Would you have cared then?

That's actually an interesting point. While it is a move toward equal human rights, one can't help but wonder if his motivation was political.

If anything it will hurt his reelection prospects. He simply decided to end the speculation. Another courageous and thoughtful decision by our president.

Obama has changed his mind on same sex marriage about 5 times if you look carefully into his political career. You're right, anything to get re-elected. He's a political pragmatist who did it for the money for his campaign funds. The irony is that he may have lost the battle ground states! Where are the men and women of convictions? Where are the statesmen?

You are exactly right about his LGBT work.

Poll is about agreeing with his stand on same sex marriage. Guess you didn't notice the "National Day of Prayer" advertised outside the municipal building and in the town calendar and held at Modick park last week.

Who has said that gays are better than anyone else??? They are asking for the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, not better rights.

Curt - I never said members of the LBGT community were better than us (or anyone else). I was saying that they are just as great. And they deserve to be treated as such.

It's wonderful affirmation, whatever the reason for the timing of the announcement was. But for what political gain? I support all LGBT rights, and even if Obama never made the statement, what am I going to do - vote for Romney? He even opposes civil unions!

Very well said, Rich.

It's interesting how the GOP cherry picks what they think the founders of our country would have thought about today's world to use for their own political gain. Mr. Jefferson again teaches us something important. Thank you for posting it.

Excellent quote, LTK. Spot on, TJ.

But, using Federal power to force social issues only polarizes us as a nation.

But it's ok to use State power to disenfranchise citizens which only polarizes us as a nation? Using your logic Blacks would still be riding in the back of the bus and women wouldn't have the right to vote.

So I suppose the Civil Rights movement was simply a "social issue"???

Excellent post, LTK. I'm not sure why some are so concerned with what goes on in the lives of others. I was always taught to worry about myself and the well being of my family. If two people that love each other happen to be from the same sex, I'm not sure how it would negatively impact me or anyone else in our society.

Mind you that I didn't actually say what my personal moral view was, so try not to put words in my mouth. The main problem with the logic, perhaps, is your assumption that everyone in this country aught to think and the same way by force of the Feds.

I could make a libertarian argument that both state and federal governments lack a legitimate interest in regulating the private sexual conduct of consenting adults ... but go ahead and make your constitutional case for gay marriage (or marriage, for that matter). I think that sort of debate would be more productive than simple moral indignation.

To the best of my knowledge David, President Obama did not propose a Constitutional amendment to force same-sex marriage on the states, while all the republican candidates have backed a Constitutional amendment to forbid same-sex marriage from being allowed by the states. So…. If your POV is truly not a moral one, but simply a rally against using federal power to force what you call “social issue”, why have I never heard of you protesting the Defense of Marriage act???

What the president expressed was his "personal moral view ". As Hookerman noted, he didn't call for legistlative action.

Hookerman - I can also confirm that Romney signed a pledge stating that, if elected, he would support federal legislation banning gay marriage in all 50 states.

what a great quote.

unless your neighbor is a muslim-and then he might blow you up for not being in agreement with his beliefs-but thats another article.

@Hookerman: Yes, Obama said he'd leave it to the states, as he should, which begs the question as to why he’s bringing it up at all if it’s not a federal issue and he doesn’t plan to do anything about gay marriage? The latest flip-flop conversion is merely a calculated political tactic to distract people from the broader issues. "It's all Bush's fault" isn't working anymore, apparently.

DOMA isn’t the answer either. What gives the Feds power to 1) define marriage and 2) decide who is allowed to get married? If the government wasn’t involved there wouldn’t be a heated debate over the definition and legality of marriage. It became a divisive issue when one or both sides tried to use state power to force their morality on the rest.

Neither extreme accepts the principles of a free society. One side wants a force their narrow definition on everyone, and the other side wants a broad definition that demands full acceptance by those who do not morally condone the gay lifestyle. Why not tolerate everybody’s definition as long as neither side uses force to impose its views on the other? Problem solved!

We’re not likely to see such a free society any time soon, so leave it to the states to decide (as it should). It’s the lesser of two evils.

David,

Try keeping up with the news. The President brought it up because the VP expressed an unscripted supportive opinion on MTP this past Sunday (taped last Friday). This put enormous pressure on the President to express his view as well. Now unless you can prove Biden's comments were calculated, your lame argument falls flat, again!

I believe strongly that marriage should be between a man and a woman. There, how's that? Now let's see how long it takes before I'm called - racist, bigot, intolerant, homophobic, 3....2....1....

I respect your personal belief Julia, but is it fair to force your belief on others through legislation? After all, you do have the choice not to enter into a same-sex marriage, and therefore, not compromise your belief. Suppose I was Jewish and felt that the consumption of pork was against my personal belief. Would it be fair for me to expect the sale and consumption of pork be made illegal for everyone, when I have the choice to simply not consume it myself?

I really think it's a non-issue in a Federal election and this is just a calculated political move to distract us from the more pressing issues: http://longvalley.patch.com/blog_posts/obama-exploits-a-states-rights-issue

Julia - Fortunately, we live in America where we have the freedom of speech and opinion. And there are homosexual members of the military (more brave than I) willing to fight to protect those freedoms every day. I'm proud to call those soldiers fellow Americans. It's a shame that they are fighting to protect some rights (i.e pursuit of happiness) they don't even have.

