He'd endorse just about anything right now if it meant getting votes.

And I think we can all agree that our social positions should be dictated by the practical problems of electioneering, rather than doing what is right.

Now we know what kind of President he is, no mind of his own, no conviction as long as he wins the election. God willing he won't win.

Guess what Gary, America doesn't belong to any religion and it isn't any of your business who marries who. It is equality, gay people should have the same rights as anyone else. Also, the US isn't a Christian nation, the US belongs to the people, not the BS that you believe in.

>> after countless generations of trial, error, reflection & improvement. <<

If that's what you are proud of, then why stop that process now?
There has been error - followed by reflection - and finally improvement!

>> customs, morals and traditions handed down to us from our ancestors <<

Such as slavery? Lack of women's rights? Worker exploitation in dangerous workplaces?

I think we can all think of something that prior generations had wrong and which later generations finally corrected - no matter your political agenda.

You may have strong reasons for a against this issue - but simply hiding behind the supposedly infallible wisdom of OTHERs is not exactly making YOUR case.

@ Billy Mays...>"Guess what Gary, America doesn't belong to any religion and it isn't any of your business who marries who." America is the product of a particular set of groups with specific sets of beliefs. It's called a "historical nation." It may not be "my" business (or for that matter, "yours") but how we organize the basic building blocks of our country -- the family -- IS our business. This basic building block is and has been the traditional family led by a husband & wife, shaped by biology of gender, the law, culture and religion. Try as you may to ignore the biological, historical and cultural facts, it remains so. From society's standpoint, why change (and potentially further mess up) our social structure, "Billy Mays"? For the benefit of the 3-4% of population whose "union" has no biological hope to produce offspring? Sorry, your arguments don't sway me -- you want the drastic change, convince me. The status quo works just fine, thank you very much.

@Andy Schmidt - I am not stopping the process, but I (and those wishing to implement "gay marriage") would be foolish to think such a fundamental part of human society should change so radically AND so quickly. Since you DO think society should change, why? As for slavery and other so-called "errors," what about all the west's successes? The way we educate, rear children, organize gov't, act altruistic, etc. I turn the question over to you: what needs improving? Where's the error or flaw here in our current understanding of marriage? What damage is being done to society at large (not the 3-4% of the population that is gay/lesbian) by not allowing gays/lesbians the rights afforded hetero married couples? What in society will be improved? I am not hiding behind anything, but if I think something that society or our laws does that is harmful, I will say so, recognizing the burden of proof is on me. The gender roles of men/women complement each other such that there's is the only case where society should confer the privilege of marriage, with the procreation of children being the most important of the mutual attributes. Yes, I know, there's thousands of "wombs for rent," ovaries for rent and male PhD students willing to donate their seed. But at best, gay couples will never be more than 1 parent + 1 stepparent. ANd why dilute the pool of benefits society confers to hetero married couples? (e.g., insurance risk pools, federal taxes, etc).Try to convince me....
GXR

"What damage is being done to society at large (not the 3-4% of the population that is gay/lesbian) by..."

Really?

REALLY?

Gary, getting married is about love and affection, not about having kids. It isn't anyone's duty to produce offspring. I don't know where you read that America has always been in that position. You know, 150 years ago one could argue that we should have slavery because America has always been that way.

Gary
>> The gender roles of men/women complement each other such that there's is the only case where society should confer the privilege of marriage, with the procreation of children being the most important of the mutual attributes. <<

So how does conferring that "privilege of marriage" to an additional subset of the population in any away effect heterosexual couples continuing to complement each other, or how does it effect their desire or ability to procreate -- just as before?

Will a gay couple living next door that was NOT married on Monday (and the world was still fine) suddenly make the heterosexual couple sterile when the gay couple gets married on Tuesday?

What if the gay couple got married and didn't announce it (for whatever reason), would the heretosexual couple NOT be effected until they finally learn of it?

Allowing gay couples to consider themselves married in no way infringes on the rights and liberty of the existing or future heterosexual couples.

