Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was runner up for the Miss USA Pageant. She answered a question about gay marriages, and gave her opinion on what she feels about homosexuals being allowed to get married. She said that she feels they should not be married. She was told by her state sponsors that she needed to apologize to the gay community. They also told her to not talk about her beliefs. She refused to do so. Since when, in this country, can't you speak your opinion, without being bashed for it? The homosexual community has no problem telling others how they feel about it. I don't agree with them, but I'm not asking for an apology from anyone who's gay.

I applaud her for standing up for what she felt was the right answer and not backing down on her beliefs when the question was posed. She was representing the majority of the people in California when she gave her answer, after all.

I believe that if you are homosexual and you want to live that life style, it's your life, so go ahead. But I also believe that God instituted the marriage union between a man and a woman together. They say their vows to Him. So, to call the homosexual lifestyle a 'marriage' is a wrong term for it. It's not a marriage. Why can't they call it a civil union, or anything else they like. Like maybe "Partnership" or how about "a love unit". Whatever. The term 'marriage' is already taken. They can still have all the same rights as married couples do. Why aren't they satisfied with that? Do they just like to argue?

Here's some food for thought. Why can't we have on forms for those "married" in a religous ceremony say they are married and for those who were not married in a religous ceremony say they are legally wed?

All of this mess is basically over one word.

Don't both of those terms mean the same thing? I mean this is not rocket science, so why can't we come up with something that will suit most everyone.

I was not "married" in a religious ceremony, but at a JP. I for one would not have a problem marking on my paperwork "legally wed".

Here's some food for thought. Why can't we have on forms for those "married" in a religous ceremony say they are married and for those who were not married in a religous ceremony say they are legally wed?

All of this mess is basically over one word.

Don't both of those terms mean the same thing? I mean this is not rocket science, so why can't we come up with something that will suit most everyone.

I was not "married" in a religious ceremony, but at a JP. I for one would not have a problem marking on my paperwork "legally wed".

works for me!

i like it - :thumbup:

Here's some food for thought. Why can't we have on forms for those "married" in a religous ceremony say they are married and for those who were not married in a religous ceremony say they are legally wed?

All of this mess is basically over one word.

Don't both of those terms mean the same thing? I mean this is not rocket science, so why can't we come up with something that will suit most everyone.

I was not "married" in a religious ceremony, but at a JP. I for one would not have a problem marking on my paperwork "legally wed".

That's really what I was wondering, in my awkward, plodding way: Are we getting hung up on words or issues?

That's really what I was wondering, in my awkward, plodding way: Are we getting hung up on words or issues?

i think words for most - issues for others.

Prop. 8 passed in California by a very narrow margin. Right now the courts are deciding whether it's really legal. Just because the voters approve a measure doesn't make it legal. Right after the federal fair-housing legislation in the '60s, a ballot measure tried to rescind it in California, and it passed, but the courts ruled it illegal.

I'm not gay and I don't know a whole lot of gay people, but it just seems to me that you can't deny a group of people the same rights. When my husband and I married, we automatically received many rights that are only available to married couples, such as tax advantages over unmarried couples in the event of death. For instance, when Susan Sontag died, her partner was left with a huge tax burden on property they owned together. No legal contract can take that away.

I DO equate the fight for gay marriage to the civil rights movement of the '60s. There are still people who feel that blacks and whites should not be allowed to marry. A couple had to sue in the '60s for that right.

If a gay couple marry, it won't affect my 20-plus-year marriage one bit. Let 'em have it.

Miss California stumbled because she's a vapid idiot, not because she's an anti-gay-marriage advocate.

I agree with what you've said Julia, I'm just glad I live in the northeastern part of the US where most states have legalized gay marriage or are in the process of doing so! Nancy.

PG is that what upsets you so much because you post from Connecticut?

I loved Mallard Filmores cartoon in todays paper.....

So how come when "Miss California" says she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, it's "Hate Speech," But it was fine when Obama said it?

Because if Barack Obama supported Puppy Torture, it would be okay.

Oh...Wait...That was a rhetorical question, wasn't it?

So... hater and bigot or somebody justified in what they believe:

"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

I agree with what you've said Julia, I'm just glad I live in the northeastern part of the US where most states have legalized gay marriage or are in the process of doing so! Nancy.

