want the same rights we have. They already have them. Each gay woman can marry a man. Each gay man can marry a woman. Those are the same rights we have.

It seems the "gays" want more rights that most do not have.

That's a lie. SSM would allow you to marry a man as well. Same rights for everybody = same rights for everybody. Just because you don't want to doesn't mean you wouldn't have the right to.

Bottom line here is that the United States government has NO BUSINESS in dictating what we can and cannot do in our personal lives! They also have NO RIGHT EXTORTING half my paycheck every year to fund their EVIL AGENDAS! I don't care what you do or what you BELEIVE as long as you're not hurting anyone else but yourself. PERIOD! That's the problem here, you liberals want all these laws that ultimately chip away at our basic freedoms, soon FREEDOM will be extinct!

Two words: Sodom and Gomorrah.

these are the anti-bullies? wow

Anna,
You are very courageous. Jesus did not allow any group or individual to intimidate Him on any issue. He spoke the truth. He is the truth. And judgment is coming on all thise who deny the truth. God created marriage between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. In several scriptures He condemns homosexuality as an abomination, only forgiven when the sinner turns from that wickedness, repents, and asks Jesus to be Savior. They are to be pitied, for His final judgment is ahead. Keep fighting the good fight. Your reward shall be great.

Straight people have destroyed marriage already. They don't need the gays' help. Protesting a fraction of 1% of all marriages instead of the 50% divorce rate only proves simple math -- you're more anti-gay than you are pro-marriage. By may orders of magnitude.

The only people pushing gay marriage is a small minority of radical extreme homosexuals that are trying to undermine marriage. They already have the civil union and rights of the a married couple but they won't be happy until they have pushed it down our throats until they get there way and destroy it!

Actually, marriage is a religious rite. Long before the gov't handed our "marriage licenses" churches, temples, and mosques were marrying people.

I don't think the gov't has the right to tell ANYONE they can or can't get married. I am a practicing Catholic but feel a partnership should get all the benefits (and hassles) as a marriage.

The only part I believe should be changed is calling it a marriage. I have no problem with Union, Partnership, or just about any other name.

Nice trolling.

Gay activists are WRONG. They have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as everyone else. What they actually want is SPECIAL RIGHTS to allow them to have a government sanctioned marriage between two people of the same sex. The fallacy of arguments like "...being kicked out the the hospital because they aren't family" rests on the idea that hospital visitation laws and policies can only be changed by the nature of changing the meaning of family, not visitation.

The problem that people do not appreciate is that the compelling state interest in regulating marriage (and requiring a license is a regulation) is because of the prospect of the state having to support the offspring of that marriage. Prior to the loosening (and loss) of morality sexual relations outside of marriage was not only frowned upon but a criminal act in most instances. So to avoid criminal liability one had to marry to engage in sex and the natural outgrowth of this was children. Since the state did not want the unfettered burden of children being dumped on the public treasury they required registration of and then subsequently licensing of marriage so that the putative father of a child would be known and held accountable. Absent the prospect of the financial burden of children there is no rationale basis for regulation of any marriage. Thus, since gays cannot naturally procreate with a same sex partner they need not be regulated the same way as heterosexual need be monitored. Ergo no need for homosexuals to seek the regulation by the state as there is no compelling state interest. But now the gays want to marry because they feel a compulsion to have their relationships validated. Why gays need validation in this regard may underscore a deeper emotional fear that their relationship is not valid, but that is beyond my ability to address. Suffice it to say that they feel some need to for approval by society and forcing the heterosexual population to equate their "marriage" with traditional marriage apparently advances this psychological need.

Homosexuality has gone from a criminal act to one that was tolerated in the closet to one that is "accepted" in the open to one where they now want to have the stamp of approval by greater society. That this runs afoul of cultural and societal norms that governed western culture for several centuries is of no moment to them as they want cultural acceptance and mere tolerance is not enough. But at what cost? I say that if you legalize gay marriage then the need for state approval is no longer constitutional or legitimate. They may as well give a license to anyone who wants to marry their pet or an inanimate object. What does it matter? You really feel the need to marry your pet rock....go ahead. The push will now be to expand marriage beyond even the limited range that would be left in place. What compelling state interest does the state have in prohibiting polygamous marriages under the views expressed by the LGBT lobby? Surely there is no significant difference between having a marriage between two men or two women and one man or woman being married to multiple partners? If so lay out the case for a distinction that merits continued suppression of polygamy, or the prohibition about marrying one’s cat.

Talk about trying to move the goal post. Gay sex is already legal. You don't have to like it, but it is legal. This conversation is about marriage.

But I do always find it amusing how much folks like you focus on sex and sex alone. It's all about sex with you. You and your ilk think more about gay sex than many gays do. You really need to stop protesting so much.