Martin Niemöller’s words mean that we need to help vulnerable minorities, not discriminate against them.

Did you know that Martin Niemöller was very supportive of gays? He realized that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that is no more harmful than heterosexuality.

I am very much in favor of respecting your rights and the rights of Mormons but our liberty ends when it infringes on other people’s freedom.

The founding fathers referred of discrimination by vote as the tyranny of the majority. You might want to ponder that in a quiet moment.

You don’t want Americans to infringe your religious liberty. That’s great and I support you. By the same logic, please, stop imposing your religious views on the rest of us.

Enlightening. An atheist not tolerant of those of faith… who’d of thought ? But it’s your turf.

Nice story with all the push button imagery worthy of a Joseph Goebbels speech… but I have faith that the story you relate is true, nonetheless.

Being of faith I do not hate, nor judge, nor fear those who differ in point of view. I sorrow if one of faith acted the way of your story’s anti-hero, it was not Christ-like.

I do choose the right to stand up for my rights and ideals, just as you do. Someone has to stand up to society willing itself to destruction… and the judicial system just doesn’t seem to be up to the task, nor is it their role.

People of faith have taken this issue to heart because it is an attack against faith… sadly, something an atheist would be rather happy about, I believe… but we are pushing back.

Martin Niemöller once said:

“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

People of faith are speaking up.

My faith, the gospel of Jesus Christ of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is an American faith… true to the red, white, and blue. And no, we do not practice nor condone polygamy… but live the law of the land.

I invite you to read… “The Family: A Declaration to the World” for my faith’s view of the sanctity of marriage.

God (or no one if you prefer) be with you,
Bobby Nichols

As others have pointed out, you miss the obvious distinction between gays and children/animals. One can’t marry children and animals because they are not capable of consenting to such a thing. Animals can’t consent to marriage for obvious reasons–how exactly is an animal to know what a marriage is, what it entails, or to pledge itself to its “partner”? And children can’t consent because they are too young to make reasonable judgments. This is why pedophilia is a crime even if the child in question enjoys the affection and wants it. The child cannot consent because it doesn’t know any better. So unless you’re willing to claim pedophilia should not be a crime, your argument simply doesn’t withstand any scrutiny.

Further, your argument is nothing but a silly slippery slope argument, anyway. The same sort of reasoning can be applied to the right to vote. Women shouldn’t vote, because then we’ll be on a slippery slope to letting people of different races vote, or letting animals vote, or letting amoebas vote! Obviously this argument is ridiculous and foolish in this context. Hopefully this example shows you the foolishness of your own arguments.

Brad, I say just call it marriage for everyone.

To Daniel, I’d like to ask why you think that everyone should have to follow the rules which only seem to apply to your version of your religion? If we do not share your religion, then we should be free of its constructs. If we as a nation are to have true freedome of and from religion, if we rae to have true separation of church and state, then we cannot sit by and allow laws to be passed which are based solely upon one religion’s narrow tenets.

As for what we call it…the current term used to signify the legal union of two people in this country today is marriage. In a few states that also includes homosexual couples. There is no reason to change terminology, and compromise with the intolerant. At some point we have to claim what is right by American standards, and forget antiquated christian views.

In fact, I am at the point where I believe we should all refuse to compromise with religion on anything…since they are the hateful ones who are wanting to vote away other’s rights. No more passes for them because they are religious. Wanting to remove the existing rights of fellow Americans is patently unamerican and we should not stand for it. If the religious want to try to remove their fellow citizens rights, let them…but we should all call it for what it is and embarass them as unamerican bigots. Religion should get the respect it deserves, which is little to none in the wake of this kind of hate filled campaign they are waging. The more it tries to get involved in this nations business, the less respect they deserve.

So…no. I think what gay people want is the equal right to be married. To have a marriage. Using those words. Anyone who thinks they are good enough to deny another those rights should be treated as they deserve to be treated…as people with an unamerican agenda. Period.

(Oh…and I think in a nation built on equality under the law…religions who promote the removal of their fellow citizens rights should all lose their tax exempt status. They have the right to exist…but any group as unamerican as that, does not deserve the special treatment)