Cuenca High Life logo

Ecuador News

High court sanctions same-sex marriage

Gay rights supporters celebrated outside the Constitutional Court on Wednesday. (El Comercio)

In a split five to four decision, Ecuador’s Constitutional Court legalized same-sex marriage following a brief debate Wednesday afternoon. The court had failed to reach a decision on the issue on June 4.

The ruling accepted the recommendation of a lower court in adopting a ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in case a brought by Javier Benalcázar and Efraín Soria after they were refused a marriage license by a Quito civil registry office. The prevailing judges dismissed a request by a Catholic church-led effort to submit the issue to a popular referendum.

LGBTI rights supporters celebrated outside the court following announcement of the decision. “This is a great day for LGBTI rights and a great day for human rights,” Soria said following the decision. “I regret that the ruling came by such a narrow margin but I am glad it was made in our favor. The Catholic church continues to have excessive influence over public officials but, at least in this case, they lost.”

Some LGBTI leaders were more guarded in their optimism. “We are pleased with the decision but must wait to see the final text before we can be assured of complete victory,” said Wilmer Gonzáles, representative of Silhouette Cuenca, a gay rights organization.

Ecuador’s Federation of LGBT Coalitions issued a statement following the ruling, saying there is more work to be done in reaching full gender equity. “We salute the Constitutional Court for this iconic step, not only in reference for Ecuador and other Andean countries, but for the entire Latin American region. Now, we must move forward to legalize homoparental adoption and other pending matters.”

148 thoughts on “High court sanctions same-sex marriage

  1. Globe, that was sweet of you to say that. You win our ” Political – Correct ” award for today .

  2. This will boost Ecuador up on that Democracy Index. At the center of ANY democratic mind is the conviction that society must protect the right of all citizens to engage in any activity and to have any goal that does not harm others.

    1. Hey Globie- So does your comment reflect a positive or negative view, in reference to the court’s decision?

      1. Ray, it is sad that few remaining moral people must constantly point out the obvious to the massive T.V.watching , ” Political – Correct ” crowd .Good job !

            1. You found it funny that the USA is now as Sodom and Gomorrah once were? I find it disturbing and very sad.

        1. Decline is clearly visible in America since laws affecting morality have been struct down. You call the behavior in America now “silly”? I call it very sad.

          1. If you want to decry the morality in the U.S., surely you will denounce trump, right?

            1. Why decry the one who is trying to make a changes for the better in all citizens success?

          2. Decline is clearly visible except when you look at the homicide rates, the violent crime rates, life expectancy, infant mortality, women’s rights and pretty much everything you can measure objectively.

      2. Ray, it is sad that few remaining moral people must constantly point out the obvious to the massive T.V.watching , ” Political – Correct ” crowd .Good job !

        1. When those folks that you claim to be among the “few remaining moral people…” decry the unmitigated immorality of trump, you will have moral ground to stand on. Not until then.

        2. It was so much better before TV when we people could regularly commit genocide in the name of religion without the entire world finding out about it.

      3. We have heterosexuals to thank for sodomy. But it’s more interesting that you’re thinking more about anal sex than most gay men.

        1. Can you show me where I wrote about sodomy or anal sex? No, you can’t because you have lumped me into your profile not based on facts.

          1. Sure, how about here, Ray:

            Ray Fitzsimmons Globetrotter • a day ago
            Except that sodomy destroys morality in the society it touches.

            sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation.
            synonyms: anal intercourse, anal sex, buggery, pedication;

      4. My dear friend Ray!! Sometimes it is far better to say nothing and be thought of as a fool than to speak and erase all doubt! Twain among others

    2. “hat society must protect the right of all citizens to engage in any activity and to have any goal that does not harm others.” Do you hear yourself how stupid that sounds? Can I marry my dog if that does not harm others? Where will this insanity stop?

  3. It’s strange to me that a country can go against the religious right on gay rights but they won’t touch abortion with a 10′ pole. What, we don’t have enough consumers yet to buy androids?

