Login

Lawsuit filed to repeal Arkansas anti-gay marriage amendment

A lawsuit was filed in Pulaski County Circuit Court on Tuesday in an attempt to get Arkansas' constitutional amendment banning gay marriage repealed.

The suit, filed by Kendall and Julia Wright of White County, on behalf of themselves and others, alleges the amendment violates their constitutional rights. The couple was legally married in Des Moines, Iowa after holding a ceremony in an Arkansas Open Door Church in 2008.

Amendment 83 in the constitution defines marriage as only between one man and one woman and prohibited other arrangements from having the legal status of marriage in the state.

Read more about this in tomorrow's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

Comments

SRBROTHERINLAW says...

CONGRESS: JUST SAY NO

Posted 2 July 2013, 3:42 p.m. Suggest removal

rainbowharold55 says...

Yes, just say no to this type of discrimination.

Posted 2 July 2013, 3:43 p.m. Suggest removal

dimebag says...

i say we just put it to a vote. oh wait we did that already and the gays weren't happy with the outcome. sad this majority rule thing isn't it.

Posted 2 July 2013, 4:21 p.m. Suggest removal

rainbowharold55 says...

Look out, Gwen, you are right below me in the comments. You might catch the gay!

Posted 2 July 2013, 4:24 p.m. Suggest removal

NoUserName says...

Umm...homosexuality exists in nature. Furthermore, scientists recently were able to deregulate sexual preference (M/F) in mice. Which, I'm sure you're sorry to hear, means that there is a neurological component to this 'sinful lifestyle.' As for majority rules, the majority cannot pass discriminatory laws. Simple as that.

Posted 2 July 2013, 4:46 p.m. Suggest removal

ToTheLeft says...

Gwen9, Did you ever consider YOU are also a sinner and sin is sin? You may be repulsive to God for judging others. Ever think about that?

Posted 2 July 2013, 4:52 p.m. Suggest removal

Auztin78 says...

Gay marriage is going to be legal across the US eventually. Arkansas is probably going to be near the last of the states to legalize it. Face it.. your state is full of self-righteous christians who impose their religious 'beliefs' on others. Minus using bombs, this is about the same mentality as the Taliban, 'Believe and live as we do, or burn in hell'. Civil rights shouldn't be a voted on by the people, especially those that need protection from your hatred that hides behind the bible.

Posted 2 July 2013, 4:53 p.m. Suggest removal

ToTheLeft says...

Auztin78, VERY well said!

Posted 2 July 2013, 5:03 p.m. Suggest removal

Packman says...

Hey rainbow - No more discrimination here than laws that prohibit more than one man from marrying one woman, prohibit marriage between siblings, and prohibit marriage between beasts and men.

Hey NoUser - Did those scientists also "deregulate" sexual preference in mice to correlate with a person born as a biological man who at some point in life elects to have a deductadictomey so they can cross dress as a woman while sexually attracted to a biological man as a transvestite female and bisexually attracted to a biological woman as a cross dressing neutered biological male? Which is to merely pose a question to show the study a joke. Either show the peer reviews of the study that concluded the study results conclusive and accurate, or never mention it again in a discussion requiring critical thought.

Hey Auztin78 - Many people oppose state-sanctioned same sex marriage for reasons that have nothing to do with organized religion or the teachings of any scripture book. And nobody or no court in their right mind would EVER equate a Civil Right with a lifestyle choice. For example, do you believe it a Civil Right to be simultaneously married to multiple partners of multiple sexes? Neither traditional or non traditional marriage is a Civil Right. Taken to its logical conclusion, such logic is absurd.

HeyToTheLeft - Do you support state sanctioned marriage between same sex heterosexuals? Please provide argument to support your answer.

Posted 2 July 2013, 5:23 p.m. Suggest removal

djigoo says...

Amen, Auztin78.

It's astonishing to consider how much vitriol infects the words of those who oppose true liberty and justice for all...ESPECIALLY this week, as we celebrate our nation's independence. It's almost as though they don't remember why 7/4 is a national holiday.

Posted 2 July 2013, 5:41 p.m. Suggest removal

NoUserName says...

Packman, I'm sorry you are so anti-science. The study was published in a peer-reviewed journal. But I wouldn't expect a non-scientist such as yourself to understand. You do know the moon isn't made of cheese, the Earth is round, and the Earth revolves around the sun, right? Oh, and those little lights in the sky aren't ice crystals, either.

Posted 2 July 2013, 6:07 p.m. Suggest removal

JAPierce says...

It's sad to see "Christians" act so ugly and disrespectful to other people, and do so in the name of Christianity. Government, laws, and liberties are in place for ALL people regardless of race, religion, sex, creed, or sexual preference. Because two other people are allowed to enter into a union that allows them to live their lives the way they wish, it has little to nothing to do with anyone else's right to do the same. Gay marriage has no impact on those who aren't gay, so I'm not sure why this is such an issue for some of you. I'm a married, Christian, with two children...this country was founded on religious freedom, and separation of Church and State was emphasized for a reason. Perhaps it would be best to love and respect people for who they are and not who you think they should be.

Posted 2 July 2013, 6:20 p.m. Suggest removal

edo1962 says...

No! Not in Arkansas, this is a Bible Belt state. Don't bring that mess here. God said its wrong.

Posted 2 July 2013, 6:45 p.m. Suggest removal

Stickyd21 says...

The lawsuit should be thrown out without merit. The Supreme Court left it up to the states to decide. What they need to do is start a petition to get the amendment changed. Or hope the court changes its mind. I hope they haven't spent a lot of money.

