A Christian group opposing the effort to legalize same-sex marriage in Maine is encouraging its supporters to join a bus trip to the nearest Chick-fil-A fast-food restaurant on Wednesday. The trip is part of a national campaign by same-sex marriage opponents to patronize the restaurant chain, whose president and CEO recently expressed his opposition to same-sex marriage.
The Christian Civic League of Maine on Monday sent an email to supporters encouraging them to join a bus trip to a Chick-fil-A location in Peabody, Mass., scheduled for Wednesday and organized by Arthur Langley, a conservative activist from Durham. There are no Chick-fil-A restaurants in Maine.
“We are calling on folks that agree with Mr. Cathy to make their way to Chick-fil-A to show their support for him,” Christian Civic League executive director Carroll Conley said in an interview Tuesday, referring to Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy.
Cathy told a Baptist publication in early July that the Chick-fil-A company supported the biblical definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman. He followed up those comments during a radio interview, saying, “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’”
Cathy has said that Chick-fil-A operates on biblical principles and is not open on Sundays.
Cathy’s comments on same-sex marriage caused a stir from both same-sex marriage supporters and opponents.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel pledged to try to keep Chick-fil-A from expanding into that city, saying “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values,” according to the Chicago Sun-Times. And Boston Mayor Tom Menino issued a letter telling the restaurant chain it wasn’t welcome in the city.
On the other end of the spectrum, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee put out the call on Facebook for a national Chick-fil-A appreciation day on Aug. 1. In a Facebook message, Huckabee said he was “incensed at the vitriolic assaults” on Chick-fil-A because of Cathy’s comments.
And Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential candidate, quipped at a fundraiser in Texas that she would be stopping at a Chick-fil-A while in the Lone Star State. She later tweeted a photo of her and her husband, Todd, posing with bags from the fast-food restaurant.
As for the trip to Massachusetts, Conley said: “I think it is important for people to do business where it reflects their values.”
And again…
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-trial-court-in-connecticut-strikes-down-do
“In sum, having considered the purported rational bases proffered by both BLAG and Congress and concluded that such objectives bear no rational relationship to Section 3 of DOMA as a legislative scheme, the Court finds that no conceivable rational basis exists for the provision. The provision therefore violates the equal protection principles incorporated in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Face it folks… The “christian” Civic League and the rest of the fundy brigade will lose.
Go eat your chicken sammich, with all the obesity and high blood pressure those things bring on. It shows how much you truly care anyway.
Wait– the Christian Civil League of Maine is opposing same-sex marriage by supporting businesses in a state that allows same-sex marriage?!?
This really is pretty funny.
More than they know…
Notice how so many massive companies come out in favor of gay rights, and those opposed to gay rights get what? A chain of chicken shacks.
THAT is pretty funny!
Perhaps you could gather all your friends and stand in the middle of I-95 south and protest….Sweetie.
Awww… there’s the violence again. So typical.
That attitude is why you will lose, hon.
and where are all the “true” christian’s comments condemning Celer_Silens_Mortalis’s suggestion that we should put ourselves in the middle of a busy highway which would undeniably cause us to be hit by vehicles traveling 65mph+……?
Good point. We’re told all the time how we bully and intimidate, but those accusers remain silent when stuff like this is posted.
Nice.
When their silence is noted they say they did not see it or they would have denounced it…
Violence? I didn’t say anything about a violent protest, just a protest, and make sure that you bring your little rainbow flags to wave.
You’re encouraging folks to stand in I-95 to be violently harmed. You might as well have said you wanted to shoot folks.
Yup…still waiting for the good Christians to call out this commenter for his advocating harm.
If your or I made this suggestion to someone in opposition of same-sex marriage we would be immediately called out on it as haters and intolerant …. and you can be sure they wouldn’t ignore the inference of direct harm…..
Awww…now I’d never say anything like that. That’s quite a typical liberal spin that you put on that comment. You must have a pretty deranged mind to pull that out of an innocent suggestion. You’re not deranged or abnormal are you?…..
Then what could you possibly mean when you suggest that people stand in the middle of the highway? Why didn’t you suggest demonstrating at the state house instead?
Hogwash.
Didn’t your mommy teach you to look both ways?
You may want to check with the OWS crowd before you go protesting at the state house, it didn’t work out so well for them.
Sigh. Condescension is a good look on you, brah.
The “violence” would be incurred through the vehicles hitting those protesters that you suggest should stand in the middle if I-95 South ….
Geez…you sure don’t have any faith in the Cyr Bus professional drivers do you? Or, do you think that the protesters wouldn’t know enough not to play in the traffic?
Apparently the very best way to oppose Same Sex Marriage in the State of Maine is to get on a bus and ride two States south to Mass and eat pressure fried chicken. Next week The Christian Civic League is planning on protesting Same Sex Marriage in Maine by busing a group of protesters to VT to eat Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream.
You know, you can “support the biblical definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman” and support civil marriage for same-sex couples.
I certainly do not oppose traditional marriage! I simply wish to protect the life I share with my partner with civil marriage; how is our commitment and support for one another threatening anyone else?
If anyone wants to support all Maine families’ right to civil marriage, consider donating the cost of a chicken sandwich meal to Mainers United for Marriage! https://secure.mainersunited.org/page/contribute/match
For those of you that don’t believe in homosexual marriage and can’t make the bus trip you can go here and sign the petition showing your support for a marriage consisting of a man and a woman. https://www.kintera.org/c.ewKYLiO2LsKeF/b.7798745/k.8C44/Action_Center/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=ewKYLiO2LsKeF&b=7798745&aid=518727
Classy— for those who didn’t follow this link, it goes to a petition inviting people to send a letter to Chick-Fil-A’s president. While it appears to be a form for writing a letter of support, it doesn’t give you any opportunity to personalize the letter. This site simply wants to use your name and put words in your mouth.
For the record, I am fine with anyone voicing their opinion on this issue one way or the other, but I think we should speak for ourselves, not let others write letters in our name.
Actually that’s a lie…you are NOT fine with anyone voicing their opinion when it disagrees with your lifestyle.
BTW if you don’t like the link I posted, don’t sign it.
Have you participated in any of these boycotts because you don’t agree with their opinions: Disney, McDonald’s, Home Depot, General Mills, Hallmark, Starbucks, Ford or will you be participating in a boycott against Amazon? You have every right to do so, just as you have every right to voice your opinion in this forum because of the 1st Amendment…. even if people don’t like your opinion. It works both ways.
You are free to voice your opinion, and I am free to voice my response. I’m fine with how our First Amendment works, are you?
Those of you who believe in extending civil marriage to same-sex couples may want to consider this: https://secure2.convio.net/glaad/site/Donation2?df_id=1920&1920.donation=form1&JServSessionIdr004=9y5f83fcs2.app207a
No, you can’t truly support gay marriage and the biblical definition of marriage at the same time because the very definition of marriage in the Bible excludes a marriage of two people of the same sex. To support both would go against the conscience of the one who believes the true definition of marriage in the Bible.
You keep bringing up ‘civil’ marriage. You know our country has a Christian – Judeo heritage. You can try to change a lot of things but you can’t change history. Our forefathers stood against homosexual marriage and we had sodomy laws.The laws were there because people believed in God and the Bible.
Your idea of going forward as a country is to throw God and the Bible behind our backs and turn America into a Sodom and Gomorrah.
God’s blessing has been upon this county because we began as a country that was one nation under God and held to one True God and to the Bible as the Word of God.
The push for gay marriage is just a sign of the times and many people have thrown the bible behind their backs and are easier prey for people like you that try to convince them that somehow gay marriage is a natural thing and would be ‘equality’ for all. It’s a lie and you think repeating it enough times will make people believe it But the biblical definition of marriage will Never change.
“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? ”
(Mat 19:4-5)
We are a diverse, secular nation. You can go spouting off all the Scripture you want, the Founders were very specific about the separation of church and state. I am assuming you don’t eat pork or lobster, and go comatose on Sundays. Many of the Founding Fathers were not religious, even though they were affiliated with a faith community.
And, by the way, our country hasn’t been as blessed as you say. Our ancestor stole/conquered land owned by others, and our government has had scandals since its founding. How can you say any nation has been blessed when we’ve been stuck with some of the leaders we’ve had?
We have been blessed with freedom and liberty. We have been blessed with Sovereignty. We have been blessed with material resources and many other blessing if we took time to innumerate them. If you can’t see any blessing to living in America try living in some place like Haiti or Russia.