    1. The assembly is debating changes to the abortion law and it looks like there will be some liberalization. How much remains to be seen.

    2. There is in fact a very vigorous debate on abortion taking place throughout the country right now

  4. People’s “sexual orientations” are theirs…and are of no concern to any government! Governments need to work on their morals in many ways, and lets keep religion out of it…for religion, is another form of control!

    1. Yes, God’s control over his people. Atheists don’t like to recognize a higher authority that holds them accountable for their actions.

      1. Ray, If your God wants to punish LGBTs or atheists or intolerants like yourself, that is ITS business. It is not the business of democratic governments. Truly Democratic societies PROTECT the rights of everyone to do anything they want as long as it does not cause harm to others.
        It is really quite simple. If governments force people to live YOUR life style and none other, that is not a democracy. It is a theocracy..merely a tyranny of a religion, or one man, namely you. Would you have us all worship you, or are you privy to ITS thoughts.
        I would fight and die to make sure you have the right to believe as you wish and live as you wish, despite despising its ugliness. I recommend that to you.

        1. You refer to me as “intolerant”, prove that. I try to appreciate all people as God’s creation in his own image. That doesn’t mean I must condone their actions, be it adultery or gay or murder. Please do not think of worshiping me or any other man. We are all guilty of sinful behavior & should seek forgiveness from the One who created us. Think twice before passing judgement on anyone.

          1. All I have ever seen from you is unquestioned support for donald trump. Have you ever once condemned his adultery and lies?

              1. Of course. When you confront people with information that they know contradicts or refutes the nonsense they are spewing, they play dumb. This can be manifest in many ways, none of which could be considered to be a response to the question at hand, either stated or implied.

            1. I don’t condemn anyone. That is not my responsibility. Yes Donald Trump has sinned just as you & I have sinned. That is why we need a Savior. I believe people can & do change.

          2. Ray, you posted this a few minutes ago:

            “Ray Fitzsimmons Donald Devin • 15 minutes ago
            I don’t condemn anyone. That is not my responsibility. Yes Donald Trump has sinned just as you & I have sinned. That is why we need a Savior. I believe people can & do change.”

            You don’t condemn anyone? What about all the gay people you condemn?
            You believe people can and do change? Are you implying that trump has changed for the better? If so, please explain his over 10,000 lies since taking office.:


            That is a link to just his pants on fire whoppers. See if you can refute any of them. Please don’t show your ignorance with a “fake news” dismissal. Unless, of course, you can prove that each alleged lie is fake news.

            1. I did not condemn gays or any other people. I merely stated we are all sinners. Is that so difficult to understand? We are only condemned if we reject the One True God. You make your own choice with that.

              1. I don’t know, Ray. Do any of your following posts strike you as warm, fuzzy and accepting?

                Ray Fitzsimmons Ken Mokler • a day ago
                The good news is that it is impossible for 2 guys or 2 gals to reproduce! They must always indoctrinate others to their lifestyle to keep it going. Wait a minute. Didn’t some states make it illegal to switch a person from gay to straight? Shouldn’t that work both ways?

                Ray Fitzsimmons Globetrotter • a day ago
                Except that sodomy destroys morality in the society it touches.

                Ray Fitzsimmons Globetrotter • a day ago
                Except that sodomy destroys morality in the society it touches.

                Ray Fitzsimmons 25 days ago
                Quotes from above:
                “the muddy miracle of Woodstock”
                ” sheriff’s deputies shot and killed student James Rector on behalf of Governor Reagan and the Regents”
                “every student that Ronald Reagan tear gassed brought him one vote closer to the White House”
                How anyone could refer to the orgy at Woodstock as a miracle is beyond me. These quotes are the ravings of a disgruntled hippie who has seen his life wasted away chasing the liberal socialist dream. Ronald Reagan gets credit anything evil. Amazing!