Posted 2 July 2013, 7:36 p.m. Suggest removal

gwen9 says...

Hey to the left, God has already judged the act as SIN! Read the good book! Not judging the person, just the sin....Think about that.

No user name, I guess that is why God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrha because of their "natural" acts of homosexuality and immorality???

Ms. Rainbowharold55, guess you just admitted a person isn't born gay....they "catch it"??? Lol

Posted 2 July 2013, 8:22 p.m. Suggest removal

Walklady says...

Just what is it that Arkansas does not understand about the Constitution of the United States? ALL men are created equal and ALL deserve equal rights. The Constitution is the law of the land, not the bible. Why can't we all mind our own business and not worry how others live? The whole world is messed up because of religion.

Posted 2 July 2013, 8:50 p.m. Suggest removal

djigoo says...

Gwen? God said cotton/poly blends are evil, as well. Mind if I take a peek inside your closet?

Posted 2 July 2013, 8:51 p.m. Suggest removal

NoUserName says...

Dearest gwen, I don't presume to know what God thinks of why He does things.

Posted 2 July 2013, 8:58 p.m. Suggest removal

JustinCase55 says...

Hey folks, we live under the rule of law. The rule of law is governed by our Constitution. Our Supreme Court has just ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. Additionally, it ruled that Proposition 8, was also unconstitutional. Proposition 8, made same sex marriage illegal in California. All of you folks quoting the Christian bible - additionally, in our Constitution, church and state are specifically held separate. If you want to combine them, let me ask you this - which religion would you choose? We are a very diverse country. Even among those who are Christians in this country, there are various views not only on homosexuality, but on many other matters, as well. Additionally, we have quite a few folks of Jewish faith, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, etc. Along with quite a few agnostics and atheists. Might I suggest that you keep your bible in your home, and your beliefs in your home. And let the rest of us live under the rule of law - which in our country is the United States Constitution. And furthermore, civil rights should never be up for a vote, not matter how large of a majority you reach in this state. Thank you.

Posted 2 July 2013, 9:51 p.m. Suggest removal

GrimReaper says...

This issue is not really about constitutional rights; it is about forcing society to accept homosexual cohabitation
as equivalent to heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is ordained in the Holy Scriptures. Homosexual cohabitation is not and homosexual acts are, in fact, condemned. Not that any of this will matter to those determined to worship themselves rather than God!

Posted 2 July 2013, 9:51 p.m. Suggest removal

JustinCase55 says...

No, it's not, GrimReaper. I would never, ever force you to marry someone of your same sex. And the God I worship, in my mind, would never condemn any of my friends for sharing their lives together with the same legal benefits as you and your spouse. That is my point. You don't get to read God's mind, anymore than I do. That is why the founding fathers separated church and state. Which is why, we are governed by a rule of law, the US Constitution. Not by your version or religion, or my version of religion, or anyone else's version of religion.

Posted 2 July 2013, 10 p.m. Suggest removal

23cal says...

Gwen9, you say "I guess that is why God destroyed Sodom & Gomorrha because of their "natural" acts of homosexuality and immorality???"

Ezekial 16:48-49 states incredibly clearly why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.
"As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
*
Jeremiah 23:14 indicates Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for adultery and lying: "Also I have seen a horrible thing in the prophets of Jerusalem:
They commit adultery and walk in lies;
They also strengthen the hands of evildoers,
So that no one turns back from his wickedness.
All of them are like Sodom to Me,
And her inhabitants like Gomorrah."
*
Isaiah seems to indicate Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for social injustice:
Isaiah 3:5 "And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbor: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honorable."
Isaiah 3:9 "The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves."
*
Perhaps you can point out the text that declares the cities were destroyed for acts of homosexuality?
*
Remember also that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is also the story of Lot, the only good man in the city worth saving. You know, the good man who got drunked up and knocked up his two daughters, who were also the only other "good" people worth saving in the city.
Genesis Chapter 19 verses 32+36: "Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father......Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father."

Posted 2 July 2013, 10 p.m. Suggest removal

GrimReaper says...

No wonder the nation is headed into the abyss.............

Posted 2 July 2013, 10:30 p.m. Suggest removal

Fdworfe says...

Come on Arkansas; we're far better than this backward thinking implies. Let's go proudly into the middle of the 21st Century looking and feeling like we’ve really escaped the Middle Ages, whether we have or not. For those roughly 50% of the heterosexual population who’ve managed to stay married, what more damage can be done to the marriage institution than was already done long before the idea of same-sex marriage got off the ground? Is there some kind of threat lurking out there that you haven’t told us about, or are you just afraid of some prehistoric spook that hasn’t been yet identified or defined?

Posted 2 July 2013, 10:30 p.m. Suggest removal

aimee says...

The State attempting to define a marriage makes as much sense as them trying to define religion. It is up to the PERSONS involved and no one else..!!!

Posted 3 July 2013, 12:40 a.m. Suggest removal

RBBrittain says...