Preventing gay couples to marry is withholding them their right to "pursuit of happiness" - without society gaining from that limitation in any way.

My rule of thumb is - as long as you don't infringe on anyone else - you are at liberty to do as you please.

(It's funny how a certain party USED to be the one that insisted on keeping the government out people's affairs - but now they want government to inject itself into a decision between two consenting adults).

@ Andy Schmidt (I incorrectly referred to Billy Mays as Andy, my bad...) - To answer your multiple questions, I can't say that any of the questions you asked "effects", "makes...sterile" or "infringes on the rights and liberties of...heterosexual couples." But that's not the point. Contrary to your belief, society isn't a mere collection of individuals -- it's a collections of families, communities, states, cities, towns, religions, ethnicities, races, etc. Your emphasis on the individual and the abstract concept of "liberty" seems divorced from the reality of human societies. Perhaps Ayn Rand, Hugh Hefner or other such elite luminaries share your views. I do not. The key question, again, is why society should change their laws at all to allow gay "marriage?" I do think allowing "married" gays will financially diminish insurance risk pools, fiscal budgets, pensions, etc. There are other reasons why I think it's a bad idea, but I'll spare you. My main point -- why should we bother to change the laws. We should not for biological/societal reasons (main issue), and to lesser extent, fiscal/financial reasons.

I used to be more sympathetic to your cavalier brand of libertarian individualism, Andy Schmidt. Perhaps it works in small communities that act responsibly, are reasonably informed and are cohesive. Lamentably, our country and state of NJ are none of those 3 things. Cheers. GXR

Gary, >> why should we bother to change the laws. We should not for biological/societal reasons <<
Sorry, but "we've always done it that way" was never a satisfactory answer for me, specially in the wake of Apartheit in SA, or School Segragation and "Whites Only" signs at businesses, etc. in the U.S. not too long ago...

That too was for "biological" and "societal" reasons!

The only "biological" requirement to sign marriage papers is that you have some appendage to hold the pen! We allow other couples to get married who have no desire to have children - and we allow couples to propagate without requiring marriage. So the "biology" of propagation and the state's legal recognition of a couple as "married" clearly are not at all related.

But again - I actually would like nothing more than for you (your religion) to define "marriage" in any way you like. "Marriage" should be taken "away" from the State altogether. Let the State deal with the legalities of ANY civil union and whatever rights and obligations it infers to committed adults of ANY kind - and let religious institutions deal with however each one wants to define "marriage", since each proclaims to have the devine insight (ironically, frequently differing! Must be a case of split personality of their "one true" diety?)

@ Andy Schmidt: You keep saying, over and over, marriage laws must change and cite a few instances where laws were changed (one instance - Apartheid- is not germane to America). And I in turn ask, why not change EVERY existing law on the basis of the two or three precedents you cite? How about the gov't nullifies all biological parental rights, k-12 schooling; allow children to sign contracts, lower the age of consent -oops, that is #2 or#3 on the gay lobby's agenda, skip that one...-legalize murder, legalize robbery, etc. Why should we keep doing what we always have? Equality is a bogus rationale, we treat people differently in many cases for legitimate reasons. Not granting marital privileges to a couple that, of itself, cannot conceive children biologically is sufficient reason. As for having kids outside of wedlock -- how's that turning out for society? Perhaps grandly in your world of self sufficient, individual loners and a concept of "liberty" cribbed from Ayn Rand. As for married couples not having kids or ever intending to, I think you agree we do not want the state scrutinizing every married couple's intentions with respect to procreation. For folks who cannot (biologically, on account of age, disability) ever conceive, there are complementary roles the biology of the respective genders serve that is and always has been essential to families, communities and the society at large. GXR

Gary - right,... here it was called "segragation".

Your point was, things should NEVER change if they've always been that way - and my disagreement is, that sometimes prior generations of humanity are getting it "wrong" - which why EACH case needs to be examined based on its merits and can NOT be summarily dismissed.