              2. You don’t condemn them, your god does. You don’t judge them, your god does. Fanatics always justify their antisocial tendencies on an agency they cannot control.

        2. Bravo, Globetrotter. With Ray’s belief in God’s control over His people – where was He, when millions suffered during both World Wars, killed, tortured, starved, burned in crematoriums, suffocated in gas chambers, buried in mass graves, starved, and froze to death in Stalins gulags? God saw everything, didn’t He? Didn’t move his pinky even when stripped naked children were marched to ever burning crematoriums? He, Ray’s God – would deserve to be hung together with war criminals after Nurenberg, if he at all existed.
          But since there are no superficial beings out there – let’s be kind, just of respect to people, who have chosen to follow the tradition. Love and respect Him for what he allegedly had done, for all those legends and fairy tales. Love Bible, love Koran, love magnificent Ramayana and Mahabharata. These are the legasies of peoples’ wisdom, traces of history, but also a lot of fantasies and naivete of ancient generations. Enjoy reading them, just let them not replace thousands of years of reality. And read other books, too. There are many worthy of reading, to add to your individual development.

          1. So if there is no God of creation, you evolved from nothing? I don’t have the faith to be an atheist. If there is no grand design of this Earth & it’s inhabitants, they all came from???? Your home could have been created from nothing as well. It just fell out of the sky & you started living there. You are so much more complex than any Earthly structure & they were all designed by people with blueprints. How can you possibly deny that you were created by a higher power? Are you that proud that you refuse to consider your origin? When you pass from this Earth you will know the answer & it will be too late.

              1. You mean where science teaches “first there was nothing and than it exploded” ??

        3. Democracy is theocracy. Deity’s name was changed, is all: ‘steada the one big “god” it’s the one big “mob.” Monolithic monotheistic mononucleosis is contagious, & forked tongues can’t stay in their own mouths, just gotta’ force the french.

          The rest of the govstate permutations are all theocracies, too. True believers can’t help themselves: they all Jones for Jonestown. So all politics & the slapdash structures it inhabits is deeply conservative…of the impulse to “officially” preserve the marauder-peasant, master-slave, uber-unter dyads.

          HOA’s: the “owners” don’t own “their” homes. To compensate
          (compound the failure), the non-owners try to own each other: these are the approved house paint colors, approved roof treatments, times to put the bins out & times the bins need to be put away, etcetcetc.

          And countries is all HOA houses, bordellos, every one of ‘em.

      2. Nah. What anarchists, specialized or not, dislike is posturing representatives. Of this world. Or “the next.”

        But subs love doms & are scared to death of disintermediation.

        So, never the twain shall meet.

        OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,

        Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;
        But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,

        When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the earth!

        1. Someone is going to have to help me with Rhett. I cannot fathom a thing he says. Are there any other mystics here?

              1. Sadly, the internet here in Galapagos is too slow to ever try to watch Youtube. Not worth the agita.

            1. “relaxed state of consciousness” made easy by Hollywood. Or maybe scientology. It is a worthwhile state, but usually not easy
              to get to.

              Paradoxical, sort of, like a lot of things. Training wheels are meant to be temporary. Yet most never unbolt ‘em. Am seeing a lot more
              3-wheeled “motorcycles” on the roads, too.
              Bipeds just wanna have triped, quadped, milliped fun. So imagination’s got trainin’ constraints on it, too. Minds eyes wearin’ patches.


              “tripod” … you, the spouse, & the state…you, “your house,” & the state…pappy, sonny & holy ghosty matrimony…same selfie-camera-mirror mount, over & over…”I thought I was gonna’ get laid!”…& they did – just not in the particular sense hopium’d for. High test is, often, low test, you could say.

          1. I have felt the same way for a while now. I just stopped reading his posts. It works for me. Having tried to decipher his babble with no success, I guess I’ll never know what I’m missing.

