Maybe you are better off than I am. When I first got Fox on my satellite program it was my birthday in 2004 and I was so happy that I had it. Well right after my heart attack the next month I lost it but it came back pretty soon after I got out of the hospital. I believe that enough viewers, like me, must have attacked Dish about taking it down. We pay nothing extra for it just like my old favorite, CNN, that I never watch anymore.

I have wanted MSNBC but refuse to pay extra for it so I am protected by my cheapskate attitude. I guess I can go to my son's house and see it since he has the top program from Dish.

I guess you don't catch too much in the way of newscasts since you are so limited. Right now I am celebrating having Fox by all the moving talk about the new Boston bombing arrests.

Maybe you need to pay a bit of attention to Fox the rest of this day. That Gowdy from SC is making a lot of noise on the Issa committee and Fox if playing some good stuff from a man with a changed voice and shadowed so Obama and friends can't tell who he is. Also, they had a lawyer on today who says the administration is trying to keep her from getting the proper clearance to represent one of the witnesses who were there. It is surely a dead issue with most of the media but Fox isn't a part of that media.

It is not a dead issue in the five committees of the HOuse that are still investigating what that group of witnesses wants to say. I am sure that all Obamas wish it were dead, but Fox just won't let it happen.

MEMBRAIN WROTE: The question remains as to who their clientele are usually made up from. I can understand them allowing Christians from other denominations using their facilities. While there are differences of opinion, they share a common base belief. I can understand them allowing people of no belief using the facility. The question remains as to whether or not they would allow a couple of a different religion to use their facilities. If not, I am sure that they do not want a competing faith that is conflicting in nature to those of the church's belief using their facilities.

{ No brain, there is no indication that they excluded anyone else besides this Lesbian couple. If the Methodists had excluded anyone else, do you think that they would not have used that in their defense? In fact, as far as I know, they didn’t even appeal the decision because the case was clearly lost. The case is about discrimination in a facility that is supposed to be open to the public. A gazebo is not a church. And allow me to remind you that this debate is about marriage e******y. Regardless of the merits of the Ocean Grove case, you continue to fail to make your case against marriage. The issue here was that of a civil union ceremony which you claim to be in favor of. I’m beginning to feel sorry for you as I watch you grasp at straws trying to defend the indefensible.}

If that is not an issue, then at least it is still a traditional marriage between a man and a woman. The issue arises when traditional marriage is not the case, such as a gay marriage. Our faith teaches that homosexuality, and all sexual perversion is an a*********n. As such, I agree with the church's stance. Now, if it can be proven that they have declined other couples the opportunity to use their facilities on grounds other than sexuality, then the Gay couple doesn't have a leg to stand on.{ Spare me the religious claptrap . I really don’t care what your faith teaches. And as I said above, there is no indication that anyone else was turned away}

There is one other issue involved here. The right to refuse service. Granted they can't refuse service on the grounds of a protected class, such as skin color. But they can refuse service to people not dressed "appropriately". (No shirt, no shoes, no service...ring a bell?) Both are examples of discrimination. There is a difference between them though, and it is that difference that makes one protected under law, and the other not. That difference is choice. A person cannot choose the color of their skin. Likewise, the cannot choose their heritage. Things they cannot choose should be protected from discrimination. Sexual preferences is not. A couple of definitions:

{ Hello! Earth to Brain…Homosexuals ARE a protected class under the law in New Jersey, under federal law and in most other jurisdictions ! You have said that you believe that gays should have equal rights except for marriage but now you say that they should not be a protected class. WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU BELIEVE? What reality are you living in? Can you possibly be that out of touch with reality? And as far as it being a choice goes. Have you ever actually spoken with a gay person? Do you know any? Your ignorance is truly profound. Sorry, I said that I would be civil but you are really pushing me over the edge. And, once again, what does any of this have to do with marriage e******y? }



Homosexuality is a preference. Boys and girls are not born thinking they are gay. In a proper/normal home, they shouldn't give much thought to sex until they start nearing puberty. For the record, curiosity about sex is not the same thing as interest in having sex, nor does it indicate the formation of a sexual preference. At any rate, homosexuality, being a preference, should not be protected under the law from discrimination.{ That’s your biased opinion, the fact is that it is protected at the federal level and in Many local jurisdictions, including New Jersey. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2009/October/Gays-Now-a-Protected-Class-of-People-under-New-Law/ And where do you get all of you alleged knowledge about sexual development? }

