As Twitchy has discovered, not only are people “evolving” in their stand on same-sex marriage — the public’s reactions to each evolution are evolving as well. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) announced her support last night and was lauded as a hero. Today, just before the Supreme Court begins hearing arguments on same-sex marriage, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) took to Facebook to announce that he had evolved as well. (He even used the word “evolved” in his post.)

I support marriage equality because it is the fair and right thing to do. Like many Virginians and Americans, my views on gay marriage have evolved, and this is the inevitable extension of my efforts to promote equality and opportunity for everyone. I was proud to be the first Virginia governor to extend anti-discrimination protections to LGBT state workers. In 2010, I supported an end to the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, and earlier this month I signed an amicus brief urging the repeal of DOMA. I believe we should continue working to expand equal rights and opportunities for all Americans.

Warner has the (D) shield following his name, so he’s not likely to be attacked for changing his position as Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman was. But how late is too late to been seen as “authentically” supporting gay marriage? Mother Jones reporter Tim Murphy has an idea.

Sunday might have been the unofficial deadline, though.

  • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

    Lockstepp’n Lib’s
    ♪♫ O when the Saints go marching in
    When the Saints go marching in
    O Lord, I want to be in that number
    When the Saints go marching in ♪♫

    Clarinet solo!! ♪♫♪♫

  • http://www.vatican.va/ Rulz

    How exactly is it “fair” for me to pay for someone else’s sex life?

    Have you seen the economy lately?

    I think we should really go after a Senate seat in Virginia in 2014.

    • $45065723

      I don’t see how you’re paying for someone else’s sex life? If the implication is that gay people are more likely to get an STD and are more likely to be a burden on the entitlement system, I believe you’re wrong because I’m pretty sure it’s been proven that people who have a lot of sex (gay or straight, safe or unprotected) are more likely to get an STD.

      With that said, I think the government has no business in the personal lives of it’s citizens (or their drink choices, gun choices, ect.)

      • RightThinking1

        When people act in manner that diminishes civilized society, then they are costing society, and in the worst possible way. Homosexual ‘marriage’ is a fraud, by any measure.

      • AaronHarrisinAlaska

        They have no right to be involved and there for no right to ban it.

        • CanofSand

          You can’t bar gays from marrying (or allow it) any more than you can bar a cappella with music (OR *ALLOW* IT). “Gay marriage” is an oxymoron.

          • http://www.facebook.com/luke.givens.963 Luke Givens

            Well it’s already happening in plenty of places. Two people of the same sex legally marrying. Yeah, it is an ‘oxymoron’ in your little Christian brain, but none of those jurisdictions or the loving couples getting married give a crap about what you think.

        • RightThinking1

          Aaron,

          A most curious thing to say. I believe that I actually have a burden, an obligation, to promote values that lead to a stable, civil society. Putting that aside, if society has no ‘right’ to forbid an activity, why are you seeking a legal status to enable it, which, correspondingly, society would have no ‘right’ to grant.

          Reductio ad absurdum

          • Larry G.

            “to promote values that lead to a stable, civil society”

            thats mighty dangerous thinking. in fact ive heard it used many times on the left as they seek to take things away from people. heard bloomberg use the need for stability and improving health as a reason to ban soda just like week.

    • stellatruman

      Going to have to disagree with you on this subject , which I don;t think should even be on the radar when the economy is in sire straits. This is just a topic the libs bring up to fire people up and deflect from real issues. It really doesn’t matter if your neighbors / son/daughter, niece , nephew/ sister, brother, co worker is married to a person of the same sex. Doesn’t threaten you in any way so I think we should focus on the serious issues at hand..this is a trap that so many conservatives often fall into , which is exactly what libs want you to do…it strengthens the people who are truly taking this country down…I promise you , homosexuals are in no way a threat to your sexuality or marriage as you see it

      • nc

        Do you really think changing a fundamental cornerstone that has existed across all societies and all times will have no unintended consequences? For the sake of making some nice people feel better, we are opening a Pandora’s Box that we may never be able to put right again.

        • stellatruman

          How can you be so sure it’s wrong ? It might be wrong for you , but how would you feel if one of your children came to you and told you they were gay ? Would you disown them, or try to understand them and accept them ? What exactly is your personal point of reference ? I can name several

          • nc

            StellaT, how can you be so sure it’s right? I’m sure you can name dozens of wonderful people who only wish to feel validated, and by the way, so can I. But my “point of reference” is all of human history, spanning space and time. Was there always homosexual activity? Of course. But not marriage. This is a brand new untested social experiment with unforeseen consequences. We may not see what comes of this in our lifetime, but I fear future generations will curse us for unleashing this upon them.

          • Larry G.

            sounds like you think along gays to marry is going to the roads and tunnels collapse and the flag disintegrate. id say your being a little dramatic. if theres been homosexual activity for thousands of years (as you said) i somehow doubt that giving same sex people marriage rights will cause society to collapse in on itself.

          • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

            That won’t cause a societal collapse, but it will set a legal precedent to not be able to stop marriage from being continually being redefined to include whatever sexual practice of the day is deemed the victim du jour.

            It will also make it much easier to change other words that have had a relatively defined meaning like, “consenting” and “adult.”

            I will expect all the homosexual marriage advocates to be just as supportive for “marriage equality” for incestuous relationships, multiple partners, animals and eventually children. After all, if they “love each other” and are “consenting adults,” why shouldn’t they marry?

