Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2008 > May > 16 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USBarr on gay marriage: California decision is how it’s supposed to work
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr says that when it comes to gay marriage, what happens in California is California’s own business. He’s a states’ rights man.
Here’s the statement Barr’s issued, which — one week before the Libertarian national convention in Denver — is likely to generate some talk:
“Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress).
The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.
“Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state.
The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states’ powers should work.”
Photo credit: Associated Press
Services »
Comments
By oskar
May 16, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this
One more reason not to vote for Bob Barr!
By Keep it real
May 16, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this
I’m a life long registered Democrat, as well as a native of Georgia, so I’m in no way defending Barr because I’ve seen his dealings for a long time. However, this link from the home page was just misleading. He does NOT back gay marriage rule. He backs the state of CA’s ruling on a state decision. Stop the spinning.
By Jeff
May 16, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
This is a case where a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is ruinous, but the explanation proves he needs to be in the Oval Office.
Guess that means that the Mainstream Media will only pick up on - as the headline on ajc.com states - “Bob Barr supports Gay Marraige.”. When in fact, quite the opposite is true. He is personally AGAINST gay marraige, but feels that each state should have the right to determine what it will or will not allow.
By Johnny P.
May 16, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
As long as no one outside the state of California is obligated to recognize this I would agree with Barr. But as we’ve seen many times, these issues rarely stop at the state line.
By Dave
May 16, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
One more reason to vote for Bob Barr!
By old friend of Bob
May 16, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this
Bob — WRONG WRONG WRONG Like most politicians you are gaining momentum and then go off half cocked on something that happens in the land of fruits and nuts and say that folks here in God’s County could have same sex marriage also. It will never happen in Georgia…..thank God! Too bad this happened because I would have voted for you.
By Mark
May 16, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this
Keep it real…go back and check the link. It says “ruling”, not “rule”. The link is not misleading. You’re just having a typical knee-jerk reaction.
By aha
May 16, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
…um…if papers like the AJC didn’t spin, there wouldn’t be news and neither you, nor I, would click on links to read them…
don’t blink, you might miss the train wreck.
By Joe
May 16, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this
The state didn’t decide. Four judges did. Sixty one percent of the state voted to ban homosexual marriage in 2000. Bob’s wrong and so were 4 judges.
By Karen
May 16, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this
Well it’s election time again…Time to start putting the Gay Issue back on the fore front. Not an issue for 3 1/2 years until the republicans want to unify the base. Can’t wait until there is another minority that replaces the Gays on the bottom of the totem pole, these people have taken enough & it’s time to let it go.
By AuggieDoo
May 16, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this
What makes you believe you’re better than anyone else? I don’t think that God recognizes state lines. You’re a very simple ignorant man…
By Mad Mary
May 16, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this
We can not have different rules of marriage in different States. I say, stop all State Marriages. If couples want to get MARRIED let them go to a church or any other cult meeting and have a marriage service. The State should stay out of it. The State should not license marriage in any manner. Marriage is a personal lifestyle that adults may choose for themselves. If couples want to co-mingle property and have inheritance from each other sign a contract/make a will. Children are growing up in single family households all over the world so marriage is NOT necessary. Child support can be agreed to or ordered. Benefits from employers should only go to the worker. Period. If the worker wants to cover friends or relatives let the worker pay for the benefit. Get Government Out of the Bedroom. Get Government Out of the relationship between employers, workers, men, men, women, women, workers, children, et al.
By zeke
May 16, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this
Yep! Bob is a nut! What an idiot! The voters of Calif. decided to ban these farce marriages, and, as usual in this country, a court oversteps it’s constitutional authority and makes law!
By Charlotte
May 16, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this
This is great news!!Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue:) www.OUTTAKEonline.com
By Mike
May 16, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this
Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Look it up.
By gttim
May 16, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
The state didn’t decide. Four judges did
Absolutely, and that is the roll of the court- to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If you and your church want to define what it recognizes as a religious marriage in your church, fine. However a legal marriage is nothing more than a granting of special rights for a partnership. The court has recognized that this cannot be denied to anybody. Remember not to many decades ago the court had to rule that it was legal for mixed race marriages because states, state majorities, and peoples in “God’s County” thought it should be against the law. Many churches would not have recognized mix race marriages or even let African Americans in their doors.
By Kirby
May 16, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this
Dont you get it? He’s not in support of or against the decision, but in support of the way it was MADE! Some people just have no clue in this country. Hopefully over time, you will all be wiped out of this country like bad weeds in a beuatiful lawn!
By Mike K.
May 16, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
Have to agree with you Mad Mary. All consenting adults should be able to go to the courthouse to be able to get a civil union, which would answer legal questions like inheritance or a will.
If two people want to get married, then they go to a church and get married. If they’re gay, and the church doesn’t want to marry them, too bad.
By SCY
May 16, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this
Barr is only HALF right no the federal government shouldn’t weigh in on the matter but then again neither should the states. Why does the government have a right to define interpersonal relationships one way or the other. I am a Christian and view marriage as a sacrament, not unlike Baptism or Communion. I don’t look for the state to regulate or dictate this matters either. If two individuals want to spend their lives together in Christian marriage they should be free to do so, but if they aren’t Christian and don’t profess to follow Christ why should I impose my will on them. As such individuals should be free to make decisions for themselves if they want to spend their lives with a partner or alone or whatever then the government should stay out of it!
By John
May 16, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this
When you use God in an argument. The rule should be that u lose. The law is man made. The constitution man written. God’s laws are God’s laws. let him dole out his punishment if he indeed exists. But our laws do not need to follow his laws. Why do you fail to see the difference. There will come a day when DNA proves “gayness” is biological. What then?
By Daytunaguy
May 16, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
Mad Mary,we already have different marriage rules for different states,they vary in many ways. It is the right of each state to decide these matters,not the Federal Government.
By ROBERT
May 16, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this
THEY NEED THE LORD!!!!!! READ THE BIBLE!!!!
By roget
May 16, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this
And each state also should issue its own currency, have its own immigration rules, its own postal system, etc., etc.
By Chris
May 16, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
the point isn’t about gay marriage, its that the federal government is not, by design, supposed to be the master of the state governments. If it came up for vote that smoking crack was legal in California, then the fed rulings on the subject would not supercede.