David X - In your opinion, which pressing issues should Obama be focusing on? I believe the fact that there are people in our country being denied rights is actually pretty serious.

I believe marriage should be between 1 man and 1 chicken. Chicken to man marriage is perfectly acceptable between one consenting man and one consenting chicken. Anyone agree? Seriously the world is a mess, not because who is marrying whom, but because everyone is so self-absorbed. Is gay marriage a good idea, if your gay- sure, to everyone else, not so much, everybody gets an opinion. Who knows which one destroys the world, probably neither.

Jason, your question assumes Obama is planning to do something about gay marriage. He's not. He said it aught to be left to the states. I agree. If it's not a federal issue, why then did he bring it up? It's a purposeful distraction.

God forbid we have that important conversation about declining incomes, unemployment, deficit spending, unfunded entitlements, the parabolic rise in the national debt, war without end and the fiscal cliff at the end of the year. The whole strategy is to divide people and play them against each other to keep them distracted from the broader issues. That's how politicians (as opposed to statesmen) get elected.

It's easy to be a bigot in private...I think Morristown is more tolerant than this poll shows.

Marissa, you do realize that the poll is not scientific, people can vote more then once and easily skew the results. Some people may be against it simply because President Obama came out to support it, :-)

Marissa, I thought the same thing about my town, but I see in the comments that people are talking about Sussex and Morris Counties. I personally am in Somerset, so this article is likely cross-posted on many Patches. Perhaps your community demographic is different than the people who were drawn this article/poll.

Don't forget, 50% of that 76% will disagree with President Obama on absolutely everything.

Ok, I didn't realize this was multi-county. I am also in Somerset, Kelly.

In any event, I still can't believe these numbers. Amazing.

So, so true GiGi. This hypocritical attack on the rights of people to marry ,rounded in theology . Religion teaches us to love and respect , while inflicting harm and death with a dogma that suffocates free thought. In fact,that is xactly what they want - complete obedience to their notion of what is right and wrong. the denial of civil rights is rooted in the same destructive and systematic extermination of jews during hitlers rule , or Cambodia with Pho Pot, or in China now ; where you can be imprisoned for having too many kids. The denial of civil rights is historical and can be seen in so many ways.

You and I are on the same page GiGi. People...let people just live. It is so ridiculously simple. Are they hurting others? Don't you have enough of your
own problems? C'mon already!!

John: any way to explain the huge incongruity between the poll results and the comments? I too am SHOCKED at the results of the poll, and can only suspect that a bot is responsible for much of the voting, or I live in a much more intolerant area than I suspected (Morris Co.)...

What's most remarkable is President has accomplished all this despite an opposition party that has made it their number one legislative priority to limit him to a single term. So much for "Country First".

Gay marriage support or not, there is just no way Obama loses to that other guy who we now know disgustingly bullied gay kids in high school. Anyone who would do stuff like that is not fit to be dog catcher, let alone POTUS.

Since I don't waste time arguing against clouded thought I will address his biggest positive that you note in both parties opinions - Bin Laden. Fact is Obama freted over the decision to go ahead with the op to get Bin Laden for over two month's while his commanders advised him that this was a very low risk op that had few downsides based on their intelligence and expertise. It wasn't until his senior advisors convinced him that if word ever got out that he decided not to go ahead his presidency would be a greatly diminished with no chance of re-election. And let's not forget about the "pre-blame" documentation he drummed up in the remote case it failed so he could blame someone else as he does for every problem he faces. "Gutsy".....not even close - he was forced into it kicking and screaming and that is indisputable.

Really Bill??? Were you there in the room when Obama and his advisors were hashing this all out? The only thing that's undiputable is your ability to take gossip and try to pass it off as fact.

Bill's rendition of what went on in the room is total BS.

Accounts from those in the room consistently point to two main options. 1) A missile strike or a deployed SPECIAL OPS mission to capture or kill. Sec of Defense Gates has admitted he recommended a missile strike. The President main concern was that even if OBL was killed via missile, we could never prove it unless a body was found. In addition there was great concern for significant collateral damage. 2) An option to send in SPEC OPS was risky because the chance of OBL being in the house was initially 55/45 according to the NSC. This left the President to make the call on which option to pursue. He chose the latter. Had the mission failed it would have been the end of Obama's presidency. It's only fair it now stands as a one of many reasons to re-elect him.

We continue to try and find ways to make the polls a bit more accurate. But, until then, they are more for water cooler conversation than for any real factual basis.

A very LARGE grain of salt. I was able to vote multiple times just by re-accessing the site (didn't even need to remove any cookies).

Let's suppose we could all agree that marriage is an "abomination to the Lord." Fine. What right would that give us to tell other people they can't do it?

As a previous poster pointed out, many people (including Jesus Christ, btw) think it is an "abomination to the Lord" to eat pork and shellfish. Why shouldn't we ban that? Because it is none of the government's damn business, that's why.

Religion and state are separate, Thomas. When will that get through your head?

Selene, you did exactly what Julia said you were going to do, that makes you a bigot and a hypocrite.Homosexual marriage is not a right, homosexuals already have rights because they are people and citizens. Civil unions for the sake of property rights etc.only,.... leave the rest of us alone.