          2. How Sinatra did it, I heard, was to swim pool laps underwater. Just a few inches deep – fathom wasn’t necessary.

            Maybe an ophthalmologist can grind some poet specs for ya. Or even just a monocle…like lovable Mr. Peanut (legume allergy’s one thing, but blurry poetry…you obviously can’t drive, let alone savorsweet the sights, that way).

            But you’re way more mystical than I could ever be…all the democracy deity stuff.

            Even so, Frank never did much for me. I like Van much more.


          1. Funny how every religion believes theirs is the “one true god”.

            I’ve read the Bible more than most self-proclaimed religious people, cover to cover many times and I even dabbled in the original Hebrew and Greek so as to not lose vital information to the whims of medieval translators. You see, when I was young, I too thought it was a source of truth and virtue. Then I grew up. It’s a very silly book filled with very silly things. That makes sense considering it was written by a bunch of superstitious people constantly on the verge of starvation in the bronze age, a time when even electricity was believed to be magic. It’s basically Grimm’s Fairy Tales but for people with even less critical thinking skills.

        1. So sad to hear that you evolved from nothing. It is soo much better to be created in God’s own image.

          1. The fact you believe that anyone has implied that we “evolved from nothing” only proves you were robbed of an education.

      1. Certainly not your interpretation of those laws.

        By the way, your post is a classic strawman argument. See if you can figure that out on your own. Hint: Eunice never stated nor implied that she is an atheist who doesn’t believe in what you choose to call “the laws of God”.

      2. Do you follow the laws of god? I mean all of them. Does that include the one’s that prohibit:

        Eating pork, shrimp or seafood without scales?
        Wearing fabric woven of two different types of thread?

        Cutting your beard or the corners of your hair?

        Having tattoos?

        Allowing someone with an injured penis or testicles to enter into the congregation?

        Cursing your parents? (death penalty)


        Remarrying after divorce?

        Working on the sabbath? (death penalty for that one, too)

        Allowing women to speak in church?

        Having sex before marriage? (that one carries the death penalty, but only for women)
        Planting two types of seed in the same field?

        Or maybe you just follow the one about engaging in homosexual acts because that’s the one you actually struggle with.

        1. Most of the points you brought up are in the Old Testament. Those “rules” were changed in the New Testament by Jesus Christ.

          1. Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. In fact, that prohibition is also only mentioned in the old testament.

            For the record, the one prohibiting women from speaking in church is from 1st Corinthians which is very much in the new testament. I look forward to you condemning them when they speak next Sunday.

            1. I can tell you’ve never read the Bible my brother or, if you have, you didn’t understand a word from it.

              First, it must be noted that this is an argument from silence, and thus rests on a shaky rational foundation. Jesus also didn’t say a word about pedophilia, bestiality, or rape. But it would be absurd to seek to garner support for any of those abominable acts on the basis of such silence.

              The argument is: “Jesus never said anything [implied: as we see recorded in the Bible] about homosexuality.” Yet it is the authority of this very Bible that these folks deny when they refuse to accept Paul’s teaching on homosexuality. So the argument itself is a case of special pleading. Those who employ it appeal to an authority that they elsewhere explicitly reject—namely, the Bible as God’s Word.

              Third, a great portion of Jesus’ ministry related to Israel and those familiar with the Law of Moses. They were living in an age under the Mosaic Covenant, which explicitly condemned homosexuality (Lev 18:22; 20:13). Unless there was some precipitating issue that would force Jesus to comment on homosexuality, the only reasonable conclusion — especially in light of the fact that Jesus viewed the Old Testament as the very Word of God (e.g., Matt 22:43) which was infallible (John 10:35) — is that His view of homosexuality was the Old Testament’s view (i.e., God’s view) of homosexuality.

              Fourth, when Jesus did speak about marriage, He affirmed it as an institution between a male and a female. In Matthew 19, the Pharisees asked Him what He thought about divorce, hoping to trap Him into disagreeing with Moses and therefore finding reason for condemning Him.