God’s hand of blessing has been on this county but It appears He is beginning to remove His Hand of blessing and give this country over to the sin it deserves. Like homosexuality. It is a sin you know.
“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. ”
(Rom 1:21-27)
>>><<<
Why should you then force your belief on them. It is their right to believe what they want, but you are trying to force them into what you want. If you say, not everyon’es God is your God then why force then into accepting your non belief. Now we see something hippocritcial don’t we.
No, because she is trying her belief as public policy, and discrimination should never be part of public policy.
Why are you bothering to argue with an irrational lunatic? The hallmark of a fundamentalist is their inability to work with facts or reason. Some friendly advice – move on. You’re not going to sway this nut job and by further engaging this person, you just start looking crazy yourself.
I gotta say- it’s kinda fun. It also helps me to sort out and verify my belief system.
>>>><<<<<
so all this talk about a chick a fil kiss in is just a rouse, and not true. Certainly is force when you suse words like hatred and other words to justify two diffences. Agreed some are like that, but because someone doesn’t believe in it, look at the hatred on the other side. Watch some of the actions and attitudes. If you do not agree, you hate, or are a homophobe. Just listen to the mayors of Boston, Chicago and other places trying to extort the restaraunt into bending to their will. It is extortion plane and simple. And if extortion isn’t force,I do not know what is. Though I see they are trying to backtrack.
You can believe anything you want, it’s a free county. However what counts here and in the end is that you know and believe the true God. Some people are so foolish as to worship inanimate objects as gods.
“Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusts in them.
(Psalm 115:2-8)
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good. ”
(Psalm 53:1)
There is only One God.
Yawn.
Oh believe me, I love my country just as much as you do. However, we can’t ignore the record of history, and just because I will criticize the actions of its elected, very human officials doesn’t mean I need to go live somewhere else. I’ll go to Haiti if you go Iran (now there’s a theocracy for ya).
If you insist on using Scripture to spew your bigotry, then please re-read The Sermon On the Mount.
And blessed with freedom- we certainly have- with the freedom of not having the extreme religious principles of a particular religious group ensconced on us as public policy.
I agree with the first part of this for sure. I’ve been to a few other countries that aren’t as blessed as the USA is. However, I don’t agree with the rest of this. I do not see that he is rescinding his blessing at all. This country is still as great as it ever was-it’s not the same as it was in 1950, but it’s still a great country and I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else. Well, maybe a month or two in Bonaire, but still….
If you believe that, then you must not have much melatonin in your skin. Not to very long ago in this blessed freedom liberty great country there were people with off white to black skin not allowed much if any freedom or liberty. Good thing they had “God” to back them up. Your words are just that words. I see its hard for you to grasp that there are a vast amount of others with so many different views. I guess “God ” has not made that an open concept to you yet. Keep trying you will catch on soon enough that there is plenty of room on this earth for all to be a part of. For this I feel blessed.
That was a right thing to correct. Homosexuals were not born gay like blacks were born black and the we shouldn’t be applying the civil liberties act to a chosen immoral lifestyle. That is not what civil liberties is all about
Do you have scientific proof that heterosexuals are born straight? I believe them when they say that is just the way they are and have been since they can remember. I believe them when they say they did not choose it.
Please find and show me where separation of church and state is in the constitution. It is not there.
Neither is the establishment of any state religion. The laws of our secular nation are not based on the doctrine of any religion. They are based on English common law.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 1st Amendment.
The establishment of a state religion is prohibited by the US Constitution as stated in the 1st Amendment. How can you
say that it is not in the constitution?
Below are the opening lines of the Declaration
of Independence. God is referred to at least twice. So much for our country being founded on secular principles.
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary
for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–”
So? Our government was not founded on the tenets of any particular religion, nor was there anything in the Constitution establishing that belief in God was mandatory.
Our laws were based on ENGLISH COMMON LAW. Not the Bible, and not any church doctrines.
I do think, though, that some of our most basic laws are, in fact, based on Biblical laws. But still, we are not a theocracy.
Find me a place in English Common Law where gay marriage is legal.
Find me a place where English Common Law defines marriage.
God is true great post . You are spot on! It falls right in line with scripture in Roman where it states God has given them over to a depraved mind to do that which is improper and to give hearty approval to others who practice the same lifestyle.
What was the reason that precedes this verse? Oh that’s right it was for returning to pagan rituals and making /worshiping idols.
Romans1:
21 For
although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave
thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts
were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. (NLV)
Second Commandment: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
In your house of worship- fine. In our public policy- no way.
you mean like forcing the restaraunt to do what you believe.
I don’t believe anyone is forcing them to do anything.
We have apparently attended different churches. I grew up in a Christian home and we were all about tolerance, compassion and kindness not exclusion or hatred. You are certainly entitled to your beliefs but don’t attribute it to God’s word. I don’t beleive that this is what he/she intended.
God NO WHERE in the Bible says we are to tolerate homosexuality. We are to rebuke it as a sin. If you go to a church that teaches you should tolerate homosexuality you need to get out because God is not there.
Or, wait.. maybe that’s why you are comfortable there.
Your last comment implies that I am an atheist but you couldn’t be more off base. Are you saying that people who attend churches that accept homosexuality and equal rights for all do not beleive in God? Seriously? Keep spewing your hatred. Your views and those of the radical ‘religious’ right only encourage those on the fringe to become more tolerant and compassionate.
Because he believes differenly it is not hatred. It is not radical, it is what the Word says. I would say you should be more tolerant and compassionate for someone else’s belief’s. Amazingly you want others to listen to you, then you judge them His views come right out of the Bible.
You should expect people to be tolerant of your views when you are tolerant of theirs.
It is what “the word says?”. “His views come right out of the Bible.” You make it sound like a cult. It is the extreme bible thumping radicals who give us ‘run of the mill’ Christians a bad name. Get a grip.
” ‘run of the mill’ Christians”
Also known as CINOs Christians In Name Only.
“I would say you should be more tolerant and compassionate for someone else’s belief’s.”
There can be no tolerance of intolerance.
“There can be no tolerance of intolerance.”
I guess you end up being intolerant of yourself.
You need to think about the implications of that one.
If y0u don’t believe homosexuality is sin than you don’t believe God’s Word. Verses about loving your neighbor, etc does not nullify that fact. I am not intolerant and unloving just because I believe and practice God’s Word and refuse to call the gay lifestyle normal or moral. Yes, the state may or may not legalize things like this but just because they do doesn’t make it right.
God created marriage and He says its between a man and a woman. If you don’t believe that you don’t believe the bible.
There are a lot of churches that are churches in name only. You have people standing behind pulpits preaching things totally opposite of what the bible says. “Wolves in sheep’s clothing”
“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. ”
(2Pe 2:1-2)
It seems that you know more then my minister does. How is that?
Do you include conservative people standing behind the pulpit applauding a young child singing: “Ain’t no homos gonna make it to Heaven”?
However he did say “render unto Caesar” …. currently the Intention of Marriage worksheet, the civil marriage license and the certificate of officiant (non-clergy, ie Notary) all contain the words State of Maine and/or the state seal. Clergy are required to show proof of graduation from a seminary or proof that they are affiliated with a recognized church/denomination to the State of Maine to be given the courtesy of officiating. All marriage ceremonies, civil or religious end with “By the authority vested in me by the State of Maine” …. whether you approve of the marriage based on your beliefs or not, the State is the authority on legally recognized marriages, not the Bible.
It is supposed to be by the people and for the people. We have free speech and I intend to use mine to proclaim the biblical view on homosexuality and why homosexuality does not belong in the category of civil rights and should not be legalized because it is an immoral choice not a inalienable right “endowed by our Creator” declaration of independence.
The Declaration of Independence is not our governing document, it was written to declare independence from British rule. However it did include that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. It is the function of government to ensure that the rights of one do not infringe on another’s. This is where the 14th amendment enters.
” The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital
personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men.” Chief Justice Warren
PS You have every right to speak your beliefs; in writing , in voice and at the ballot box. I just disagree with your opinion.
Well, yeah, he said that, but it’s understood that he wasn’t talking about the gays! Had they even been invented yet?
And where in the bible did Jesus condemn or state homosexuality is wrong? Oh wait, he never did.
And Jesus was your so called god in human flesh so yes, your god did tolerate homosexuality.
And I dare you to quote something from the OT.
He said specifically that marriage is between a man and a woman so that excludes same sex marriage.
He didn’t specifically state child molestation was wrong either so does that mean its not?