Tammy, you don't really understand the bible, do you? You're repeating talking points and you used the Saul Alinsky debating technique, taught to you by some left wing college professor, of using my own words against me to try and shut me up, but it won't work..... The real issue here is that you have bought into this issue on an emotional basis. Which means you have not thought out your position or world view by taking into account an eternal perspective. 1 Corithians 6:9 & 10 reads: Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Tammy, No one judged you. Are you so insecure in your in your lifestyle that you feel threatened by me stating my beliefs? Why do you need everyone to agree with you, who cares what you think? Marriage is between a man and a woman, whether you accept it or not.

No Tom, by your own admission above, it is your "belief" marriage is only "between a man and a woman". Others have the right to disagree with your "belief".

KMN, this proves that the left is intolerant of opposing views. I have it on good authority that marriage between a man and a woman is the majority point of view across the nation. And if it weren't for activist liberal judges imposing their views upon the law, homosexual marriage would be outlawed in all states. Every time people vote on it, homosexual marriage goes down in flames. I guess you and the left really don't believe in Democracy unless it favors your agenda.

Mr. Lotito-I am not insecure in my lifestyle. I happen to be a straight, married woman. I don't need you or anybody else to agree with me. I just detest people who throw religion into what is a civil rights issue.

Tom,

Good authority? Recent polling clearly show's a majority of Americans are in favor of gay marriage: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/gay-marriage-polls-trend_n_1504577.html

As to "every time people vote on it" comment, you are a perfect example of why civil rights should never be up for a vote. The Constitution grants these rights.

Kevin Millhouse Nedd, the huffpo is lying. N Carolina just banned gay marriage by a vote of the people as did 30 other states.

Tom,

Why do you feel the need to resort to name calling? Can't you debate a topic like an adult? Try and keep your responses to me and others respectful. The polls cited in the link I provided above aren't lies. You just don't like the results. Finally, what happened in NC this week doesn't represent the opinion of the entire nation. If that were the case then WA would not have recent approve a ballot measure legalizing same sex marriage.

Kevin, where is your sense of humor? Please cite for me how many states have the people voted for homosexual marriage? I'll help you out, not California. It doesn't count if an activist judge over tuned the will of the people.

Blaming your name calling on your sense of humor is a childish act at best.

<part 1 of 2>
Dear Bible Adherents:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

<part 2 of 2>
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

SOURCE: http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

Selene, you need to get a life, you're becoming unhinged.

Gadfly, if anyone has a small minded belief system, it's the intolerant left wing of the Democrat party. Why do you feel the need to be in everyone's faces about marriage equality when you have civil unions? Can't you go live out your life quietly like the rest of society instead of looking for society's approval?

Jason Schiff are you a homosexual? Do you mind if I ask you a few questions? My questions will be respectful. Please explain to me how when you see a beautiful woman you're not attracted to her. Let me state for the record, I don't care what you do in your private life, it's none of my business.

Thomas - Thank you for your questions...I don't mind answering at all. Though I never felt the need to make my personal life a part of this debate, I have been happily married to the same woman for almost five years. I believe that if someone feels the way I do about my wife for a member of the same sex, no laws should stand in their way. In addition, I have never been unfaithful (which would be considered a sin) though plenty of Christian conservatives cheat on their wives without remorse (including one Republican candidate). I still do feel that Christie should allow all citizens in NJ the right to vote on this issue. Having said that, please let me know where "the Lord" is quoted as saying marriage should be between a man and woman.

I think that is a very important point. Legalizing same sex marriage, giving same sex couples equal rights and/or the same tax breaks as opposite sex couples is not infringing anyone's rights.

It certainly isn't infringing on Tom's right to express bigotry and intolerance.

Think again Hookerman, the Lord has the last say in every matter, why are you against God? Do you not fear/repsect God and his word? Any church that supports Gay marriage is no longer a church of Christ, that church has become deceived and has lost it's way.

Obama couldn't care less about gay marriage, he needed to raise money from the gay lobby in Hollywood. Before the announcement they were standing on the sidelines not contributing to his reelection. If you really believe Obama made this announcement because he's altruistic, you're a useful idiot of the left. This was part of a campaign strategy to raise money from Axelrod. Check it out.........

Obama touts gay marriage stance at Hollywood fundraiser, as event raises nearly $15M

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/11/obama-touts-gay-marriage-stance-at-hollywood-fundraiser-as-event-raises-nearly/#ixzz1uZ8ow0PC

Prentiss Gray, there are no tax breaks for married couples, married couples pay higher marginal tax rates than non married couples.

Tom,

Married couples do enjoy an advantage in the tax code. A married couple filing jointly would pay more in taxes if they filed married filing separately or if they got divorced and filed as two single people.

Yeah Tom, and you don’t think Romney supports the Defense of Marriage Act for any reason other than to appeal to right-wing Christians like yourself???

Marriage rights are laws passed through legislation, not through God or the Lord. The constitution made it clear that our laws are created by “we the people”, not by any higher authority. Any man and woman who may not even believe in God can go to a justice of the peace and become legally married without any religious intervention. To deny laws based on a religious belief is a violation of the first amendment. Once you lose the religious argument against same-sex marriage, all your left with is: “it’s always been this way”. Slavery existed for thousands of years before it was finally ended in this country. The fact that something has existed a certain way for a number of years is a very poor reason.

Prentiss, if you think everyone should be allowed to get married, then why should the state subsidize married people at all? What about those who choose not to get married? Should they be forced to subsidize those who choose to?

Hookerman, I hope that you agree with me that what persons may and may not do to one another limits what they may do through the apparatus of a state. If so, by what moral legitimacy does the state decide what marriage means, dictate who is allowed to be married and then give special rights and economic benefits to that one group?