PG is that what upsets you so much because you post from Connecticut?

No, actually most controversies don't upset me. I understand what is happening in the world in light of scripture, and this is to be expected. This country began as a Christian Nation and our constitution was written by Christian men who had high moral values and followed the word of God. They intended to allow freedom of religion, but it was the 'Christian' faith they meant. This country is an english speaking country. We allow people who speak all languages to live here, but just don't try to change the language to accomodate you, or we may get upset. This country is also a Christian Nation, but we allow people of all religions to live here, just don't try to change the faith here, or we may get upset. Our founding Fathers were men who loved this country and realized that God blessed them with this new Nation and it was Ben Franklin who instructed them to pray before beginning each meeting. We put In God we Trust on our money for a reason. We added Under God to our pledge for that same reason. Our Songs say God Bless America for a reason. Our courts use The Bible, God's word, to swear upon for a reason, and Our Presidents swear their oath on Lincoln's bible for that same reason, and they say "May God Bless America" after every speech for that same reason. The reason was because we are a Christian Nation that loves and honors our Creator and believe that his blessings are upon this land because we do believe that. Our laws are written to keep order and wrong doing from this country. All sinful things that God has deemed so, are unlawful, and this Christian Nation would like to keep it that way. God gave the founding fathers this country to bless them and us for wanting to live according to his ways. He honored that and has blessed us tremendously as a Nation because of it. As time goes on and the people turn away from his decrees as written in his scriptures, we can see God removing his blessings from this country. We have taken prayer out of the schools, we are aborting millions upon millions of babies, we are accepting of the theory of evolution over creation, some want 'In God we Trust' off our money and His 10 Commandments taken down from public places, and now we want to change what God intended Marriage to be, which is between a man and a woman into what he calls an abomination. Where will it end?

When this country chooses to live their own way and ignore God and what he says is correct, we will reap what we sow. You want to change the laws to be accepting of what God calls sin? Well, if the laws change, you can be sure that the people will get what they desire. A land that has pushed God out of it. The one who gave us this great gift of America so that we could be free to worship him here, gets tossed aside for our own fleshly desires. When the pilgrims landed on plymoth rock, they kissed the ground, and the first thing they did was praise and thank God for this country. I wonder what they would think of us now?

Patty if you were held to the religious standards of the Puritans, you would be living a very different life in America today. They came here because they were being persecuted for religious reasons. They did not set out to have a country that operates the same way as the country they fled. That is why separation of church and state is the right thing to do for a Democratic nation.

No one is telling you that you can't worship the way you wish, believe what you want to believe and be very vocal about it if you so desire.

But if you want a country that incorporates one particular religion, one religious doctrine that governs everyone, then you don't want a free democratic nation.

On the surface it seems that the gay marriage argument revolves around the term "marriage" which some of you believe can only defined by the language of the Bible. But I'm afraid that the real problem won't be solved by changing the term from marriage to legally wed or legal union, or any other term. Many of you just have an aversion to gays living together and don't want your country recognizing their lifestyle as legal in any way.

Patty,

Before the Christians came I believe there were native American living here.

But I'm afraid that the real problem won't be solved by changing the term from marriage to legally wed or legal union, or any other term. Many of you just have an aversion to gays living together and don't want your country recognizing their lifestyle as legal in any way.

Lil' judgemental there, Nance...

ten little Indians, plain.

Lil' judgemental there, Nance...

Actually that was BJean, not Nancy.

And I see nobody wants to take a stab at the quote I listed before:

"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

So is this simply an issue on the religious right? If so, then can somebody explain why your president said the words above? Also, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which states that:

1. No state (or other or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
   
2. The federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
   

Clinton also said: "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."

So for those who keep harping that this is a right-wing/religious zealot issue, it seems to me that a couple of your guys did and still do oppose gay marriage. And when called upon to do something about it, they either spoke out against it (and *gasp* the messiah almost said word for word what Miss C did) or, in Clinton's case, signed legislation hindering it.

Lil' judgemental there, Nance...

Sorry Nancy. My mistake.

Actually that was BJean, not Nancy.

Thanks for the point out. And also, QUIT NAGGING ME, WOMAN!!

Also, I think it's funny that Clinton took the moral ground on marriage. That's like Jimmy Carter making fun of Obama's economic policies.