Yesterday President +Barack Obama became the first US president to publicly declare his support for gay marriage. "It is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married," the president said in an interview with +ABC News (+YouTube video:

When we looked at Google Search data after the announcement, we found yesterday's top related search terms with "Obama" were "Obama gay marriage," "Obama same sex marriage," and "Obama supports gay marriage." Overall, national searches for "Obama" and "gay marriage" increased by 458.8% from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Noel Yap's profile photoNica Zadi's profile photoJustin Carrel's profile photoVinny Borzumato's profile photo
Boo!!! I'm sick of this President, not only does he despise economics, he hates God and now the destruction of the family. This dude must go!!
+Scott Williamson I'm scared of Mitt too, although I know he will stand for some family, he is still shaky on what he believes and is all over the place; however, he is our only candidate.
Anything would be better than this socialist, we have now. I'll take the lesser of two evils.
+Paul Schuler The institution that was set by God himself, the family. It isn't designed for a Man and Man or a Woman or Woman, It's one man and one wife. Homosexuality is the ultimate perversions and a sign that a society is at its end. Study histroy adn you can see this.
That's the beauty of our republic +Aaron Echols LGBT Americans don't need your approval to have equality. Because like it or not we are equal and it has nothing to do with your god.
How does the president hate God? and he has done more to this economy in the last two years then any pres could in 4...
I don't care if gays want marriage. I don't want my tax $ to pay for it's repercussions.
+Pavel Sveshnikov Every he goes, he has the name of Jesus covered up..., he's a Musilm, who do not even believe in God, but a god, not the God of the Bible and the Jews, the one true God.
+Scott Williamson I partially agree, I do care if they marry and get the same benefits of what the home is and I definitely don't want my tax dollars funding this or mudering babies such as they are now with Obamacare.
Do you know anything about the Muslim faith? or relegion in general?
Religion is good at home. Leave it out of politics.
+Aaron Echols Romney is NOT our only candidate!! Ron Paul is still VERY much in the race.
You should study up a bit more because it's not about the relegion it's about what we as Americans want and need and have been fighting for ...i
Well, We have two months before we may have to settle for Romney vs. Obama/Goldman Sachs vs. Goldman Sachs.

We CAN win this things for freedom and liberty with your help!
+Pavel Sveshnikov The only time we've been successful as a country, is when we followed God. We are abandoning all reason and throwing God out of everything and look at the mess we are in now. Please study history, TRUE HISTORY, and you will know that almost all of the signers of the Constitution were Christians or Pastors. The reason for separation of Church and State, isn't because of the Church corrupting the government, but the opposite.
Let people form the social contracts they desire, and make them legal if they desire (via powers of attorney and whatnot)

+Aaron Echols if you're talking about christianity, read your bible. Marriage is routinely not one man and one wife in the bible, and "marriage" within the bible has a sick and horrifying history.

However the fact that marriage is routinely a religious construct is one of the reasons I feel the government should stay out of it completely.

Additionally, the US government being involved in marriage in the first place was solely to prohibit marriages between certain peoples, namely interracial marriages.

Having to beg the government to make what should be a deeply personal and meaningful commitment between yourself and another is simply stupid and ridiculous.
To all the people using religion to stop gay marriage, isn't the "golden rule" in Christianity to treat others how you would like to be treated? Why then, do we not allow any two loving people the ability to share their lives together?

What everyone should really be afraid of is Religion... People are blinded and brain washed by religious teachings and let it take over every single facet in life, whether your part of the religion or not. Havent you ever heard of a Jihad? Of the Crusades? Of all the conflicts in the Middle East? Religion causes more suffering in the world then gay marriage EVER will... all in the name of Religion.
+Scott Williamson The most recent national polls show Romney losing to Obama by alot.