It's the state's definition that should be *irrelevant* and not private institutions. If you believe that marriage is a deeply personal matter, then the state should bow out. If a private institution wants to define marriage a certain way and confer benefits on married people, by all means let them do it, so long as they don't force their definition on others or force others to subsidize those benefits.

The only role the state should have is in the courts under common law where there was no formal contract between partners - i.e. rights of next of kin, adoption, joint ownership, immigration status, rights of survivorship, tax law and evidentiary immunity etc.

Assuming you are married David, then you most likely have a certain legal document called a 'marriage license' that was issued by the state in which you got married. If this piece of paper is, in your mind, 'irrelevant', then why did you bother getting one??? Why didn't you simply go to whatever private (ie; religious) institution that you frequent and have them declare you married?

Greetings Marissa, you took Jefferson out of context. Jefferson's remarks state that the gov. could not stop you from worshiping God openly and freely. It's freedom of religion," not freedom from region. If you believe in a wall of separation between Church and State." . You should also support the Catholic Church's position on birth control. You can't have it both ways.

You're pretty ignorant about the Establishment Clause and Jefferson, then.
Signed,
A Political Science major/Attorney

This is super basic, but pretty accurate- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Come on Marrisa, wiki is not a reliable because it's open source and any one can edit it. It's not accepted as a source by HS teachers. But then again you knew that.

Fine, is Cornell Law good enough for you? http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

So therefore, the government is prohibited from preferring Christianity over, say, Hinduism, which certainly doesn't follow the Bible.

First Amendment; "(1) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or (2) prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Part (2) guarantees you the right to worship God openly (ie; freedom of religion), part (1) states that laws cannot be based on religious beliefs (ie; freedom from religion).

Or more succinctly, religion can not use the apparatus of the state to force morality on the whole or to gain exclusive privileges for itself.

Tom,

This comment is really troubling. For you to even think your comments could shake someone's core beliefs is narcissistic at best, if not downright ignorant. Leave the preaching to the professionals on Sunday and find some other way to support your ridiculous statements.

Thomas, uh no, I never thought gay marriage was wrong in the eyes of G-d. Ever. I think you just don't get it.

The goal isn't to get the approval of everyone. There are still people out there who don't believe that Jews have the right to exist, and who believe blacks should still be slaves. They are entitled to their opinion, but I believe it is wrong.

Just like I believe anyone who is against gay marriage is wrong.

I think that's the point, Thomas, we don't know that in our hearts. I expect that in the future gay marriage will not be an issue for most people, but I don't expect to ever convince everyone. Additionally, what you think does matter, it's just that attitude that hurts gay couples. You vote and when you do you are very likely to support the views you express, no matter how repressive they are. It's important to help people like you to realize that it's painful, barbaric and, in my opinion, un-American to tell anyone who they can and cannot marry.

Prentiss, why are you going off the deep end because I disagree with you on homosexual marriage? Have you been brainwashed by the left? I like people, I like to exchange political views. I don't care if you are a homosexual, heterosexual or a frozen vegetable. Homosexuals are people, some are nice some not so nice,

I would hope that they people would want to be recognized for their character, not their sexual proclivities.

I think you need to skip ahead to the New Testament. I know things like love thy neighbor, do unto others as you would have them do unto you and he without sin cast the first stone put a crimp in your God-fearing saber rattling, but Jesus doesn't discriminate, and I read the same Bible you do.

Cara, so you agree with me that homosexuals should be treated by their character not their behavior...cause in essence you argument is extreme. You're essentially judging those who disagree with your agenda by taking the bible out of context. and using it against them to make your point. That debating technique wont' work here. Marriage is between a man and a woman, whether you like or not.

I'll bring some frozen vegetables to your house tomorrow and you can put on a political puppet show for your guest.

No reason to re-define all of society in order to satisfy a small minority. Leave marriage alone, it's fine the way it is, Have civil unions.

Cara, You can not compare the suffering of human slaves to a few homosexuals who want to changes the definition of marriage. How ridiculous,all you're dong is regurgitating lines that have been spoon fed to you.

Thomas- an interesting read for you - http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

Let me detail who spoon-fed those lines to me: first my parents, then the sisters and priests at my first Catholic school, then my CCD teachers , then my theology teachers, sisters and priests at my Catholic high school, THEN the priests and professors at my Jesuit college. Slavery doesn't have to be physical; you can be chained in your heart or mind. When you say it's OK to discriminate against ANY segment of the population you denegrate the rights of everyone. No one is saying churches have to perform the sacrament of marriage for homosexuals, but our country was based on the presumption that God created all men and women equally. All Americans deserve equal rights and protection under the law. You have the right to disagree, but you have no right to bully, insult, demean or diminsh the opinion of anyone else. And to have to question MY faith because I disagree with you make me sick.

Did I hit a nerve? Get well.

Your arrogance is amazing! Hit a nerve? Hardly, Tom. I have debated better than you and those of your ilk who use the Bible to hurt others, like, in your words, to discriminate against a "small percentage" of the population. I am secure in my faith, secure in my beliefs and have better things to do.

Cara - I hope Tom isn't referencing the Bible as his only source for argument. If I recall from my CCD days, the Bible also mentions something about how the sun revolves around the earth.

You sound a little unhinged TGC, why do you hate God so much?