As a result, SOME things will change because they unnecessarily or unjustly infringe on people individually, without benefitting society as whole - while others are left IN PLACE. Get it?

Now - what is JUST, NECESSARY and BENEFICIAL in THIS case is obviously what's being debated - and that is perfectly fine! At the end, things may change - or stay the same. BUT, I will not accept anyone's notion that this is BEYOND debate "just because".

fboy66,
Obama did not throw this country of ours under the bus, however the Bush administration did. If you voted for Bush then you too took part in "throwing this country under the bus!" We the people can see and understand that and freedom of choice will be strongly exercised.

to Irene Mack-Smith, you think Obama isn't throwing America under the bus but he's releasing imprisoned terrorists in the middle east as ''good faith" and idiotically believing they won't attack our troops again? Wow, talk about not supporting your country/people. I'd like to see those same terrorists release hostaged contractors as "good faith" measures.

Candidate Obama in 2008:

Question: "Define marriage."

Obama: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJhQBZ1La0w

@ J Smythe: In the video Obama also says he would NOT define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Regardless, there is, thank goodness, a difference between his personal beliefs and deciding what's best for the country. Thankfully we have a leader who does not wear his religion on his sleeve and is able to see beyond his own beliefs and circumstances.

define marriage as such in the Constitution, that is,

he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again. flip-flop-flip

Compared to W., I'd say the change was clearly for the better.

Amen!
It feels good when the country is represented by someone who's applying THOUGHT to matters.

Hmmmm. Let's see how many times we could list Romney's "for something then against something" issues? Everyone in our democracy must have equality under the law. You don't have to be involved in same-sex marriage. Whether you are married or not, this issue has absolutely nothing to do with your life or your relationships if you oppose it. However, for those who need spousal rights, who need the freedom to marry someone they love, the country is rapidly changing to support them.

I've thought along very similar lines to this. We already had to go obtain a "Marriage Certificate", all that was left was for our officiate to sign it at the actual wedding. I say change the rules, make the marriage certificate a binding document on the day it's issued to any two consenting adults, and then enjoy whatever kind of ceremony you want, religious or otherwise, with your family and friends.

to Andy--What a really terrific idea!

Let's put social engineering on the back burner for the time being and talk about basic fairness towards all members of society. Why should a same-sex couple encounter so many legal barriers in matters which the rest of us take for granted? Inheritance, visitation rights, basic stuff which we all need to deal with at some point.

@ Ron -- well said.

@ J.D. Luke -- I think your recourse on visitation, inheritance and other matters is best left to family members.

No, Gary, not when the law treats me one way, because I'm married to a woman, and my friend another way, because he wants to spend his life with a man. So long as this discrimination is in place, we live in a less-than-just society. I, as a heterosexual, got to CHOOSE a set of family members, and either that should be stripped from all of us, or it should be granted to those who feel attraction to their own sex.

@ JD Luke -- the law treats gay couples differently because (ready for this?....drumroll......) you ARE different! Yes, we know, you express "love" and "affection" the same as heteros do. You can even adopt kids and (supposedly) raise them as good or better. We get all that. But the law makes rational "discrimination" (treats different groups/individuals differently) in myriad ways -- kids can't enter into contracts (interestingly, the gay lobby wants to lower age of consent....I digress), 19 year olds risking their lives in fraudulent wars can't drink, felons can't vote, ADHD kids get more time for tests, etc. Your histrionics and indignation aside, I'm tired of making the same points only to have you point & sputter in response. Good day. GXR

Gary let's play devil's advocate and describe a scenario that I hope will never happen.

Patient is gay, resulting in their blood family disowning them. The patient is on life support, and a the doctors want to know if the family wants to pull the plug. The hospital will not let in the family the patient has made in because it was not a legal family, the blood family would rather see the patient dead than gay.

I know it is extreme. What do you think is fair?