I still support Ron Paul anyway…
By medoctorzane
May 16, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
Lets see. The people of California voted to ban gay marriages. Four judges overturned it. The judges I guess are simply “gods unto themselves”.
By straightman
May 16, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
I have yet to hear one effect that gay marriage has on any other couple’s marriage. Can someone shed some light on this? How does gay marriage harm you? Half the hetero marriages end in divorce. I’d put good money on a lower percentage of gay marriages ending in divorce.
By johnson is a johnson
May 16, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
Whatever. I’m voting for Curious George.
By Ryan
May 16, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
Wow really? You people infuriate me, this country is called the land of the free. Yet, at every turn the masses are trying to prevent someone from doing something. Sadly, its usually the religious groups that are doing the loudest complaining.
Get over yourselves, your “God” should only care that people are happy. Why does it matter who they are with? Go ahead and say its in the bible that its a sin.. Its all you people can go back to. The bible has be retranslated so many times its impossible to know what its supposed to say.
Christians are ignorant, judgemental hypocrites.. I hate you all
By The Angry Intern
May 16, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
Try again, Joe. 6 out of 7 judges voted to overturn the ban. This is the right thing to do. Last time I checked we have a Separation of Church and State in this country, so there should NEVER NEVER NEVER be anything the bible (IMO a fantastic work of FICTION) that dictates what the laws in this country are.
By John
May 16, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this
First - Slave States & Free States Then a war.
Now - Gay States & Straight States ???
By Jan
May 16, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this
Unfortunately, the ramifications from same sex unions will not stay in Massachusetts and California. It is a legal can of worms and cannot simply be put aside as typical of the land of fruits and nuts. The courts deciding these rulings are not bending to the will of the people, but a group of visible minorities, which will eventually wreak havoc in the other 48 states where these unions find themselves living. I am not against gay rights. but I do not feel gay unions can be dealt with on a state by state basis. Like it or not, this country is based on Christian ideals and morals, and legalizing gay unions in some states will not change the long instilled beliefs of most of America.
By Rae
May 16, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
Gov’t has done very wrong when it comes to this subject. They need to get their behinds out of it. Mainly because they can’t get past the one rule that was put in place. Separation of Church and State Just by letting basis of religion alone stand with their decision is wrong. Unfortunately we as a people can’t get past our own pettiness. If it’s not our views it’s the wrong views. If it’s not our religion it’s the wrong religion etc. The gov’t as well as the people who can’t rationalize what they don’t understand need to realize we are living in 2008 not the 1800s. Everyone has a right to live how they so choose. Isn’t that the reason our ancestors came to this country in the first place? To be free of persecution?
By LilZ
May 16, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
Go California! Equal rights for all!!!
By Steve
May 16, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
The “defense of marriage” act is unconstitutional on its face. It is contrary to the “full faith and credit” clause of the US constitution. And, it does nothing to defend marriage as an institution. If you really want to defend marriage, you would do two things: make marriage available to all couples; and eliminate the extra tax that married couples now must pay.
Despite the knee-jerk reactions, this ruling is a good, fair ruling. It just says that the state must treat all people equally. The concept is called “equal protection”. Equal protection is the foundation of the rule of law.
The court didn’t actually rule that gay couples may marry. The ruling was about the use of one word, not about the recognition of the relationships. It ruled that whatever word the state uses to denote the relationship between two people that is usually called “marriage”, the state must use that same word to denote all such relationships. If the right wing nuts pass an amendment to deny any couples the right to use the word “marriage”, that same amendment will deny that same right to all couples in the state, including heterosexual couples!
By Helena
May 16, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
The world is really coming to an end. They should be very careful. Cause they’re incurring the wrath of God.
By Sam
May 16, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
The govt. is for the punishment of the evil and praise of the good.
Being a Sodomite is a sin and is evil.
By Ben
May 16, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
How bout everybody just worry about their own marriage and their own lives and not what everybody else is doing or not doing…
By Jane
May 16, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this
How is putting the decision in states’ (rather than individuals’) hands a libertarian position? If you’re against gay marriage, don’t have one!
By Mark Ayers
May 16, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this
Bob, the Bible states it is not for us to judge any person! Why do you only want to stand on one aspect of the Bible, because you choose the part that covers the subjects you are not comfortable with or don’t understand and try to force it on everyone else. Jesus taught us in of his teachings to not worry ourselves with judging others, God will take care of that it. Are you trying to be God?
Worry about you own personal life and not that of others!!!!!
By Brad
May 16, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this
If you against gay marriage…don’t marry a gay!
Gay marriage has absolutly no imapct on traditional marriage.
What a bunch of small minded, red necked, bible thumping BIGOTS!
By STEVE WAINSCOTT
May 16, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this
ONCE AGAIN POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON DONT GET IT. A MATTER OF THIS IMPORTANCE SHOULD BE PUT DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE ON A BALLOT. THE REASON THEY WON’T DO THIS IS BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS THE VAST MAJORITY WOULD NOT VOTE FOR THIS. SO WE RUN IT THROUGH CORRUPT POLITICIANS AND A COMPLETELY BROKEN SYSTEM. AND THAT DEAR FRIENDS IS HOW YOU END UP IN A SOCIETY WHERE THE POLITICAL SYSTEM AND ABOUT EVERY INSTITUTION IN THE NATION IS AT SOME POINT OF COLLAPSE. UNTIL THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION GET SICK AND TIRED OF BEING SICK AND TIRED OF THIS JUDICIARY, NOTHING WILL CHANGE UNTIL THE FINAL POINT OF OUR COMPLETE COLLAPSE AS A FUNCTIONING SOCIETY.
By steven
May 16, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this
Amen Mad Mary,
The Church should have never given up the right to marry people to the state, that’s the problem. And gay marriage can not mess up the heterosexual marriages, they are already doing a fine job of that themselves, 60% divorce rate.