Grant, Sounds like psychobabble! DId you bump your head?

Jason, why so snarky?

I'm not being snarky at all; I felt we were having a good philosophical debate and wanted to make sure you aren't being hypocritical (picking and choosing which sins to be for and against). I'd also like to hear your reasons (other than the religious argument) against same-sex marriage. And I'd still like the link to the direct quote.

You ask people why they hate God and they're snarky?

TGC. you're all over the place, you have ADD. Can you try and focus on the question? Why do you hate God?

Ryan, your so disingenuous, your the third liberal today that has taken God's word out of context in order to win your point. You sound like you've been brainwashed by some left wing college professor. How embarrassing! Marriage is between a man and a woman, whether you like or not!

Tom, first of all, I'm not a liberal. I'm a moderate republican. And, yes, this is an embarrassing situation. But for you, not me. Unlike you, I was never brainwashed. You clearly had no chance.

Also, marriage is is between any 2 people that love each other. That does not mean a man and a women.

Ryan, Republican moderates are liberals, sometimes called RINOS!

Ryan, you're wrong again, marriage is between a man and a woman. How would Percy Sledge's hit song sound if you had your way? It wouldn't work so well, would it?

When A Man loves A Woman? Percy Sledge http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQh112HQsoE

Wow. So, according to you, anyone who isn't an uber christian conservative nut is a liberal? You should get that checked out.

Also, backing up your argument with a song from 1966 is pretty pathetic.

Ryan,one of the tell-tale signs of a liberal is no sense of humor, lighten up.

Thomas, you are ignoring Ryan's comment. If you are going to quote one part of the Bible, then you need to address all of it. I suspect you wouldn't agree to a law that would allow people to be put to death who work on the Sabbath.

FWIW, I don't care what the Bible says. Again, the Establishment clause prevents the Bible from being controlling law. Furthermore, allowing gay marriage in the US does not force any Church/Synagogue/~insert your religious place of worship here~ to marry someone they don't want to marry.

Tom - I've actually only been to one wedding ceremony (my own) but do not recall this specific line. Regardless, as the Book of Genesis cannot be credited to the writings of a specific person (traditions say Moses), this can't be considered a primary quote from "the Lord," but rather a secondary accounting (and, as you know, some people lie when they say/write thing - you accused Obama of not being genuine in his comments). To be frank, if you cannot factually confirm the origin of this book/quote, how can you make it the basis of your entire philosophy on marriage (or life)? The bottom line is that we disagree. I certainly won't change your views and you won't change mine. But I refuse to live my life thinking that some people don't deserve rights because some guy 2,000 years ago may or may not have said that it is a sin for same-sex marriages to exist. Same-sex marriage has no true bearing on your life personally. Certainly, you cannot cure the ills (sins) of the world by blogging on the Bridgewater Patch. And if you could, I'd hope you would start with the more insidious offenses within Christianity like Catholic priests (those same men that taught you all about god) molesting young alter boys. Let's root out the hypocrisy first.

Marissa, our laws come form the Ten Commandments, which there is a carved figure of Moses, the law giver at the supreme court. Re-educate yourself, it's becoming embarrassing to have to correct you all of the time.

There are carved figures of Confucius, and Solon next to Moses as well at the supreme court depicting historical lawgivers. So what is your point, I fail to see how that equates to our laws to the Ten Commandments?

TL, I've been to a lot of weddings - religious and civil - and can't ever remember hearing that quote from the Christian Bible.

BTW, what does that have to do with the USA recognizing same-sex marriage?

TL, just to humor you let us assume that there is a god...even a Christian god. Who has he/she appointed to analyze right and wrong?

Uhm, what garden?

You better go back and read both documents because you are wrong.

I've studied them extensively in college and in law school, and fairly often as part of my job as an attorney. I think you're the one who is sadly misinformed.

But you sell pianos, no?

In Tom's world a piano tuner knows far more about the law than an attorney. Trust me...it makes sense to him!

I misread this, you are right. Our laws come from these documents. The writers were inspired by the word of God. Ask yourself why there is a monument of the Ten Commandants in front of the supreme court? Moses was the lawgiver..

There is no monument of the Ten Commandants in front of the supreme court.

Ask yourself why God is not mentioned once in the U.S. Constitution. Ask yourself why most of the ten commandments are not even illegal in the U.S.

Marissa, I defer to your expertise and experience, I'm not one who would start an argument with a lawyer. I respect your your opinions even though they are different than mine.

As long as their beliefs do not violate the law. Otherwise the practice of having multiple wives would be legal if the Mormans had their way.

So to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, and to enact a constitutional amendment which would force states to deny these rights, regardless of the will of the people of that state, is what you would consider freedom??? That's some convoluted logic you have.

No more so than a voter arrested for violently assaulting a public sector employee over a private matter. A situation far more serious than a petty offense, which by definition is a misdemeanor, not a crime.

So when blacks were told they had to ride in the back of the bus, your solution would have been nobody rides the bus? Oh yeah...that's leadership!

Kevin's beginning to understand that homosexuals have hijacked the civil rights issue.Same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue. Same sex marriage is about homosexuals need for society to affirm them. If I was wrong, and I'm not, then civil unions would be sufficient.

You could not be more wrong. I have always understood denying gays the right to marry who they love is a civil rights issue. So given I am far more educated that you, please do not pretend to speak for me.