@ Journey -- what an awful scenario you describe (heaven forbid); unfortunately, this sounds like a not uncommon scenario in many Muslim countries. To answer your question, I believe this person can appoint a power of attorney to his companion or whomever s/he designates. I'm not an expert on end of life care/law however, so I'll defer to an attorney "Journey." In an extreme case, I think the states have strict laws on what happens (or should happen). Gay or not, suffice to say patient merits dignified medical treatment. GXR

let me dial it back a notch.

The patient has been disowned for being gay, his blood/biological family is not going to visit to show support for surgery/cancer treatment/whatever and the hospital will not let their same-sex partner in because they are not 'married'. Would you have them alone in the hospital? You say it should be left to the 'family'. For most people, 'family' is the one you make when you commit yourself to another consenting adult.

Yes, "J.D. Luke," all those "anti-gay crusaders" are really self loathing, closeted gays! LOL.....While I don't watch tv, regarding the clip you saw by the person commenting on the large # of sex partners of gays, it's a fair observation, the point being (mostly with gay men) that their tendency towards mass promiscuity makes marriage and any vow of monogamy they would take an utter joke. Society and gov't would "marry" two men and then (predictably) have to adjudicate the messiness that their split causes (division of assets, etc.). It's irresponsible that the state would approve a "union" that it knows or expects would likely fail. And yes, I know, you know "many" gay men who have been in committed, monogamous relationships for 200 years; or "50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce." We get it.

As for Ahmediinijad's quote, what's your point? Hitler was a nonsmoking vegetarian, as are more than a third my Jewish friends. And?.......GXR

Gary, I feel sorry for you, but I hope you live long enough to regret and feel terribly embarrassed about your views today.

@ JD Luke -- don't feel sorry for me, though I appreciate the mock sympathy! I will not change my views, I've read both sides, am well informed on the issue. Frankly, I'm tired of this debate and issue, and have moved on to more pressing issues. I've conceded that your "side" will probably win, that's been the dismal trend in this country on all the major issues and problems facing us. We cave into what the vocal elite wants, and ignore not only the silent majority, but worse, the customs and traditions are ancestors bequeathed to us. America, our republic? Not if we can't keep it -- which clearly it seems like we can't. GXR

Applause.

@Steph1963 -- I don't know anyone who practices "religion." I have met people who practice the Roman Catholic religion, Hasidic Judaism, Reformed Judaism, Lutheranism, Unitarianism, Islam or just plain nothing. To answer your question "doesn't religion ask for tolerance and inclusiveness"? No, perhaps atheistic humanists (of which Ted Turner is the most famous) would respond that way, but since no one practices "religion," your question is pointless. Your contortion of "family values" is silly -- that's an Evangelical Christian term with very traditional connotations. It's kind of pathetic to see someone who loathes traditionalists patronizingly try to convince them of the alleged error of their ways using their terms. And why do you presume "fear" or "bigotry" in your opponents. I know and understand what your side wants, and I oppose it. Proponents of gay marriage generally loathe what the historical US means, unless it's some meaningless cliche like "diversity," "openness," or "tolerance."

Disingenuous?...in his 3 years in office, he has done more to support the LBGT community than any other President. The repeal of the insane Dont Ask Dont Tell policy and now this. It may have taken him a while to embrace marriage, but its where he was headed anyway.

Agree 100%

There is more to the world than the economy. Politicians respond to what people are interested in/inflamed about. Same reason why the abortion issue will never go away, and I agree we have much bigger fish to fry.

I guess saving the financial system from a complete meltdown, ending the war in Iraq and Killing OBL (which, if you care to read about it, he was extremely instrumental in carrying out despite opposition from Biden among others) count for nothing in your book. Curious Wendy, when was the last time you had faith in the fed. gov?

Let's not forget deposing Ghadaffi!

This happened so quickly - we were engaged in this conflict, pulled in NATO allies, and the moved on - that by now people don't even remember what could have easily been another 10 year war if it been managed differently.