For that matter, neither should heterosexual preferences. Ever hear of a Gay bar? I doubt many "straight" people would go to one. It remains to be seen if they would receive service, but they would definitely encounter discrimination. { are you serious, I’m from New York. Fact is that I have gay friends and have been to gay bars Ever hear of swingers clubs , S&M clubs . I’ve been to all of them and have done it all. Nudist clubs too, it’s a blast. Have you ever had group sex? You don’t know anything because you haven’t done anything. You don’t know what you’re missing You really think that you know a whole lot more than you do. }

There's more at issue here than simply giving gays marriage rights. We also have to consider other forms of non-traditional marriage. For example, polygamy. In a larger sense, group marriages. What about beastiality marriages? They are a preference too! A man should be allowed to marry his dog right? What about marrying non-living things? Where do we stop? { What a bunch of bull. I’ve talked about this before. These issue are a smokescreen, an attempt to obfuscate the issue which is MARRIAGE E******Y, e******y with heterosexual people. Hetros are not talking about any of this of this other stuff. It’s totally irrelevant to the marriage issue. Please stop insulting may intelligence and making yourself sound stupid by bringing it up.}

I rest my case with natures design. Through nature it takes a man and a woman to reproduce. Therefore, through nature, a marriage may only consist of a man and a woman. All other relationships rightfully belong separate from marriage. { YOU ARE DRIVING ME INSANE! YOU HAVE STATED THAT YOU ARE OPPOSED TO GAY MARRIAGE ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS. YOU HAVE FAILED MISERABLY IN YOUR ATTEMPTS TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU RELIGIOUS BELIEFS SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON OTHERS. YOU HAVE FAILED TO EXPLAIN HOW YOU 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS WOULD BE VIOLATED BY EXTENDING THE RIGHT TO MARRY TO GAYS. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM MEANS THAT YOU CAN BELIEVE , WORSHIP AND LIVE AS YOU SEE FIT. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU GET TO TELL OTHERS HOW TO LIVE OR TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THEM…THERE IS AMPLE LEGISLATION AND COURt RULINGS TO BACK THAT UP. NOW, YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO FALL BACK ON YET ANOTHER WORN OUT, INANE ARGUMENT…REPRODUCTION!

There are centuries (if not millennia) of precedent here. Marriage has always been about securing economic rights {Exactly, and that’s what this fight is about}

as well as exclusive reproductive rights. As two members of the same sex cannot naturally reproduce together, that voids out half the purpose of marriage. I did not once mention religion here, so you cannot say that my only arguments are religious in nature. { You have been emphasizing religion all along and have offered little else until you realized that argument was failing. If the inability to reproduce is a valid reason to deny marriage, should we allow ANYONE who cannot or chooses not to have children to marry?. What about heterosexual couples who are past child barring age? What about a younger couple who may not be able to have children? Perhaps marriages should be automatically void after a certain time if no children are produced. If you don't like these ideas, than you'll have to drop “reproduction” as an issue. Get real! You said that where there is life there is hope. Not in your case!}

We’ve covered most of this already . The argument that “pastors would have to forgo their religious rights in order to host and/or perform these sacrilegious marriages” is bogus. You have not presented any evidence to support it nor have you demonstrated how your rights would be infringed upon by extending marriage to gays. The Ocean Grove case certainly does not prove your assertions. Rights are not a finite resource, everyone can have them. It’s a thin line between “speaking out” which you have a right to do, and pursuing a political agenda aimed at denying gays their civil rights. I don’t know what kinds of activities you engage in, so I don’t know if you have crossed that line.And lets not forget that you constant references to religion, god and sin carry zero weight with me, or with the supreme court for that matter.

So you claim. However, I know better. I judge the actions of what people do, not just what they say. The L**T movement will not be happy until they can lock up every person who believes in Christ and the teachings of the Bible because we will never accept their behavior. Note that I said their behavior. We do not arbitrarily reject people, but we will not accept their sin simply because of an unlawful law written just to mollify a vocal minority.

As for evidence, I have provided it. That you choose to reject it out of hand is your problem. I will not waste my time trying to prove you wrong.

I also don't see it as a thin line. Speaking out is a right. Pushing a law for religious reasons is wrong. Pushing a law to grant a minority special consideration for a lifestyle choice is wrong, when it infringes upon religious freedom makes it doubly wrong. No law should ever be passed granting any minority group something that the rest of the population doesn't receive. You and I clearly will never agree upon this, so let's stop beating a dead horse.