No one was speaking for you Kevin, I was pointing out that you had a moment of lucidity and honesty in that post. It has been written by many black people (Ministers and community leaders) do not buy into the marriage equality issue as a civil rights issue that equals the plight of African Americans in this country.

No Tom, you were trying to misconstrue my point, which equated gay rights and civil rights as being one in the same. As for those Black ministers and community leaders, there are poor examples of leadership within every part of our great society. If you want an example of how black leadership should think about gays, google Colin Powell's evolved view on gays serving in the military.

KMN you missed the point if everyone has a "civil" union everyone would be afforded the same rights, even Mormons ! Problem solved and everyone can stop letting Thomas detour the discussion into a personal argument with him. He loves to push buttons and he sits back and laughs meanwhile the country is being bought up by billionaires for pennies on the taxpayer dollar. The Patriot act took away rights from everyone there is a bigger picture.

Flaw in your logic. Couples with civil unions aren't afforded the same rights as married couples. Federal tax income tax filing status, portability of their status across all state lines, and federal benefits are three examples of differences. Equal means equal. Nothing less per our Constitution.

Forgot to add...when you are the member of an oppressed minority, it's kinda hard to "see the bigger picture" when there is a bigot standing in the doorway.

@KMN so as not to be misunderstood I am aware there is a difference in the equality of civil unions vs marriage. If everyone's "marriage" was deemed a civil union no one would stand for inequality in homosexual vs heterosexual or Mormon civil unions. The term "Civil Union" would mean "marriage," semantics per se. As far as being an "oppressed minority" join the crowd. Check your history unless you are a heterosexual WASP you were a member of an oppressed minority from the beginning of this country. Slaves got their freedom and black men got the vote before women. Difference is you seem to be letting a "bigot" stand in your doorway. As a people the majority of Americans are being ruled by the one percent and big corporations. "Divide and conquer" We are all losing are rights, and that IS the big picture.

The problem with your logic is that everyone in a marriage would lose their current rights because the laws that grant these rights specify "marriage" by name. These laws wouldn"t recognize civil unions. So everyone would be disenfranchised. A better option would be to grant anyone willing to marry someone the right to do so without regard to gender and allow everyone to enjoy the rights granted by doing so.

KMN the "problem" with your logic is that you are still stuck in the box that put the "bigot" in your doorway. Do you honestly think the people using the word married now would give up their rights? If the word married was changed to civil union how long do you think it would be before civil unions got the same rights afforded to "married" people now? About 5 minutes, and as such everyone who entered into a civil union would have equal rights since there would be no "marriage" there would only be civil unions, and thereby no discrimination as to whether the civil union was homosexual, heterosexual or as I said Mormon. The real argument seems to be over the definition of the word marriage defenders of the word put a religious connotation to it. Eliminate the word marriage and you eliminate the religious argument, where you see rights being taken away I see rights being afforded to all.

GiGi, why are complaining abut the only poster who disagrees with the president on homosexual marriage? Lotito has been attacked over and over, with inane remarks, why aren't you complaining about that?

Jerry. He has been attacked because he is attacking those who have the audacity to think differently than him. This is an issue of respecting each others beliefs, not agreeing/disagreeing with the president.

Agreed!!!

Good idea, I am very bored of the political rambling on the
Local patch website. This is supposed to be a local news site.

Bomino you're afraid to post in your own name. The truth is Domino, you harassed me not long ago when you wrote: "Tom Lotito: At your income level, do you even pay any taxes? I think most people are tired of subsidizing deadbeats like you." This makes you an internet bully. The truth is you don't have the intestinal fortitude to use your own name or say this to my face. It's like when you were a little kid and you hid behind your mothers skirt. I'm not afraid to post in my own name because I am not ashamed of my Christian views.

Homosexual marriage is morally wrong Domino. Marriage is between a man and a woman and is sanctified by God.God is in the marriage with the man and the woman. When a wedding is performed outside the church it's a legal binding contract between the man and the woman and the state.This marriage is also sanctified by God because the state's authority comes from God. .

Marriage between a man and woman keeps order in society and brings God's blessings on the community at large, otherwise chaos will ensue. Marriage protects the woman and the children from the father abandoning his moral and legal obligation to support his family. It is the Christian's duty to bring the truth of God's word to the community, my views are equal time here. I'm the only poster presenting the Christian world view. To those who would shut me down, why do you read everything I write? You have the right to ignore my posts no one is forcing you to read this.

"...ignore my posts". Smartest thing you've said thus far!

Thomas.
"Homosexual marriage is morally wrong" Your morals are obviously different than most of the country.
"Marriage is between a man and a woman and is sanctified by God." God has nothing to do with a legal marriage, despite what you say.
"It is the Christian's duty to bring the truth of God's word to the community... I'm the only poster presenting the Christian world view." I know many Christians that are perfectly fine with gay marriage, dramatically more than are against it.
"This marriage is also sanctified by God because the state's authority comes from God" This is so wrong, I honestly don't know where to start.

Ryan,

Don't bother. It won't change a thing in Tom's mind. Tolerance is not in his DNA.

Limiting the political responses would be censorship. This is America. Try reading the Constitution. Why not exercise your most obvious option? Don't read the thread!

Ryan, You grew up in America, I'm sure someone taught you about God? Yes?

Ryan, have you ever heard the good news about God? John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

GiGi If you dislike me so much, why do you read everything I write? If you despise Christian values, what makes you qualified to be a judge over who behaves like a Christian? Face the truth, you are intolerant of an opposing point of view.