              In His response about why divorce is a bad thing and a result of the hardness of human hearts, Jesus says, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

              So, again,

              by upholding God’s plan for sexuality, Jesus did condemn homosexuality. In Matthew 19 – sex is reserved for a marriage relationship between a man and a woman. Yes, it’s true that Jesus never mentioned the word “homosexuality.” He never said, “You shall not commit homosexuality.” But guess what? Jesus never said, “You shall not commit incest.” Jesus never said, “You shall not commit bestiality or pedophilia or necrophilia.” Was he pro-necrophilia and pedophilia? Of course not. By upholding God’s pattern for sexuality–a man and a woman in a marriage relationship–Jesus automatically condemned any deviation from that pattern.


    2. Eunice, I agree with you on so many levels. However, whenever citizens’ lives are restricted (or even threatened) as they exercise their freedom of expression [here, sexual snd gender identity], don’t you think the government has a duty to intervene?

  5. Globe, that was sweet of you to say that. You win our ” Political – Correct ” award for today .

    1. You think I was trying to be “politically correct”?!!! ROFL The only standard of politically corectness here is set out by American Christianity, neo-American fascism,and the discourtesy of current anglo-forum rules.

  6. So the court says they can marry now. They created a bigger problem now because they can’t figure out who is the husband and who is the wife. In legal matters it will be very difficult to determine who is husband or wife. Courts in Ecuador need to study the word of God and not be influenced by heathen atheist laws in the USA.

    1. The good news is that it is impossible for 2 guys or 2 gals to reproduce! They must always indoctrinate others to their lifestyle to keep it going. Wait a minute. Didn’t some states make it illegal to switch a person from gay to straight? Shouldn’t that work both ways?

      1. The Lesbians just go to sperm banks and get impregnated with male doner sperm. Another thing that should be against the law.

        1. There oughta’ be a “law.” Like the fugitive slave act. Rulers, ruled, & the rules that prop ‘em all up – there ain’t an inch of straight edge, let alone 12, to be found there.

        1. Only you can decide your own beliefs & course in life. If you choose a selfish, proud way of life that acknowledges no higher power, so be it. You will reap the consequences. Do not blame me for your choices or lifestyle.

            1. He doesn’t. His god does. He just cheers from the sidelines as his invisible deity drowns the entire world for not following his ideology.

          1. I’ve spent most of my professional life in the service of people too poor and too destitute to ever provide me a living. I’ve gone consecutive years working for zero salary, surviving on the same food and living in the same conditions side by side with refugees (most of whom were fleeing people who believed their invisible deity in the sky ordered them to smite the unbelievers). Despite myriad opportunities to cash in, I chose instead to serve. As I approach 50, I have no house, no car, no savings, no pension and if I had to do it over again I wouldn’t change a thing. There’s nothing selfish or proud about my lifestyle. I serve my fellow man because I love them, because somebody had to do it so it might as well be me. You do it because you believe you’ll be rewarded with eternal bliss. There’s nothing more selfish than that, nor is there a greater form of pride than the belief that your vengeful deity will ultimately punish all the people who don’t share your delusion.

            1. “You do it because you believe you’ll be rewarded with eternal bliss.”

              Wow, I just love it when you can see into other people’s hearts and souls and see what they think, how they feel. How the heck did you come up with the idea that he does it for reward? On the other hand, you write down all the things you’ve done (who knows if all is true or not?) just to show off so others would say, “wow, what a great guy”. So who is the hypocrite here?

              1. How the heck did I come up with the notion that Christians are promised eternity in heaven for following its pretexts? Gee, I don’t know. How would someone reach that conclusion?

                As for hypocrisy, I’m not sure that word means what you think it means. Or maybe you’re just suffering from the delusion that I care what any of you think about me. The fact that you’re an anonymous nobody hiding behind a pseudonym causes me to care even less about anything you post, and that was already a pretty low bar to get under.