Because I don't believe you. It does not ring true. You want to keep laws that prohibit same sex marriage yet you have not rational argument for doing so. You continually invoke religious beliefs. There is no other argument. Anti gay laws are religiously motivated. Other arguments- as hollow as they are- may be attempted, but religion is always behind it

Then that is your problem. Never the less it is true. You're just too jaded to even consider the possibility that it is true. I'm not for redefining marriage, because it has been ALWAYS been understood to be between a man and a woman for thousands of years.

Even the ancient Greeks, who saw love between two men to be greater than the love between a man and a woman, never considered the possibility of two men marrying. In fact, most men who fit under that category also had wives. This movement the L**T are pushing today is a new thing. It truly is an a*********n.

You don’t realize the depth of my convictions, as I probably don’t appreciate yours. You can hope for me, but I am at peace with myself

You're right, I don't, and you can't. I do hope for you. I even pray for you. I'm glad you have peace now. That peace is sadly fleeting.

That’s interesting. They follow Christ but are not Christians. If you say so. I don’t have a dog in that fight. I don’t even understand the differences between Catholics and other followers of Christ, nor do I care to burden myself with trying to. Some say Catholicism is a cult. Some say Mormonism is a cult. I say that all authoritarian religions that control people through fear and superstition are cults.

That is where you (and they) are mistaken. They do not follow Christ. In fact, there are many cases where they outright contradict Him. It would take me quite a while to go into all their apostasy/heresy, but there are already many sources that document this. I will only point out one. The concept of the pope being Christ's vicar is in defiance of what Jesus Himself said when asked by the disciples which among them would succeed Him. The answer was that none would. So how can the RCC make the claim that the Pope acts as Christs successor on earth? They can't.

OK, your faith is real, I get it. But I’m still who I am. Now let’s get back to marriage.You have a long way to go to make your case against it

For the record, your faith is real to. You have it, and use it, even if you don't realize.

The second article deals with cases that for the most part do not involve religious institutions which are generally exempt, but individuals and non religious organizations which are subject to the laws against discrimination. If they were not subject to those laws, who else could they choose to exclude? Just about anyone who they disapprove of. And, like Ocean Grove, most of these cases do not have anything to do with marriage, which is what we’re talking about, right? Nevertheless, let’s look at them

“- The Sea Scouts, a branch of the Boy Scouts of America, was denied use of a public wharf in California because Boy Scouts do not permit homosexuals as leaders. “

Yes , well, if you’re going to discriminate , you should be able and prepared to take your own medicine. You know of course that In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, by a v**e of 5 to 4, that the Scouts could legally discriminate against gays because as a private organization they had a constitutional right to freedom of association so long as opposition to homosexuality was part of their core “expressive message.” That should take some of the wind out of your sales regarding your contention that everyone will be forced to bow to the gay agenda.

I have to disagree with you on this one. I was a member of the Boy Scouts. One of my friends was molested by an assistant scout master. I do not know what that scout master's sexual preference, but it certainly included boys. While I cannot say that a gay man would molest a boy, they have already demonstrated that they have a preference for the same sex. All I can say is that the temptation would be there. What I don't approve of is unwarranted influence on children. Basic knowledge of what sex is, and how sex works may be warranted. Teaching sexual preference is not. I cannot imagine a gay man not influencing a boy scout with regard to sexual preferences. The very fact that they are gay would give rise to such conversations, and that is not the purpose of the boy scouts.

“- An evangelical student wearing a T-shirt that said "Homosexuality is a sin" was suspended from school because the shirt challenged "the essence" of some of the other students. His suspension was upheld in court.”

Much was made of the fact that she is “evangelical” However, had she not been religious, regardless o f her motivation, she would have, or at least should have been suspended. This is a case of bullying. We don’t know the age group but school children are impressionable and vulnerable. This sort of thing could have a devastating effect on a child struggling with their sexuality. Had she been just walking down the street with that shirt, her 1st amendment rights would prevail, but in a school setting it’s totally inappropriate. Kids k**l themselves over s**t like this. I have to wonder what a load of horse s**t this poor child, vulnerable herself, was fed. If her parents, knew about the shirt, or encouraged this, they should be prosecuted for child endangerment for letting go out to school in that shirt. They should have known that there would be a s**t storm over this, and set her up for it. They let her walk into it.

I will say this. I do not think that religion has a place in school other than the academic sense for the purpose of exposing students to their existence. Likewise, I do not think that politics has a place in schools either. The same is true for teaching about sexual preferences. Additionally, with regard to minors, I do not believe that they have the same level of rights as adults with respect to the constitution. That is because as minors, they are not deemed competent to handle the responsibility of those rights. As such, the girl was wrong to wear the shirt with that message (not that I disagree with the message). So, I largely agree with the outcome here. I also agree with you wrt her walking down the street wearing the shirt. In fact, the only thing I disagree with you here is your attitude toward the parents. I do agree that allowing her to wear the shirt to school (if they knew about it) was poor judgement.

