DEAR MAXVERITAS: How about offering your own perspective on sexual orientation? Assuming you identify as heterosexual, do you consider your sexual orientation to be "immutable?" COULD you be physically attracted to someone of the same sex? Have you ever been? You seem to have some profound insight into the hearts and minds of Gay people. Why is that?

Funny how Chuck Colson never criticized the "mobs" of people screaming bloody murder at town hall meetings, nor the "mobs" of teabaggers that Fox News was able to summon to Washington.

You could have said "Allah hu akbar." It means the same thing.

Really no point in delaying the inevitable, is there?

DEAR SMBGA: I'm planning my "Rapture Party" for the evening of Saturday, May 21st. Want me to send you an invitation? Obviously with all the advances for marriage equality, Jesus should be arriving right on schedule! (www.wecanknow.com)

Yeah, that old bugaboo is always good for a laugh. "OH! OH! If everyone was GAY, the human race would go EXTINCT!!!" ... as if the marriage equality movement was bent on making homosexuality compulsory for everyone. You gotta wonder how long these people have been off their meds.

ARTM: If your personal faith informs you that Gay relationships are an abomination, please live your personal life accordingly. But not all people of faith feel like you do.

True that.

TORRENT: There's really no point in defending a law as clearly unconstitutional as the "Defense of Marriage Act." DOMA sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government for the purposes of tax law and Social Security; obviously this violates the 14th Amendment...more

TORRENT: There's really no point in defending a law as clearly unconstitutional as the "Defense of Marriage Act." DOMA sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government for the purposes of tax law and Social Security; obviously this violates the 14th Amendment. Also, such couples become "UN-married" if they move across state lines, so DOMA violates the "Full Faith & Credit" clause. Thank goodness DOMA's days are finally numbered!less

lpepperw -- President Clinton's signing of DOMA was politically pragmatic at the time, because it offset any chance of Congress getting a Constitutional Amendment banning marriage equality for Gay couples. Back then such an Amendment could very well have passed. Today, with more and more younger Americans accepting and supportive of their Gay friends, family members, and co-workers, such Amendment...more

lpepperw -- President Clinton's signing of DOMA was politically pragmatic at the time, because it offset any chance of Congress getting a Constitutional Amendment banning marriage equality for Gay couples. Back then such an Amendment could very well have passed. Today, with more and more younger Americans accepting and supportive of their Gay friends, family members, and co-workers, such Amendment wouldn't stand a chance. Ultimately the Supreme Court will have the last word, and I'm quite confident that they will find no Constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taypaying Gay couples the same legal benefits Straight couples have always taken for granted.less

lpepperw -- Considering that acceptance of marriage equality for Gay couples is growing ... YEAH, I would expect the President to reflect that in his decision. After all, if YOU were a political figure, YOU'D want votes also!

WELL IT'S ABOUT TIME! The Obama Administration obviously dropped its defense of DOMA, because from a Constitutional standpoint there is no defense! DOMA sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government for the purposes of tax law and Social Security; obviousl...more

WELL IT'S ABOUT TIME! The Obama Administration obviously dropped its defense of DOMA, because from a Constitutional standpoint there is no defense! DOMA sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government for the purposes of tax law and Social Security; obviously this violates the 14th Amendment. Also, such couples become "UN-married" if they move across state lines, so DOMA violates the "Full Faith & Credit" clause. Thank goodness DOMA's days are finally numbered!less

DEAR GODSLOVE: You are absolutely right. People don't pay CHURCHES to get marriage licenses. The only thing churches can offer any couple is a ceremony, and even so, that ceremony carries no legal weight. All of the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of marriage come from government, not the church. So there is simply no constitutional justifiication for denying law-abiding, taxpayi...more

DEAR GODSLOVE: You are absolutely right. People don't pay CHURCHES to get marriage licenses. The only thing churches can offer any couple is a ceremony, and even so, that ceremony carries no legal weight. All of the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of marriage come from government, not the church. So there is simply no constitutional justifiication for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.less

DEAR MAXVERITAS: In case you didn't know (and obviously you DON'T), every unit of blood that is donated for the purpose of blood transfusion is automatically screened for HIV. And everyone who donates blood is carefully screened for personal risk behaviors. And ALL military personnel, regardless of sexual orientation, are routinely tested for HIV. According to the CDC, 75-80% of all people living ...more

DEAR MAXVERITAS: In case you didn't know (and obviously you DON'T), every unit of blood that is donated for the purpose of blood transfusion is automatically screened for HIV. And everyone who donates blood is carefully screened for personal risk behaviors. And ALL military personnel, regardless of sexual orientation, are routinely tested for HIV. According to the CDC, 75-80% of all people living with HIV are aware of their infection, because they've taken an HIV-antibody test ... whereas many of the remaining 20-25% who are NOT aware of their infection are heterosexual people who ASSUME they aren't at risk.less

Flagged as inappropriate. show

Boycotting a business is not "muzzling" them. Anti-Gay conservative evangelical groups have been boycotting Gay-supportive businesses for years ... among them Ford, Pepsi, McDonald's, and even Campbell's Soup. They have every right to boycott Gay-friendly businesses, just as Americans who support fair treatment for Gay people have every right to boycott anti-Gay businesses like Chick-fil-A and Exxon. hide

SBellam: The Rapture Bus arrives in just three months ... May 21st to be exact ... at least according to Harold Camping (www.wecanknow.com). It's a Saturday, so it'll be a great day for a party!

Flagged as inappropriate. show

As previous articles here at Christian Post have indicated, the REAL Christian sports are Mixed Martial Arts and Ultimate Fighting Championship. Maybe Joel Northrup will find it holier to strip down to his underwear and beat the cr*p out of other men. hide

Flagged as inappropriate. show

My guess is that this had nothing to do with religion, but rather the fact that Joel Northrup was afraid of getting WHUPPED. hide

DEAR CLOVER001: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Supreme Court ruled that there was no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted, but that those benefits and responsibilities could be granted to Gay couples under a different term ... such as "civil unions." The rights under tax...more

DEAR CLOVER001: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Supreme Court ruled that there was no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted, but that those benefits and responsibilities could be granted to Gay couples under a different term ... such as "civil unions." The rights under tax law, Social Security, etc. would be EXACTLY the same for Gay and Straight couples; only the terminology would be different. Opposite-sex couples would be allowed the option to "marry," and same-sex couples would be allowed the option to enter into "civil unions." Social conservatives could keep the term “marriage” for themselves, and Gay couples would be granted equal protection as specified by the 14th Amendment.

The impression I get from you is that it's just the word "MARRIAGE" that you are most concerned about. Is that the case? And if the Supreme Court was to give Gay couples all the benefits of marriage but the word "MARRIAGE," ask yourself: WHAT HAVE YOU WON?less

A wise man once said, "Two hands working are more powerful than a million hands clasped in prayer."