            I’m fairly certain there has been homosexuality for as long as there have been people. The difference is that up until 40 years ago, they were believed to suffer from a mental disorder. Many of us don’t understand why the APA took it off the list of disorders, other than to appease the homosexual “activists.”

          • nc

            That’s not even the half of it. When, in history, have people who haven’t been unquestioning, enthusiastic supporters of SSM been labeled haters and bigots? Just about the last four or five years or so. WHAT? And we all know discrimination is illegal, these things have already begun. So much for you go your way, I’ll go mine.

            Then, in another generation or so, it will commonplace to ask your precious little darling, when you grow up, do you want to marry a boy or a girl? No big deal you say? OK, we’ll see. But if this gamble doesn’t pay off there’s no turning back.

          • Scott Carroll

            How can you be so sure it’s right? No great religious or secular thinker in history, not Moses nor Jesus nor Mohammed nor Buddha nor Confucius nor Gandhi nor Einstein nor MLK, ever advocated for same-sex marriage.

            So what we’re supposed to believe is that the same-sex marriage movement of the 21st Century is somehow wiser and more enlightened than those I listed? It’s part of the preening self-satisfaction of the same-sex marriage movement that I find distasteful.

            As for my children coming out as gay, I am able to walk and chew gum at the same time, I would show them love and understanding while still believing marriage should retain its traditional definition. That is, I would if I were against same-sex marriage, but I’m not. I just find some of the standard arguments used by supporters of gay marriage to be intellectually lazy, bumper sticker pablum.

      • RightThinking1

        Stella,
        Well…, yes it does ‘threaten’ society. It is an attack on civilized society.

        My perspective is that the story of civilized society is the story of mankind’s struggle with his baser instincts. As an example, we have largely, though not entirely, managed to eliminate physical confrontation as a means settling disputes. Rape is a crime. Both criminal and civil differences are settled in courts, etc., etc.

        We have also, over thousands of years, come to recognize and promote monogamous marriages as essential to a stable and civilized society. Homosexual ‘marriage’ is not marriage at all, it is a means of gaining a moral stamp of approval for demonstrably degenerate behavior. To imagine that such behavior, embraced and nurtured, will not have a negative impact on society is to whistle past the graveyard.

        • stellatruman

          Sorry but you failed to prove your point. As a fiscal conservative and socially liberal, you will not convince a portion of the society that has a voice. Comparing rapists and homosexuals only makes you come off as a homophobic antiquated member of society, which is why we lose the common goal of getting our nation on track financially..might as well surrender and vote for the Hilary / Michelle ticket in 2016…failure to recognize this a a huge weakness for conservatives . This is also why Americans are becoming less inclined to practice Christianity and Catholicism

          • CanofSand

            The point is more than proven to all who are intellectually honest. “Socially liberal” people are not.

          • stellatruman

            There is nothing dishonest about my stance and leanings. You choose to chastise people like me who don’t fit into the mold you want me to. I don’t despise homosexuals , fear them or feel that my heterosexual marriage is in any way compromised because I can accept those who don’t fit into the the cookie cutter mold of what is acceptable. What you fail to acknowledge is how attitudes such as yours ( and others who freak out about gays ) is THIS is partially to blame for why Obama is a second term president

          • Scott Carroll

            Can we just all agree to do away with the idiotic nomenclature of “fiscally conservative and socially liberal?” Those two are irrevocably and incontrovertibly mutually exclusive.

            It’s possible to be fiscally conservative and socially LIBERTARIAN but being socially liberal bears the onus of supporting massive federal spending to achieve societal Nirvana.

          • stellatruman

            I am not supporting any massive federal spending at all…I simply accept that homosexuals shouldn’t be chastised and looked down upon for who they love

          • Scott Carroll

            Who exactly is keeping homosexuals from loving whom they want? I don’t even know how that would be possible unless the CIA is developing new mind-control technology.

          • RightThinking1

            First of all, rather than pursuing two threads, I am going to roll my responses into this one.

            I am not trying to prove a point. I am making a statement.

            I certainly did not compare homosexuals to anyone, I merely pointed out that a stable and civilized society will always be struggling against those instincts which are somewhat primal. Hedonistic self-indulgence is an an undeniable aspect of human nature, and it is learning to control those instincts that makes us more civil. But perhaps you do not believe that homosexuality is a behavior?

            There are at least two conflicts occurring here. One is the legal status of homosexual couples, i.e., ought they to enjoy civil unions, which would allow them to share certain public and private benefits, and the other is, should homosexual ‘marriages’ be recognized as equivalent to real marriage..

            I frankly do not care if two people want to enter into some sort of contractual relationship. I might, on the other hand, as an employer balk at being compelled to treat that relationship as a ‘marriage’…., because, it isn’t.

            I weary of pointing out that marriage is an institution that has evolved over thousands of years as the relationship between a man and woman, the blood ties between families, and children cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. The monogamous marriage has developed as the most stable unit of society that we are likely to achieve. That homosexuals wish to emulate marriage is understandable, but it is inherently degenerate…, it can never actually be marriage. I will repeat, it is fraudulent in virtually every aspect, with the exception of a one-on-one commitment.

            The noise about homosexual marriage is plainly for a single purpose (aside perhaps from garnering some material benefits), and that is a stamp of moral approval. That is why there is so much noise. Here, I will make a comparison, it is the noise one hears when a bratty child is denied something that they want, and in their own mind, are justified in having.