However, Ron Paul vs. Obama are tied at 47% 47%
Marriage has nothing to do with religion.
I don't think we should run this country based on superstitions. How can we say that we believe in equality and freedom, only to say, in the same breath, that some people have the rights that other people don't? It makes no damned sense.
Ron Paul is not a libertarian. He is against marriage equality. You cannot be a libertarian and want the Government out of everything and have exceptions as to who can marry who. He is a hypocrite.
Marriage should have everything to do with religion

Marriage should has NOTHING to do with government
+David Barry that is the issue, and people hate God now. Anytime that the gospel is shared now. People tell you to stop "guilt tripping" them. But the Bible is God's Word, so yeah, if a nation has turned it's back on God, then it will definitely bring guilt. "Men love darkness rather than light".
+Aaron Echols The how can 2 aethists get married? It is a legal partnership. Period. You want to insert religion into it good for you. But it is not a necessity.
What do you think will happen to Barney Frank, in the end?
Aaron Echols
I know the history and I'm always studying it and it's not only about the history it's also about what is happenin today..things are changing they always have and will. This country is with God...i have no idea where your coming from...but obviosly very confused
Well congrats ,,, soon you folks will pass the same law like this ... which is allowing dad marrying his own daughters or brother with sister , mom with son ? this will be happen when world dont know what is the means of a limits of freedom .
Ron Paul has clear stated many times he is against Government having any say on marriage at all.

Marriage licenses were invented to keep whites and blacks from marrying.

Repeal Marriage Licenses!! Legalize Marriage!!
Society is in the process of finally outgrowing religion. It is the way of things. We will all be better off in the long run.
I am really impressed by this declaration and I think it is a step into the right direction.
+Vincent Costa You'd have an extreme degree of difficulty finding a politician who's not guilty of hypocrisy. Obama's 2008 platform, for example, promised civil liberties reforms and a change from the status quo. Today, he's viciously prosecuted more whistle-blowers than every past President, combined. He condones drone strikes based on sketchy intelligence that have slaughtered thousands of of innocent civilians. And despite widespread outrage and well documented illegalities, financial-fraud prosecutions by the Department of Justice are at 20-year lows.
To all the people using religion to stop gay marriage, isn't the "golden rule" in Christianity to treat others how you would like to be treated? Why then, do we not allow any two loving people the ability to share their lives together?

What everyone should really be afraid of is Religion... People are blinded and brain washed by religious teachings and let it take over every single facet in life, whether your part of the religion or not. Havent you ever heard of a Jihad? Of the Crusades? Of all the conflicts in the Middle East? Religion causes more suffering in the world then gay marriage EVER will... all in the name of Religion.
+Steve Arrants Says you, you've never seen God work in miraculous ways. Romans 1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
It is scary to think that some of these fundies are in a position of power. Little by little logic and reason is wearing away their ability to use their false sense of religious superiority to dictate our lives.
+Desmond Collins same God, yes. Muslims are the biggest war mongers with each other: Sunni v Shiite, forever. We have Jesus. Enough said. Jesus will save and forgive every one of us.
+David Barry Amen, He loves the Sinner, but hates the Sin. Look at what happened at Sodom and Gomorrah. :( We are becoming Sodom and Gomorrah. If you look throuigh the Bible, Sodomy has always been a punishment for the nations that have turned their back on God. :(
+Vincent Costa Point being, Ron Paul has a better claim at being called libertarian than Obama does being called progressive or liberal.
Obama s 68 border idea with Israel was just dumb. Anything would be an improvement.
Obama never ran a business, either. It shows with his fiscal idiocy, too.
If all the people that read the bible would instead read a biology or astronomy book we would be on Alpha Centauri by now.
Why do you Christian people always try to tell others how they should live?
+An Kylar Matthew 28:19, 20: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Why do atheists always want to take away my beliefs?
+Aaron Echols please, while you're quoting the bible, quote for us some marriage and family values.

Can we get some about Abraham? Lot? Cain?

The bible is CHOCK FULL of incest, polygamy.... the punishment for a man raping a woman is your supposedly sacred marriage .

Please, for society and morality and goodness sake, people, do not turn to the bible for family values and marriage values.
(And please do read the bible so you know why it should not be the word on family and marriage values.)
Quoting the bible to prove the bible is right. Classic.
Once one has accepted Jesus, it becomes very clear. All are welcome. It's easy.
The burden of proof is on you. You are the ones making these extraordinary claims.
I believe that President Obama should have another chance to improve the things at hone, without all Congress fighting every way they can. We are to support our President, not distroy him.
+Arifx BfS Well, there are gay animals..
I feel the Religious should be free to follow the teachings of their god.

Just don't threaten to kill or cage the rest of us by having the state enforce your beliefs with violence.