This case really should be removed to Federal court where it can be more properly prosecuted. All of their arguments based on Jegley v. Picado (the Arkansas Supreme Court decision legalizing gay sex, a year before Lawrence v. Texas did it nationwide) are foreclosed by Amendment 83 itself, which as part of the state Constitution (and passed after Picado) is immune from Picado which was based on other parts of the Constitution. (Act 1 was different because it didn't amend the Constitution and didn't directly affect marital status, so the state high court still struck it down under Picado.) The remaining arguments are all based on the U.S. Constitution and are better handled in Federal court.
.
Part of the reason they might favor state court is the 8th Circuit specifically ruled Nebraska's equivalent of Amendment 83 to be constitutional several years ago; IIRC it was the *only* direct Federal ruling on the legality of state SSM bans (other than SCOTUS' 1972 summary affirmance of the Minnesota Supreme Court's pro-ban ruling in Baker v. Nelson, a very shaky precedent) before Judge Walker struck down Prop 8 in California. However, given how SCOTUS avoiding directly addressing SSM or Baker in this year's cases (Windsor was specifically limited to DOMA Section 3 in states where SSM is legal, and did *NOT* rule on DOMA Section 2 which permits non-SSM states like Arkansas to ignore SSMs; Perry was rejected on standing grounds since only Prop 8's proponents, *NOT* California's governor & attorney general, appealed past Judge Walker, whose ruling as a district judge is limited to CA), the issue is almost certain to go back before SCOTUS anyway. Arkansas district courts might hide behind the 8th Circuit's ruling, but state courts will likely hide behind Amendment 83 on state issues and kick the federal issues back to federal court; IMO the plaintiffs' best shot is to put it back before the 8th Circuit, and if they stand their ground appeal to SCOTUS. (Unlike CA, I expect our AG -- yes, even Dustin McDaniel if he's still there then -- to appeal to SCOTUS if the state loses.)
.
This is not a comment on the merits of SSM. As I believe I've said here before, I do believe SSM is contrary to Scripture, but IMO that is *NOT* a valid LEGAL reason to ban SSM for those who believe otherwise. Beyond that, I'm torn on the issue.

Posted 3 July 2013, 4:58 a.m. Suggest removal

RBBrittain says...

"avoided", not "avoiding"

Posted 3 July 2013, 5:01 a.m. Suggest removal

Packman says...

Hey goo goo - Speaking of "vitriol", are you still recommending Texas be inflicted with a nuclear holocaust designed to kill millions of innocent people? You do remember your recommendation, don't you, goo goo. You, goo goo, are the biggest hypocrite by far on these threads. Whatever vitriol you accuse of Christians simply does not compare to your statement about going nuclear in Texas. You are a real piece of work, goo goo, a real piece of .....

Hey NoUser - Allow me to point out your refusal to provide any names of any reputable scientists who reviewed the study and concurred with the conclusions you claimed. You also show ignorance in equating publication with verification. Besides that, please show how the study explains the sexual orientation of the multi-faceted GBLT community as illustrated in my question. The study is a joke, NoUser, as are your assertions.

Hey Walklady - If ALL people deserve equal rights, did Jerry Sandusky deserve an equal right to molest little boys just because that was his sexual orientation? NoUser and his rat study might have located a pedophile gene to support your claim. Do child molesters deserve equal rights?

Hey aimee - If it's up to the persons involved, does this mean you support marriage between multiple spouses of multiple sexes, siblings, and same sex heterosexuals?

Hey Fdworfe - You are on to something with your thoughts on the destruction of the institution of marriage, but why would you support a national initiative that will only weaken that institution? For example with same sex marriages receiving the same legal benefits as traditional marriage, stop to think how easy it will be to file a piece of paper at the courthouse to bestow any number of benefits on any random person. It already happens to a certain degree with sham opposite sex marriages, but will increase exponentially with this absurd same sex nonsense.

At this point the state needs to get out of the marriage business will all laws applied to individuals as single persons. Can I get an AMEN!

Posted 3 July 2013, 9:41 a.m. Suggest removal

edo1962 says...

Fdworfe
No! That's not moving forward

Posted 3 July 2013, 9:59 a.m. Suggest removal

TomN says...

Religion does not even need to be injected into this matter of so-called "same-sex marriage" (an attempted redaction of history and an oxymoron). For the foolish and simple-minded here with their reductionist thinking -- i.e., those who think it all boils down to the individual (extreme individualism), whatever the individual wants to do, guaranteed by the constitution (a sexual/personal preference?), etc. -- what's to say the next step isn't legalized incestuous "marriage," pedophile "marriage," multiple cross gender "marriage," etc. After all, these are individuals too, right? Dang it, they have rights too! Don't they come under the same constitution? Just let everybody do whatever they want to do? Sure! It's all good! It's all good! Why stop with "same-sex marriage"? All the subterfuge language by such emotionally driven people here put aside, society does have a right and a need to define marriage. It's called societal stability, the rule of law, etc. For those who ask why resist, why not just give in, why not just accept all people for who they "are" (I can see the current logic forwarded on: "These pedophiles cannot help it they like to play with children; it's who they are," etc.), all definitions of marriage, etc., you will be complicit in opening Pandora's box. It will come back to haunt you and your community when it's your child, your aunt/uncle/daughter/son's child, etc. that is destroyed and civilization that is destroyed and ultimately even the rule of law destroyed. Radical individualism here espoused simply equals anarchism, the result of today's postmodernism, the rampant philosophy of the day that questions the existence of any authority. And you folks thought you were really being proactive, creative, even evolutionary in your thinking, so smart, wiser than all the generations that precede this one, etc. You are merely the puppets on a string of current prevailing philosophical thought. It will change to something else when the next philosophical wind blows through.

Posted 3 July 2013, 10:11 a.m. Suggest removal

NoUserName says...

Packman, have you actually READ the published study? The actual published journal article? Yeah, sure you haven't. Nothing funnier than a thumper ignoring science because, well, it contradicts your thumpin'. Po, incest could have potential medical implications for any offspring produced from that relationship.

Posted 3 July 2013, 10:51 a.m. Suggest removal

Packman says...

Hey Po - Agreed about the pedophiles and lover of beasts if only in the context of consenting adults. Yet in the context of constitutional rights and extreme individualism, these two forms of individual rights equally apply. Your thoughts on the diluting of privileges nails it.