Pssst, those sodomy laws included married heterosexual couples ….. are you going to dissolve marriages of heterosexual couples or deny them the right to marry because they engage in sodomy?
The only valid marriages are those authorized with a state issued marriage license, civil marriage if you will.
Oh I support the legal affirmation to a marriage. Otherwise anything would go (like homosexuality, bestiality, child marriages, etc)
So, are you saying that homosexuality should be illegal? I don’t quite understand your response.
Homosexual marriage should Absolutely Not be legalized by the state no more than bestiality or child marriages should be legalized by the state.
It is not a civil liberty matter it is a sinful choice that the rest of us should not have to pay for with our tax dollars.
Great. Then let’s take all of our tax dollars away from the public schools. You have kids, I don’t, who says I have to pay for your propagating? They’ll just turn out to be hateful idiots like you, anyway.
Nice try but you ducked the direct question:
“So, are you saying that homosexuality should be illegal?”
I’m wondering how one’s tax dollars pay for marriages. I thought the parties marrying pay for that.
This is yet another example of how one’s A) tax dollars or B) religion is used as a weapon to suppress civil rights.
I wonder how many other state-sanctioned sins he’s actively fighting. Buying liquor? And on SUNDAY??? Gambling, and on Sunday, too? Extra-marital sex is not illegal, too. If he’s not fighting against all that, then he is specifically targeting the gays (as many people here are).
I am sure that you know the difference between me marrying the adult man I love, and someone having sex with animals (that can’t consent) and marrying children (that can’t legally consent). Why do you put all three of those concepts on the same level?
However, you said “homosexuality,” which leads us to conclude that you think, not only should same-sex marriage be illegal, but homosexuality should be illegal along with bestiality and child marriages. Am I correct in making that conclusion?
Please share with us anywhere on this entire planet where same-sex marriage has led to bestiality or child marriages.
Your hyperbole is ridiculous, and has no basis in reality.
It is completely possible to support same-sex marriage and biblical marriage. “Love thy neighbor” is written very clearly in the bible. Does it specify who “thy neighbor is” No. Does it say “thy neighbor” has to be straight? No. Does it say “thy neighbor” has to be a Christian? No. Tolerance of all is a big part of being a good person. One should never press their faith on those who prefer to think in a different way. If you haven’t noticed, it tends to cause a lot of pain and suffering (Crusades, Palestine and Israel, etc.) If you do not stomp on the beliefs of others, they might respect yours a little more. Think about it. :)
If I love my neighbor and he is gay The loving thing for me to do would be to warn him of the moral and natural consequences of the homosexual lifestyle.
What do you do if he asks you to stop warning him? Do you make it your mission to “save” him or do you respect his decision? If you continue, then it seems that everyone who is not the right sort of Christian is fair game for your religious persecution.
But what makes you think your beliefs are any more important than his? If he came over to you and warned you that your orientation was a sin in his religion, would you take kindly to that? I can’t say for sure, but I would guess not. His orientation does no harm to you just as yours does no harm to him. Not everyone is a Christian so not everyone shares Christian beleifs. There is nothing wrong about that and they do not need to change to fit your specifications of humanity. Let them marry, let them be happy, it does you no harm.
God is a figment of your imagination. If you want to live in a dream world, fine, have a nice time. But don’t try to force your medieval beliefs on the rest of us. Keep your religion in your church where it belongs, some of us are trying to deal with reality.
oh, I see, religion is supposed to stay confined in the church so no one else has to deal with it but homosexuals should have freedom to openly march in gay pride day where everyone has to deal with it. You are another strong reason I am against gay marriage – you prove that supporters of gay marriage want to sniffle the churches voice so homosexuality can be practiced freely without someone quoting the bible against it. The homosexual is willing to get it’s’ ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’ at the expense of the rest of us losing some of out most basic rights.
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” Psalm 53:1
Yet you ignore gays like me who have faith and are Christian and believe in God and do NOT talk about phantoms or figments. You choose to focus on those who deny God and use them to represent ALL gays and ALL who believe in marrying the person he or she loves. Why do you do that? You are the fool if you truly believe that all gays and our supporters want to rid the country of religion.
Also, we are not “it.” We are not some sort of alien being, sexless and inhuman. I guess that should be the biggest clue of what you think about your fellow children of God who are not like you.
Last I knew LGBT individuals were human beings, you know people … children of god? But you have chosen to de-humanize us …by referring to us as objects: The homosexual is willing to get “IT’S’ ….. very “christian” of you.
You are more than welcome to believe whatever nonsense you like. You are not, however, welcome to shove it down my throat, or anyone else’s. Homosexuality is a normal state of being, just like heterosexuality and bisexuality. The nonhuman animal world is replete with examples. The interactions between consenting adults are no one’s business but their own. You are the one trying to force your agenda upon others. Gays who openly express their affection for each other are not trying to force you or anyone else to act as they do. Christians, on the other hand, will not rest until the entire world is under their umbrella.
God condemns rape, not love. There is no prohibition against same-sex marriage to be found in the bible, and there is nothing in our laws that are explicitly Christian.
Please point to any law on our books that is due to Christian faith. Prohibitions against murder and stealing are found in all cultures, not just Christian ones.
The truth is that offering civil marriage benefits to same-sex couples is the ethical, moral, and correct thing to do, in alignment with our country’s values of equal treatment under the law.
Sodomy laws have been struck down because we have learned more about each other as a people, and understand that sexual orientation is a characteristic like hair color or being left-handed– there’s nothing wrong with wanting to share your life with someone you love.
I’m pretty sure that my hetero marriage of 18 years won’t be negated if two guys or two girls want to get married. In fact, unless I am personally invited to the wedding, I won’t even know it occurred.
You know, it used to be illegal for interracial couples to marry too. Imagine how silly that argument (protecting an existing marriage) will sound in 20-40 years.
The issue is the term “marriage” …it is a religious rite. I have no problem with civil unions and equal rights.
But that’s just it– civil marriage has no religious connections. We don’t deny interfaith couples civil marriage, we don’t deny atheists civil marriage. We shouldn’t deny same-sex couples civil marriage.
As stated it is the word “marriage” that is the problem. perhaps it should be called domestic partnership by the government. Licensed domestic partnership versus civil marriage and the problem will go away.
But it doesn’t— in states where they have enacted civil union legislation conveying equal benefits, the same opposition appears. Mitt Romney has explicitly stated he opposes civil unions that are equal to civil marriage, and the National Organization for Marriage similarly opposes them.
Setting up separate systems won’t pass Constitutional scrutiny, either. So unless we are willing to eliminate civil marriage in our country and grant civil unions to everyone, this solution won’t work.
And good luck trying to find someone willing to rewrite the entire tax code in regards to marriage. Not to mention converting all current marriages into civil unions.
Of course there are some people who that the extreme position of even opposing civil unions. Just as there are people on your side of the issue who will not accept civil unions as an acceptable compromise.
Pointing to the hard core extreme on either side does nothing to advance a cause.
Why should same sex couples settle for civil unions, when heterosexual couples get marriage?
Homosexual couples may claim to be married. They also may claim to be able to fly like a bird. That doesn’t make either belief true.
That’s lovely, now give me the legal reason why same sex couples should settle for civil unions, while heterosexual couples get marriage. Also explain how it does not violate separate but equal, two institutions that do the same thing, yet must be separated.
Simple actually.
Marriage is defined as the union of 1 man and 1 woman. Legally, morally, sociologically, whatever.
Therefore 2 men or 2 women cannot be married. So we create a new institution, a DIFFERENT institution, to give all the legal and financial benefits and responsibilities to homosexual couples that exist for heterosexual married couples.
They are two completely different institutions and as such are simply recognizing that there are real differences between homosexual and heterosexual unions.
One aspect of the separate but equal supreme court ruling was the fact that while facilities for blacks and whites were stated as “equal” they really were not. Real injustice was apparent and evident. In the case of marriage vs civil unions there would be no actual discrimination. The two terms simply accurately describe the FACT that there is an actual difference.
Or we could just make everyone a civil union. That works for me as well.
But calling the union of 2 homosexuals marriage makes as much sense as pointing at a cat and calling it a bird.
And yet I see no legal reasoning for why marriage can only be between a man and a woman. What compelling reason does the state have to limit marriage to being between a man and a woman? Also, in Brown v. Board of Education, it ruled that separate is inherantly unequal. It doesn’t matter if the facility or service is the same, by making it separate, it is unequal.
“But calling the union of 2 homosexuals marriage makes as much sense as pointing at a cat and calling it a bird.” – And I’m sure that would hold up in a court of law.