I don't recall Jesus Christ ever kicking the s*** out of someone and locking them in chains because they wouldn't follow him. Maybe one of the religious people here could point me to that bible verse...
+Michael Marrero Do it now, before it's too late. We all will have to at one point or another. Philippians 2:10,11: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Marriage is in the eye of the beholder. Each of us defines it by our own perception. You choose what filter you wish to place over the lens. Some may use the filter of religion, social construct, historical president, legal rights and responsibilities or just plain old compassion and good will. Some may consider themselves married who are not recognized by an authority and others may choose to believe them. For some the legal recognition of marriage beyond the heterosexual, traditional (U.S. traditional) construct would simply grant legal rights to those who already exist in a married state of their own perception. For others who respect our laws as a filter for their own status of marriage it would be a feeing justification of their self-identity. How could either of those things be undesirable if you truly wish everyone liberty and the freedom to pursue happiness.
+Aaron Echols You use your religion as a weapon to take from others what you take for granted. I call that terrorism.
'Marriage' was instituted by God in the garden of Eden for 'Adam & Eve'---not 'Adam & Steve'. Homosexuality & lesbianism are as unnatural as bestiality, incest, open nudity, pornography & group sex. How can you say one is right & the others are wrong? There will be no moral standards after this. Obama's decision to come out publicly like this is WRONG & he has lost my vote today!!!
Christians, if it is up truly up to the Lord to judge the living and the dead, then why do you feel the need to assume that responsibility for yourself as well? This is one thing that I, as a mere nonpartisan agnostic, have never understood.
It'd sure be nice if he mentioned the trans women of color who're killed in the streets regularly
+Aaron Echols And you don't see that happening with religion in the United States? That is exactly what Christians do on a daily basis with their politicians in their pockets they take freedoms from others much the same I take things from out from my fridge. Casually.
Union thugs could be construed as terrorist?...Yep.
2000 thousand years ago some individuals said they talked with god. Some were cast as liars and killed and some were believed. Today, all are sent to the nut house.
What happened to religions teaching on on being tolerant
First of all, religion should not even be part of this discussion. This is not about religion.
Second, There are a ton of other faiths besides Christianity that are protected under the first amendment. which further makes my point that religion should not be part of this discussion because there is no way to represent all faiths in this discussion.
Third, if you believe in Civil Rights and a society where all men a created equal. Then Marriage equality is a natural extension. Otherwise you cannot believe that "all men are created equal".
In your eyes. gays are not "equal".
men=human in this context.
I really think that if God has a problem with gay marriage it is only those people getting married who need to worry about it. Everyone who wants to ban gay marriage is simply using the bible to attempt to justify bigotry. Those who use religion to justify hate are not Christians, in my opinion. Jesus was not a hateful man.

Furthermore, why exactly should the bible be the basis for our laws? There are many millions of non-Christians in the United States, and the separation of church and state is sanctified in our constitution...
+Desmond Collins What did Paul say to Timothy? II Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
+David Barry And what about the countless other religions protected under the 1st amendment of the constitution of the US that do not believe in the Bible?
Yes im sorry to put all USA citizen in that... But USA is to much religious and its really sad...
I find this discussion hilarious. Really the only thing that should be looked at is why the state has laws on marriage and whether those goals are still valid and can be served by extending them. Religious issues should be left to individual religions.
+Julien Valiquette Well, we were founded, "One nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and justice for all". But it doesn't mean those other religions are correct.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Matthew 7:13,14:
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
If marriage is going to discriminate... religious or not, it has no place in government.

Most of us still have not evolved from the silly dogma. These are enemies of reason and compassion. It is illogical to argue logic to a bunch of illogical backwards thinking simple minded preachers. They can't fathom or ever believe the truth of our so far unexplainable existence. Marriage should not be a part of government in this day and age. It is fluff, it is unneeded bureaucracy in a meaningful relationship that any two people can choose to have.
+David Barry You say that people here are not arguing with you, but the word of God? But that is YOUR God? And does not and cannot represent everyone.
Eventually this will be the number one hit when you +Google Gay God... Nice work Everyone!
+Aaron Echols Do you know evolution? The old religions is a total piece of garbage. Full of hate, lie and other bad thing. The only good religion is Kopimism. ;)
+Aaron Echols We were founded under "One nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and justice for all"?? Correct me if I'm wrong but that is a quote from the pledge to the flag, which is from somewhere around the 1950s..... long way off from 1776
I talk about evolution in your head... But if you believe in old religion you prove you cant evoluate mentally.
+Chris Cecil You are correct "under god" was inserted into the pledge of allegiance in the 1950's to separate the US from communism. It was never part of the original pledge
We may have been founded by christian like people but they did not want our nation to be A christian one. It was founded on the belief we could live together. The ideas you are spouting +Aaron Echols are how people have hijacked our government. Liberty or justice for all MEANS that everyone should be able to get married or it should not be part of our government. You can go be "traditional" in your own church.
Even without the "under god" part the whole pledge is only from 1892!!