Hey NoUser - I've read the study. Now, either provide what I have asked or stop with your silly references to an illegitimate bit of non-science.

FYI - Medical implications due to incest has no association to a contractual relationship on file at the court house. Sibling marriage via a simple contract recognized by the state has no pre-requisite for procreation be it between same or different sex siblings. Did I miss something or are gay and lesbian unions predicated on natural procreation? Could siblings not adopt? Could siblings not arrange for surrogate mothers? Could siblings not go to a sperm bank? What's the difference between siblings raising "offspring" and GBLT's? I laid the trap, NoUser, and you stepped in it. And if by calling me a "thumper" you mean someone who bases their opposition to same sex marriage on anything having to do with the Bible either show where I EVER said as much or apologize immediately. Please know I'm not holding my breath waiting on you to man up with an apology.

Posted 3 July 2013, 11:27 a.m. Suggest removal

ToTheLeft says...

Packman: Same sex heterosexuals? Gay heterosexuals? Like straight homosexuals?

Posted 3 July 2013, 11:40 a.m. Suggest removal

NoUserName says...

Oh Packman. Only someone with seriously repressed homosexual feelings could be so against it as you are. Good luck cummin' to terms with that. And I like 'illegitimate bit of non-science.' What background do you have to make that statement? Let's see a list of your published articles.

Posted 3 July 2013, 12:09 p.m. Suggest removal

quiete says...

Pobucker, you do realize that "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" was a comedy, not a bio-pic right?

And at that rate what is stopping opposite-sex couples from doing what you propose?

Posted 3 July 2013, 12:56 p.m. Suggest removal

NoUserName says...

Po, I'll ... never ... tell. But the thing is, I don't think hetero 'couples' really have much to gain. I seriously doubt to criminals are going to get married to avoid testifying. And, really, if you're against homosexual marriage, then you should also be against government sanctioned hetero marriage. And if you are for homosexual marriage, then you should also be for bigamy/polygamy. The only issue there is extra tax/inheritance issues that are NOT present in a 2 person marriage. Oh, and seriously ADG. I have to put spaces between '...' because it doesn't pass the filter? Seriously? Ridiculous.

Posted 3 July 2013, 1:09 p.m. Suggest removal

ToTheLeft says...

Let's say two men are in a life-long relationship, have a nice house, furniture, cars, artwork, etc. Both men's parents object to their gayness. One man dies. Because they could not marry, the parents of the deceased man can claim the property in the name of their son. Even though they didn't speak. Next of kin can take all the property in the dead man's name. Fair? Hell no. But if they'd had a LEGAL marriage...

Posted 3 July 2013, 1:40 p.m. Suggest removal

Packman says...

Hey NoUser - "Oh Packman. Only someone with seriously repressed homosexual feelings could be so against it as you are." Either show where I EVER said I was against homosexuality or apologize immediately. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms (or den, or kitchen, or hallway, or wherever they want to do it) is their business. "And I like 'illegitimate bit of non-science.' What background do you have to make that statement?" I have an MBA with 15 hours of doctoral work. That's where I learned what is considered as acceptable reference material and study by true scientists. "Let's see a list of your published articles." I have a couple in some business journals recognized by the Institution for Higher Education. Believe it if you want, I couldn't care less. Now that I've answered all your questions, would you at least try to answer the ones I posed to you earlier?

Hey ToTheLeft - In your two gay guys scenario if they had executed a legal document describing their respective wishes upon death, would that not have trumped next of kin rights? If so, the lack of planning by the two gay guys is nobody's fault but their own.

Posted 3 July 2013, 3:37 p.m. Suggest removal

NoUserName says...

So Pack, you have NO science background. And no background at all to say the article is bogus. About what I figured. Better check your backdoor. I hear someone knocking...

Posted 3 July 2013, 5:02 p.m. Suggest removal

RoyDaMercer says...

These debates are so funny

Posted 3 July 2013, 7:28 p.m. Suggest removal

gwen9 says...

Hey NoUserName, I can't read God's mind but I do know where he stands on certain issues because I've read my BIBLE!! Try it sometime!

Hey Cal31,
Genesis Chapter 19. The men of the city came to have sex with "the visitors", who were actually angels. Read what happened to these perverse gay men!! The whole city was found perverse and wicked!!
1    And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2    And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3    And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4    But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5    And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6    And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7    And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8    Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
9    And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
10    But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.
11    And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.
12    And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:
13    For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.

Posted 3 July 2013, 7:49 p.m. Suggest removal

123go says...

AMEN gwen! Great answer!

Posted 3 July 2013, 8:35 p.m. Suggest removal

djigoo says...

So, gwen9...no cotton/poly blends in your closet? Really?

Posted 3 July 2013, 9:07 p.m. Suggest removal

gwen9 says...

Hey Elmo djigoo, if you are asking if I have no sin?? The answer is a definite No! We all have sinned and come short of the glory of God!! The difference here? I recognize my sin and try to do better AND I don't try to force others into such sin or convince others it is not sin!! The Bible should be our rule book and God our judge. IF IT GOES AGAINST GOD AND HIS TEACHINGS, it is SIN! Our forefathers founded this great nation on biblical principles and Satan and his left wing agenda is trying to tear it apart.

Posted 3 July 2013, 9:33 p.m. Suggest removal

123go says...

Here is a verse for you NoUserName, from Leviticus 20:13...."If a man also lay with mankind as he lies with a woman, both of them have commited an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Now I know I am no scientist, but I also know it takes no scientist to understand the Bible! I love your answers, gwen9!