Your reading and analysis of Brown v. Board of Education is limited.
First of all, the Brown v. Board of Education decision applied only to public education. The EXACT words are “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
Also it was found that the plaintiffs were “deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.” The problem is that civil unions would guarantee equal protection and in no way deprive homosexuals of that protection.
I do not expect that “But calling the union of 2 homosexuals marriage makes as much sense as
pointing at a cat and calling it a bird.” would stand up in a court of law either. Sadly, neither common sense or justice has much to do with the law any more. Then again, considering some of the twisted logic used by the supreme court in it’s decisions my argument might work.
Brown v. Board of education was about education. That does not mean that basic principle of “separate but equal” does not apply anywhere else. Also, I am still waiting for you to provide a a legal reason as to why the state has a vested interest in preventing same sex couples from marrying.
Societal collapse.
Really, because Canada has had same sex marriage for years, and their society is doing just fine. Do you want to present any actual facts instead of scare tactics?
They have had it for 7 years.
It has taken 40+ years for the negative consequences of “The Great Society” to become fully apparent.
So I’ll just take that as you have no evidence of any potential consequences.
Evidence from the Netherlands in particular indicates a strong correlation with a general decrease in the institution of marriage. What has not been determined is if this is a cause and effect relationship or simply 2 symptoms of the general disintegration of the family and society in general. I believe it is the latter although I also believe it may accelerate the decline.
Do you have evidence that shows that this decrease of interest in the institution of is the result of samse sex marriage?
HOW? How can allowing Maine families to protect the lives they build together be a bad thing?
Honest question here. You honestly think society will collapse because we treat gays and lesbians equally to you?
I think that they repeat that nonsense so often that they don’t even really understand what it means. And, of course, they won’t give you an example of how Sweden or South Africa or Canada has collapsed.
I’m fine with making everyone have a civil union too. But that’s even less realistic than civil marriage equality nationwide, honestly.
We do more than claim to be married, in many states we are married!
And we do form lifelong, supportive monogamous relationships, just as heterosexuals do.
Seriously, it is not a fantasy that we want the protections of civil marriage. It’s our Constitutional right to equal treatment under our laws that lead us to request this.
I hope it comes to pass that you one day realize that my marriage isn’t a threat to you, your life, or your community.
When the “hard core extreme” view is shared by the Republican nominee for president, I think it’s worth paying attention to.
Experience shows us that civil unions would be just as opposed as civil marriage.
Of course it is OK with you that the president holds the opposite “hard core extreme” view.
When the one extreme is no rights, and the other “extreme” is marriage with rights, then I’m going to side with the person who believes that I deserve the same dignity and respect as other American citizens.
Finally you state the real reason why you want same sex marriage.
You want validation. Dignity and respect. Self esteem. You want to force society and everyone in it to give you these things.
What you do not understand is that these things are earned and you cannot force others to give them to you. It is not enough that I believe you should have the same legal rights and that I am tolerant of you. You want nothing less than to demand I accept and embrace your homosexuality. You wish to force me to think as you do.
Not society. I couldn’t care less what you think about my relationship. You seem to hold the misconception that same sex couples care about your baseless opinions. I want the validation the government provides to heterosexual couples through civil marriage, nothing more, nothing less. I will not wait to “earn” my rights as an American citizen.
Keep changing your argument.
When have I claimed that I care about your opinion of my relationship? All I want is civil marriage, the same that is offered to heterosexual couples.
I wanted to marry Angelina Jolie. It isn’t going to happen.
And you can get married any time you want to. It just has to be to a member of the opposite sex.
Right, just like a black man could marry any black woman he wanted.
NOTE: It was a MAN marrying a WOMAN.
Race has never been a part of the definition or of the core concept. The part about race was nothing more than a convention. A racist convention written into law in some places and since rejected by a majority of people.
Neither has gender.
It was originally rejected by the Supreme Court not by the majority ….. and there continue to be those who believe it is wrong.
And what was the reason you didn’t ask her … or did she refuse your proposal?
That sort of nonsense as an argument really bites. Again, the main point these people are making is that because he can’t marry the movie star of the opposite gender he “loves” (and who probably doesn’t even know he exists), I can’t marry the man I love and who loves me back. So, take home message-marry any random person of the opposite sex who will have you. That’s the only requirement. Opposite gender who will have you. Boy, that’s romantic-didn’t Frank sing a song about that? ~rolls eyes~
How horrible! People treating each other with dignity and respect!
Is this what you are really afraid of? That people will stop thinking gays are inferior, sub-humans?
Yes, this argument I’ve seen. I don’t want to marry my boyfriend so that I can get dignity, respect, and self-esteem. Is that why straight people marry? My good friends are marrying this fall and I don’t think I’ve heard him or her saying that the reason for the marriage is for self-esteem. People already respect them and people already respect my boyfriend and me because we are all good people. The respect has already been earned. Getting married is telling the world that their love for each other is so great they are committed to each other forever.
I don’t care what TrickleUpPovertyForAll does. How very big of him to “tolerate” me-thank you so very much, TrickleUpPovertyForAll. I don’t care if he does or does not accept or embrace my homosexuality. I ain’t bothered. What he seems to be confused about is that the fact that something happens out of his control doesn’t mean that he tolerates, accepts, endorses, embraces, or even takes part in it. The thing *I* don’t understand is why it’s the MISSION of people to halt the existence of something they don’t agree with even though it does not affect them at all and the people who are doing it are in no way whatsoever affiliated with them.
Let me be clear. Society as a whole is seeing that gay people are EXACTLY like them-regular people living their mundane lives, working stupid jobs, trying to save money, hoping for a break, and looking for love. That is not forcing them to accept the gay-it’s seeing reality.
If TrickleUpPovertyForAll doesn’t like gay people, then that’s fine, but he should realize that his view of this issue is way off.
Dignity and respect are earned.
Personally I don’t care if “society” accepts me or treats me with respect …. I don’t need society to validate me or “help” my self-esteem. However I expect as a law-abiding American citizen that the government treats me with dignity and respect and does not discriminate against me and my significant other for being of the same gender.
I don’t think that upholding our Constitutional demands of equal treatment under the law should be considered “hard core extreme”, honestly.
I have truly never known someone to be hung up only on the word marriage. There is always another factor. Most often it is a belief that same-sex couples are incapable of having a committed, supportive, lifelong relationship the same as a heterosexual couple.
Not only that, but the legal contract that is marriage is instantly recognized around the world. There is no such consistency with civil unions or domestic partnerships.
And, again, asking the love of my life to “domestic partnership with me” is just plain silly.
Many find the concept of someone asking a person of the same sex to marry as just plain silly.
And many do not.
That’s fine for you, but the reality is that CU and DP are NOT the same as marriage.
Marriage, to me, is uniting with the person I love to live with for the rest of our lives. Why would it be silly to ask the consenting adult whom you love for that privilege?
then don’t…..
And many people think your hang-up over what gay people do with their lives is silly.
Sorry if you were confused– no one is going to force you to gay marry anyone if gay marriage is allowed. You can even go on hating gay people if you want. It’s not our government’s place to discriminate against a segment of our population just because you want it to, though.
The usual tactic of people on your side of the argument. Ad-hominum attack. If we do not agree with you then we must hate you.
You may not personally know me but I have repeatedly stated on these blogs that my problem is with the effort to redefine the word marriage.
Marriage has already been redefined a number of times. At different times and places throughout history, it has been strictly a legal, financial, practical joining of two or more people. Marriages have been polygamous and polyandrous in different societies.
Marriage has only been “for love” in recent history. As recently as a century or so ago, marrying someone had nothing to do with love. Arranged marriages still exist in some parts of the world as well.
So, you see, marriage has already been redefined and will now be redefined to allow same sex couples their civil rights. And neither you nor anyone else will be harmed. Imagine that!
Straw man argument.
All you are doing is describing the various historical changes in social conventions associated with the institution of marriage. In all of these various social conventions involved the joining of man and woman.
The point still stands that we as a society have changed the definition of marriage in the past.
No, society has changed the conventions around marriage. There is a difference, sorry you cannot grasp the concept.
The United Stated defined marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race. That definition was CHANGED to man and a woman. It seems that our definition has changed, even though you refuse to admit it.
Did the US, as in the federal government< define it that way at one time or was it some individual states that adopted that LEGAL convention.
NOTE: Still between a MAN and a WOMAN.
I have to give you credit for being persistent. Even if your arguments are weak, straw men, or splitting hairs….