I looked it up...
I love how he thinks it's "important to go ahead and affirm" his stance on the issue when it was SO HOT in recent history. Where was his opinion then? Was he being quiet about it, or is it only "important" now that he is up for REELECTION?
+Desmond Collins I think you may be right that the founding fathers had Christian principles in mind. But part of the reason for the establishment clause was to prevent those who think they know better than anyone else from using religion to justify their legal positions.
+Desmond Collins Atheists have no faith. They, like myself, do not believe there is a higher power. Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in a higher power. Although, most agnostics lean more towards non belief in a higher power. Google it.
+Aaron Echols I have read the Constitution. I carry a copy everywhere I go. Never once says the word God.... However it does say:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
+Aaron Echols Are you kidding me? We have no temples, we pray to no one and we don't use books with silly rhetoric written by uneducated cultists. We don't judge people based on a book or apologize for being human. All we want is a society that puts more weight on logic and common sense.
I pray to NO ONE but ZOMBIE JESUS!!!!
oh wait..that IS Jesus! :-o
+David Barry yes i know the bible is full of racism, hate, lie, murder, rape, incest, ect... This site is full of weird quote found in the bible.
+Desmond Collins That is a good question. Where did it all come from? How did it begin? That is the only question that makes me think there is a Higher Power. But it has absolutely nothing to do with any human explanation, let alone Jesus, Muhammad or any other made up characters. In my mind it is to crazy to think that humans are that smart to figure it out.
+Michael Marrero But you have an outright hatred for God and his principals. If God isn't real, and Jesus isn't real, then why does it bother you Atheists so much having God everywhere? You are trying to take him out of everything. Tell me that.
+Desmond Collins The lack of an answer does not make your belief true. I can't possibly sit here and try to explain the big bang, evolution and the various theories our (society) scientist have come up with. Needless to say, we go with a theory until the EVIDENCE points us somewhere else. We don't just pick something for the sake of doing so.
+Desmond Collins in my language the "higher power" is called "Forces of nature" .. in your language you call them "God".
The difference is - I study to UNDERSTAND the forces of nature - and that's part of Science.
+Aaron Echols And using that same logic, why does it bother you that other people might be allowed to get married?
+Aaron Echols are you using "God" like a lube to screw the argument here? Dude this "God" doesn't even seem to have enough "saving" in him to fix what YOU describe as a "homosexuality problem".
Modern looking humans = 200,000 years old.
Jesus = 2012 years old
What about all the humans for the 197,988 years before Jesus?

Were they without god?
+Vincent Costa isn't Jesus supposed to be "SON" of god? Or is he God as well? How many gods ARE there? I'm losing count!
+Aaron Echols Afterward Lot left Zoar because he was afraid of the people there, and he went to live in a cave in the mountains with his two daughters. One day the older daughter said to her sister, "There isn't a man anywhere in this entire area for us to marry. And our father will soon be too old to have children. Come, let's get him drunk with wine, and then we will sleep with him. That way we will preserve our family line through our father." So that night they got him drunk, and the older daughter went in and slept with her father. He was unaware of her lying down or getting up again. The next morning the older daughter said to her younger sister, "I slept with our father last night. Let's get him drunk with wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him. That way our family line will be preserved." So that night they got him drunk again, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. As before, he was unaware of her lying down or getting up again."