            I am sure your homosexual friends are nice people, I certainly have acquaintances that are homosexual, and they seem to be nice folk also. But so what? I also have had friends who engaged in patently bad behavior, and though they remain my friends, that does not mean that I am going to endorse or encourage their behavior.

            I agree with you that leading a principled life is not easy. The barbarians are constantly at the gate (actually, I am inclined to say inside the gate). As Chesterton said: “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried”. It is much easier to succumb to those base instincts that I mentioned earlier, the problem is that doing so results in the decay of society.

            Here is a simple question, and I did not bring the religious aspect of this into the discussion, you did…, do you believe that society has entered a state of decay? Do you believe or not that murder rates, divorce rates, crime rates in general have increased? Out-of-wedlock births? Corruption? Is it possible there at least a partial explanation of that in trend towards Godlessness?

            I am on the same page with you regarding a wobbly Republican Party, though I am not a Republican. It is worth noting here that Warner isn’t either.

            Addendum re “This is also why Americans are becoming less inclined to practice Christianity and Catholicism” . Catholicism IS Christianity, but that aside. Let’s consider how the Episcopal Church (which has embraced homosexuality) is faring:
            http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Home-Page-News-and-Views/Why-is-the-Episcopal-church-near-collapse.aspx

        • Sons Thunder

          What about homosexuality (as opposed to heterosexuality)constitutes ‘demonstrably degenerate behavior’?

    • AaronHarrisinAlaska

      Because in the context of gay marriage you’re not paying for any thing.

  • carla5731

    Mark Warner should be booted out of office because he was one of the Democrats who supported Ben Nelson’s Cornhusker Kickback. Even though that eventually got removed, trying to stick people in Virginia with the cost of Nebraska’s Medicaid expansion–just to force Obamacare through–proves he puts his party ahead of his state.

    • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

      carla, he left the Governor’s office with a budget deficit that never got mentioned. His replacement, Tim Kaine, brought it up once early into his term and must have gotten dressed down for it. He never mentioned it again. Can’t be blaming Ds for anything.

      Warner and Kaine are both carpetbaggers here, but get a pass because most everyone in northern Virginia is from elsewhere also.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1489524484 Rebecca Leigh Randolph

        Kaine left office with a budget that got zero votes, a $2 bil deficit, a rainy-day fund that had been raided and an across the board tax hike on all Virginians!! McDonnell literally hit the ground running when he was inaugurated and eliminated the tax hike (kinda ironic considering what he just did with the transportation bill) replenished some of the rainy-day fund and turned the deficit into a surplus!! Kaine was MIA the last year of his term, playing mouthpiece for the DNC.

      • carla5731

        It sounds like Warner should have his real record broadcast loud and clear across Virginia if he decides to run again. That Ben Nelson deal put him on my radar and I’m hoping that someone better replaces him.

  • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

    Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love… Ephesians 5:1 – Mark Warner

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

      “Woe unto them that call
      evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for
      darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

      Isiah 5:20

      • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

        I posted this in a tongue and cheek manner :)
        Because McCaskill quoted Corinthians when she came out in favor of gay marriage

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

          I know you did. I wasn’t dinging you, I was playing off of your words that were aimed at McCaskill. I believe Portman tried to involve the Bible too. I’m sorry I should of been more clear.

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            Ohhh derp. Sorry, I couldn’t sleep last night…mental hebetude got the best of me; my bad :)

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            No worries! :)

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

    We are not a nation based upon fairness.

    • http://www.facebook.com/1685766211 Vinny Raineri

      Yes, we ARE. The problem is you’re using the Socialist definition of “fairness”, instead of the REAL one, which is “proportionality”.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

        No we are not. Fairness and equality are not synonymous and never have been. The two words have very separate and distinct meanings. No where in any of our founding documents does the word ‘fairness’ appear and with good reason.

        • http://www.facebook.com/1685766211 Vinny Raineri

          I specifically implied, “fairness=/=equality”, and explicitly equated fairness to PROPORTIONALITY, instead.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            And proportionality doesn’t apply either. Proportionality only applies to seats in the House and not to rights unto themselves as in The Bill of Rights.

            Context is everything. Proportionality applies to representation. Also I am not responding to your definition of ‘fairness’ but the definition implied on the comment section of this blog and by the left.

          • http://www.facebook.com/1685766211 Vinny Raineri

            Proportionality applies to JUSTICE, as well. To be precise, “proportionality”, here, is a spiritual extension of “an eye for an eye.”

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            Still not talking about the same thing but in this instance I do agree with you on that. Proportionality can be applied to justice but that is a Western Civilization context as in “Let the punishment fit the crime.”

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            He is talking about the Christian definition of Justice. See Plato, Cicero, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas for more information :)

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            Yeah I know…and we apply the tenets of that in our justice system. For example we don’t hand out the death penalty for theft. So technically speaking he is correct on that one even if it out of context and non applicable to this blog posting about gay marriage.

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            Ugh..again, sorry; I shouldn’t post when I am not coherent..I just embarrass myself haha

            I totally agree btw. We are not a nation of fairness nor will we ever be. I believe strongly in cardinal virtue; in a utopian setting where everyone has integrity, Justice is great. To bad this is the real world :. So I guess, I agree with both of you aka total cop-out :p

            I am not sure whether restricting GM is “fair” or not, to SS couples. I wouldn’t call myself a pick and choose Christian either. I am not pro or anti gay. I wouldn’t even call it indifference. It’s a tough subject…but I am not against SS couples. I AM against sexual impropriety. If people are in a committed relationship, I am not sure I have an issue with that.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            I enjoy your posts. It is a tough subject and I know where I stand on it but I must admit it was not a decision entered into lightly.