As opposed to your arguments that it’ll be bad. I can’t prove that it will be bad, but trust me, it’ll be bad.
Whereas your argument, that because YOU say it’s wrong, it’s wrong, is intensely compelling. NOT. lmao
And your argument, that because YOU say it’s right, it’s right, is intensely compelling. NOT
So you have admitted you have no problem with the meaning of marriage changing over time. You just don’t think the gays should be allowed to marry.
Why?
When you understand the difference between changing the the very meaning and concept of a word and changing the conventions surrounding that concept then we could debate this intelligently.
Man and woman joining together. Basic meaning and concept of marriage.
Arranged marriage, dowry, taking or not taking your spouse’s last name, jumping over a broom, father giving away the bride, (or not), etc. are all social conventions surrounding marriage.
Correct, as is a couple going to the town clerk to get a license and then doing nothing after that. Couples can STILL do ALL of that, some of that, or none of that, even with the gays marrying each other. The father giving away the bride as a social convention isn’t enough to prevent me from marrying the man I love, really. All you’re saying is that “it’s always been done like this” and that’s not a reason.
Arranged marriage is a good point, too. Being forced into a marriage in which the parties don’t love each other is not what most Americans want in a marriage.
But as you’ve admitted, the “very meaning and concept of a word” has changed. You object to THIS change.
Why?
YOU are the one who can’t grasp the concept. Marriage is changing and people like you are part of a smaller and smaller minority. Time marches on. Better get with it.
Just because you wish to change the definition of marriage for your own selfish reasons does not mean it will be good for society as a whole.
What is selfish is deciding marriage doesn’t apply to other people just because you don’t care for the way they live. Let’s be honest about that much, shall we?
What basis do you have for your opinion that allowing supportive, monogamous, stable relationships to enjoy civil marriage will harm society?
Sorry but several states and other countries HAVE changed the definition of civil marriage to include same-sex couples ….. if I’m not mistaken these states and countries make up part of society as a whole.
Not all. If you have done any reading about Native American societies, same sex arrangements were common.
Arrangements are not marriage.
Oh, so we’re splitting hairs on verbiage now?
And you aren’t?
Says the person who claims it is simply the arrangement of eight letters that they oppose, and not the idea that gays and lesbians can form meaningful, lifelong commitments that contribute to society.
I have never said that gays and lesbians cannot form meaningful, lifelong commitments that contribute to society. That does not mean they should be allowed change the basic concept of marriage.
You mean change it again from what it has been over the past thousands of years?
Some Native American Societies had lots of different conventions. Some of them were brutal and even barbaric by our standards.
Some early colonists were pretty barbaric to the Native American societies, wouldn’t you agree? Or does that not matter because they were just indigenous people and not white? LOL Boy, you get funnier with every post. Do you really BELIEVE this crap you’re spouting?
You are the one who brought up native American “arrangements” as an argument in support of same sex marriage.
I was just pointing out that this in itself is a very weak argument for support of SSM.
Your argument against it is no stronger. You haven’t come up with one single valid reason for denying same sex couples the right to marry, other than your own prejudices. It’s not going to affect you in any way or harm your own marriage or prospects for marriage, so what exactly is the reason for your objection?
Do you likewise have outrage over phrases like “the marriage wall of a modular home” or “the marriage of two ideas”?
No outrage. I just think the person using the term is either strange, uneducated, or isn’t being very precise in describing what they are thinking.
It’s an accurate, but different, meaning of that word. Why is civil marriage so different then? Can you not see how we can have civil marriage while you maintain your church’s religious marriage ceremonies?
Just a quick followup to this after reading more of your writing on this page.
Hogwash.
You are obviously not only hung up on gays using the word marriage. In other responses here you have stated that allowing gay marriage will be the downfall of society, and you have clearly indicated that you have no problem with marriage changing meaning over time for other reasons.
You’re plainly lying when you state that you would support civil unions that have all of the same benefits of marriage, if you believe all these other things about gay and lesbian relationships.
whatever….
Why should the government bend to your religious beliefs ….. if you have a religious ceremony then call it Holy Matrimony which fits better and let everyone else have civil marriage?
Ever been prescribed a medication that is a combination of two separate medications into one pill? It is referred to as a marriage …… somehow I don’t think there is a religious rite taking place in the lab or the factory where they are manufactured.
I don’t usually go to my pharmacist and ask for a “marriage prescription” even though that would technically be correct.
While 2 pieces of wood can be “married” by gluing or even nailing, that is an uncommon use of the term. While correct, most people would look, (and think), at you funny for saying it that way.
My point is that the word “marriage” has multiple meanings and only one of them refers to a religious rite. It is not the one and only meaning nor is it the first listed in a dictionary. Not even Merriam-Webster mentions “religious rite”, but a “consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law”.
Show me where I have used religion as an argument either for or against homosexual marriage.
“consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law”
Yes, a relationship that has always consisted of being between men and women.
I was referencing the devonshire11’s definition: “marriage ….is a religious rite”. Do you agree with that definition?
It is not the one I think of or use when discussing this issue.
That is one definition. It might be appropriate IF we were discussing religion. But I am not discussing religion.
Well, that helps, because since you’re not basing your objections on your religious beliefs, you have even LESS of a foundation to them in the first place. Just like our laws in this secular country are not based on the doctrines of any particular religious tradition, they are also not based on the personal prejudices of people who want to impede others from exercising their civil rights with no harm to others. Since you haven’t been able to cite a single explanation of how the legalization of same-sex marriage would harm you or anyone else, you have no right to demand that your opinion influence our laws.
And what right do you have to demand that your opinion influence our laws?
The fact that same sex marriage is in the best interest of society because it will provide a legal protection for same sex couples.
How about providing legal protection without degrading the institution of marriage?
How would one do that in a way that provides the same impact and protections recognized nation-wide? Have any suggestions?
How about getting congress to pass a law legalizing civil unions.
Civil unions are not the same. Not only are they not the same, but they mean different things in different jurisdictions. And a civil union does NOT have the same impact and meaning as marriage in society. It is clinical and cold. “Billy, may I ask for your hand in a civil union?”
You have no proof that it will be “degraded.”
My objections are based on what I think is best for society long term. I believe that to be as valid as your opinion. Which frankly, you have not articulated your position and reasons very well up to this point.
And you happen to be wrong about the laws in this country are not based on the doctrines of any particular religious tradition. It’s called Judeo-Christianity.
No, it’s called English Common Law.
I guess you think English Common Law just developed on it’s own with no prior influences.
You’re right, it didn’t just come out of nowhere, it came from Feudalism.
How is it not in the best interests of society to encourage stability in relationships? Married couples settle down, contribute to the tax base, and are an asset to communities. This is true whether they are same-sex couples or traditional man-and-wife.
I thought your argument was based on “what is best for society” ….. “religious tradition” is not what our laws are based on. They are based on English Common Law. You have just entered into the realm of a religious basis.
Are you going to cite specific harms to society that extending civil marriage same-sex couples will create?
Obviously people don’t understand that you can support marriage both ways and still be biblical… this whole chick fila fiasco makes me sick to my stomach
If the Christian Civic League truly wants to support Chick fil-A, they really ought to go to work for them, preferably in Texas.
Anything less comes up short of what God wants, not some bus trip from hell.
Because, above all else, Jesus wants us to buy fried chicken at a fast food chain . . .
It was in one of those excluded gospels.
The Book of Perdue
The editors cut.
Yup great idea. The Christian Civic League is going to bus people to Peabody Mass to eat chicken at a Chik -Fil -A restaurant as part of their war against the evils of Same Sex Marriage. I wonder if they will be stopping off in another Peabody, Mass popular spot, The Golden Banana?
This is just sad on so many levels.
Seriously, Who cares what a fast food joints stance on Gay Marriage is?
I don’t honestly care what their views are, and I support their right to voice them.
I do find it repulsive that Chick-Fil-A funds anti-gay groups like Exodus International, to the tune of 1-2 million dollars every year. That’s the reason I won’t eat at their restaurants.
But it’s a free country— politicians like Emanuel and Menino are on thin ice constitutionally if they think they can punish a private company for exercising their free speech rights.
how is it a free country?
I agree.