By Mad Mary
May 16, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this
We can not have vastly different rules of marriage in different States. Too confusing. I say, stop all State (Government) Marriages. If couples want to get MARRIED let them go to a church or any other cult meeting and have a marriage service. The State (Government) should stay out of it. The State should not license marriage in any manner. Marriage is a personal lifestyle that adults may choose for themselves. If couples want to co-mingle property and have inheritance from each other sign a contract/make a will. Children are growing up in single family households all over the world so marriage is NOT necessary. Child support can be agreed to or ordered. Benefits from employers should only go to the worker. Period. If the worker wants to cover friends or relatives let the worker pay for the benefit. Get Government Out of the Bedroom. Get Government Out of the relationship between employers, workers, men, men, women, women, workers, children, et al.
By Timur
May 16, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
So going against the people’s 60% vote in favor of the ban is the way it’s supposed to be done?
By Brad
May 16, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
This nation was founded on Christianity, which, amoung other things, commands us to “love others as yourself”, “treat others as you want to be treated”, and “marriage is the union of one man and one woman”. You don’t have to be a Christian to live here, but stop trying to make it something it is not. Gay marriage is a sin and should never be allowed be a Godly nation. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah!!!
By Andy
May 16, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
What’s this “READ THE BIBLE” comment for? It’s not a defining document for laws. It’s a guidebook for the lives of those who choose to follow it, as is the Koran.
And someone said “It is the right of each state to decide these matters,not the Federal Government”. It really should be neither. You could take the same argument to the next level - and have counties defining marriage instead of states.
By Bryan
May 16, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
I HAVE TO AGREE WITH MAD MARY, I’D VOTE FOR HER FOR PRESIDENT
By Andy
May 16, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
What’s this “READ THE BIBLE” comment for? It’s not a defining document for laws. It’s a guidebook for the lives of those who choose to follow it, as is the Koran.
And someone said “It is the right of each state to decide these matters,not the Federal Government”. It really should be neither. You could take the same argument to the next level - and have counties defining marriage instead of states.
By Sobecat
May 16, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
Nice to see someone from Georgia not being a complete redneck.
By I Cal
May 16, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
Good ol’ South. Pro States Rights when the feds want to integrate races. No States Rights when the feds want to get into the bedroom.
The feds got involved in integration because it was a civil rights (citizen rights) issue, not because it was a moral issue. What really doesn’t make sense is how the feds have the right to get involved in ay other type of issue. The only way the fed gov should legimitately get involved is to determine whether or not one state should have to recognize marriages made in other states. If the federal government wanted to define what type of union was included in the definition of marriage, that would seem reasonable. But that would not mean a state could not define marriage differently. As long as that definition applied only to its own folks. Summary: US could say that marriages between man and women must be recognized by all states. US could simply refuse to rule on the legitimacy of same sex marriage. US could not say California cannot allow same sex marriages. US could not say Georgia cannot refuse to allow those marriages or to recognize them.
By Mike
May 16, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this
You know, when I read the bible that so many preach about, it seems to speak of forgiveness. I’m so tired of people claiming God and Jesus and then spreading hate. I think you people who speak of who you hate are the ones who need to really accept Jesus. Idiots. These gay haters are the same people who preach pro-life then support the republican war machine. You can be Pro-life and pro war.
By E Dawlatly
May 16, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
What will same sex couples by known as: Mr and Mr OR Mess and Miss? And whose surname are they to adopt? Will they appear in their passport as “Married”? What is even more mind boggling: if there are children what do they call their same sex providers? Dad and Dad or Mum and Mum? Just a thought on what things will be like!
By Constitution is my friend
May 16, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
I’m an independent and Mad Mary got it right! Read the constitution. Licenses were not required until all the slaves were freed so the government could keep track of them. Take Michael Badnarik constitution class-educate yourself-learn your history.
By SCY
May 16, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
Hey Ryan, Can you be more bigoted? If you made that stereotypical statement about any other group there would be no question on side your bread was buttered on….
What other groups do you hate ALL? Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Asians, Hindus?
I still say that the state has no place in defining interpersonal relationships (gay, straight or otherwise).
By Wilmoth
May 16, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
Bob Barr is right that the decision should be up to the state to make, but specifically the states people, not some out of touch with reality judges. I would be surprised and disappointed if he is actually ok with a few judges making this decision for the whole state.
By China Rider
May 16, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this
Burke wrote: Civilization’s are not defeated - they commit suicide. Both California’s supreme court and Barr’s commentary lend credibility to this view.
Don’t cut cards with wolves.
By Andrew
May 16, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this
Yes, elect Bob Barr, “The Libertarian” - Boy you folk are deluded. Yes, elect the man that railroaded a bill through the house several years ago which forced the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia to rename the National Airport metro station to Ronald Reagan-National Airport Metro Station. A man from Georgia which forced, THRU his own nationally elected position, three STATE-level governments to WASTE millions of dollars to change signage, brochures, advertising, maps, buses, posters, websites, media, in OVER one THOUSAND subway cars, 83 stations and three states. Because HE wanted the most “over-named used President” (President with the most things named after him already) to have ANOTHER thing named after him.
And so what happened when WMATA said the county of Arlington would have to pay the initial $400K to do this and chose not to and the name change died - Bob Barr threatened to withhold FEDERAL FUNDS from projects and bills that were forthcoming in order to strong arm and basically intimidated local and state governments, ones far far away from his own jurisdiction, to me HIS demands. Yeah, libertarian my f….. a*….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RonaldReaganWashingtonNationalAirport(WashingtonMetro)
Why? So Bob Barr would look good.
By ElbinoBunny
May 16, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this
How does a decision made by a justice a decision made by the entire state? So one justice thought gay marriage would be an alright thing, did the people of California vote on it? If so, alright, that’s how the political process should work. However, it is unwise and totally against libertarian political thought to say that one high court justice should have the power to make policy, whether that policy be on the state or national level.
By RalphSchmalph
May 16, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this
If I want my brother to inherit my Social Security benefits, why shouldn’t I be able to marry him. It’s not incestuous because we are unable to procreate. This is just the type of insanity that comes from “gay” marriage.
By SCY
May 16, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
Great point Mad Mary!
By Joe
May 16, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
4 to 3 John. Check facts before posting. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004418250_gay16.html
By brian
May 16, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
I think that polygamist would do well to move to California instead of TX. They just have to petition the courts to allow them multiple marriage license.