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            It tears me up inside :

            Just a heads up; Twitchy is about to turn really ugly, GM always is a heated topic here. I’ve been down this road (on here) too many times, I am tried of arguing the topic, to be perfectly honest. I wouldn’t mind a civil discussion though. I’d like to hear your thoughts, hmu on FB if you want :)

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            Yeah I’m ignoring the topic. If it passes it will be a Pyrrhic victory and if it doesn’t it will be a Pyrrhic victory.

            And my dear I don’t do FB. Sorry. I think FB is TMI.

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            From the few audio clips I heard coming out of the SCOTUS, I was actually left with the feeling they might actually make a rational decision (either way). We’ll see. I just want the argument to die down for a little while (fat chance)
            Twitchy needs a chat feature. haha

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            True! haha!

  • Karla M

    There is no such thing as ‘marriage equality.’ Even if homosexuals can marry each other in all 50 states there will still be prohibitions on who can marry who

    • AaronHarrisinAlaska

      No. If recognized in all 50 states there were be a prohibition on who can marry what

      • Zanshi

        Or who can marry how many…

      • CanofSand

        So two siblings are “whats” now?

    • ConanTheRepublican

      The country needs to speak with ONE VOICE, from the Supreme Court on down: MARRIAGE IS STRICTLY–UNDER ALL CONDITIONS, THE UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. PERIOD. END OF STORY. Sit down and deal with it, you reprobate bastards!

  • RightThinking1

    The Democrats are ‘evolving’ in a manner similar to the way that the Age of Pericles ‘evolved’ to the Age of Caligula.

    • stellatruman

      this attitude is why our side keeps losing votes in nat’l elections..let it go

      • nc

        We’re losing far more that just “votes.”

        • stellatruman

          Please explain

          • nc

            Scroll down to see it.

          • stellatruman

            Still losing the argument. What you fail to see is how falling into the trap that the liberals set for you helped Obama win…just like the people who would have voted for a republican candidate if they weren’t so sure that Romney was an evil Mormon. How you can’t see ( and others like you ) who stood your high moral ground when it comes to same sex marriage handed the election to Obama , is equal to bashing young woman voters who thought via their sexual organs

          • Mellow Melon

            I don’t think you get it. You seem to think that if we can just get rid of the religious right, we’d be okay. Nothing could be further from the truth. Number one, there would literally be no difference between the parties, as we’d have to be pro-choice & for SSM; and number two, the image of the Republican Party (not specific candidates, just the party) has so firmly been indoctrinated as a party that represents racism, homophobia, hatred, and bigotry into the minds of Americans that it will be a long time before it ever changes.

            And I am so sick of people hating on those who disagree with SSM. Why is it not okay for us to be against it? I seriously don’t get it. Why can everyone else have their opinion, but the moment I say I disagree with SSM, I’m some of kind of homophobic bigot, even though I have like three gay friends? SSM isn’t even a logical reality unless you literally change the legal and dictionary definition of marriage. Furthermore, leaving SSM illegal is not depriving gays and lesbians of any kind of rights. Under the current legal and dictionary definition of marriage, gays and lesbians can marry absolutely whomever they want. This is why you can’t compare it to interracial marriage. Black people literally COULDN’T marry whoever they wanted, because they were not allowed to marry white men or white women.

            Lastly: pleaaase don’t associate yourself with Christianity if you’re going to be in favor of homosexuality. The Bible is absolutely explicit in condemning *any* type of sexuality outside of a heterosexual marital union. If that makes you uncomfortable, that’s fine; but please don’t twist Scripture and misrepresent Christ in order to make yourself feel better. Just don’t believe in it if you don’t like it.

          • waltzingmtilda

            I’m going to chime in here with this: I do not automatically think people who are against SSM are homophobes or bigots. I understand both viewpoints, though obviously I favor one over the other. My mom is pro civil union but anti gay marriage, as are a lot of Conservatives that I know. I don’t think any of them are homophobes and I am happy to defend their viewpoint when other people choose to accuse them of that.

            But I do find it rather odd that you would tell someone else to not associate themselves with Christianity because they disagree with you. The Bible is explicit about a lot of things, do you follow them all? I know that I don’t, but that’s between me and God. We all have to face our Maker someday, and if I am wrong about supporting gay marriage, then I’m sure I’ll hear about it. And I’m not trying to be flippant…I do not look forward to seeing His disappointment in me for the things I have done wrong.

            The only thing I am sure of is that Jesus died for ALL of our sins.

          • Mellow Melon

            I don’t think it’s odd at all. For example, if I were actively getting drunk every night and saying that it’s okay even when the Bible explicitly forbids drunkenness, you would have every right to tell me as a fellow Christian that I need to repent, and that if I am unwilling to repent I should leave the church for a time. Again, we all struggle with sin even as believers. We’re not perfect witnesses all the time. But there is a difference between acknowledging sin and overcoming it through Christ, and then openly engaging in sin over and over and insisting that it is okay. If someone is uncomfortable with what Scripture says to the point that he has to change it, deny it or ignore it in order to feel comfortable, then he probably needs to stop associating with Christianity for a while.

          • stellatruman

            I have been ripped apart here for my posts , told I am not a conservative and intellectually dishonest and pleaaaded not to call myself a Christian. I find the intolerance for differing opinions very disturbing

          • stellatruman

            That was long…I’d like to point something out to you. I practice no organized religion , didn’t claim to be a Christian . You can believe whatever you want. I have’t called anyone names here. I respect your right to believe what you want , I would kindly ask the same of other posters when it comes to my beliefs and opinions.