Tom,

The poll you cited was put out by Rasmussen, a known GOP affiliated entity. So it's pretty much BS. Gallup, a more neutral source has the President ahead by a point. The same poll has the President on the rise since he affirmed his support for same sex marriage. A seperate poll by the Associated Press has the President leading by 8 points. This is what happens when someone lacks the intellect to synthesize multiple points of view in forming an opinion.

Kevin, if you thought you lost by a large margin in 2008, you ain't seen nothing yet. You're going to need a crying towel.

Tom,

Instead of running your mouth, take a look at the Electoral College Map preview on RCP and tell us how Romney gets to 270 electoral votes? Obama pretty much has 253 votes in the bag not counting toss up states. Romney only has 170. There are already enough toss up states where the President is ahead in the polling to win with electoral votes to spare. Leave the predictions to the professionals. You didn't do so well in 2008 with McCain and the hockey mom.

KMN, The only time the electoral map counts is on election night, and that electoral map will churn with the issue of Obama's record on the economy. Obama can not run on his record (you know it) on the economy. So keep spinning. As far as 2008 goes Like you, Obama was defeated by a huge margin here in Morris County. John McCain is the defacto president of Morris county.

Did the President need Morris county to win NJ? Has a Democrat ever won Morris County? You make the most ridiculous arguments based on your ideology.

The President is running on his record. 4 million jobs via 25 straight months of private sector job growth is nothing to be ashamed of. But you didn't answer my question. What states will Mitt win to seal the additional electoral votes needed to gain 270?

BTW...that Rasmussen poll you cited yesterday has the President narrowing the gap from 8 to 4 points. Why is the gap narrowing? It's still a BS poll, but you should find the trend disturbing.

Notwithstanding your partisanship Kevin, Rasmussen is a very accurate, it's a highly regarded by both sides.....The president is not running on his record. There's been a net loss of 3 million jobs in the last three years. Obama regulations have cause the price of energy to necessarily skyrocket, resulting in businesses not to hire new employees, resulting in high unemployment and slow economic growth. You ought to take the time to educate yourself on these issues, you sound like you're in denial. People are not better off today than they were four years ago and that electoral map will change and not in your favor. It's the economy Kevin..........Carville Warns of GOP Earthquake: Wake up Democrats; You Could Lose! http://nation.foxnews.com/james-carville/2012/05/09/carville-warns-gop-earthquake-wake-democrats-you-could-lose

Let's take each of your falsehoods one at a time. Please produce evidence showing Rasmussen polling is "highly regarded by both sides". No spin please, just documented proof.

Next, provide documented evidence the economy has lost 3 million net jobs in the last three years (April 2009 to April 2012). And since you are focused on businesses, narrow your focus to private sector jobs. Again, no spin, just provide the documented links.

Tom,

Let me help you out a bit. The link below is from a story in the WSJ that outlines how net private sector job growth turned positive for the Obama Presidency last month. Now I realize you didn't attend a decent college, if at all, but please do your best to explain how the county could have experience a net loss of 3 million jobs (private and/or public) in the past three years given the facts outline in the WSJ, which by no means is a"liberal" publication?

I and the rest of the readers of this forum await your entertaining, if not comical reply.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/04/private-jobs-turn-positive-for-obama-presidency/

Kevin Millhouse Nedd, If Obama is creating so many jobs why is the Unemployment rate 8.2%? http://www.gallup.com/poll/153917/unemployment-provides-mixed-picture-mid-april.aspx

The economic growth rate is 2% and should be growing much faster,‘This Is Not a Recovery at All’: Stanford’s Lazear http://www.cnbc.com/id/47090508/This_Is_Not_a_Recovery_at_All_Stanford_s_Lazear

Tom,

You made a very definitive statement above that the economy lost 3 million jobs over the past three years. I challenged you to prove this is true. Your reply cited a stat noting the unemployment rate. Stick to proving the statement I challenged. What is your source for saying the economy has lost 3 million net jobs over the past three years? One thing at a time Tom, I'll be happy to talk about the unemployment rate once your provided documented evidence for the 3 million net job loss claim.

So try again Tom, what is your source that explicitly shows the economy lost 3 million net jobs over rhe past three years? We are all waiting for you to back up your claim.

And when we do get around to discussing the unemployment rate, you might want to reference the correct figure. It dropped to 8.1% in April.

Selene, you called yourself a real thinker and intellectual. If you really believe that, when are you going to accept the fact your views are in the minority? When put to a vote, people reject homosexual marriage. 32 states thus far have banned same sex marriages by a vote of the people.Democracy in action, isn't that what liberals always clamoring for?

Thomas, how our her views in the minority? People accept gay marriage in NJ. 57% are in favor and only 37% are opposed.
Another interesting note is that people who attend church services weekly are less supportive, even though the majority of them still support it.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/poll_most_new_jerseyans_suppor.html

Ryan, I'd like to see the demographics of that poll, the only real pole that counts is a the ballot box. If put to a vote the PEOPLE of NJ would vote it down too.

The Patch poll is absolutely worthless. Anyone can vote multiple times, even on the same computer. Since the poll is overwhelmingly against, and the comments are overwhelmingly for, what do you think those opposed are doing? Instead of writing meaningful comments to support their positions, they're just going into the poll and voting again, and again, and again....