By Adam
May 16, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
No we should not put an issue like this on the ballot because people that hate gays for no reason would vote against it and it effects there life in no way. When we didn’t let black people have rights either should we have put that on the ballot for white America to vote for NO. This is a great step towards Gay rights. People need to understand that if you don’t like the gay lifestyle thats fine but this doesn’t effect them only for the gay people that wanna get married.
By Cindy D
May 16, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
If the “long instilled beliefs” of most of America, includes the “belief” that we have the right to squelch another’s liberty based on our own views…then that “belief” will become a relic.
It doesn’t matter if many American’s, after the civil war, still held onto some “long instilled belief” that they had the right to own other people. So, you are entitled, as is anyone, to to hold onto your long instilled beliefs. You are not, however, entitled to force other free individuals to accommodate them, by giving up their rights to your preferences. Because that is what freedom is. Having the right to differ, without being oppressed because you differ.
I am confused, as usual, because I can’t seem to understand how a person can be a “libertarian” and be opposed to individual rights.
By Butch
May 16, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
The shallowness of arguments against “gay marriage” should be apparent to anyone with a brain when opponents say that marriage is “for having children and raising families”. If that’s their definition of marriage, then why are they willing to allow infertile couples, or those who have no intention at all of having children, from getting married? As others have here have said - let marriage be a religious ceremony. If your church is anti gay, then don’t marry gays. In civil law, we should all have civil unions (or “civil marriages” if you want to retain the word marriage).
By Beth
May 16, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
For everyone throwing religion around, I refer you to the 1st Amendment. For all those who do not grasp the concept of a Democratic Republic, there is a reason why, on occasion, the rulings of judges are what takes place instead of a vote. It is to prevent MOB rule, that if there are 99 people who think one way and 1 person who thinks another, that 1 person’s rights are protected, under out Constitution. It’s called Equal Protection under the Law. “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It means if you don’t like gay marriage, that’s just fine. But you don’t have a right to stop it. In the end, it has no effect on your life, why do you care??? Of all the things going on in the world right now, don’t you have something more important to be worried about? The Bill of Rights stands above all of our personal beliefs and encompasses them at the same time. This is America, it’s called freedom, it’s picking your own life and not having the right to decide someone else’s. Is it actually hurting you or your life? No, it’s not. Get over it.
Signed, Straight Southern Born and Bred White Girl Sick of This Gay Bashing Foolishness
By Bob
May 16, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
Being a Sodomite is a sin and is evil. - Sam
Oral is also sodomy. So, is your opposition to gay marriage due to your wife not doing that?
By David Verzi
May 16, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this
Therefore, I expect, that if the people of California vote in November to ban homosexual marrige, Mr. Barr, to be consistant, would support that decision. Someone should simply ask him.
By reed
May 16, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
Lets all remember the words of that truly great philosopher, Wanda Sykes; “If you are opposed to same-sex marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same sex”.
By Nodoginhunt
May 16, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
Good Lord…Typical responses over an issue that is so far down the list of what important issues face our nation…where do you people find the time to waste on these distracting issues? Equal rights under the law is VERY important to the foundation of our country, but given what we are up against in terms of terrorism, energy, economics…do you think you might be able to FOCUS on what is of NATIONAL IMPORTANCE…?
By Tom
May 16, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
Bob Barr is right, there has been a massive constitutional fraud happening since Abraham Lincoln, in the federal usurpation of power. It was greatly accelerated the New Deal of FDR, and has been gaining steam ever since.
The voters of California will more than likely pass an ammendment this Novmember to the California state constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman only. This is consistent with the belief of mankind from time immemorial, and Nature herself bears witness to its propriety. Let’s not be the generation that terminally confused our own children, and our children’s children.
By Rob
May 16, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
Bob Barr is NOT the Libertarian Party Candidate. He is a candidate for the Libertarian Party’s nomination. And not a very libertarian one at that. There are others also running for the nomination who are far more qualified to represent libertarian ideals.
By T. Lassiter Jones
May 16, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this
Barr is ignorant of the constitution, it seems. The 14th amendment prohibits any state from denying citizens equal protection under the laws. Further, the regulation of marriage is not one of the powers allowed to government under the constitution. It’s not a matter of the feds or states “legalizing gay marriage.” Gay marriage simply is, and neither the feds nor the states are allowed to have any legal authority over it, period. It’s one of the powers reserved to “the people.”
By T. Lassiter Jones
May 16, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this
Barr is ignorant of the constitution, it seems. The 14th amendment prohibits any state from denying citizens equal protection under the laws. Further, the regulation of marriage is not one of the powers allowed to government under the constitution. It’s not a matter of the feds or states “legalizing gay marriage.” Gay marriage simply is, and neither the feds nor the states are allowed to have any legal authority over it, period. It’s one of the powers reserved to “the people.”
By bobrop
May 16, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this
If you are a Christian you follow the teachings of Gods word and not judges. It plainly says that marrige is for man and woman only.If you are not a christian ,i hope you become one so that i might spend eternity with you.
By Jimbo
May 16, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this
I still don’t understand why it’s any business of ours if gay people get married. If two consenting adults who love each other can’t get married what’s the point of calling this a “free society”? The people of this nation are A: embarrassingly squeamish, B: incredibly nosy, and C: hypocrites
I’ve seen so many people get married and divorced for such stupid reasons so don’t pull that sanctity of marriage crap on me. Mind your own business, get on with your lives, and let the divorce lawyers have their day.
By T. Lassiter Jones
May 16, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this
Barr is ignorant of the constitution, it seems. The 14th amendment prohibits any state from denying citizens equal protection under the laws. Further, the regulation of marriage is not one of the powers allowed to government under the constitution. It’s not a matter of the feds or states “legalizing gay marriage.” Gay marriage simply is, and neither the feds nor the states are allowed to have any legal authority over it, period. It’s one of the powers reserved to “the people.”
By GOD
May 16, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this
I don’t care if gays marry. I got bigger problems. Like wishing the gays would hurry up and redesign Heaven for me…I’ve been looking at this dated kitchen since Moses got here. And that chair that everyone is seated at the right hand of is SO 1970’s. I need a makeover…hurry Queer Eye!!!