“-- In Canada, where same-sex marriage is legal, a religious organization's billboard quoting from the Bible that homosexuality is "an a*********n" was ruled to be "h**e speech." and "Around the world, many countries are following the European model, which says h**e speech is entirely unprotected and trumps religious liberty,"

I don’t know if thatwould have happened here. We give a wide latitude on issues of speech. In any case it’s not about marriage

That's Canada. They do not have the Constitution. I do not know what rights a Canadian has. That said, the concept of h**e speech is bulls**t. In fact, it was created largely for the purpose of attacking Christianity. The concept is used to sidestep Religious freedom and free speech. The existence of the legal concept of h**e speech leads to the possibility of it's over use. Already I see people accusing those who disagree with them of using h**e speech. Additionally, I don't see it applied where legitimate applications of it exist. My case in point is the Muslim call for jihad against Christians. If they were to make the call for Jihad against Gays, I'm sure it would make the news, but because it's against Christians, who cares? It doesn't even make mention in the news. At any rate, speech should be protected no matter the content. Actions, on the other hand, are different.

While I'm on the subject, there is no such thing as "h**e crime". A man murder's his estranged wife because he h**es her. Crimes of violence almost always involve hatred. They are also already crimes. So what point are you making by applying the h**e label on it? It's nonsensical.

“A physician who refused to treat a lesbian couple who wanted artificial insemination was sued by the couple and lost in court. Are we going to ask doctors to sign documents that violate their doctrinal beliefs" as a condition of licensure? “

Again this is not a case involving a religious or private institution. If a doctor, or any service provider does not wish to serve all people equally, they are subject to the laws against discrimination . If they can’t deal with it they should find another job.

I have to agree with you here. Religious motivation does not apply with being a doctor. So if he were a surgeon, should he refuse to operate on a man just because he was gay?...a muslim?...an atheist? The concept is ridiculous. It also does not bear a good witness as a Christian.

“An Orthodox Jewish university that designated certain housing for married couples only was accused of discrimination for denying a same-sex couples a place there and eventually was forced to open the housing to any couple. “

This sounds more like it may be more of a case of discrimination based on marital status as opposed to sexual orientation. I have to wonder if they accommodated opposite sex couples who were not married. Was marriage available to same sex couples in this location? Not enough information to make a judgment here. Seems like this one was just stuck in there to bolster a bogus case.

Then I'll not comment on this.

“Stern said some worry that in jurisdictions that allow same-sex marriages, clergy will be forced to perform the ceremonies, but he called that "a red herring. That does not appear to be on the horizon,”.

Thank you very much! Made my day, and my case

The only "Stern" I can think of is Howard Stern. Who are we talking about here? Why is his opinion important in the first place? Just because someone says a thing doesn't make it so. No point can be made here. Once again only actions matter. Words are only words without action behind them.

“The American Jewish Congress lawyer said the "benefits problem will be the next big battle" in church-state relations. Religious organizations in California and New York currently are challenging legislation in their states that would require them to provide contraceptive coverage as a benefit to employees”

I believe that the Obama administration granted a religious exemption for contraception. I for one don’t think that they should have. Here we have a conflict between the religious tenants of an organization and the individuals who rely on the services provided by that organization be they employees or recipients of those services. Why should the rights of the organization trump those of these individuals who may have a different view on contraception ? And while I’m at it, the whole contraception issue is as stupid as stupid gets since these same people who oppose it’s use are also opposed to a******n. Dahhhh….contraception reduces the need for a******n. Did Jesus ever say anything about contraception? Or homosexuality for that matter. This was all just made up later, wasn’t it?

The only thing I recall the bible saying is "Be fruitful and multiply." There was no mention of contraception. Therefore, I see no problem with contraception. I do have a problem with a government interfering with people's lives by telling them how to live, and with interfering with the economy by forcing businesses to provide services. If the government is really serious, then it should subsidize everyone's health care completely and without restriction/limitation. That's not possible.

WRT Jesus:

Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but He did condemn all forms of sexual immorality:

What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23)

The apostle Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, wrote the verses most often quoted on this subject:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6:9-11)

I cannot state the case against L**T any better than that. The only sex that is not considered immoral in the Bible is sex through marriage between a man and a woman.