Posted 3 July 2013, 10:17 p.m. Suggest removal

NoUserName says...

Inspired by God. Written by man. Or so said one of my Christian high school theology teachers.

Posted 3 July 2013, 10:32 p.m. Suggest removal

aimee says...

Packman:
.
"Love is blind, and lovers cannot see, The pretty follies that themselves commit"
.
- The Merchant of Venice – Act 2, Scene 6
.
Sure.....why NOT..???
.
Oh, remember that HAY is cheaper and GRASS is free..!!!
.
~snicker~

Posted 3 July 2013, 11:17 p.m. Suggest removal

JustinCase55 says...

Again, our nation is founded on the separation of church and state. Please, if you want to argue, quit bringing your religion into the matter. And you all sound absolutely crazy when you use the "slippery slope" argument. For instance, pedophilia, incest, and rape are not crimes of sex, but violent crimes of power involving sex. A person's sexual orientation has absolutely NOTHING to do with the crime. Also, I honestly don't know what studies have been done on the children of gay parents. I can tell you from my own experience, my two sons are not just brilliant, but really wonderful human beings. One son is a professor at Notre Dame, the other son is finishing his PhD in modern Asian history. Neither of my sons have ever done drugs, rarely drink, one is a good husband, the other is still single - can any of you arguing against gay parenting say the same of your children?

And last, but not least, I DON'T BELIEVE IN YOUR GOD. My God, is not at all like yours. My God believes in things like, turning the other cheek, not judging others, loving our neighbors, being the absolute best that we can be. My God, has absolutely no problem with sexual orientation, gender orientation, or any other such thing. He/She does have one heck of a problem with hate disguised behind a book written by men. And the last time I looked, my US Constitution guaranteed me the right to believe in my God, just as much as he guarantees you the right to believe in yours. However, my US Constitution, tells me, that you can't force your religious beliefs down my throat, anymore than I can force mine down yours. Therefore, if my friends, who are in love, want to get married and share their lives together, it is truly none of your business. And it WILL be legal someday soon, because equal rights is guaranteed by my US Constitution.

Posted 3 July 2013, 11:28 p.m. Suggest removal

duckcall says...

Do you believe in history. homosexuality destroyed two great nations ,Greek and Roman and will destroy the USA if allowed to continue

Posted 4 July 2013, 6:56 a.m. Suggest removal

aimee says...

Duck call...
.
You gotta be kidding..!!! Take a closer look at history for a change...and don't believe everything coming down from a pulpit... Try using the brain God gave you..!!!

Posted 4 July 2013, 7:55 a.m. Suggest removal

123go says...

JustinCase55... Did God create a Man to have a sexual relationship with another man????? I certainly do not tend to think so, because I believe my Bible, Genesis 2:24 says "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh." And Leviticus 20:13...."If a man also lay with mankind as he lies with a woman, both of them have commited an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." John 6:9 "Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind." Homosexuals are deceived if they think they find in the Scripture that their lifestyle is okay with God, and that they cannot change. The above list of sins(which are listed in most, if not all, of the Ten Commandments) makes it clear who will not be included in the Kingdom of God. However, God can wash sinners clean and make them righteous in His sight. We have all sinned, but can be made whole and righteous, when we are washed in Jesus' blood. God's Word is clear that marriage is only to be between man and woman and no other sexual relationship outside of the bounds of marriage.

Posted 4 July 2013, 8:01 a.m. Suggest removal

23cal says...

Gwen9:
Regarding"Hey Cal31,
Genesis Chapter 19. The men of the city came to have sex with "the visitors", who were actually angels." No,Gwen, they didn't want to "have sex" with the visitors; they wanted to GANG RAPE the visitors. You DO understand the difference between having sex/making love and GANG RAPE, don't you? From your comments on here, it is apparent that you do not understand the difference.
*
As to "8    Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes": Lot is supposedly the only "good" man in the city. Any god who views as a "good' man one who will send his virgin daughters out to be gang-raped is a vile, evil, malicious, monster. Do you really think "good" men offer to send their virgin daughters out to be gang-raped? That's disgustingly sick to anyone with an ounce of compassion. When your religion makes you too blind to understand that little bit of basic humanity, your religion is a danger to humanity.

Posted 4 July 2013, 9:39 a.m. Suggest removal

djigoo says...

" When your religion makes you too blind to understand that little bit of basic humanity, your religion is a danger to humanity."

Amen. Talibangelicals damage America.

Posted 4 July 2013, 12:34 p.m. Suggest removal

JustinCase55 says...

DJIGOO, You rock. I refuse to argue Bible verse with you. You seem to completely ignore the fact that our Constitution specifically separates church and state. For a good reason.

Posted 4 July 2013, 1 p.m. Suggest removal

JustinCase55 says...

I'm sorry, the part about arguing bible verse was directed at 123go. DJIGOO you do rock. 123go, I am so sorry that the LGBT community seems so threatening to you, for some reason. Those of us who have been in this community for a very long time usually have a sneaking suspicion about folks like you, but, that's between you and God. When you DO decide to come out of the closet, you will find a community that is warm and welcoming and forgiving. Most of us were where you were once. In the meantime, please leave us alone. We mean no harm towards you. My friends just want to have their civil rights. The key word there being CIVIL, not religious.

Posted 4 July 2013, 1:11 p.m. Suggest removal

23cal says...