          • Mellow Melon

            Sorry for the length :) Didn’t mean to hurt your feelings or insult you. It’s just that I am very passionate about my beliefs, though I understand there is a fine line between passion and rudeness.

          • stellatruman

            thank you for that Lauren. I appreciate your passion and support your right to express it. I was also smacked down ( by actual friends , not anonymous forum posters ) just last week for disagreeing with someone who expressed disdain for Catholics who were celebrating their new Pope. It was because his brother is gay and I found his comments offensive and disrespectful …basically showing the same bigotry towards Catholics as he so strongly objects to , or so he claims

          • Mellow Melon

            no problem :) again, sorry if I came off too strong. I know how it feels to be dissed by friends, especially when they’re close. It ain’t right and it’s not fun at all :(

          • stellatruman

            thank you for that Lauren. I appreciate your passion and support your right to express it. I was also smacked down ( by actual friends , not anonymous forum posters ) just last week for disagreeing with someone who expressed disdain for Catholics who were celebrating their new Pope. It was because his brother is gay and I found his comments offensive and disrespectful …basically showing the same bigotry towards Catholics as he so strongly objects to , or so he claims

      • RightThinking1

        Stella,
        I understand your perspective, but ‘winning’ isn’t everything. The fact is that I feel compelled to fight societal decay, and the acceptance of homosexual behavior is one manifestation of that decay.

        I expect that I will be ‘on the losing side of history’, but there is nothing new about that…, so, ultimately, was Pericles. I will not compromise with fraud, which is what homosexual ‘marriage’ is.

        • stellatruman

          my point is, what does it matter at the end of the day when gays have the right to marry and none of us have a pot to p*ss in any more because the religious right has turned off prospective voters to boot the RINOS and libs out of office who are taking this country down .We are weakening militarily and financially in an alarming way. I have gay friends who are close to my entire family…they are not a threat to any of us , but this is what the opposition takes great delight in since the fear of them is what helps get their candidates elected

          • WO4TG

            There isn’t a single person who will see us cave on “marriage (in)equality” and decide to vote for us because we’ve abandoned our principle on that issue.

            It’s a myth that social conservatism loses elections. Candidates who refuse to stand on principle lose election. Candidates who are unable or unwilling to passionately defend their beliefs lose elections. That can’t be fixed by abandoning conservative philosophy.

          • waltzingmtilda

            I agree abandoning principles in order to win is not the right thing to do. And there is so much so much animosity from a large portion of the gay community towards GOP/Conservatives that even a genuine “evolution” (gag…I hate that phrase in this context) on the issue will have a very small impact in opening D voters up to taking a look at GOP or Conservative candidates.

          • stellatruman

            > But can you see that the principles on that issue can and will keep people from voting with you ? I know Christian conservative who abstained from voting because of conflicts from what they have been told to believe in order to be good Christians , but when faced with their own children’s homosexuality have felt that they had nowhere to turn…hardly what we need , but judging from all of the negative remarks from other posters here on this thread ,It truly depicts the divide in the republican and conservative parties.
            Score a win for progressive and libs !

          • ConanTheRepublican

            Even if my OWN son came out as gay, I would NOT COMPROMISE MY DAMN PRINCIPLES!! WHat the HELL is wrong with you people?? You can still love your child, but NOT ENDORSE HIS LIFESTYLE!!! What part of that do you wimps NOT understand???

          • Sons Thunder

            No one is asking for your endorsement. You are welcome to use ALL CAPS and call those you disagree with ‘wimps,’ If marrying a member of the same sex is against your principles, don’t marry a member of the same sex.

          • stellatruman

            Name calling sure promotes your agenda, right ?

          • ConanTheRepublican

            Ronald Reagan PROVED the axiom once and for all time: “IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME”. REAL, genuine conservativism wins votes EVERY SINGLE TIME. You have to impress the voting conservatives in the country enough for them to come out for you, unfortunately. They are a sick lot in themselves, because they are so GODDAMNED LAZY, that they would rather have a Communist half-Muslim IDIOT in the White House, than at LEAST a war hero and Senator with some experience (McCain). I’d like to beat the whole damn lotta ya with a STICK!!

          • SecularAmerican

            REAL, genuine conservativism wins votes EVERY SINGLE TIME.

            Right. Which is why the developed countries of the world have become more and more progressive despite, you know, being democracies or republics.

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            Ancient Rome was a pretty progressive place…just saying

          • waltzingmtilda

            I’ve tried to write this comment three times, ’cause I know I’m gonna get in trouble for it. The issue is so complex, it’s hard to communicate in a few sentences, but basically here’s how I feel:

            I think this country needs more marriage. I think encouraging two people to make a lifelong commitment to each other, to raise children in a loving and stable home, can only benefit society.

            I think that there are so many children out there that need good homes, and that encouraging gay couples to marry and adopt presents a wonderful solution to the problem.

            I’m not super clear on what Jesus said about Teh Gheys, but I am pretty clear on the concept of no sin being worse or better than any other. But, like a lot of human beings I know, I have a sliding scale and murder (for example) ranks a lot higher on my personal sin-o-meter than homosexuality. In fact, I don’t even think it’s a sin, but that’s just me. I think you have a choice to murder, but I think you are born gay and if God made us all, and God does not make mistakes, then you are asking gay people to deprive themselves of one of God’s greatest gifts in order to avoid a state of sin.