"So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father. When the older daughter gave birth to a son, she named him Moab. He became the ancestor of the nation now known as the Moabites. When the younger daughter gave birth to a son, she named him Ben-ammi. He became the ancestor of the nation now known as the Ammonites." (Genesis 19:30-38 NLT)
Aaron Echols, it's not a hate against Christians. (many Christians would disavow the people that are hated as not being Christian in character)
You perceive things that way because a group, that you're part of, pushes for their religion to take dominance over anything else religious or secular. People that don't want that take offense to it.
+Desmond Collins I respect your choice to believe in "God" .. As you can see I define stuff differently. I attribute the ability to get wisdom, clarity and peace to a human being's own efforts.
+Vincent Costa Well, carbon dating is very inaccurate. Most true scientists believe the earth to be 6000 years old, 10000 max. Even then, 200000 years would be less than before Creation ever existed. Jesus, God are both quoted as saying it themselves, "I AM"!
I love that I can edit my comments on Google+
+Vincent Costa and what's with this "evolution" thing?? I came from no monkey! (DISCLAIMER - I DID actually come from a I did!)
Its like Allen Iverson said. Practice we are not here to talk about practice.

Evolution we are not here to talk about evolution.

You crazy start believing in evolution. Haa
+Desmond Collins one question at a time sir!
You ask good questions and I shall look for good answers. But because I may not have good answers right now.. I shall not devolve my researching capabilities into pseudo-answering them with faith.
+Aaron Echols I'm surprised you can actually type a coherent sentence with all that going on in your brain :D
I'd be more civil and utterly apologetic about the nature of my responses...but've already lost my respect :)
I guess no one really reads the Bible anymore..., because it's not relavant, you know. -.- /me pastes on friendly sarcasm.
+Desmond Collins Evolution has not been disproven. To say "Darwinism" is disproven may be technically correct but only because Darwin himself did not fully understand the mechanisms of evolution.

I don't think a belief in evolution is really that incompatible with Christianity, unless you're the type who must uncritically believe every word of the bible to be literally true. If that's the case though, there are many other problems to deal with than just evolution.

Anyway, I came here to talk about gay marriage, so, to reiterate: I think if gay people get married they're the only ones who need to worry about what the bible says about it. Matthew called it hypocrisy to judge others for a reason.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
+Aaron Echols The first amendment says the bible really isn't relevant to a discussion of legal policy...
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
"Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock." Psalms 137:9 NAB
+Aaron Echols I think that's a pretty good reason why +Jessica Naomi wants a court order to keep this Jesus person away! This Jesus you speak of has a strange way of showing "Love"
+Aaron Echols unless the next line of that part was "Those people who do all this are psychopathic homicidal MANIACS! Lock them UP!".. I don't think a bigger 'context' presentation will make a difference.
Aaron Echols Isn't using one specific version of the bible ridiculously limiting? You can't say that that one version that's not the original is perfectly correct or even the best (best being defined as most true to the original).
because of the judeo-christian ethos that was established by a enumerable circle (speaking in google+ terms) of citizens and leaders including the founding fathers and I cannot think of no other nation in history that has functioned with such a diverse people in a unoin of states and provided a framework of freedom (called the Constitution). with such success. look at what the Communist worldview produced? look at post Christian Europe but apparently the obama and oprah circles want to radically change the nation with their version of secular humanism. The reason for the obvious disaggrement and quite frankly hostility is mostly because of the millitant approach that most of these groups use to affect their worldview on the whole nation. the only way that we can live in a peaceful and civil union is to have civility. something we all need to practice everyday.
+Aaron Echols I think the reason we are against religion (not just Chrisianity) should be obvious. You're using your religious belief as an excuse to deprive freedom to others. Case in point, Obama's opinion on gay marriage. Churches don't even pay taxes. Why the hell should they get their cake and eat it too?
"Sodomy has always been a punishment for the nations that have turned their back on God. :(" I the only one that found this hilarious?
Don't you just love the way that religious people forget one of the teachings... TOLERANCE
"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room (or closet.) and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret..." (Matthew 6:5-6 RSV).
I'm not gonna jump into all the religion or pro/anti obama stuff. I'm just going to say that I am happy and proud that our president is making a stand for equality, whatever his reasons.
''If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.'' (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
I believe the concept of marriage as an institution has been around so long because it has to do with the continuation of our species and social stability. Thousands of years and hundreds of societies have shown that when a man and a woman commit to stay in a relationship with each other and have children together, that the children grow to be better citizens in society. In civilizations where there has been a moral breakdown and a departure from this method of child rearing, the fabric of society breaks apart and that society grows weak.
+Dave Hardee I think lots of societies have done very well with communal rearing of children. Even living in an extended family is considered to be a more stable environment. As far as I know studies have shown same sex couples raising children have done as well or better than typical male/female pairings. (I would think it has to be better on average since many same sex couples have to go through adoption screening)
I'm not sure which societies you would be referring to that have collapsed due to not following your pattern. I'm sure we could find as many or probably more that fell while following that pattern though.
+Dave Hardee I agree with your statement but changed it slightly:

I believe the concept of marriage as an institution has been around so long because it has to do with the continuation of our species and social stability. Thousands of years and hundreds of societies have shown that when two people commit to stay in a relationship with each other and have children together, that the children grow to be better citizens in society. In civilizations where there has been a moral breakdown and a departure from this method of child rearing, the fabric of society breaks apart and that society grows weak.
I also think the main problem is that in order to encourage marriage several incentives have been put in place by governments. I realize that strong feelings can occur between virtually any two people, but I don't think that it should be called marriage unless they are going to produce offspring. Without external help a man and another man will never be able to produce children, and likewise a woman and a woman also will never be able to produce children. I know there are arguments that they can adopt, but giving them the same incentives as heterosexual couples just doesn't make sense. Perhaps someone could explain why they should get the same incentives as a traditional marriage.
+Dave Hardee I know many heterosexual married couples who cannot have children. Some of them knew this before they got married. Sounds like you think they shouldn't be allowed to be married.

Edit: And by the way, my wife and I have no children. If we decide our marriage is not going to "produce offspring" should our marriage be dissolved?
Like I said before, I'm more interested in why it is regulated. If the purpose is to encourage people to have kids, we should just give out checks for every child that is born. If the purpose is to keep families together in order to raise children, we should only give benefits to groups that are raising children. If the purpose is to reward a religious ceremony, we should get rid of the benefits.

Why are we encouraging marriage? That along with whether the answer is valid will provide more answers on what should be done.
+Jake Boley The discussion here is about marriage, not individual circumstances. I suppose that by my logic I could see how you could come to the conclusions you did, but if we are looking at the larger picture and the part that governments play in marriages, the incentives are put there to encourage procreation. To extend these same incentives to a same sex couple ( who will by definition never be able to have children, not based on individual circumstance) is to say that marriage is for a completely different reason, i.e. because two people wish to publicly state their relationship status. I think that many of people here stating their religious views are arguing that marriage is a special status reserved for a man and a woman who wish to make a family, and by saying that we can have same sex marriages it takes that special status and makes a mockery of it.
The point has been missed here, marriage is about protection and security for children.
+Pavel Sveshnikov You're right Obama's has done more to our economy in 2 yrs than any other could in 4. Record poverty, record unemployment,
+Dave Hardee If the goal is to encourage people to have children, I think giving $100 to each parent for every child born would give us a lot more children for a lot less cost (even at $1000 it would be a lot lower cost per child than current incentives). Personally, that's not a good goal.
A license is special permission to break a law granted by the government. Why is marriage illegal? Why is it the government's place to give us permission to marry?

I say legalize marriage! Abolish Marriage licensing!

Problem Solved!
The goal is not just how can we get people to have children. The goal is how can we get people to have children and raise them to be socially responsible and productive adults. This is why marriage has been and is now upheld as a protected status, so every child can have an optimal ( or as close to as possible) chance to be a successful adult.
+Dave Hardee If that's the goal, then the incentive should be given to every group (multiple partners should be fine) that has kids and raises them. Female couples can and do have children in one of the same ways that married men and women do, so they would also be included. Couples that are known to be barren should never be given benefits regardless of gender. Groups should only be denied these benefits then if it can be proven that they don't raise children as well.

Really if those two things are the goal we're going for, we'd be better off separating them. Give people money for having kids and give people raising kids tax breaks (like now) and get rid of tax breaks for couples that aren't raising kids (unlike now).

Actually, giving a couple a tax break for being married doesn't make sense for anything you've mentioned as a benefit so I'm still at a loss for why it would be done this way other than that it has been done this way.
+Dave Hardee You said that to allow couples who by definition cannot have children would be to "say that marriage is for a completely different reason, i.e. because two people wish to publicly state their relationship status." But who said marriage licensing is "put there to encourage procreation" other than you? My marriage license didn't say anything about that.

