Huckabee: Revolt Against Gay Marriage Grows

Michael Huckabee is saying the right things as he courts evangelical conservative in Iowa, who were key supporters in his victory in the Iowa caucuses of 2008. The ex-Arkansas governor is likely to run for president again in 2012. In a speech at a church in Des Moines Sunday, he said Iowa voters probably started a national movement when they threw out three state Supreme Court justices who agreed with a decision to reverse a ban on gay marriage, The Associated Press reports.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/mike ... /id/377828

As a supporter of homosexual marriage, I was surprised to see Iowa judges allow it and California voters deny it.
Huckabee did good in Iowa in 2008 too, but can he win in New Hampshire?

Outdoor -

Same sex union is a non-issue for me.

I think there's a difference between the church sanctioning holy matrimony - and the state documenting a union - thereby conveying to the individuals involved - rights, privledges, and a heck of a lot less legal problems.

The church I attend will not sanction a marriage between same-sex individuals. That's simply where they stand. I really don't care if the state documents union between same-sex individuals. It's no skin off my back. It certain saves the couples involved a lot of hassle (medical power of attorney, for example). I think that's just fine.

If the state tried to compel my church to recognize same-sex unions - I think I'd have a problem --- but that's not where we are, today. My church is free to do as it wishes - and if someone really wants a "sacred" ceremoney - I'm sure they can find a pastor to help them out.

Like it or not, same-sex unions are a part of reality. I don't think we serve anyone's interest by using the power of the state to harass them.

Like I said, I do support Gay marriage but I would be against requiring a church to allow gay marriages on thier property. I would also be against requiring businesses to provide services for a same sex couple.

The right prefers to keep gays in men's rooms where they belong. Otherwise their rent-boys will be expecting something more permanent.

SS109 wrote: Like I said, I do support Gay marriage but I would be against requiring a church to allow gay marriages on thier property. I would also be against requiring businesses to provide services for a same sex couple.

I'm confused. Why would you be against requiring businesses to provide services to gay couples? Wouldn't that be discrimination based on sexual orientation?

I agree that churches should not be required to allow gay marriages. That's a religious decision on the church's part.

IMO, Businesses should be allowed to make decisions like benefit eligibility, based on their own values.

If you don't agree with those values - find another business to work for

---

In my own opinion - employment decisions are about the right to associate with who you chose to associate with.

Just as I don't think government should be used to bully same-sex couples, I don't think government should be compelling churches, individuals, or companies to accomodate those values.

In my opinion - that's what freedom is all about.

I won't impede your freedom to have a same-sex partner --- but you should not impede my freedom to say that I don't want my company or my church to support that if I don't want to.

In general - I just assume keep government out of this business.

It's a personal choice.

Good liberals love the government...that's why need the government to endorse their lifestyle. I think Teddy was right again. Liberalism is a disease.

bailey bud wrote: IMO, Businesses should be allowed to make decisions like benefit eligibility, based on their own values.

If you don't agree with those values - find another business to work for

---

In my own opinion - employment decisions are about the right to associate with who you chose to associate with.

Just as I don't think government should be used to bully same-sex couples, I don't think government should be compelling churches, individuals, or companies to accomodate those values.

In my opinion - that's what freedom is all about.

I won't impede your freedom to have a same-sex partner --- but you should not impede my freedom to say that I don't want my company or my church to support that if I don't want to.

In general - I just assume keep government out of this business.

It's a personal choice.

Consider that if being homosexual is not a choice, if it is genetic, then refusing service to someone that is homosexual would be discrimination. We do not discriminate based upon race, since that is not a choice. If gay is not a choice, then would denying a person a seat at a restaurant based upon their sexual disposition be discriminating?

It certainly is your right to act as you see fit, but if homosexuality is not a choice, then your actions would be considered discrimination.

Being alcoholic isn't always a choice - does that mean businesses should not discriminate against someone who is totally dysfunctional due to his/her drinking?

I think businesses, individuals, and organizations have the right to decide what values they'd like to communicate, endorse, and live.

I work in a profession (education) that has long since accepted same-sex couples.
It's a non-issue for me, as well as my profession.

However, I can see how some individuals feel their values would be compromised by hiring someone who is openly gay.

I think that's their choice.

It's a matter of being free to associate with the people you want to associate with.