            There’s more, but I’ve already wandered in to TL;DR territory on this one. I know I sound like a screaming lib…I guess I am pretty liberal on this issue.

          • stellatruman

            I have friends that are gay that have children…and if you knew them, you might also agree that they are far more loving and nurturing parents than some screwed up hetero couples we all know walk amongst us. These are people that are very well accepted even in our republican dominated town..

          • waltzingmtilda

            I just found out that one of my work pals has a sister who is in a long term committed same sex relationship. Together they adopted an HIV positive baby (who’s 25 now!) and a baby born with a digestive track deformities (he’s 7 and has a feeding port). I’m not saying these kids wouldn’t have found a home elsewhere, but the odds were stacked against them. They found a wonderful, loving home with this couple.

          • ConanTheRepublican

            A child by NATURE CANNOT and WILL NOT grow up normally in a same-sex marriage household. A child BY NATURE, dammit MUST see the duality of life in their parents, to appreciate their OWN true nature. It is APPALLING that this discussion is actually happening in the United States of America. We’re actually CONFUSED about what constitutes a MARRIAGE!!!!

          • SirLancelot70

            yeah, liberal republican town.

          • stellatruman

            clearly…otherwise they would be run out of town by, oh I don’t know. Maybe less tolerant folks ??

          • SirLancelot70

            Sorry, it’s YOUR side that are the intolerent ones.

          • stellatruman

            you have got to be kidding..that is hilarious. With every post, you show your lack of tolerance towards those with opposing views, but I will take the apology you offered

          • RightThinking1

            Walt,
            That will only be true so long as the interests of the child are not uppermost in your mind.

          • waltzingmtilda

            Well, statistically children do best when raised by married heterosexual biological parents. But when that option is not available (and it’s not far too often these days, I think that is a far greater ill to society than gay marriage) I think a stable,loving two parent home of whatever variety is a better option than others.

            Oh, and call me Tilda. Walt makes me sound like a boy! 😉

          • ConanTheRepublican

            The country does NOT need “more marriage”. If that’s the case, I wanna marry my goddamned DOG; how ’bout THAT? That’s marriage, too, isn’t it? What freaking planet are you on, man? The country needs more NORMAL male/female marriage. How in the name of almighty GOD ARE WE ACTUALLY HAVING THIS DISCUSSION??? Have things degenerated to THIS point??

          • http://www.facebook.com/luke.givens.963 Luke Givens

            Sweet lord, all of you need to go have some cookies and a nice warm bubble bath. Can the melodrama about the fall of society, this might play well in your little echo chambers and your little bubbles but in the domain of reality where same sex marriage is already the law of the land in many states and countries your little right wing wet dreams about Armageddon being incited because people of the same sex are legally marrying have just simply not played out. Geesh people, try to relax a little.

          • stellatruman

            For starters, not everyone follows organized religion and some of the ones who did now leave because of attitudes such as yours.

          • Breitbarts Corpse

            Reading all of your retorts makes me feel so good. Your tears of impotent rage amuse me.

      • forKnowledge

        I agree with you. And I’m not a Republican, but a registered Independent who’s unhappy to be stuck with a single party to vote for by default.
        But as long as the GOP advocates for the gov budding into my private and social life, and tries to impose its religious views (thereby infringing on my constitutional right to freedom of religion), I won’t even consider voting for the GOP. Not to mention the obvious shortcomings of specific candidates like Akin, Murdoch, Palin and Bachman… I wouldn’t find them qualified to teach 5th graders…
        Of course who *I* vote for is of little interest, but the bigger picture is that as long as the GOP (or another party) fails to provide voters with a reasonable alternative, the entire country loses.
        I’m sure my comment will be unpopular given the tone of the comments in this thread, but so be it!

        • stellatruman

          Thank you forKnowledge, I would say ” Amen ” but that is a phrase that only true Christians apparently can use here. I too am a registered independent , though haven’t voted for a democrat since I was 18

    • V the K

      If only people cared as much about fiscal responsibility and economic growth as they do about giving same sex couples a piece of paper signed by a bureaucrat to legitimize their coupling.

      • SecularAmerican

        Yeah. “Coupling.” Because that’s all marriage is.

      • shimauma

        Actually, people who chose to live sexually deviant lifestyles are trying to legitimize their perversity and sadly our libturd politicians are going along with it, even the republicans. As long as our country continues in down this path of immorality, the United States of America will never be the shining city on a hill that it once was. Father God, please have mercy on the righteous.

    • ConanTheRepublican

      …and the French Revolution “evolved” into the Reign of Terror.

  • notenoughtime

    Could care less who someone’s chooses to be with but if it wasn’t for tax breaks and taxpayer funded benefits, the marriage debate would not be happening. The liberal left will not be happy until any remnant of a traditional marriage is erased. For decades we have been preached to by the pop culture pundits that a piece of paper is not needed for a comittment, children do not need a mother and a father, traditional families and parents are portrayed on our TV and movie screens as dimwits, etc. And any religious objections are now used as fodder to demean and degrade their beliefs. Politics has no business in our private lives.

    • AaronHarrisinAlaska

      Traditionality is irrelevant. What matters is civility. And it would be civil to recognize a same sex union. Just as its civil to recognize a bi-racial union. That said, what gives you the right to push YOUR traditions on some one who does not follow them.