              2. How about when what they think and feel is manifest in their written words?

                Yeah, you could point the finger at Faulkner and scream, “Virtue signaling”, but if you checked into it (and you can. I did) you will find that it’s pretty much true. All the important, checkable parts, anyway.Want his cedula number? Want to see his SYNECT registration as an M.D.? Want the name of the Medical School he graduated from in Mexico? I would never be so rude as to post that information without his permission, but anybody that knows how to search can do it all themselves.

                Do me a favor. Go to the dictionary and look up the word, “hypocrite” so we know we are both speaking the same language, then show me how Faulkner is being a hypocrite.

            2. Please wake me when Ray replies.

              Oh, as for his notion that he doesn’t judge others, I have to wonder what the many posts he has had removed would reveal about that.

              1. Ray won’t reply. Ray is a fanatic. Fanatics instinctively flee from any situation that may cause them to question their faith. It’s what keeps fanaticism alive.

                1. I believe you are correct in that assessment, but what bothers me most isn’t his fanaticism, but his denials of being a bigot that condemns people that don’t share his ideology. Every time I write the “h” word, my post gets censored, so I’ll just have to leave it to your imagination as to how I regard such people.

      2. My redneck friend from Texas asked me to respond to you for him. He shares your values. Here is his message to you:

        “Rayboy, we still have to worry about them gay men couples. Mebe they cant reproduce, but they kin adopt and then indoctrinate them poor little kids into that wicked lifestyle they chose because of their weak character.”

          1. I’ll have to call him to explain what you wrote. He never passed the third grade and is functionally illiterate, thus I can’t send him a copy of your message via e-mail. My call will have to wait a while, however. He’s at a Klan meeting right now.

      3. Says, with straight face, the doctrinaire
        indoctrinator. I like Doc House, Doc Holliday & Mary Shelley’s Doc
        Frankenstein (for the unheeded cautionary tale). People lie, I’m your huckleberry
        & don’t care whether ya’ heed or not…but am almost shocked when, every
        great once in a while I come across one who does.

    2. Good grief! This has degenerated quickly! Ken and Ray…just live how you want! And leave others to do the same! It’s not your business to invade anyone else’s bedroom. Just take care of your own business. Myopic are SO Old Testament!
      Marriage is between two people who love one another. Love is love.

      Just shut up and go back to what you were doing.

      1. In case you didn’t know God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Also it’s sickening seeing the Gay Gringos trying to get the young Ecuadorian boys to be gay also.

        1. “God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.”

          Wow, what a cool talking point. I’ve never heard that before. Have you copyrighted it, or can I throw it out at the next anti-gay cocktail party I attend?

          Please do tell us exactly what you have seen regarding “Gay Gringos trying to get the young Ecuadorian boys to be gay also.” Where would I go to see this for myself? Sounds interesting.

        2. You honestly believe that god created an adult man, then fashioned a woman out of his rib so that he wouldn’t be lonely, and that’s where we came from? Seriously? In 2019 you actually believe that childish nonsense? Amazing.

    3. Update your language, and thinking. It has been already accepted in the whole world of gender equality ( even if not yet quite everywhere in reality, but at least legally) – for those in matrimony be called spouses. Sounds strange to you? Has been a normal, not gender bound word forever – a spouse. You can use this word, until you notice, that gay couple’s , when both are females – call each other their wife. And males – call each other their husband. Strange? You would rather have them play ridiculous ( in their reality) word games? Or you’d insist on their disclosing who is a female in their all-male couple? Or who plays the role of a man in female unions? No one has to plays any roles. Their intimate relationship should be as sacred and respected as yours in your heterosexual marriage. Because anything else would be ( and has already existed for too long) nothing different from ugly racism. Love is love. Adults have the right to choose each other no matter what any racist thinks. And you, not to declare your racist thinking , hiding it ( at least to look more intelligent) – can avoid the words that embarrass you. Use ‘spouse’.