Dear American Taliban: Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

Tom,

All you did was state more unsubstantiated figures. So I ask you again, what is your documented source of your claim the economy suffered 3 million net job losses over the past three years?

Maybe if I try a page out of your presumptive presidential nominee's play book I can get you to focus on my question. I am willing to bet you $10,000 the President's record on net job creation over the past three years (April 2009 - April 2012) is not the negative 3 million jobs you claimed. Put up or shut up Tom!

How's about just a game of hoops and Burger King, you spot me 10 points because you're taller than me?

Mr. Lotito,

I read the Wall Street Journal article KMN referenced. There is no argument the economy did not lose three million net jobs over the past 3 years. Your only hope now is to pray you find a verse in your bible saying otherwise. While you are looking, I suggest you take note of Proverbs 18:2, which says:

"A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion."

Kevin, I misread the figure, it's 2 million.(wasn't wearing reading glasses)

"Start with the Obama record. It’s true that 1.9 million fewer Americans have jobs now than when Mr. Obama took office- economist Paul Krugman

Deep recessions usually spring back with higher growth numbers. Economic growth for the first quarter of 2012 is 2.2% Why is economic growth numbers so slow, under Obama? Keep in mind that Obama's job numbers would be higher except for Obama heavy regulation that is holding back the economy. EPA regulations were used by president Obama to veto the Keystone pipeline deal, resulting in more dependence on foreign oil and higher prices at the pump. Obama's capitulation to environmental groups lost over 40,000 jobs........In the first 2 ½ years of the Reagan recovery, the American economy created 8 million new jobs, the unemployment rate fell by 3.6 percentage points, real wages and incomes were jumping, and poverty had reversed an upsurge started under Carter, beginning a long-term decline. While Obama crows about 227,000 jobs created last month, in September, 1983 the Reagan recovery less than a year after it began created 1.1 million jobs in that one month alone. In the second year of the Reagan recovery, real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.

Tom,

Still no documented proof of you 3 million net job loss claim. If you had any intellect at all you would have read the WSJ link I provided earlier and fully conceded your 3 million net job quote was a complete falsehood ( e.g., lie), as it clearly shows the economy under President Obama is now net POSITIVE on private job creation. Public sector jobs (state and local) are still down about 700K. But that's something you anti government types are most likely happy with.

KMN< re-read my post, you missed the data I provided for you, and Paul Krugman is not a reliable source for you?

Tom,

That's not documented proof. It's only hearsay on something you claim Krugman said. You provided no supporting documentation. What do you have (that's documented) to refute the BLS data contained in the WSJ article I referenced above?

Fair enough, KMN. I hear what you're saying.

This is one of those polls designed for idiots; it looks at approval ratings state by state, and assumes that if a candidate’s approval rating is below 50%, that he will definitely lose the race. Of course, it gives no consideration to the approval rating of that candidate’s opponent in the same state.

You beat me to the punch. Your first sentence could be the "hook" in a hip-hop song about Lotito's gullibility and ability to interpret information.

If I'm so bad at interpreting information, why do Democrats lose every election? Think again!

I seem to recall you predicting President Obama losing in 2008. I guess you did a great job of interpreting the "information" on that one, right?

Suddenly Gallup is for idiots? Hookerman if you're an expert on poling data, where do you publish your poll? [sic]

Sure Gary, it was that way in 1980 before the election too.

Thank you, K!

Hey Kevin, get your Air Jordan's, here's the Krugman story, with excuses....It’s true that 1.9 million fewer Americans have jobs now than when Mr. Obama took office.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/opinion/bain-barack-and-jobs.html?_r=1

Too bad you didn't take stacie's advice long ago, it would have kept you out of court...

Homosexual marriage is not popular with the public an large, it was voted down in California. If it wasn't for activist judges there wouldn't be homosexual marriage anywhere.

“People are going to make their own choices regardless of what powers dictate…”. What is this supposed to mean in relation to this debate??? Same-sex couples cannot ‘choose’ to acquire equal marriage rights (as Catholics couple can choose to use birth control), they will only have these marriage rights if it is legislated.

Joseph,

I agree with your sentiments up to the point where you seem to indicate ensuring equality for all who live in our great nation isn't a "pressing issue".

Stacie,

In a perfect world what you stated above would suffice. But the world's not perfect and gays unfortunately have to fight for basic rights due to bias and bigotry. I am happy to join them in the fight. In a perfect world what you stated above would suffice. But the world's not perfect and gays unfortunately have to fight for basic rights due to bias and bigotry. I am happy to join them in the fight.

Part of this fight involves doing all that I can to ensure the only President to have come out in favor of same sex marriage is reelected. To do so, we must directly and aggressively challenge falsehoods and lies meant to discourage voters from supporting him in the fall.

While unpleasant at times, this is why the "politics" is important.

We don't need medicare or Obamacare...

Jeremiah 30:17 ESV

For I will restore health to you, and your wounds I will heal, declares the Lord, because they have called you an outcast: ‘It is Zion, for whom no one cares!’

Not sure what an erroneous prison reference has to do with the President’s historic support of same-sex marriage? Perhaps a few of your local GOP comrades, having served time in prison and/or on parole for crimes ranging from tax evasion, DUI, and violent assault could have used your advice and counsel prior to their arrests?

The community owes you stacie, you got Kevin to stop re-posting media lies about Obama failed presidency. You should have given him this advice before he was convicted of harassment. kudos!