“A little over a week ago, I simply urged people to go and eat at Chick Fil-A on Wednesday, August 1. I mentioned it on my TV show and have been discussing it on my daily radio show. The media has called it a “protest.” It is most certainly not. No one is protesting anything. This is not a stand against a person, a group of people, or even someone else’s belief. This is a simple act of having a meal at a place that sells chicken, not politics. It’s to affirm to a Christian brother, Dan Cathy, that he has not been disenfranchised from his citizenship nor his right of free speech as a taxpaying American. It is about taking a stand for businesses to be free of economic bullying and hate speech. It is an opportunity to have a decent meal at a decent place that was founded and continues to be run by decent people who believe in treating their customers and employees with kindness and to say “thank you” to them. The only protest that I know of is coming from the chickens, who will give their lives in large numbers to accommodate what hopefully will be a big day at Chick Fil-A.
Chick Fil-A neither proposed this nor has promoted it. It was a simple idea I had and shared with a few friends, posted the online and asked them to share with their friends. I don’t have that many friends, but my friends seem to. Since then, over 21 million have viewed my Facebook event page. We are north of half a million people who have said they will eat at Chick Fil-A on Wednesday and still adding more. Millions more are aware of it and might show up in one of the 1600 Chick Fil-A stores.
The attacks on Christians are disturbing, especially by “wanna be tyrants, like the mayors of Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington, D. C. who have vowed to either keep Chick Fil-A out of their communities or have openly said this business is not welcome because they (the mayors) don’t agree with the personal views of the Chick Fil- A CEO. Not only is such a position by the mayors illegal and unconstitutional, but it’s disturbing to think that anyone elected to public office would publicly exhibit their bigotry toward Christians, their hypocrisy in singling out only Christians, but not others including Muslims who have even stronger beliefs about same sex marriage, and their contempt of the law regarding censorship and free speech.
On Wednesday, the lines might be long, but your presence and your purchase is a statement. America doesn’t need more protesters-we’ll leave that to the Occupy crowd. America needs more protectors of freedom, family, and faith. And in this case, chicken nuggets! ” —-Mike Huckabee
I would go and support the business because they are exercising their rights to free speach bla bla bla but I wont because of the foolishness surrounding them suing a T-Shirt maker. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CG0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawfoodtalk.com%2Fshowthread.php%3F67853-quot-Eat-More-Kale-quot-being-sued-by-quot-Eat-More-Chikin-quot&ei=yzUYUIGhEque6QH81IGYAw&usg=AFQjCNHJBxRR_XDDAA-q6ZSdxuzYRtfIXA
Wishy washy stance you have there Mike. You have shown you blah, blah, blah mostly about yourself. Since your area does not have a chick-fil-a, McDonalds for you again tonight. Either you support them or not, stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Yeah… who the hell is going to confuse KALE (a green leafy vegetable) and CHIKIN?
Chick-Fil-A should have the rights to free speech, except that they have shown that they DO NOT respect the same rights. It is a bogus lawsuit!
Thank all the gods of Greece and Rome that this fascist lunatic lost the republican nomination.
This week chicken. Next week maybe pizza. The week after maybe Lobster. The possibilities are endless. I bet that there are entrepreneurial types just waiting to see how this Chik-Fil-A thingy works out to see if they are going to be for or against Same Sex Marriage. An entirely new way to spur on business.
1000 likes!
it’s exactly what bdn is doing by running this b/s every day, stir the pot! i’m sick of it. lets vote now and get this over, well at least till the next time it rear’s its ugly head..
because it is a Liberal Green paper.
Mike Huckabee deserves a million ” likes” for that post? Perfectly said.
Dear Mike,
I personally am not upset that he is against Gay marriage. As a US citizen that is his right. What is not his right, is to say that those of us that are for Equal marriage rights have prideful, arrogant attitude. I think he has a backwards bigoted attitude. And i think if he wants his business to continue with out protest he needs to learn to keep his mouth shut and his mind open
So people who do not agree with you have a “backwards bigoted attitude”.
I do find that to be a “prideful, arrogant attitude”.
No people who deny a portion of the population the SAME rights that they enjoy just because they don’t like them have a backwards bigoted attitude.
I am a man and I have the right to marry a woman.
A gay man has the right of marrying a woman.
A Lesbian woman has the right of marrying a man.
Seems like we all have the same right.
You should also remember that any “right” that the government gives you can also be taken away by that same government.
Are all of you religious bigots reading from the same propaganda?
No you are a Man who has the right to marry the women you are in love with and want to share your life with. Gay men/women do not get to marry the person that they are in love with and want to share their life with. That is the right that they are asking for and that you in your infinite wisdom want to deny them.
So see, they’re trampling on YOUR rights too. You can’t marry someone of the same sex. So make same sex marriage legal, and then you’ll have the right to marry someone of the same sex … a right you will find equally useful as I find the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Win-win situation.
You really are a disgusting specimen of humanity, by the way. It’s not affecting YOU, so you throw up all kinds of ridiculous arguments. It’s like a game to you, while a whole country full of people are being denied their human rights.
You don’t like my opinion so you stoop to personal attacks.
Honestly, the truly disturbing thing is that this type of hypocrisy and hate is still going on in this day and age. They certainly dont mind gay people coming and eating their food, they dont mind making a profit off of the gay society, but heaven forbid you actually be gay, sorry, no job for you…This is exactly what has so much of America up in arms…We are tired and angry that this type of treatment still exists and believe that all people…ALL PEOPLE, should be treated equally and not discriminated against.
Mike and your mouthpiece: read the Chicago Tribune for the last couple of weeks. The Mayor of Chicago has stated although he doesn’t agree with Cathy’s philosophy, he can neither permit or deny any such real estate decisions. That’s up to the Alderman of the Ward involved. At least one Alderman has vetoed a permit for a Chik-fil-A (although it may not have been submitted).
Incidentally, I know of at least one Chik-fil-A in a Chicago suburb and I’m sure there are more.
This is just dumb. While I generally support the views of the owner of Chick-Fil-A, even he, I believe would say this is over the top, and not what he had envisioned. He was simply exercising his personal views, and his right to make them, and everyone, on both sides of the issue, has to go and turn it into a circus.
What the media continues to forget in this story is that Chick-fil-A spends MILLIONS funding anti-gay groups like Exodus International.
My opposition to Chick-fil-A is not due to anyone speaking their mind, it’s due to the financial help they give to groups which do demonstrable harm to LGBT youth in this country. Children have committed suicide because they fail to turn heterosexual at those “pray away the gay” camps, and that is blood on Exodus International’s hands.
Because it is a chicken sandwich smothered in prejudice while he contributes and benefits from the obesity problem we have in this country. Go ahead and when you get there make sure you super size it to get your moneys worth.
Can you not read? I said it was dumb!
Sent from my iPad
What a great way to waste money to try to make your point while we have children here in our state that go to bed hungry. Don’t gag on that hormone injected chicken sandwich.
“The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes
religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
– Georgia Harkness
Why does everything so wrong have to taste so good?
Raspberry pie with a dollop of ice cream – only thing is wrong for is your diet.
The Boy Scouts should also join in this battle against liberal fascism.
What does that even mean?
OK, hotshot, I’ll bite…
How is boycotting a company who is harming US citizens fascism?
Fried chicken and gay marriage – don’t the Dems know they are being chided into this in order to alienate the black voters?
It’s just like the Romney tax return deal. Romney wants them to talk about his tax returns because independent voters don’t care about them. If Obama is not talking about how he can create jobs, he is losing.
Can someone be both racist and socialist? I guess so!
I had to re-read it to make sure I got it right. Wow.
Yeah ’cause Maine if FULL of black voters…pffffffffffft
You couldn’t pay me to eat this chick-fil A crap. All you obese, fast food eating homophobes should move down south.
Man, that’s harsh. It isn’t cool when bigbearwhoever tells me *I* should move to Mass if I want to gay-marry and it isn’t cool to tell them they should leave too.
I do hope that they set up a bus trip to the First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs, Mississippi for refusing to allow a black couple who attended the church to marry in their church and threatened to fire the pastor if he solemnized the marriage in the church. But I doubt they will, that would be interfering with the freedom of that church to set rules for who can marry and who can’t within the walls of their place of worship ….
Actually, it’s a good sandwich, but not a great sandwich considering the price. The service is also variable.
Travel all that way just to eat a bird?
I wish we still had a Chester fried chicken. Those were some big chicken breasts.
I thought it was a little dry. Not as good as KFC.
I love how supporters of gay marriage profess their need for understanding and acceptance and then turn around and pounce and attack anyone who doesnt share their opinions. Its completely ridiculous.
It’s interesting how people intolerant of gays and lesbians cry persecution when their opinions are challenged.