      • WO4TG

        So, is it just homosexuals who get to redefine marriage?

        Why should I be able to push my traditions on an incestuous couple? I mean, they’re people in love, too.

        Why should I push my traditions on a polygamous family?

        Why should I be able to push my traditions on any sexual union that anyone sees fit to engage in?

      • SirLancelot70

        Wrong, it’s YOUR side that’s pushing the radical gay agenda down on those of us who oppose the radical gay agenda.

  • mainelysteve

    These people don’t “evolve”; they just stop lying about who they are!

    • Scott Carroll

      This. Does anyone, even if they’re a Democrat, truly believe that Mark Warner and Claire McCaskill didn’t support gay marriage last month or last year or the year before that?

      Hell the President is a definitional incompetent and his Vice-President is developmentally disabled, but at least they both had the stones to stage their big reveal BEFORE they faced the voters. Warner and McCaskill are exhibiting the basest sort of electoral cowardice.

      Even so, I find Portman’s Pirouette more distasteful than the Dem “Changes of Heart.” The Democrats are liberal and same-sex marriage is a liberal position. They might’ve been lying to the voters but at least they weren’t lying to themselves. Portman seems to have arrived at his shiny new principle by saying, “In a disagreement between my 3000 year old faith and my son, I’m going to side with……my son! Because, my son!”

      Hey Rob, what happens when Will Portman gets a job writing for Mother Jones or The Nation? Going to realize how jejune free-market capitalism is?

      • Rek LeCounte

        Newsflash: Mark Warner is up for reelection this cycle. Glad he’s standing on the right side of history and civil liberties.

        • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

          I just find it odd, that they’re wishy washy on an issue until it’s politically beneficial(acceptable) to make a statement, one way or another. That is exactly what Mark, Claire and Hilary are doing(did)…

        • Guest

          Gay marriage IS NOT a civil right. Please show me the EXACT words in the U.S. Constitution that says that gay marriage is a civil right.

  • nc

    Oh yeah, Sen. Warner, better get on board with the cool kids. You don’t want to sit by yourself at lunch.

  • 2ifbyT

    Warner is one of my Senators, and the other is Tim Kaine. Both are half-asses, which when you put them together equal the perfect ass.

  • TylerROM

    I don’t agree with same-sex marriage but I decided recently I’m not the one who is to judge these people. God is. So I suppose let them get married and they can deal with the consequences. However
    homosexuality is biologically wrong and maybe they can’t help it, it could be a genetic defect or abnormality. But I won’t be told its natural or normal when it doesn’t further the species on a purely reproductive front. Not adding any religous differences in.

    • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

      Until the early 70s, it was a diagnosed mental disorder. That was about the time of homosexual activists who used the media to pressure the American Psychiatric Association to remove it from their list. I still believe it is a mental disorder along the lines of drug addiction or alcoholism.

      • nc

        Careful Tug. Words like that could land you in hot water.

        (ps: love the new avatar)

    • Guest

      How does it further the species on any front, reproductive or otherwise?

  • TylerROM

    #32 agreed

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1489524484 Rebecca Leigh Randolph

    Warner doesn’t leave the DC area….EVER!! I live in Va Beach and I honestly wonder if he knows that it’s still VA down here…..we’re not a part of NC!! People here have firmly held beliefs and principles (meaning they don’t change depending on what poll numbers say). As I recall, we voted in VA for an amendment to our Constitution that bans same sex “marriage” so Warner doesn’t speak for all Virginians. I’m Catholic and have seen my Church have to shut down facilities that offer foster care because they won’t act against their beliefs…..same thing has happened to Catholic-owned businesses. Gays just love to sue us and it’s really a shame that they have insisted on doing everything they can to impose their views on everyone else because I wouldn’t care about this issue if not for the fact that they have behaved as immature, arrogant bullies and have shown a total lack of respect towards people that have different views than they do. My Godfather was gay and he respected my views on the topic just as I respected his lifestyle and never tried to impose my views on him. We had plenty of other things to talk about without discussing our sex lives. Sadly, he passed away a few years ago but I was honored to give his eulogy and remind less open-minded family members that above all else, he was our family and he loved us. He was a person who didn’t define his life and self-worth based on who he chose to sleep with and it’s so pathetic to watch gays treat their sexual preferences as the one thing that describes them….if I did the same, I’d probably be called a slut.

  • KansasGirl

    With all this evolving going on…I guess Darwin wasn’t too far off.
    What I’m keeping an eye on is who will be the fittest to survive.

  • JoeMyGodNYC

    The time has come when no Democrat will achieve election without supporting the full civil equality of all Americans. That time will come for the GOP soon enough.

    • Scott Carroll

      In the words of Ronald The Great, “There you go again.” Conflating civil rights with same-sex marriage. I’m sure blacks beaten and hosed in the South 60 years ago are ecstatic about having their struggle equated with the 27 year old barista in San Fran who wants to marry his live-in boyfriend of 8 months.

      • JoeMyGodNYC

        Shrug. It’s happening. And I totally won’t mind if the GOP is very, very slow to catch on. Better for Hillary.

        • Mellow Melon

          Ad populum fallacy. A majority of American supported segregation barely fifty years ago. Just because a majority supports something doesn’t make it good or right. SSM even less so. Gays literally comprise 2-3% of the population, and furthermore sexuality is a highly subjective and hidden quality that cannot be known unless the person tells you; even then, you can’t know *for sure* what sexuality they are. I could tell you I’m gay and you would have to believe me, even though I’m straight. You can’t do that with skin color.