By Kevin
May 16, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this
racists, sexist, homophobes oh My. I just summed up the democratic party. Can we move on now.
By glen
May 16, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this
Barr’s an idiot. Libertoons and bible thumpers take note: Judges in California have taken it upon themselves to redefine a word and thwart the will of the people.
By The Captain
May 16, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this
Amen, Mad Mary. Marriage is a religious ceremony. The state should no more give any recognition to it than they would a bar mitzvah. Oy! Let there be legal contracts for those who want legal recognition of thier partnership.
This is the whole “equal protection under the law” thing, friends. If John and Marsha get special rights, benefits, and recognition because of a religious ceremony, then Mike & Phil and Lauren & LeighAnne should get the exact same rights, benefits, and recognition.
Our own governor has shown his hypocrisy under this same argument. He says the new stadium can sell alcohol on Sunday, but the convenience store across the street can’t? Equal Protection, folks. Look it up, it’s already the law. Simple constitutional issue. Cut and dried, open and shut.
On marriage, know this: heterosexual couples do more to destroy marriage than homosexual couples.
On Sunday alcohol, I would like to see one liquor store have the courage to open his doors Sunday morning, and wait to be charged and ticketed. That coourt case would be over before the ink on the AJC’s website story dried.
By LATINOVOTER1
May 16, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this
This is why people should vote for BOB BARR 08. Real change and getting away from OLD SCHOOL WASHINGTON thinking.
By nlbknitter
May 16, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
So here’s a solution. The government recognizes only civil unions, whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals (so long as it’s between two consenting adult human beings) and equal for everyone. A civil union is a legal contract and if you want to dissolve that contract you have to go through legal channels. Any product of that contract (children, assets, etc.) would be dealt with in a legal manner.
The government no longer deals in “marriage”. “Marriage” is a sacrament and the purview of the “church”. If your “church” does not recognize same-sex marriage, you can’t get married there. If it does, then more power to you!
It’s really quite simple.
By Sam
May 16, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
I find it funny how people think they are progressive and open-minded when they support people doing what they want, such as gay people being married. “Gay marriage” is an oxymoron. You people who are married, and aren’t religious, probably had a man of the cloth perform your ceremony. You don’t want God in your day to day lives, but you want to be married and wanted to have a minister perform the ceremony.
And I think you people who want to accuse anyone who opposed gay marriage as being bible-thumping ignorants, I would object and say that there are millions of people who believe in the Bible who are more intelligent than you are, so don’t even try to posit everyone who believes in the Bible as ignorant.
You progressive, holier than religious people, ones are actually gullible and subject to the whims of the current secular zeitgeist. I would examine your values, and see if any of them are immutable. I would suspect that they are as fugacious as the temperatures.
By suidae
May 16, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
Mad Mary is right. All this confusion is because religious ‘marriage’ and state-recognized ‘marriage’ are two fundamentally different things.
A judge performed my ceremony, I have state-recognized union, but as an atheist I do not have a church-recognized marriage. They are two different institutions that happen to go by the same name.
I say we change all legal references to ‘marriage’ to ‘civil union’ and make it an at-will contractual association between any type and quantity of consenting adults. The law will only define a bare minimum of what a union is, for example, joint tax filing. The rest of the union will be defined by the contract.
People who have religious beliefs about marriage can have their church provide the contract with the particular legal bindings that they prefer, giving them both a state and church recognized union and marriage.
I think this way because I believe the law should make accommodations that fit as many people as possible, and that it should absolutely not be dictated by the will of the majority.
Just because lots of people disapprove of same-sex unions does not give them the right to ban it. This is precisely why we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. We elect people who are (ostensibly) wise enough to do what is right instead of what is popular.
James Bovard wrote it very well “Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”
By Laura Hicks
May 16, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
I agree with gttim. I mean, I can totally understand religious folks being upset by gay marriage… that’s their prerogative. But marriage isn’t just a religious institution; it’s also a legal institution. I think churches should be completely free to deny marriage services to anyone they want if the couple in question doesn’t fit with their beliefs. However, the legal aspects of marriage should be available to all; to do otherwise would be discriminatory, which is uncool, and un-American.
I think it should be noted that what most folks seem to be upset over is the religious aspect of things, which they feel somehow defiles their faith. They don’t want to see gay couples being married in a church or having gay weddings. I hate to burst your bubble, but that ship already sailed. Even without legal backing, gay people all over are getting their marriages sanctified in churches. (Feel free to disagree on what ‘sanctified’ or ‘churches’ actually mean.)
Full disclosure: I’m a queer-identified woman living in California.
By cgb
May 16, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
I think Barr’s a little confused. I didn’t think marriage was to be decided by judicial fiat … but by the legislatures of each individual state. That’s federalism at work. This is only federalism in the weakest sense …
By Rev. DR
May 16, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
Mad Props to Mad Mary! Stop all government intrusion into private cult matters!
By Andrew
May 16, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
Should states have the right to make murder legal too? There are things in this world that are fundementally wrong. Discrimination is one of these things. If a gay man wants to move to Georgia he should be allowed to and also have his marriage recognized. Anyone who disagrees is doing so from ignorance or hate.
By G Rags
May 16, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
I am gay and I don’t want to have a CA only marriage, legal marriage needs to and someday will have full Federal rights and recognition. Cling to the past all you like, this is inevitable.
By G Rags
May 16, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
I am gay and I don’t want to have a CA only marriage, legal marriage needs to and someday will have full Federal rights and recognition. Cling to the past all you like, this is inevitable.
By RW
May 16, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
Questions for Charlotte: “Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose.”.
Should 50 year old me be able to marry 15 year old girls?
Should one man be able to marry six wives, chosen by his preacher?
Should a brother and sister be able to marry?
If you answer “NO” to any of these then you don’t really believe that marraige should be available to “all Americans”, you actually believe the state has a legitimate role in regulating marraige.
By The O-Gee
May 16, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
* Gay marriage is already illegal by God’s law. It should be illegal by man’s law. Bob Barr is a sinner and should go back to eating t** cheese like he did in the Borat movie.* The Bible says gay marriage is an abomination. Read the Bible and believe, or leave this state and this county - GO TO SAN F*!!!!