Instead, the matter was taken care of and the country never got tangled in another prolonged situation.

>> spent 4 years going down a checklist that the previous president gave him like a good little boy <<

Yes, he got a checklist of everything where Bush failed and started to clean up after him.

Like - Bush's attention span was too short to look for Bin Laden in Afghanistan so he pulled special forces and intelligence to a new war in Iraq. Once Obama was in, the got his intelligence people together and found out what was needed to get Bin Laden. They told him what decisions had to be made, what resources they needed, what the focus needed to be - and he corrected the scatter brained mess that Bush left him - which finally got the RESULT that had started all this military activity TEN years prior!

J - reading comprehension issues?
You are quoting / paraphrasing me completely from your own imagination!

Obama was the one who made the leadership decisions that the intelligence community had asked for from the day when Bush diverted the attention, personnel and resources to the WRONG country (and war).
Making the right decisions, setting the right priorities, finally allocating the needed resources back to Afghanistan allowed Bin Laden to be tracked down and killed.

If, however, you truly expected ANY president to execute missions him-/herself then you must be thinking about President HARRISON Ford - or maybe watched James Tiberius Kirk's away-missions once too many times.

Michael...very well said. All the best to you and your family. Hopefully my young children will become adults in a society where your family garners the same respect both legally and morally as mine.

@Michael - congratulations on a job well done raising your nephew. Your story is a wonderful example of what is right about passing legislation to legalize same sex unions. I personally believe that the government needs to get out of the marriage business, and issue only civil union certificates that offer the same rights to all consenting adults who wish to join in a committed union. Leave "marriage" to religious institutions who can define it as they may. I also support the right of churches and other religious institutions to define their own policies - that is the real freedom of religion. Perhaps this might offer everyone equal rights, while protecting the right to believe and worship as one pleases.

Both situations are bad. Remember, Obama is a good family man. He is a lousy President.

MTaylor, I see no humor or cleverness in your post. You think it's easy being Comander in Chief? Deciding when to send our finest young women and men into harm's way....and being responsible for their injuries and death, not to mention the nation's national security. Ask any President what his toughest job is, and if that's not the answer I'd say you'd have to question his character

MTaylor. Confused is right. It's lonely at the top. You do tick a lot of people off when you're the man. Especially when nobody respects you or appreciates all the hours you spend pondering weather to send fine young men and women into battle. You know. I miss the good old days when leaders actually led troops into battle. The word led does mean you go first does it not? The problem these days is that nobody in the Whitehouse has actually led anybody into battle. It must be real tough to rely on those fine men and women to help you make those real tough decisions. Of course telling parents you just sent their kids into battle is the toughest job in the Whitehouse, especially when you know that putting on a uniform and heading into harms way is not something you would do. I would loose a lot of sleep and get old fast if my conscience was bothering me.

J - you follow scripture? So you do take more than one wife? You will cut off a woman's hand if she defends her husband (Deuteronomy 25:11-12 ), you will prevent children born out of wedlock to join the church (Deuteronomy 23:2), you will prevent women from teaching mean (Timothy 2:11), you are against divorce and second marriage (Luke 16:18), will stone non-virgin women (Deuteronomy 22:20-21) and would sleep with your brother's child-less widow (Mark 12:19),...

Or are you being selective which parts of the literal scripture don't apply to today's society because we have found other ways to deal with some matters, a better understanding of the human body and mind,... ?

You are right Jamie. He and McCain would have followed the same agenda except for the healthcare part which is pretty big. You have to admit, he has done quite a lot. It has to be tough to follow the Republican agenda and the Democratic agenda at the same time.

Anti-Catholic? I disagree, though sometimes I wish he was....it's time to move on from the 16th century and the notion that the US is a Catholic country. As far as the economy, part of the problem is the belief that the President/government has the power to turn it around. Want to know who has the power to turn it around? Look in the mirror.

Sounds like you got it all figured out Jamie.