I also read Birk’s commentary on the Star Tribune’s website a while back. While he’s articulate and tries taking the high road as opposed to the original message Vikings punter Chris Kluwe sent to the Maryland delegate, Birk was unable to back up his statements on how gay marriage negatively impacts the family unit. The only people who do more harm to the family unit are deadbeat parents who won’t care for the child financially or emotionally.

Are you retarded? Birk is taking a position that would take away rights from some people. How would Ayanbedejo’s? Maybe look up the word bigot.

“… it’s not my aim, it’s not my goal to engage in any debates with any one person or persons…”

Of course it is or you wouldn’t say a thing about the topic…

By Tom Head, About.com Guide

Is Marriage a Civil Right?

Answer: Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:
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 …

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
While the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on same-sex marriage, it is unlikely that it would overturn the foundational premise that marriage is a civil right. Lower courts, even when relying on disparate state-level constitutional language, have consistently acknowledged the right to marry. Legal arguments for excepting same-sex marriage from the definition of marriage as a civil right have rested, instead, on the argument that the state has a compelling interest in restricting same-sex marriage that justifies limiting the right to marry (an argument that was also used to justify restrictions on interracial marriage), and/or that laws permitting civil unions provide a substantially equivalent standard to marriage that satisfies equal protection standards.

I have no problem giving same sex couples the same visitation, property, and tax rights as others, but again, BY DEFINITION that is not a marriage. Call it semantics if you want, it’s a huge distinction to many people. Why is it crazy that some people might be concerned about changing the definition of the very foundation of society? To me, that’s just as important as any war.

Um, aren’t ALL crimes done in the name of a man made religion? I must have missed the part where someone prove, beyond ANY doubt, that any one religion was anything but man made? It’s why I don’t trust ANY of them.

Because YOU and other followers believe in it’s divine creation, doesn’t make it so. I believe you exist to give me all your money, and if you’re a hot chick, your booty. Both of us stand on equally shaky ground when it comes to proving it should be so.

Does everyone forget that Christians rode around killing everyone they saw that didn’t want to convert all in an effort to kill off all other religions?? That’s right, the Christian religon spread throughout Ancient Europe and to America because of mass murder.

They chopped down Thor’s tree for crying out loud!!
__________
Please do not confuse what happened in the dark ages with real Christianity. Those atrocities were perfomed in the name of a man made religion.

So should Ayanbedejo. I agree with Birk, but both men’s freedom of speech is protected in the Constitution. The voters will decide in Nov.

They have almost made war the equivalent of cheering for your local sports team.”

Well said. Damn good points.

Oct 2, 2012 10:43 AM
thatyankeedude says:
Oct 1, 2012 11:49 PM
Ok moron find separation of church and state in the united states constitution that you piss on everyday.
————————————————–
Well since you asked so nicely:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….”
__________________
This is the best response in the history of PFT!

It’s funny to me how many people forget the founding fathers were also escaping religious persecution in England and the need for separation of church an state was vital to the survival of churches and religion. So many act as though the separation of these powers is socialistic or communistic. Our forefathers were smarter than that!

As a Christian that supports Same Gender Marriage, let me assure you that Yankredude does not speak for us all.

They have almost made war the equivalent of cheering for your local sports team.

Get back to snapping or kicking the ball and leave the real world issues to people that can do something about it.

As long as the guy isn’t checking me out in the shower, who cares?

  _________________________

You’re book of fairy tales has no say in how this country is run.

Seeing how you don’t want to give equally rights and tax breaks to consenting adults, I assume you are 100% for churches paying taxes. Why should my tax dollars fund your religion? There’s a church on 53rd and 5th in NYC, it’s one of the most expensive streets for real estate on the planet and they are there tax free.

The only argument against “redefining” marriage is a religious one and therefore does not belong in the discussion. How the government defines marriage has nothing to do with how your church defines the “sacrament of marriage”. No church will be forced to perform or “sactify” a same sex marriage.

IMO, the better answer would be for my government to get out of the marriage business altogether. Remove all special priviledges and rights associated with “marriage” so that all adults are treated equally in all ways.

They chopped down Thor’s tree for crying out loud!!

Christians are telling everyone their way is right and thats that. It’s b/s and there is no study/argument out there that can truly defend opposing SS Marriage. Just tell people: “I like to support things that discriminate others and is unconstituional.”