123go says... And Leviticus 20:13...."If a man also lay with mankind as he lies with a woman, both of them have commited an abomination; they shall surely be put to death....."
*
I love it when radical fundamentalists use Leviticus as justification for their hate and bigotry. Take this verse as an example. It doesn't say homosexuals shouldn't be allow to marry, it says they should be killed. This puts 123go in the position of either admitting his one book library is wrong on this, or that he believes homosexuals should be murdered. This is one of the problems atheists have with religion....it has a way of turning people into either hypocrites or murderers.
*
Since Leviticus is the justification used by 123 for his jihad against homosexuals, let's see what he must also be on a jihad against based on Leviticus:
No bacon,ham, or pork chops for 123: Leviticus 11:7-8 And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.
*
No shrimp scampi, no lobster, no Cajun crawdaddys, no Oysters Rockefeller, no clams, no mussels, no fried catfish for 123: Leviticus 11:10-19 - "But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is an abomination to you.
*
We can mix a little Deuteronomy with our Leviticus:
No jeans or pantsuits for the wife of 123: Deuteronomy 22:5 "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man.... for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God."
*
When 123 sacrifices oxen or sheep, he needs to check them very carefully: Deuteronomy 17:1 "You shall not sacrifice to the LORD your God an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish, any defect whatever; for that is an abomination to the LORD your God."
*
How about it, 123? Are your ox sacrifices unblemished?
*
123 must surely be pleased with all of the children in Africa currently being killed and tortured for being witches: Lev. 20:27 “A man or woman who is a medium or a wizard shall be put to death;" Proud of your Christian brethren butchering these kids, 123?
*
Bought any slaves lately, 123? Lev. 25:44–46 “As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you". So, that would be both Mexico and Canada, right, 123?
*
No haircuts for you, right 123? “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.” (Lev. 19:27)
*
You ARE pushing for legislation for the death penalty for adulterers, aren't you 123? “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.” (Lev. 20:10)
*
Don't tell me you are ignoring all of these but cherry picking out the one that allows you to justify your homophobia. Oh, Noes!!

Posted 4 July 2013, 4:08 p.m. Suggest removal

Packman says...

Hey JustinCase - "For instance, pedophilia, incest, and rape are not crimes of sex, but violent crimes of power involving sex." Criminal behavior has nothing to do with the lifestyle one chooses to live and subsequent claims to individual rights as part of that lifestyle choice. The points you raise are irrelevant to the question of state-sanctioned marriage as a right for non-traditional unions. Nice try, but your argument is off point. Would you mind saying why you oppose sibling marriage? In previous posts I've shown how siblings could have an interest in family matters exactly like homosexuals. And to equate a lifestyle choice with a civil right is absurd, as shown by this question: Do you see it a civil right for someone who desires to be simultaneously married to multiple people of multiple sexes? It's not about sex, religion, or the law. It's about making a mockery of the institution of marriage and a shady attempt to make abnormal normal.

Hey NoUser - Silly NoUser. You don't have to be a scientist to understand and practice scientific method. Do you really not know or see the difference. And again I note your failure to answer simple questions and apologize for faulty allegations. You have no personal character, NoUser, none whatsoever.

Hey amiee - I have no idea what you just said. Not sure what you've been smoking, but I think I would like to try it.

Posted 4 July 2013, 5:38 p.m. Suggest removal

NoUserName says...

You should, though, have SOME scientific background to say that a peer-reviewed published scientific article is bunk. You have ZERO basis to make that claim. I note your failure to admit it. If THAT's the standard for personal character, I'll pass.

Posted 4 July 2013, 6:37 p.m. Suggest removal

djigoo says...

No worries, Justin. But many thanks.

Posted 4 July 2013, 7:24 p.m. Suggest removal

123go says...

I am sorry 23cal, I did NOT mean I want homosexuals dead, I meant to show how serious it is to God... but if a homosexual does not change, he will be in danger of eternal damnation. and another thing, the females in my family do NOT wear pants, only skirts.

Posted 4 July 2013, 10:31 p.m. Suggest removal

djigoo says...

That's hilarious...and pathetic...123go.

Seriously.

Posted 4 July 2013, 10:45 p.m. Suggest removal

Packman says...

Hey goo goo - Nothing is as "pathetic" as your stated desire for a nuclear holocaust in Texas intended to kill millions of innocent people. You, goo, are pathetic. As to vitriol, nobody does it like you.

Hey JustinCase - Those emotional anecdotal stories you tell are nice, but could be pure fiction. Regardless, a polygamist or member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association could easily author similar prose about how kind, wonderful, and loving they are in their non-traditional relationships. They too could talk of finding a "community" that is warm and welcoming and forgiving. Today you think pedophilia and incest wrong and would never advocate to make those lifestyle choices mainstream. It wasn't that long ago a vast majority of America felt the same way about homosexuality. Step up to the plate, Justin, and be the first progressive among us to advocate for sibling marriage. Why should they be denied of their wants and desires just because a bunch of bible thumpers believe it wrong? Why all the hate, JustinCase55, why all the hate for sibling marriage?

Hey NoUser - You continue to flaunt your ignorance. Many publications exist for the specific purpose of having works published just for the sake of getting it published. All one has to do is pay a publishing fee and shazaam, your work is published in a "peer-reviewed" publication. Obviously, you've never been to college and had a paper rejected with a lecture from the professor about ways to separate credible sources from non-credible. Regardless, you can provide NO evidence the silly rodent study you reference explains the various combinations of sexual orientation of the GBLT lifestyle. What next, a study that shows there really is an incest gene among rodents that applies to humans?

Posted 5 July 2013, 9:25 a.m. Suggest removal

FreeSpiritMan says...

123go ..... do your females wear a vail and do you wear a turban?

Posted 5 July 2013, 10:07 a.m. Suggest removal

NoUserName says...