By Micheal
May 16, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
Ok, time to finally give my opinion. I like the way we have separation of church and state and the state has to meddle in the personal lives of others. I see all the negative comments about gays and such. Yes, I am a gay man and personally don’t want anything to do with gay marriage, but if it is wrong, then let GOD deal with it. Its between the persons involved and God. This is why I quit going to church. The churches like to meddle in our rights and the state has to support them …One major example is “Liquer sales on Sunday”. Come on people….Separation of Church and State? nada!! I never felt welcomed in church, but I am a very good person and God put me here for a reason. I pray everyday and try to help others as much as possible. We have more to worry about right now instead of worrying about other peoples personal business (Iraq, gas and the economy). I realize today that I am glad that I am the way I am because after reading some of these posts, I am not an idiot!! I am sure many on here have cheated on their spouses, stolen something or even mistreated someone else…trust me, you are in a whole different catagory. Thank God I am who I am!!
By Dmac
May 16, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
First to Ryan: It is a misunderstanding of biblical translation’s that the bible we have today has been carried forth from each succesive translation. In fact some of our most recent translations, the NIV, NASB, etc, come from more original documents, dating from within 100 years or less of Christ’s death, than King James. Yet they are more than 99% consistant. To the marriage question: As a Christian I don’t see the legal definition of marraige a religious issue at all. It has to do more with how a people want to define a special right, as someone earlier put it. There is no fundimental right to gay marriage, or mulitple marriage partners for that matter. I aggree that licencing of a marriage does not make a marriage, but it does define the values of a people.
By Mad Mary
May 16, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
We can not have vastly different rules of marriage in different States. Too confusing. I say, stop all State (Government) Marriages. If couples want to get MARRIED let them go to a church or any other cult meeting and have a marriage service. The State (Government) should stay out of it. The State should not license marriage in any manner. Marriage is a personal lifestyle that adults may choose for themselves. If couples want to co-mingle property and have inheritance from each other sign a contract/make a will. Children are growing up in single family households all over the world so marriage is NOT necessary. Child support can be agreed to or ordered. Benefits from employers should only go to the worker. Period. If the worker wants to cover friends or relatives let the worker pay for the benefit. Get Government Out of the Bedroom. Get Government Out of the relationship between employers, workers, men, men, women, women, employees, children, et al.
By CAN'T BELEAVE THIS COUNTRY
May 16, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this
WAKE UP !!THE BIBLE IS NOT THE LAW OF THIS COUNTRY!! GET A LIFE PEOPLE!!!! THIS IS THE (UNITED!!!) STATES OF AMERICA!!!!! WHAT COUNTRY DO YOU LIVE IN???
By luvwknd
May 16, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this
Why is it ANYBODY elses business who wants to marry who?
It ain’t…that’s just it!
By lee
May 16, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
“Whatever. I’m voting for Curious George.”
You can’t, he’s limited to two terms.
By Kj
May 16, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this
Its easy - penis + penis = wrong, vagina + vagina = wrong, penis + vagina = right. If you cant figure out those simple equations, then you shouldn’t be getting marrieds. Simple!
By jjaok
May 16, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this
He’s just pandering to try and build up his libertarian cred. As a lib myself, I’m not buying it. He’s anti-gay marriage, and hes not coming back from that one.
By Mike
May 16, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
Get over it everyone. Same sex unions to not pose a threat to me or to my marriage, any more than they do you or yours. And supporting the states right to decide does not mean you support same sex unions, any more than being “pro choice” means you support abortion. Get over it.
By VoteBARR08
May 16, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
Bob Barr is the only viable candidate for freedom minded Americans. By that I mean people who are courageous enough to live by thier own principles while not attempting to force their views on others. This is supposed to be the land of the free people, wake up!
Barr is simply saying the federal government needs to back out of our personal lives and allow us local control through elections which really count. Do you really think the national election machine gives you a voice? I’m personally against homosexuality but the fact of the matter is that it is not my place to tell other people what to do with their genetalia as long as it is not harming someone else. That said, I don’t want the gay community on my TV everyday telling me I have to do this or that either. Live and let live people. Freedom, look it up.
By W.T.F.?
May 16, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
what is a queer-identified woman? whatever it is, we’re glad your lining in california - home of the sickees!
By Bobby
May 16, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this
Um, yeah. The folks here who are complaining so vociferously about gay marriage should pause for just a moment and think about this -
The “fruits & nuts” of this country (myself included) are STILL required to pay the same taxes (sales, state, federal) that “normal” people do. Yet, we are treated as second-class citizens because we are not allowed the same legal benefits when we decide to permanently share our lives with someone.
I, personally, don’t give a crap about the word “marriage”, and I think it totally muddies the waters. That’s the religious right’s spin on this to get folks all riled up and against it. Call it what you will, all we want is to be able to have our relationships legally recognized and gain the same benefit set as everyone else.
If you don’t want to grant me the same rights that you enjoy - then give me my tax dollars back.
By nina
May 16, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this
The government is overtaking the will of the people. Anytime any laws are written in, it should be by vote of the people. This country is becoming a dictatorship. Marriage since the beginning of time has been between man and women. However, people have the right to do what they will. However, why should the government change things. If someone chooses to buy benefits for their partner, that is fine
By James
May 16, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this
ok…
I think California is rather pathetic to be honest. The voters already don’t like the idea of same sex marriage, we DONT WANT IT. The only people that want it are a few p** off homosexuals. I guess what people don’t realize is they already have a bunch of rights in terms of civil unions and even living together, which give them the same ones as married couples. But now they want to intrude on the majority’s definition of marriage. And people are still dumb enough to say that gays are NOT militant? Come on! The will of the people says otherwise when it comes to gay marriage. But gays don’t agree with everyone elses’ will but their own.
By John
May 16, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
If I was poking some guy in the fanny, I’d keep my mouth shut.
By whofailednow.com
May 16, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
Please come over to whofailednow.com Anonymous posting free speech forum. Discuss this matter among other things.