Seriously, have you missed how every time a business comes out in favor of same-sex marriage, there are crys for boycotting by groups like NOM and the FRC? The only difference is we haven’t organized a “drink coffee at Starbucks day” via talk radio pundits.
Yes, and don’t forget the comments here about boycotting Facebook.
I do think, however, that the mayors of Chicago and Boston are going MUCH too far by saying that the chain isn’t welcome there and they won’t allow it to expand. I don’t think that this is the same situation as what happened with Cracker Barrel. THAT restaurant had an official policy banning gays or those perceived to be gay and if Chik-Fil-A had a similar policy, then it would be in violation of the law. However, this doesn’t seem to be an official policy-how can it be? Would the company fire someone who was in a same-sex marriage?
I don’t agree with Mr. Cathy’s position, but if he of the company is not actively discriminating, then the mayors shouldn’t be discriminating against them because of their unpopular views.
I don’t know about the Mayor of Boston, but see my note elsewhere about the Mayor of Chicago. He doesn’t agree with Cathy but he can’t ban Chik-fil-A (or any other business). That’s up to the Alderman of the Ward affected.
I am not intolerant of Gays, but I won’t vote for same sex marriage. As a christian I can’t vote to legalize what I feel is wrong. It has nothing to do with two people loving each other, the Bible said a man an a women. If God wanted two Adams he wouldn’t have created women from a man rib.
You do know, don’t you, that Adam is Hebrew for Mankind? Also, you do know, don’t you, that one breeding pair does not create a population?
I pity your wife with your man rib analogy. How can you be so pompous?
But you are 100% ok with incest, correct? A lot of incest does take place in the bible. As does rape and murder of children.
If Adam and Eve were the first two one of them had to have sex with their child. There is no way around that and then that child had to have sex with another family member and this had to take place over and over and over.
Let us not also forget about Lot and his daughters who gave him wine and the slept with him. It is right there in your bible.
You don’t want gays to get married but you are fine with incest. How awesome is that.
If God didn’t want homosexuals, why does he create them?
Honestly, I see God as having blessed my life to have found such a wonderful partner to share it with. We have been in a supportive, monogamous relationship for decades, and we consider ourselves inseparable.
What we lack are the protections civil marriage provides; over 1,100 benefits and privileges extended by our government on the basis of marital status.
I hope you can understand that we are not seeking to destroy or undermine marriage, but rather we are seeking to honor it’s ideals of commitment ’till death do us part.
The difference is, when your beliefs include public acceptance of bigotry and discrimination.
Nobody asked you for understanding or acceptance.
And how is this different than all the fundy boycotts that we’ve seen year after year?
I agree with the boycotts for sure-it’s our right to patronize or not any place of business. But actively keeping a business out solely because of an unpopular view is wrong.
Boycotts initiated by some who oppose anti-discrimination laws and/or same-sex marriage:
Disney, Starbucks, JC Penney, Home Depot, General Mills, Ford, McDonald’s, Hallmark, The Gap Inc, etc ….. because they speak their opinions and beliefs. But the LGBT community and it’s supporters are intolerant and haters because they ask others to boycott Chick-Fil-A?
So opposers are not intolerant of those who don’t share their opinion?
The Bible says “Love thy neighbor…..Only if they conform to your way of thinking.”
suggestion… why don’t these people just stay on the bus and continue south. They would surely fit in better below the Mason-Dixon line anyway. They can be anti-gay, anti-black, anti-immigrant and will be welcomed by their new neighbors.
RAmen!
I’m completely in support of SSM and hope that the restaurant’s business suffers for it’s stance. However, government has no place telling a business they are, or are not, welcome due to the moral values of it’s owner. It is more properly the role of the consumer to say “we don’t agree with your values and we’ll show you with our dollars”.
Totally agree. Menino and Emanuel are completely out of line with their rhetoric on this issue.
But that’s all it is. Rhetoric.
Check my other reply. Mayor Emanuel can’t ban any business.
Precisely my point.
Yes, but it’s unproductive rhetoric, like Mitt Romney putting his foot in his mouth at every turn while in Europe this week.
Right you are… all municipal leaders claiming they’re going to “ban” CFA should face censure of some kind.
i’ll take my fast food without a side of hate and intolerance.
I get that you believe in same sex marriage, but aren’t you being intolerant of this man’s views. Not everyone needs to agree with you or me, the definition of hate does not include disagreeing with others views. He never even implied that he hates gays, he simply believes that the definition of marriage should remain between a man and a women.
No, but when Chick-fil-A funds hateful organizations like Exodus International with millions of dollars every year, that is worth criticism.
Well of course he has the freedom to speak about his beliefs and donate to any organization he wishes to donate to. Consumers have a right to support his business or not support his business….. just as Starbucks, Home Depot,JC Penney, Disney, General Mills and other companies do.
Actually he stated that he and his company are supportive of the family ….. the Biblical family unit” …. which leaves out any family other than one man, one woman, married and never divorced with children unless he is talking about the families of Moses,Abraham, David etc.
I think we should all visit JCPenny’s this Saturday en mass! I just love their new ad campaign, too. So hip and groovy-even fabulous!
Personally, I made sure to buy something from Amazon after the founder donated $2.5 million to support same sex marriage.
and stop for a Starbucks!
Great idea!! Isn’t the Chick-Fil-A “kiss-in” tomorrow or Saturday, by the way?
Friday.
I never said anyone should not boycott any business. My comment was to address, saying he and his business promote hate and intolerance. He is just living and saying what he believes. Again I think people have every right to eat, shop anywhere they choose, including if they want to got to Chik-fil-a.
He and his business donate large amounts of money to organizations that do promote hate, fear and intolerance. Some of these organizations claim that supporters of SSM hate Christians, Christianity, God, state that God created AIDS to Kill homosexuals ….. claim that gays engage in bestiality, recruit children, use gerbils and cell phones for self gratification …. work to deny any legal recognition of same-sex couples: marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, state that the LGBT population should be executed by the government, should be incarcerated, should be forced to leave the country and/or need to be forced into programs to be “cured”.
You may not define any of this as hate or intolerance ….. but that is your prerogative.
Must be nice to be able to take a bus trip for a chicken sandwich in the middle of the week. Meanwhile, us Pagans have to work for a living.
I’m fairly sure it’ll be a busload of retirees…
I resent that i could have been on that bus, but i was not because i am supporting your side
$30+ is a lot for a chicken sandwich, and the ride would be pretty dour, what with all those people lamenting how our country is treating “those people” like they are Americans too…
My point being that most folks who aren’t retired will be at work…
No insult intended.
You really don’t have a clue about Christianity do you? Be honest with you I didn’t at one time either.
You must think it a bunch of old people who “may” go to church on Sunday.
So are you going? Or do you have to work like most people do in the middle of the week?
Huh? I think the reason we’re assuming they are retirees is because they have enough free time to take a bus trip to Peabody in the middle of the week on short notice.
As a Christian this makes me sad and mad since it goes right against what Jesus taught and why so few Mainers attend church yet consider themselves people of faith.
How does taking a stance against same-sex marriage oppose Biblical teaching?
Cat Stevens is rumored to be writing a jingle for their trip.
Ride on the grease train!
These people demand that their rights be respected , Chick-fil-A state what they believe in and they are protested, don’t they have he right to believe as they wish? I think it is B.S. to stone anyone for what they believe!
yes, riff they (chik.fil.a) have the right to believe as they wish…but if they are stupid enough to go public with their prejudiced, bigoted beliefs then the rest of us have a right to protest and boycott. it’s the american way.
,,,,
Not!
====
For those of you that do not support same-sex marriage, I say you are prejudice and just using the bible as means justify that prejudice. Also while we may be a nation where christianity is the majority religion, it should not be one based upon christian law. Have all you that oppose forgotten the first amendment? And thus I say to you that if you do not support same-sex marriage then you therefore do not support the main belief that this country was founded upon and then therefore do not support America.
If the bible were to also state that “A man should not marry a women not of his own race” would you then oppose inter-racial marriage?
Prejudice is prejudice, no matter how you choose to justify it.
sidenote: Should people really care this much about the views of the person who makes their food. Sorry but I don’t ask the butcher at hannaford what his views are on same-sex marriage or the like, what should it matter.
Sounds like you are just as prejudiced against Christianity. You want us to believe what you do.I am not sure where you are picking up the race card, other than the Jewish people should not marry outside the Jewish race. I will have to double check where the race thing is. The reasoning for that in the Old Testament so they would not be turned to idols, and sodomy.