Nothing but obfuscation. That's all your posts are. First you said it was that mouse =/= man. You stopped that after being told mouse models have been used for DECADES. Now it's that the study didn't find anything that relates to cross-dressing. And did you really just say that referencing a published scientific paper isn't credible? Really? You just threw, oh, a hundred or more years of published scientific works out the window as not credible. Bozo. You know, Pack, you seem like a relatively intelligent dude. But your arguments here are downright silly. Perhaps it's just time for you to bend over and take the facts up the a$$ ya closet homo.

Posted 5 July 2013, 10:14 a.m. Suggest removal

gwen9 says...

23cal, just because you pick and choose what to believe from the Bible doesn't make it correct. I love it when verses of the Bible are thrown out or twisted to justify actions of sin! But be not dismayed, the truth you will eventually come to you, one day when you meet your maker! Prayerfully, I hope you see the light first!

Hollymast, 123go, great work on searching the scriptures! Unfortunately, sometimes Satan blinds those from the truth!

Posted 5 July 2013, 10:39 a.m. Suggest removal

PaulfromEastEnd says...

Not sure why it matters anymore, the voters vote on key issues like this and say "No", then politicians and Judges exceed their responsibilities and say that the voters don't know what they are doing so it is changed. The voters in California, voted twice, but still the SCOTUS said that the voters are not right... which brings us to all of you saying it should be changed because it is civil rights. This has never been about civil rights until we said no to your personal choices. Those of you stating that it will be changed are probably correct, because if you can't win the vote, you win the hidden liberal judge that gives in to you and negates our legal right to vote... and then there is that voter ID thing... right

Posted 5 July 2013, 11:34 a.m. Suggest removal

ToTheLeft says...

God made gay people, just like he made straight people. Neither has a choice.

Posted 5 July 2013, 12:25 p.m. Suggest removal

23cal says...

Gwen9:
You say, "I love it when verses of the Bible are thrown out or twisted to justify actions of sin!" Apparently, you love it even more when you can cherry pick them to justify your personal hatreds and biases.

You say, "23cal, just because you pick and choose what to believe from the Bible doesn't make it correct." Apparently, Gwen, you have decided "just because YOU pick and choose what to believe from the Bible" DOES make it correct. What a laugh!

There is a special word for bigotry that is based on religious belief. That word is "bigotry".

Posted 5 July 2013, 1:22 p.m. Suggest removal

123go says...

Thanks, gwen9! I'm glad someone else takes the Bible seriously!:)

Posted 5 July 2013, 3:02 p.m. Suggest removal

djigoo says...

So it's okay to slaughter misbehaving children?

Good to know. If I ever have a kid and she or he misbehaves, it's nice to know I can pretty much shoot my kid in the face and kill him. Or her.

How utterly Christian.

Posted 5 July 2013, 8:13 p.m. Suggest removal

NoCrossNoCrown says...

you would think that conservatives would be happy as a pig in mud about this action...
this was a lawsuit over a tax issue and the government lost and now has to refund thousands of dollars in tax money taken from a taxpayer......
so conservatives are now taking the governments side.?? How Patriotic they are!!!
some folks you just can't make happy!!!

Posted 6 July 2013, 4:21 a.m. Suggest removal

aimee says...

Parkman:
.
You "have no idea"s, PERIOD... Who or what a person loves is up to the person and should be free from control by the state...

Posted 6 July 2013, 4:25 a.m. Suggest removal

Packman says...

Hey NoUser - When it comes to debating the merits of traditional marriage those of us who prefer it that way know we've won the debate when our opponents begin calling us homophobes or accuse us of being "closet homos"? You, NoUser, have done both. Just to recap: You reference a study that you claim proves homosexuality is biological, without providing any supporting documentation from objective 3rd party analysis; you ignore the fact of what happens when you take your silly study to its logical conclusion; and you call people names when asked to answer questions you know will show the illogic of the study. GBLT is a lifestyle choice. Do you believe that study also shows the T part of GBLT to be biological?

Hey ToTheLeft - Did Jerry Sandusky have a choice?

Hey aimee - "Who or what a person loves is up to the person and should be free from control by the state..." So, you believe Jerry Sandusky should not have been prosecuted for raping young boys because that is what Sandusky "loved"? What is "love", aimee?

Posted 6 July 2013, 8:32 a.m. Suggest removal

NoCrossNoCrown says...

So Paul if right handed people were to vote that left handed people should have to pay more taxes, or something just as ridicules, you would be ok with that because the majority of the population is right handed and they should rule because they are just that?
That is what the SCOTUS has said with their ruling is that a majority can not just pass laws against those in the minority just because they do not agree with what the minority people are doing or how they are living and the majority is receiving special treatment or tax breaks while denying those same benefit to those in the minority....

Posted 6 July 2013, 11:03 a.m. Suggest removal

NoUserName says...

Pack, let's not pretend or try to fool each other that you want or are engaging in a debate. You're not so there isn't anything for you to 'win.' Are you off the bit about all published scientific works not being credible? Just this one, I suppose. No doubt because it doesn't fit in with your preconceived discriminatory opinion. And actually, I said it proves a neurological component to choice. But I wouldn't expect you to understand the subtlety.

Posted 6 July 2013, 12:08 p.m. Suggest removal

nwar says...

Come on packman -- even you know better than some of the tripe you post here. Gay and straight marriage is between consenting ADULTs. The key words being "consenting" and "adults." Rape of children does not fall into that category. Neither does rape of anyone, male or female. It doesn't matter what Sandusky's urges were, if they made him hurt other people, which he did. Gays are not hurting you by being married.

Posted 6 July 2013, 2:26 p.m. Suggest removal

djigoo says...