By alexa salcedo
May 16, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
I LOVE YOU BOB.NOW I CAN GET MARRIED WITH MY GIRLFRIEND..!!!I LOVE INGRID
By uh boy
May 16, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
uhhhh… you May want to read up on your jr high government classes… the judicial branch of government is “supposed” to “interpret” the law. Federal judges have seem to have forgotten that fact along with just about everybody else, and have begun “making” laws by overturning decisions made by the “Legislative” branch of the government, nor are they supposed to “enforce” the laws, that is “supposed” to be up to the “Executive” branch of government, NOT the “Judicial” system. IF you want to use the word “Tyranny” then THAT describes the Judicial system and what it is doing! Judges are abusing their power and imposing their will on the rest of the people who…(if you pay attention to the VOTES) are not in aggreement with them. Judges need to STOP MAKING laws and stick to interpretting them. and I won’t even dingify the comparison of ‘mixed race’ marriages to ‘gay’ marriages… because they don’t compare.
By Sandra Shannon
May 16, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
I believe that yesterday’s decision is just one more step that our Country has taken to further further damage itself for the future. I am NOT anti-gay or homophobic, however I believe this ruling was ridiculous. It is not meant for the same sex to be joined in marriage. It is a choice that people have made to be homosexuals. And it is my choice not to be, therefore I don’t like this “In your face” approach to the matter. I am sick of hearing about it on the news. It is morally wrong. How sad it is that a parent must explain to their children all the nonsense that is going on in the headlines these days. With a ruling as such, being so morally incorrect, what could possibly be next? Maybe letting the polygamists do as they please as well. Seems our government works overtime on taking God out of every aspect of society. This is a sad sum that occurs when that happens!
By Douglas
May 16, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
Barr’s stand is simply a “states’ rights” position. I agree, however, with Mad Mary: It is not the business of government to control marriage. Marriage has always been the province of the church. Governments could (and should) recognize financial partnerships or “civil unions” and provide those tax breaks currently enjoyed by legally married couples. It would be a fairly simple transition to declare all current legal marriages as “civil unions”. Businesses could then recognize civil unions as they have marriages for purposes of benefits for dependents. Those who wish to marry could do so in any religious ceremony they wish but it would not be binding on the state. I would think that would be in keeping with the separation of church and state.
By Anders
May 16, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
Let’s ignore Jesus’ message of love and forgiveness and focus on a couple of verses in Leviticus and Romans to supply our hate of people who are different.
Let’s ignore the plain English in the Constitution and propagate the myth that we are supposed to be a Christian nation. Let’s pretend the Thomas Jefferson was all for letting the Church make the laws.
Let’s ignore history in which the powerful bigot dominates the different and yearn for to the good old days of the ’50s where racism, alcoholism, sexism, and violence against anyone not like you was accepted.
The promise of America is the promise of enlightenment. We’ve stumbled countless times, but we’re on the right path. Equality for all our white, black, brown, gay, and straight brothers and sisters can’t come soon enough. Applause for California, for the great stretch of interpreting their words “All people” in their constitution to actually mean all people
By dale
May 16, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this
I’ll accept gay when they can procreate
By Micahel Cotter
May 16, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this
The supreme law of the US is its constitution. The US Constitution states, in the tenth amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The word “marriage” appears nowhere in the US Constitution. Hence, California is free to decide what constitutes marriage.
This decision by the Supreme Court of California was based solely on the California constitution. The judges were not engaged in activism, they were interpreting the law.
Get used to it.
By Terry
May 16, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
Mad Mary has it exactly right. Why do so-called conservatives want government in our bedrooms, dispensing rights based upon the nature of our private sex acts? It should not even enter into the discussion. It is not government’s, or other third parties’, business.
By TFAC
May 16, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
Two points 1) Government has no legitimate standing in a “marriage”. Most European nations require a civil ceremony and then after you can get “married” in any institution of your choosing. Mad Mary - you’re awesome. 2)RE Courts legislating from the bench. What a load of propaganda!!! In this country we do not believe in the tyranny of the majority. What if the “majority of the voters” passed a low allowing slavery. Of course the courts would overturn this and rightfully so. Doesn’t anyone ever stop and ask, Why is it legislating from the bench? ONLY WHEN YOU DON”T LIKE THE OUTCOME????? Maybe that is why we have judicial review??
By Sandra Shannon
May 16, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this
No, actually, the basic moral foundations from this country were formed from Biblical Doctrine! You get a life. I’m sure you’ll have one Hell-of-a life in the afterlife!
By ed
May 16, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this
For those who say that four judges in California changed the law, then the people of California need to elect different judges. Same everywhere else, where judges face election. If you don’t like their actions and rulings, vote them out of office.
By John
May 16, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
John: How about tolerant, educated states, and Republican states?
By prefix
May 16, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
I wonder if Barr would have the same view if Californians had voted for polygamy. States right, yeah!
By THE CATHOLIC HAMMER
May 16, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
Protestants are crazy, crazy people.
First, you go and create a government that is founded upon Man, and not God. Despite everything you Bible-thumping Protestants want to believe, the US Constitution is a secular document, the US government is founded upon the “Rights of Man”; it is, in it’s essence, “communist”.
The destruction of all traditional society is the natural outcome of such a Revolutionary government. There are just two choices: devotion to the Rule of Man; or devotion to the Rule of God. If you continue to support the US government and it’s secular nature, then you support the Rule of Man, and disregard the Rule of God.
By JeremiahWright
May 16, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
Charlotte’s an idiot. Marriage is NOT a basic civil right. There’s no evidence for that ridiculous statement.
By A. Boltz
May 16, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this
Federalism is okay by me in most cases, but many of the most significant rights for married couples come from the federal government: immigration, taxes, etc. “Leaving it to the states” is simply insufficient on this issue and won’t be tolerated for long…
By Mike
May 16, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this
For those of you that are saying “The people of california voted against it and now 4 people are deciding otherwise” and saying that’s wrong… don’t quite understand how this country and the law works.
You see, the people are bound by the law too, and just because you get a lot of people (60%) or whatever doing something… even if it’s the exact same thing… doesn’t mean they are right or that it’s against the law. It’s the job of the judges to make sure their actions and decisions are operating within constitutional rights. So yes, it does make sense that the judges can do what they did because THAT’S THEIR JOB. That’s why their positions exist. I don’t care if 99% of the people agreed on something, if it doesn’t abide by constitutional rights then the judges SHOULD overturn their decision.