The race card? Prior to 1967 many state prohibited inter-racial marriage. The trial judge, Leon Bazile in the Loving vs Virginia case finding them guilty of miscegenation stated the following in his decision: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
You cannot ignore the historical fact that in the US, the Bible was used to justify laws against inter-racial marriage.
christianity is a MINORITY religion in america.
Incorrect. Approximately 78% (76%-80%) of the US population identify as Christian, according to a survey conducted by Trinity College.
Losahs!!!
PLEASE, enjoy your lunch. Your not going to have to much trouble finding a seat. Ever since the President of Chik Fillet opened his mouth, they have been struggling business wise and will struggle mightily in the future. I know i will never be eating there again…EVER!!!!
They must really love chicken to travel that far! This is such a drummed up farce. Pretty soon no one will be able to utter an original thought without being attacked by someone. The last time I checked, this was still the USA (unless Obama gets in again) and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I think people are missing the most important point of this whole article.
PEABODY!??! Why on Earth are they subjecting these poor supporters to a trip to Peabody!??!?!?!
Apparently God got in touch with one of the organizers and told him to gather up buses loaded with anti-SSM folk and to haul them to Peabody and on top of that God also told the organizers that the folks on the bus had to eat mor chikin
Well, at least the ads are cute. On our trip south earlier this year, we even saw 3-dimensional billboards with one cow, a statute, boosting another up the sign to post the slogan.
Jesus supposedly hung around with 12 dudes….do the math !
If a business owner speaks out about something you disagree with just stop buying the product. It’s that simple. If people want to drive to Mass for a chicken burger so what? I’ve never heard of this chain but will avoid it in the future due to the owners comments (and the fact that I don’t like chicken) but that is my preogative. I support equal rights for all people regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation and view marriage as a legal process not a religious one. Live and let live!
Chick-Fil-A is absolutely delicious. The owner of the chain said his beliefs, the beliefs of many Christians. I personally don’t agree with his beliefs and I can guess that thousands of Chick employees don’t agree with his beliefs either. I just don’t understand what a protest at a restaurant in MA is going to do? His beliefs are his, they aren’t changing.
A Christian group…..Nope…These folks are not Christians in the Jesus Christ defintion of Christians..He preached loving one’s neighbors as oneself..He said not a word about gays or gay marriage..
And if this group thinks homosexuality is a an abomination, they should also consider that Leviticus says that eating lobster and clams and getting haircuts, etc, are abominations…How come they don’t picket lobstermen??? Leave people alone…Let them love and marry whom every the want to…
As the great Wanda Sykes says….”If you don’t believe in same sex marriage…don’t marry someone of the same sex!”
Then you should know what he said of marriage in the New Testament, and what the Apostles said.. Trying to justify homosexuality through other means, like lobster is trying to find excuses for acceptance. You are right you should love your neighbor as yourself, but if he steals or murders, you do hate the sin.
You mean that it isn’t okay to divorce your spouse for any reason other than your spouse committed adultery? That is what He said.
Are you seriously equating the committed love of a same-sex couple to murder?
The truth is that civil marriage is a civil matter, not a religious one. We don’t prohibit atheists from getting married, after all.
Your church is free to deny anyone a marriage ceremony, for any reason. But our government should not discriminate against us, and it is that discrimination we are seeking to end.
The State issues civil marriage licenses, without one it does not legally recognize any couple. The State issues licenses to law abiding citizens and those who have broken the law. Murderers, thieves, rapists etc, even if they are incarcerated, can legally be issued civil marriage licenses and marry. The licenses are issued to couples that some churches may legally deny solemnization to.
Churches have the right to set rules for whom they will solemnize vows for … they are free to disallow divorced people, cohabiting couples, interracial couples, couples of a minority race, inter-faith couples, those with criminal histories and may require all couples attend pre-marriage counseling. The criteria they set their rules by are based on their beliefs and doctrine. The State may not interfere to compel churches to go against their beliefs or doctrine.
I believe what I think is right and I eat where I darn’d well please. I do not let other people think for me. That happened in Germany in the 1920′ s to the 1940’s. Be your own judge of what is right or wrong.
posted in wrong place
state is not supposed to get involved with your god really that basic people
Typical Republican C00m by Ya trip.
I am straight, married, and don’t believe in any miracle-working, sky-residing Gods of any denomination.
While I support peoples’ rights to believe in a God of their choosing, I don’t support anyone attempting to create legislation based on a book that is no more superior or factual than One Fish, Two Fish. (remember…separation of church and state…you can believe whatever you want, but you can’t pass laws that force other people to live according to your religious beliefs).
I also find that the more time people spend judging other people (thou shall not judge, anyone?), they are not paying attention to the other tenets of their religion, and probably not enough time on their own marriage or in their own bedroom.
If I had enough extra money to start a business, I’d call it the Big Gay Diner and people would come from miles away. I probably wouldn’t have to work long before I could retire ;-)
Tempest in a teapot.
As I recall, closing on Sunday is not a Biblical principle. It’s a post-Bible practice of the Christian churches because Easter falls on a Sunday. The Biblical basis for a holy day is the Sabbath: Saturday, the 7th day of the week.
See that the Liberals are trying to force the veiws on others. The same thing they accuse others of.If you do not like the restaraunt. If you do not like it , don’t go to it.
Hmmmm…… Home Depot, Starbucks, Disney, General Mills, Hallmark, McDonald’s etc… all subjects of boycotts by those who oppose anti-discrimination laws and/same-sex marriage. So it’s okay for the opposition to initiate boycotts because they don’t agree with others beliefs or opinions but not supporters?
And if you do not like same-sex marriage, don’t get one. See how that can work?
But if same sex couples can get married, then the religious right will have one less group to campaign against? They are running out of people to hate, and fast.
It’s not the same thing. Liberals are simply opting for acceptance which is a core value of both morality and democracy. Opposition to SSM is opting for negative aspects oh humanity.
If we were talking of equal rights for minorities or women, you would not effectively be able to make your statement about forced views. What makes you think that discrimination based on sexual preference is any different?
-J
Pardon the redundancy but I thought I’d clear the air on Mayor Emanuel of Chicago with a direct comment.
Mike and your mouthpiece: read the Chicago Tribune for the last couple of weeks. The Mayor of Chicago has stated although he doesn’t agree with Cathy’s philosophy, he can neither permit or deny any such real estate decisions. That’s up to the Alderman of the Ward involved. At least one Alderman has vetoed a permit for a Chik-fil-A (although it may not have been submitted).Incidentally, I know of at least one Chik-fil-A in a Chicago suburb and I’m sure there are more.
Haters gonna hate!
Umm, I honestly think that God and Jesus are more upset that Chick-fil-a is poisoning human beings with their toxic, unhealthy food than they are about two people who love each other.
I find it interesting that these nasty fast food chains are on one hand claiming to be Christian / family value advocates and on the other serving highly processed Soylent Green like grub. I think I’ll pass on both of their cooked up offerings.
Yum eat chicken for Christ..
That’ll raise the average IQ in Maine for a few hours.
I couldn’t even get past the opening caption calling it “religious piety” for a business owner to chose to stay closed on Sunday to enable people to go to the church of their choice IF THEY CHOOSE to !! The writer lost me right there !!! I didn’t even want to read anymore. And i can’t read any of the comments because they can be soo hateful !!! And that is NOT what my Christian faith is teaching me and has taught me. God’s love to you all.
I couldn’t even get past the opening caption calling it “religious piety” for a business owner to choose to stay closed on Sunday to enable people to go to the church of their choice IF THEY CHOOSE to !! The writer lost me right there !!! I didn’t even want to read anymore. And i can’t read any of the comments because they can be soo hateful !!! And that is NOT what my Christian faith is teaching me and has taught me. God’s love to you all.
“choose” not “chose” :(
This is not about Cathy’s comments, “views,” or “beliefs.” The “charitable arm” of the company gave $5 million dollars to anti-gay hate groups since 2003. It’s about the company interfering in politics to deprive people of rights.
Anthony Picolia, the Chick-Fil-A franchise general manager in New Hampshire, has announced that his franchise will be a sponsor for the LGTB Pride event in Nashua on Aug. 11.
Hopefully the franchise won’t be pulled from him by Mr. Cathy for disagreeing with company “values”.
This is what happens when you put Jesus into fried chicken.
Better then putting him into politics which always produces stupidity.
Stay in your own state and keep out of mine!!!!!
To whom are you directing this?
I thought that this was interesting:
http://i.imgur.com/lkxgO.png