“In New York, for example, a school superintendent and the chief financial officer in a school district were accused of stealing funds and the superintendent refused to testify against his colleague, citing "marital privilege" because they were same-sex partners.”

yes, well , if they were married, they cannot be compelled to testify…..just like the rest of us

Under the circumstances, I'd have to agree.

So, you may not like some of the accommodations afforded to gay people, you may think that it’s ok to discriminate based on personal conscious, but none of this supports your argument against marriage.

I do not like any accommodations afforded to anyone based on an activity (such as sex). Discrimination is not bad in and of itself. We discriminate all the time. It is only wrong when we discriminate against people over things that they have no control over and cannot change. Homosexuality is a preference and therefore a choice. Different choices can be made. Therefore it is a legitimate target of discrimination. As for my argument against gay marriage, I made that in my response before this one.

I will admit this much Brain, the Ocean Grove case, which I was already familiar with, is a very interesting and difficult one . It is also a very unusual case . On one hand I can actually see how the Methodists feel because they are a religious institution. However, they are offering the space as a public accommodation to people of all, or of no faith. It is not a case of forcing the members of the church or the clergy to participate. If the use of the space were confined to church members, and/or if they were seeking a Methodist ceremony, it would be different, but that was not the case. NJ has a strong law against discrimination and civil union couple are a protected class. Also, you say that you are Ok with civil unions but against marriage because of a potential conflict such as this….but this case does not involve marriage. And, you say that you are OK with equal protection under the law. Well here you have it. It’s about discrimination

The question remains as to who their clientele are usually made up from. I can understand them allowing Christians from other denominations using their facilities. While there are differences of opinion, they share a common base belief. I can understand them allowing people of no belief using the facility. The question remains as to whether or not they would allow a couple of a different religion to use their facilities. If not, I am sure that they do not want a competing faith that is conflicting in nature to those of the church's belief using their facilities. If that is not an issue, then at least it is still a traditional marriage between a man and a woman. The issue arises when traditional marriage is not the case, such as a gay marriage. Our faith teaches that homosexuality, and all sexual perversion is an a*********n. As such, I agree with the church's stance. Now, if it can be proven that they have declined other couples the opportunity to use their facilities on grounds other than sexuality, then the Gay couple doesn't have a leg to stand on.

There is one other issue involved here. The right to refuse service. Granted they can't refuse service on the grounds of a protected class, such as skin color. But they can refuse service to people not dressed "appropriately". (No shirt, no shoes, no service...ring a bell?) Both are examples of discrimination. There is a difference between them though, and it is that difference that makes one protected under law, and the other not. That difference is choice. A person cannot choose the color of their skin. Likewise, the cannot choose their heritage. Things they cannot choose should be protected from discrimination. Sexual preferences is not. A couple of definitions:

choice
Noun

An act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

pref·er·ence
Noun

1. A greater liking for one alternative over another or others.
2. A thing preferred.

The two words are very similar in that they are related to options. Preference influences choice. It is not something you are born with; it is developed over time. As such, preference should not be protected from discrimination.

Homosexuality is a preference. Boys and girls are not born thinking they are gay. In a proper/normal home, they shouldn't give much thought to sex until they start nearing puberty. For the record, curiosity about sex is not the same thing as interest in having sex, nor does it indicate the formation of a sexual preference. At any rate, homosexuality, being a preference, should not be protected under the law from discrimination. For that matter, neither should heterosexual preferences. Ever hear of a Gay bar? I doubt many "straight" people would go to one. It remains to be seen if they would receive service, but they would definitely encounter discrimination.

There's more at issue here than simply giving gays marriage rights. We also have to consider other forms of non-traditional marriage. For example, polygamy. In a larger sense, group marriages. What about beastiality marriages? They are a preference too! A man should be allowed to marry his dog right? What about marrying non-living things? Where do we stop?

I rest my case with natures design. Through nature it takes a man and a woman to reproduce. Therefore, through nature, a marriage may only consist of a man and a woman. All other relationships rightfully belong separate from marriage.

There are centuries (if not millennia) of precedent here. Marriage has always been about securing economic rights as well as exclusive reproductive rights. As two members of the same sex cannot naturally reproduce together, that voids out half the purpose of marriage. I did not once mention religion here, so you cannot say that my only arguments are religious in nature.

How sad that a "religion" teaches the destruction of another. Supposedly Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in the same God. The differences are in the writings of the respective prophets. If things keep going the way they are, it will be holy war all over again like it was in the dark ages. When does our government go back to a priority of Christian values and respect?
Reverse the scenario of that video and picture the field day MSNBC or CNN would have had if that was christians stoning a group of Muslims with banners?