I think you just don't like gay people and you're looking for some sort of reason to justify your bigotry. If the gay couple down the street gets married, it hurts no one. Why would anyone be opposed to this?
for the gop idiots, this is your candidate:

(from the Washington Post)
"Mitt Romney’s prep school classmates recall pranks, but also troubling incidents:
LOOMFIELD HILLS, Mich. — Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled..."
Liberals, BHO is your candidate. Who's the idiot?
Dan B.
"Idiots" are people that judge who somebody is today based on a story from almost 40 years earlier...
I did not know who BHO was 4 years ago. Proven idiot since then.
Considering each of these candidates are running for Presidency - they're both far LESS idiotic than any of you! Stop bickering you stupid population!
Poverty? Unemployment? What you think 1 person is pocketing all the cash and depriving you of some untold riches?
Against God? Do you live in a cave? Last I checked this country follows some of the most "Christian" beliefs that I can see! And that AFTER making the statement regarding "Separation of Church and State"!
And WHAT is your problem with 2 people of the same sex coming together in marriage and being happy? ants in your pants? WTF? Is YOUR home life all golden? Yes? Then be happy in it! No? Then fix it! Stop prying into other people's private business.
As it stands the government should have nothing to do with "Marriage"..but heck..seems like that's asking for too much so I'll settle for it atleast being unbiased when it comes to WHO wants to marry WHO! Stop the bigotry!
I think this is also a question of morality. I do not wish to pry into individuals private lives, as they will most likely choose to live their lives no matter what I say anyway. In most moral codes, whether religious or societal, there are rules for how one should act. In regard to sexual relationships, many religious moral codes are a bit more strict than societal codes. My problem is that if I choose to live by a stricter moral code than one the government not only condones, but supports, will I be forced to accept it by way of laws or other government influence. Homosexuality is not a new thing, and it has been forbidden in many societies, both secular and religious. Perhaps we should consider why so many different groups of people have considered it a perversion and an infraction of their moral standards. History might have something it can teach us.
+Dave Hardee explain to me how allowing same sex couples to marry forces you to accept homosexuality.
lol, "judge who somebody is today based on a story from almost 40 years earlier"... LOL. This is EXACTLY what the gop, fox news and all the (paid by gop) talking heads do!!! or you don't remember all the allegations and questions about our President for things his friends or people in college did (NOT HIM)? REALLY funny how NOW is not good to read into richie rich past.
By the way, here is the shocking reality: a huge percentage of homophobic and intolerant/abusive people are in the closet. Just ask MB husband, the one praying to "fix" homosexuals... he can't wait to kick the door open and jump out of the closet!!!
+Dave Hardee So it's solely a case of morality that prevents gay couples from getting married? Reading your position, I thought ok then, but I started having trouble thinking of solely moral laws. All the big ones are moral, but also involve taking away another's rights (life, liberty, property, etc.) and so are justified on that basis. Drug laws might be solely moral, but there are strong cases for legalizing some of the less harmful drugs (alcohol was made legal again for instance) plus not having your population die is pretty much an essential function of government.

All the laws I can think of right now have at least some semi-valid justification outside of strictly saying "it's wrong".

Looking back through history doesn't help your case nearly as much as you'd like either. Homosexuality (at least between males) was common in many ancient cultures, including Greece.

Looking at nature, there is evidence that other species include homosexuality.

Using your argument, perhaps we should consider why so many groups hated Jews over the years, or perhaps why so many groups treated people of dark skin as slaves (really it was originally any foreigner, but those of dark skin were definitely foreign in many parts of the globe and so were slaves), or why women were considered inferior in many cultures.

One thing for sure, you're right that homosexuality is not a new thing. That alone says something for how 'natural' it is.
I'm still uncomfortable with his "No longer defending the Defense of Marriage Act."

By all means, kill the law, but the president isn't allowed to pick and choose which laws should be enforced and which should not.

Take it off the books or enforce it, anything less sets a bad precedent.

The same people who are happy about Obama playing fast and loose with his granted powers might not be so excited on down the road when someone they don't agree with ignores the same responsibility he's throwing out the door now.
The Bible also says that cannibalism and slavery is ok. So we obviously should be holding slaves and eating our kids if politics followed the bible. America is revered for its freedom, but if human rights are denied, then we really aren't so free, hm? Please dont shove your religion into politics. This is coming from a Devout Catholic :/ 
thank you zoe smith... that was well written. god bless you
For such a taboo topic, there sure were lots of Americans hearing what President Obama said and then quickly added their two cents. It's always the first brave person who speaks up or stands behind an important issue to WAKE UP! He didn't yell 'FIRE.'
Add a comment...