          • JoeMyGodNYC

            Shrug. None of that changes the demographic facts revealed daily by national polls. The enemies of equality are literally dying off. It’s simply a matter of time.

          • Mellow Melon

            If you are unable to counter-argue the fact that you committed an ad populum fallacy, and are unable to explain that sexuality is objective and how SSM is in fact a good thing, then your comment is invalid and should be dismissed. Oh, and by the way . . . “enemies of equality literally dying off?” Really? I’m not even drinking age, and neither are any of my friends :)

          • JoeMyGodNYC

            I’ve lost interest in such arguments with bigots. The polling trends are there. Don’t pretend to be unaware of them. It’s boorish. (As is your attempt to appear erudite by using Latin. Seriously.)

          • Mellow Melon

            Ad hominem fallacy right there :) Again, if you cannot engage in a discussion without relying on logical fallacies and name-calling, your opinion does not deserve to be considered valid. In the real world, you and I cannot expect to walk around calling people who disagree with us bigots or f*ggots and expect to be taken seriously.

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            exercise in futility Lauren..although I appreciate your effort :)

          • Mellow Melon

            yes, I know :) sometimes ya just can’t resist XD

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            Hey, I looked at your posting feed. Posting on Politico, while admirable, is only going to leave you frustrated and dumbfounded. You are OBVIOUSLY a smart cookie, but you will just end up headdesking. I am not saying, only post on here and get your views reinforced, a little political discourse gets the blood flowing. It’s just, no matter how many facts and how much logic you use; they will just anonymous internet hatefest you. You are only hurting yourself : there is no reasoning with these people…

            Pardon my lurking :p Just my 2 cents :)

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            Flip side it helps hone her skills.

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            Very true! You have to stay sharp. I advocate reading WaPo, NY/LA Times, Politico and HuffPost articles and comments section. I let some other person get flamed, then I analyze the argument, to formulate my own retort(s). That way, I’m well versed and I still maintain a nominal blood pressure level. Page 4: Win/Win

            “Win/Win is number four and number five is win/win/win. The important difference here is with win/win/win, we all win. Me too. I win for having successfully mediated a conflict at work.” –

            If you get that quote without google we both win :)

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            It sounds familiar but I don’t remember it! Dang it! Are you going to tell or make me Google?

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            Tsk Tsk Laurel. I wish I could call it an esoteric reference…that would be cutting you too much slack though 😛

            Edit: It’s from ‘The Office’; totally cool you didn’t know it. Probably better :). You’d probably get literary quotes much easier…it is a funny show, though

          • Mellow Melon

            thanks for the encouragement bro :) I was feeling a little down there even though I’m engaging in this willingly. Yeah, I know, and I have to watch it myself – you know, “Don’t answer a fool according to his folly.” But at the same time there are a few arguments every now and then I want to pursue. I know it will be fruitless but hey – maybe, just maybe a mind or two might be changed, though it wouldn’t be by my work :)

          • http://www.facebook.com/138900508 Patrick Dennehy

            np girlbro
            p.s. I see you heeded my advice 😉 I have an ice pack waiting for your forehead 😛

          • Mellow Melon

            hehe yeah XD thanks, I’m gonna need like fifty 😀

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

            You are light years ahead of him. I have had the same conversations with progressives. They absolutely do not understand what a logical fallacy is because all arguments, decisions, world view is made with emotion and not actual logic.

          • SirLancelot70

            the ONLY reason that polls favor the radical gay agenda is that people don’t want to be labeled either a homophobe or a bigot.

          • JoeMyGodNYC

            Yes. Because they are ashamed.

          • SirLancelot70

            wanna bet?

  • http://www.facebook.com/woodjbg Howard Phillips

    I fought & shed blood for my country then came home just to go on riot control in my country. Now I get to watch an idiot play God in the WH and a bunch of idiots voting for faggots just to get reelected. What a waste of my lifetime watching you AH tear the country that I love apart.

  • Kyle Schroeck

    Less government interference in our lives means allowing whoever to marry whomever they choose. From my Libertarian viewpoint, this is one of the very few things I disagree with the GOP on. Joe and Frank down the block getting married doesn’t affect my life whatsoever.

  • swen13

    Gay man supports gay marriage. Surprise?

    • JoeMyGodNYC

      That will come as a surprise to Warner’s wife of 24 years.

  • descolada9

    Economy in the tank, Europe’s economy in the tank, the new standard set
    by Cyprus to seize deposits, North Korea beating the war drum, chemical
    weapons being used in Syria, more and more problems cropping up over
    ObamaCare and what it will do to America, but the big issue is Gay
    Marriage! Ugh.

    • Roto

      The idealogic pillars of the liberal Democrat agenda, i. e. sexual hedonism, abortion, financial redistribution, etc. come before the good of the nation…

    • stellatruman

      But it’s a great distraction from serious issues and divider isn’t it ?

  • SirLancelot70

    it hasn’t been & never will be about “equality” . All it is that these freaks of nature want it to be a crime when normal people speak out against the radical gay agenda just like what happened in Canda & Europe.

  • Morneau_for_4

    Sorry, my religious beliefs don’t “evolve.”

  • SirLancelot70

    Hmm.. let’s see who has the better chance of preventing the extinction of civilization – gays or heterosexuals?

  • SirLancelot70

    for all you ssm supporters – gay marriage IS NOT a civil right. Please show me the EXACT words in the U.S. Constitution that says that gay marriage is civil right.