      1. Eslanda, stop it! You are trying to reach Ken Mokler with logic and reason. That isn’t the currency he deals in.

    4. What difference does it make which one you call husband and which one you call wife? For that matter, why do you have to use either of those labels?

      1. Same as I just wrote to Eslanda: “Eslanda, stop it! You are trying to reach Ken Mokler with logic and reason. That isn’t the currency he deals in.”

        As you noted earlier, this is the point at which you can wait forever for a reply.

    5. Ken, you are attaching YOUR heterosexual standards. Wrong. That’s what same sex means so there’s no discerning whether someone is the husband or wife. Crawl back under your rock.

    6. Wow, I never thought of that. What a huge problem it would be if people couldn’t decide who is the husband and who is the wife.

      Um, on second thought, perhaps you could explain to me just what problems that would create. I might need to use your reply as a talking point in my next debate over gay marriage.

  7. I noticed something verrrry interesting. Many of the shows in North America are not broadcast in Ecuador. One has to ask ourselves if they are censoring the ones depicting gays?

    1. They certainly need to be censored there. Kids don’t need to be watching Gringos flaunting their immoral ways.

  8. I’m so sorry, but not surprised, to see so many homophophic expats in Cuenca.
    It scares me.
    “When all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.”–Barack Obama.
    Ken March

      1. Seriously!!! I thought that too…until I began reading newsletter comments here!! And hateful, rude, ugly to boot!

    1. You got it Ken! I feel the same way. But so many Americans don’t. If we refuse others the right to live as they choose..what of ourselves? More than that, if we don’t fight FOR others to do as they choose,…… These people are a horrid example for Ecuador or the world. (shiver) The American Isis.

        1. I don’t understand why they are still taking polls on same-sex marriage. It’s been the law of the land from many years. Hell, I’ve been married since 2012.

          1. Because they are different issues. The fact that gay marriage is the law of the land in the U.S. isn’t a measure of its acceptance by the populace. The latter is of interest to people who like to keep their finger on the pulse of public opinion.

            Analogy: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 purported to do this:

            “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

            Do you believe that such discrimination has ended just because it is illegal?

    2. Not surprised either. It’s amazing that the editors of the site strike so many other comments but leave the vile and ignorant homophobic comments stay. Alas, most of the Neanderthals post under false names anyway.

  9. Scientific studies have shown that homophobia is grounded in latent homosexual attraction. People who are at war with themselves are turning this internal conflict outward. It´s basically an expression of self loathing.

    Keep that in mind when you read comments from people like Ray and Ken. Their internal struggle deserves our empathy, not our ridicule.

    1. Once again you are making assumptions not based on facts. You can disapprove an individuals behavior without hating the person.

      1. I’m not assuming anything. I’m simply pointing out what the scientific data has consistently shown about what lies beneath reactions like yours. I never said anything about hate. You interjected that into the discussion. That also speaks volumes about what’s motivating your actions.

  10. Bias-related violence against homosexuals is believed to be widespread in the
    United States, with perpetrators typically described by victims as young men in
    groups who assault targets of convenience . Victim accounts suggest that
    assailants possess tremendous rage and hatred; indeed, documentation of
    horrific levels of brutality has led gay activists to characterize the violence
    as political terrorism aimed at all gay men and lesbians . Other motives for
    antigay violence suggested in the literature include male bonding, proving
    heterosexuality, and purging secret homosexual desires . Due to a dearth of
    empirical research with assailants, motives are largely inferred from victim
    accounts and a handful of publicized cases.desde KERA

  11. Look at all the traffic lords & laids
    generates! Punchline tho is that almost all the scribbling revolves around
    lords & laids. Who’s top & who’s bottom. Who’s hubby & who’s wifey.
    Who’s male & who’s female. Who’s socket & who’s bulb. Rage rage agin’
    the dyin’ of the light brigade chargin’ on busted filament orders. Lights ain’t
    on & most everybody’s homin’ pigeon homebody’s. Libido dominandi, includin’

Comments are closed.