It's not nice to taunt the emotionally- and intellectually-stunted, folks!

Posted 6 July 2013, 6:28 p.m. Suggest removal

GrimReaper says...

You're right, goo goo...........but in your case I just can't resist the temptation.

Posted 6 July 2013, 10:44 p.m. Suggest removal

djigoo says...

Did you have help with that priceless riposte, Grim?

Posted 6 July 2013, 11:41 p.m. Suggest removal

Packman says...

Hey NoUser - Now I must add another "white flag of surrender" offered in a debate, that being your accusation that your opponent isn't actually engaging in debate so therefore you cannot lose. Sorry, NoUser, but critical thinking people see the tactic for what it is. Again, the study you reference does not PROVE anything. Any credible scientist with knowledge of scientific would scoff at such an assertion. The study may very well theorize many things, but as to proof, any such claim is nonsense. And the absurdity of such a claim became clear when I took it to a logical conclusion. Your failure to even make an attempt to answer my questions is all the evidence that is needed.

Hey nwr - The claim by gay rights advocates was about individual rights as civil rights and not consenting adults. As an individual right claimed as a civil right, how does Jerry Sandusky differ under your interpretation of the constitution as applied to a homosexuals right to marry one other homosexual? Who's to say Jerry Sandusky's "love" for young boys is any different than goo goo "love" for his boyfriend? It's not about "hurt" but about extreme individual rights being guaranteed, or not, under the constitution.

Hey goo goo - You still wanting to see millions of innocent people killed in Texas? You are one sick puppy, goo goo.

Posted 7 July 2013, 5:07 p.m. Suggest removal

JustinCase55 says...

NoUser, can you tell me when you chose to be straight? You assume that sexual orientation is a choice. So, when did you choose to be straight? At what age?

Posted 7 July 2013, 11:14 p.m. Suggest removal

NoUserName says...

My dearest Justin, you have seriously misunderstood.

Posted 7 July 2013, 11:48 p.m. Suggest removal

Whippersnapper says...

Folks who quote Leviticus as their authority for stuff today are seriously mistaken. Paul says in Colossians 2 that the requirements of the OT Law were nailed to the cross, and Jesus said that he "fulfilled" (using the same word that is used for fulfilling a contract) the Law.
~
Having said that, if you are going to cite Scripture for your authority on something like this, cite Jesus' words in Matthew 19 or Mark 10 where He defines marriage as being between a man and a woman or Paul's words in Ephesians 5 where he gives the same definition or Romans 1, where Paul specifically states that a man desiring a man or a woman desiring a woman is "unnatural." If you are going to use the Bible as your source of authority, please learn to use it properly instead of making Christians look like fools.

Posted 8 July 2013, 11:59 a.m. Suggest removal

Packman says...

Hey aimee - "Who or what a person loves is up to the person and should be free from control by the state..." So, do you believe Jerry Sandusky should have been free to "love" who he wanted with no "control" by the state? Waiting patiently on your response, aimee.

Many times throughout this thread it's been shown we all agree government limits should exist on what the state defines as "marriage" (consenting adults, no more than two consenting adults at a time, non-siblings, not same sex heterosexuals, etc.). It's always fun to point out the hypocrisy of the gay marriage crowd in supporting gay marriage while simultaneously denouncing other forms of non-traditional marriage. When they disagree with some non-traditional marriages it's due to sound reasoning and judgment. When those of us who support traditional marriage offer rational reasons for disagreement, it is characterized as hate speech and we are called silly names like "homophobe", "bigot", and accused of having repressed homosexuality. The hypocrisy of modern day liberalism has no bounds.

GBLT is a lifestyle choice. Equating any combination of such lifestyles with a civil right is absurd, and oftentimes the best way to illustrate absurdity is to be absurd. For example, no civil right exists when a person born as a biological male CHOOSES to have a deductadictomy so he/she can live as a woman (however that is defined) to love biological men as a cross-dressing transvestite and biological women as a traditional biological female. Yep, all those twists and turns of sexual identity are natural and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by a silly study on a group of mice. Yep, there is nothing unnatural there, nothing whatsoever. And now that I've given example of what I believe to be absurd, it probably exists and is widespread within the GBLT community. Point, set, match, the good guys win again.

Posted 8 July 2013, 12:37 p.m. Suggest removal

laurie29 says...

Wonder what it would be like IF......everyone minded their own business,
let others love and marry whomever they wanted, prayed when and wherever they wanted, attended the church of their choice, or none......just curious. After reading all the comments, I've come to the conclusion that,
"God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy."
Have a good week!

Posted 8 July 2013, 3:40 p.m. Suggest removal

JustinCase55 says...

I agree, laurie29.

Posted 8 July 2013, 4:49 p.m. Suggest removal

djigoo says...

laurie, if that were to happen, certain denizens of ArkansasOnline would have to get jobs, lives, and/or hobbies. Without the option of trying to tell others how to live their lives, the resident Christofascists and Talibangelicals would be left with nothing to type while they're awaiting thinking orders from FOX, Limbaugh, Beck, Gitz, Greenberg, et cetera.

What a wonderful world that would be!

Posted 8 July 2013, 5:27 p.m. Suggest removal

aimee says...

Packman:
.
Rape is a crime, or didn't you know that..??? No one should be "forced" to "love" as you put it... Consenting adults, right..???

Posted 11 July 2013, 5:51 p.m. Suggest removal

djigoo says...

You're expecting a response informed by a deep understanding of the complexity of the nature of human sexuality, aimee? Good luck with that, child of God!

;-)

Posted 11 July 2013, 6:20 p.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment