"Gay agenda?" I'm gay but am unaware of any agenda. I'm too busy working hard, paying my mortgage and taxes, and trying to be a good neighbor and citizen. Could you fill me in on this agenda?

Oh, I would like to have the same rights as my neighbors and family members.

Very glad to see support for this wonderful American......where is the feminist support to decry some of the outrageous comments made by Hilton??

Coney, Matt is being a little snarky here. And this might be the agenda he's talking about:
http://www.bettybowers.com/homoagenda.html

I'm so glad that Ms. California had the guts to stand by her conviction and let people know how she feels. It just goes to show you that while the gays say they want equality they surely DON'T practice it! I find it odd that the very people who claim to be so "TOLERANT" of others don't recipricate the action. Just another reason to bash the Christian conservative.

herrmon,

We're not bashing him because he's a Christian conservative. We're bashing him because there are better things that the Alabama House should be doing than passing resolutions about Miss California. The House is in session for only so long...

As for as Miss Cali, she told the truth and spoke her mind, and that's a courageous thing to do.

Miss California should be arrested for murdering the English language, plain and simple. I think she actually gave Miss Teen South Carolina a run for her money in the garbled speech / dim comprehension category.

Not only that, but she contradicted herself. She started out saying that she thinks it's "great that Americans are able to choose" - this means she supports the legality of same-sex marriages (otherwise there would be no "choice" to make, and she thinks the "choice" is great!) But she ended up by saying she thinks marriage should be "between a man and a woman", meaning she does not support the legality of same-sex marriages, because her definition of marriage only includes heterosexual unions.

I...I think we need to consider Dumb Police. Our collective dimness is spiraling out of control...

Nice unbiased reporting - by using prejudicial terms like "gay agenda" Mr Hooper reveals that he has no degree in journalism (at least from a legitimate school). Do FOX own this site? I would like to say that Mr Hooper's bigoted "agenda" shows that the south has a long way to come still. It is amazing that the south is still such a hate filled and hypocritical part of this nation. Mr. Hooper would be wise to let us know what his "agenda" is, evangelical crazy perhaps?

Biggus_Dickus, I think if you re-read the article you may realize that Matt was being a bit snarky--not everything he wrote is necessarily supposed to be taken at face value.

Sorry I didn't read the whole thing - I retract all I said and apologize!

It is so clear now why Jay Love lost his recent election. I'm sure that some dumb beauty pageant is foremost on the minds of Alabamians who have been laid off from work, have lost their home, or are about to lose their home. Mr. Love should return his paycheck to the State of Alabama because he is certainly doing very little to earn it.

And the "I Wish Stupid Hurt" Award goes to......

1. Miss California hasn't a clue what she is talking about. Gay marriage is not legal in the United States. It is legal in some states, which make up the United States, but not the entire country.

2. Although I disagree with Miss California on gay marriage I feel she shouldn't be criticized for expressing her opinion. I often tell people if you don't want my opinion then don't ask for it. Perez Hilton asked for it.

3. That was a really stupid question for Perez Hilton to ask. What was the point? I think he and Rep. Jay Love should share in the "I Wish Stupid Hurt" award.

4. Rep. Jay Love must have been beaten with a stupid stick when he was a kid....a really, really big stupid stick. Apparently it didn't hurt enough, huh? Here he is wasting Alabama taxpayer time and money while everything is falling down around every citizen in the state. Not to mention embarrassing the absolute hell out of us once again. Thanks Jay!

We have far, far more important issues in this state to worry about than a spat between an inarticulate, misinformed, bimbo, beauty queen and a gay entertainment blogger. Who really gives a fuck what either of them say about anything? And why the hell have 51 members of the Alabama House signed on in support of this trivial nonsense?

You know what? I think every member who has signed on in support is worthy of today's award. That includes a few that I know and like very much. Here's the list. I hope you will make it known to them what you think of their silliness.


3 By Representatives Love, Clouse, Williams, Bridges, Gipson,
4 Hammon, Johnson, McMillan, Hubbard, Boothe, Faust, Beck,
5 Shiver, Bentley, Galliher, Thomas (E), Greeson, McClendon,
6 Baker (A), Canfield, Allen, Collier, McCutcheon, Ward, Hill,
7 Morrow, Drake, Moore (P), Treadaway, Sanderford, Payne, Wood,
8 DeMarco, Lewis, Barton, Oden, Ison, Mask, Laird, Ball, Gaston,
9 Fincher, Davis, Grimes, Vance, Wren, Martin, Moore (M),
10 Robinson (O), Sherer, Fite and Letson

And for clarification...a few people have pointed out that 'stupid' does indeed hurt...unfortunately it often isn't the stupid people that are hurt by their own stupidity...its others. My wish for stupid to hurt means I wish that it caused physical discomfort to the person/persons being stupid...X10 for those who are willfully stupid (see those mentioned above).

Loretta wins this comment thread.

you go hon ,do not give the devil a chance to say that gay marrage is ok it's not, You did a great job, you should be proud, and thank God for teaching you the truth.

Ms. Cali. freaked out when asked a loaded question.
I'm not sure how she would have answered if she had time to ask her handlers.
They are called beauty pageants, not smart pageants.

I do not/will not promote same sex marriges.

Everyone is out to make their personnal life public now. It's like everyone is saying their gay/bi-sexual. Here's the key word "Sexual", this is your sexual preference, which I am fine with. But to say that you want to have the same rights as a man/woman is wrong. I read the bible and I have yet to run across anything that says woman-to-woman, or man-to-man. Certain things we just should keep the way the LORD intended. Yes, he didn't make it on of his TEN Commandments, but he did make it known of this intended union to be between that of a Man and Woman.

Yes, you may love your significant other deeply and want to show them, but not this WAY. I can't judge you but I can say if you "Believe" in the LORD....and that he died for us, you would respect this one thing. This isn't the American way, Korean way, Arabic way, nor Buddist way..............its GOD'S Way.

Like I said I can't judge you.....I want every one to be happy....but don't judge those of us who try to the best of our ability to live by the LORD/

Well, when straight couples marry, they certainly make their "personnal" lives public. And last I checked, we didn't make law in this country based on what some people believe the Bible says. I suspect you'd have a fit if someone were pushing to base our legal system on the Koran. Not sure what Koreans or "Buddists" (it's Buddhists, btw) have to do with the issue.

No one asked you to promote same sex marriages. Those of us who support marriage equality believe the law shouldn't discriminate. We don't require belief in the LORD for citizenship, but our constitution is built on the idea that everyone is equal under the law, whether you approve or not.

And sexual orientation is just that -- an orientation, not a preference. It has to do with far more than sexual activity. Surely you don't think your straight partnership/marriage is only about sex. I certainly don't.

Thanks for the correction Kathy,

When I made the reference to "personal" life I am referring to sexual preference. I understand that no matter if your straight or gay you going to show affection for your significant other. My only issue is that with marriage, like I said I can't judge anyone on whom they chose to sleep with. And as far as citizenship, I do feel that this country's for fathers did require that you believe in the LORD for citizenship. Remember the Pledge of Allegiance "One Nation under GOD", but yet we still go against him on simple this like marriage.

This nation has become so sensitive on everything. In order to feel accepted we must categorize everything including one's sexual activity to make it an orientation, create a demographic to say "Hey we have RIGHTS!"

And No, I don't think my straight partnership is about sex, Jesus spoke it and wrote it to "IDENTIFY" that this between MAN and Woman is something MORE. But again, I don't an issue on whom ANYONE wants to be with!!!!!!!! NO ISSUES AT ALL. But MARRIAGE yes I do. And would you have a FIT if our legal system was based on it. Because you know what I wouldn't, I would just have to live with it. And if I was brought up in the Muslim religion then I would follow it, but I wasn't so I don't.

Were so bold to declare our orientation in the U.S., but let’s do this in the other parts of the world. U know even though Christians and Muslims don't see eye-to-eye on every religious aspect, we do believe in Jesus or Allah as they say. And what’s funny in both religions it’s MAN and Woman in marriage.

Again my point is Marriage, not whom you choose to spend your live/time with. Just don’t cross the line and say you want be married and want the same rights as a married Man and Woman. This to me wouldn't be in line with the teachings of Christianity or Muslim. As children I am sure that we all were brought up to love everyone. Love everyone regardless of race, color and now sexual preference. I agree with this but, marriage is written within our religions to exist between Man and Woman.

Pls don't take my words as being disrespectful because I don't mean to be.

Oh my! You really, really need to go back to your history books. You may feel whatever you want, but there is nothing in the constitution requiring religious faith as a condition of citizenship. The Pledge of Allegiance was not written by the founding fathers. It was written in 1892 and has been revised several times. The phrase "under God" was not in the original and was not added until 1954. Allah is the Arabic word for God, not Jesus. Muslims revere Jesus, but they do not consider him divine. And we won't even get started on the many different definitions of marriage that have been "ordained" over the centuries.

Civil rights in this country are not and should not be based on any one person's or group's interpretation of religious texts. That's an invitation to oppression of those in the minority, and you may want to consider that you could at some point find yourself part of a minority if your particular brand of Christianity falls out of favor (and please don't tell me how oppressed Christians are here in the United States -- we're not). Not everyone in this country is Christian, not everyone is a person of faith, not everyone agrees with your interpretation of text.

For the protection of our civil rights and our religious freedom, we need to keep the two separate. If we went your route, we'd likely still have slavery. After all, didn't the apostle Paul admonish slaves to "obey your masters"?

Okay, here's the rub... Folks have said that marriage should be left to the church and the civil unions should be left to the government, and that's fine, but let's consider that for a second, here...

The government would only issue a "Certificate of Civil Union."

A "Certificate of Marriage" would have to be issued and/or revoked by an ordained minister or leader of an established religion. Since we cannot discriminate between religions, this could be issued by leaders from any religion-- including Scientology, Wicca, and Satanism. Atheists (gay or straight) would not be allowed to marry, and each religion would be allowed to issue and/or revoke the marriage in according to their particular beliefs.

That means that most divorced and remarried couples would not be recognized under most Abrahamic (Christian, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim) religions. Catholics would not be allowed to marry protestants, and the pope could revoke a license upon discovery that the couple is using any form of birth control. Cultures that believe in reincarnation would be allowed to marry animals.

Truth be told, that's the only way to make it fair, if we leave "marriage" to religious groups. Is that really something we want? Or should we just suck it up and realize that basing legal rights on ONE particular interpretation of ONE religious text is completely insane?

Almoderate, I think you're borrowing trouble.

The idea you're criticizing is to separate the religious aspect of marriage from the state's recognition of a domestic partnership — which need not have a religious aspect at all. Nothing revolutionary about that, as many couples already get married at the courthouse without a religious service. The "civil union" is all they're interested in, and no "Certificate of Marriage" would be needed. Omitting the marriage certificate would not affect a couple's civil rights.

So when you say that "Atheists would not be allowed to marry," you're mistaken. Atheists would choose a civil union and omit the religious marriage entirely. I would think that would be their preference.

The idea is that the state would have nothing to do with marriage, which is a religious rite. Its only concern would be with whether a couple had chosen to enter the legal state of civil union, pooling their resources and sharing benefits and liabilities. Presumably everyone who had a religious marriage would also register as a civil union. (But if they had religious objections to that, I suppose they could refuse. The state would then regard them as unrelated individuals.)

You complain that separating the religious and civil aspects of marriage would give religions more scope to assert their particular doctrines. I have trouble seeing why that would make things different than they are now. Your examples are beyond absurd, and could all occur under the present marriage laws anyway.

This change, which I think is desirable but a long way off, would make the whole issue of "recognition of gay marriage" moot. Gay couples would be recognized as having civil unions, giving them the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. This is a point most conservative Christians won't object to. Their concern is that the state will force, say, Southern Baptists to sanctify gay marriages in their churches — which would be a clear violation of their constitutional right to freedom of worship. Unlikely, I know, but that's where they're coming from.

Whereas gay couples can get "married" today, as a religious rite, in many Christian churches that don't interpret the Bible the way most evangelicals do on this point. But the marriage "doesn't count" legally because of the way marriage has been hybridized as a matter of both church and state. So let's clear up the confusion.

"Whereas gay couples can get "married" today, as a religious rite, in many Christian churches that don't interpret the Bible the way most evangelicals do on this point. But the marriage "doesn't count" legally because of the way marriage has been hybridized as a matter of both church and state."

That was actually my point. What you see above my own argument two posts up was from someone who said that gay unions should not be LEGAL (a.k.a have the same legal rights) because of religious reasons. However, if the argument is that only churches should have "marriage" while government has "unions", then the concept of a civil union and/or legal rights from government should apply to all legal unions-- regardless of sexual preference.

And in fact what is being discussed is legal rights, although the person above is specifically arguing that gay couple should NOT have the same rights as straight ones. But what is the term that you find on most legal/hospital documentation? "Married." Not "civilly joined." The nuts and bolts of the issue in many situations is in fact terminology. Religious groups want to believe that they have exclusive rights to the term-- when in fact if they consider that there are other religious groups outside their own, it's not so exclusive. Add to that that you'll find many of these same people would have a problem with not being LEGALLY "married" and referred to a "civilly joined" would show that it's a term they consider to be inferior, bringing the whole "separate but equal" argument into the equation. In the end, you have a ridiculous argument, and that's what I'm trying to point out.

Religious definitions should not be assumed to only apply to one particular denomination of one religion, and therefore cannot reasonably be applied to law. And so saying that gay couples cannot be married because it should only apply to religious organizations is therefore absurd.

Yes, it does lead to a ridiculous situation, and that's exactly what I was trying to point out.