By Sandra
May 16, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this
Very good points! Well written and I totally agree. I am sick of hearing them whine and force their corrupt morals ways on society!
By dw
May 16, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
Interesting how political correctness allows a very small fraction of the population to impose it’s will against the majority. Also the California court disregarding the majority of their constituents opinion. Lack of democracy in action. I don’t particularly care who/what you “marry”. Lastly, in my opinion, the gay community is not as “picked on” as they like to think, so you don’t need all these special rights. Most people don’t care what you do.
By Abomi Nation
May 16, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
The abomination of divorce is at the root of this evil. Jesus hated divorce and he himself called it an abomination. Next thing you know people will want to marry animals.
God is mad that we went against his word on divorce. He is mad that it is so common and accepted in His churches. He is mad at what it does to the children.
If we want to please God we had better start a petition drive to make divorce illegal in the constitution.
Divorce is a choice.
By Mike in Oregon
May 16, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
who cares what other people do?
I didn’t even want to get married (to my wife….i’m a guy) because it didn’t seem fair to me that we had the right to do it and gays/lesbians didn’t
words like equality and freedom ring hollow when not everyone in our country gets to have them applied to them
my grandfather grew up in Lousiana - around Lake Charles he told me before he died that the blacks at his church were only allowed to worship from the balcony of the church this was wrong and is really no different from saying you can’t marry who you wish if you happen to be the same sex as them
Americans should worry about things that matter like our president and vice president lying to us or toxic chemicals in our babies toys or bottles or food
I would venture to guess that if Jesus was here today he wouldn’t be too worried about gay marriage
probably more so about poverty and hatred and war
Barr’s right - goverment should stay out of people’s ways of living as long as no one is being hurt…there are bigger fish to fry.
By TRC21
May 16, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
Please do not throw all Christians in the same pot. Not all of us are the same. Just as there are many different views on State and Fed power, and different views on the law and constitution. Christians have different views on the Bible. It doesn’t mean any one is right or wrong.
I am a Christian and I don’t hate gays. I don’t support the idea of gay marriage. But in NO WAY do i hate gays.
Please do not put all Christians in the same Pot. Its like saying all americans are christians…THERE NOT…there are lots of religons in America and our goverment says its okay to have your own religion.
(even if i don’t agree with them)
By Ex-Cali Boy
May 16, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
Bob is wrong.
The state OVERWHELMINGLY voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman. I know, I was there during the vote. It passed with something like an 80% approval.
What has happened is that the Judicial branch in California has decided that they should have more power than the Legistative branch. What Californias SC did was to decide that the rights of the minority should outstrip the decision of the voting majority.
So much for checks and balances!
By Michael Cotter
May 16, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
Roget said:
“And each state also should issue its own currency, have its own immigration rules, its own postal system, etc., etc.”
No, because these powers are delegated to the United States by the Constitution. But marriage is not. Very simple. Try reading the US Constitution before you open your pie hole.
By Paul
May 16, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
If two men or two women want to marry more power to you people. However as a heterosexual man, I feel that I should be allowed to marry more than one woman. This is not about religion our anything but I feel if I can properly take care of two households and two families I should be allowed to. I am a White male middle class 175000 per year. I am somewhere in the 25-38 tax bracket. Let me take care of another family and write that off for taxes. What do you think?
By Strickly speaking
May 16, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
The statement is eroneous because it was not California nor the people of California but a narrow margin of progressive judges who have not interpreted the consitution of the state but projected their own personal bias!
By Sandra`
May 16, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
L M A O!
By summer
May 16, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
i think that he is right when he says that what california does is california’s buissness…why are people freaking out over 1 out of 50 states…supporting gay marriage? I’m not gay but i still do think that they should have a right to marry
By summer
May 16, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
i think that he is right when he says that what california does is california’s buissness…why are people freaking out over 1 out of 50 states…supporting gay marriage? I’m not gay but i still do think that they should have a right to marry
By Scalia4King
May 16, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
Whether Bob Barr likes it or not, it will become a federal issue because California will have little choice but to try to force every other state to recognize its “marriages.” Unless California voters are permitted to amend their constitution, the whole mess is headed to the US SUpreme Court.
By Kelly H
May 16, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
The underlying [roblem is that these judges overturned the will of the people and implemented law. Hitler did something similar when he had judges pass into law genocide. God help us!
By RB
May 16, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
C’mon, folks. Human rights is the main issue here, and non-discrimination. If you don’t want to marry someone of the same sex - don’t. It’s that simple. Folks fought women getting to vote and black equality (which still isn’t equal, but that’s another rant). Free American citizens should NOT have their choices taken away by narrow-minded conservatives. If you don’t like that lifestyle, don’t live it. But how would anyone out there like someone telling you how to live your life? (Ok, there are lemmings in this country, but most of you get what I mean.) Get over yourselves and get out of people’s personal lives and bedrooms.
By Jimbo
May 16, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
Oh Sam.. that’s crazy. I’d rather have a sea captain preside over my marriage than a preacher. Marriage is a contract. The law has more business in it than the church. It only became a sacrament when the church realized they could get a cut. By “church” I mean the first one I guess because they’ve been playing in the political realm since man had 15 gods and sacrificed babies or whatever to keep them happy. I’m not progressive, I’m old fashioned. It’s none of my business what these people do, they aren’t hurting me and if there is an all powerful god who hates the gays then I’m happy to let him deal with it on his time. In the meantime, you’re allowed your opinion so don’t marry a man Sam. That’s the best advice I can give you. If you’re against gay marriage.. don’t marry a man. But it’s not your job to tell me or billy gay boy or sally gay girl what they can do with with their life if they aren’t infringing on your rights ya nosy git.
By Kc
May 16, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
Hmmmmmmmm…..Brad, do you remeber Sodom and Gomorrah? Probably not because you were not there. How interesting? Do you know the definition of sodomy? It describes any sexual act apart from the basic act of intercourse. Therefore, all of you who have oral sex or anything of the sort are guilty. What idiots! People just focus on areas in the Bible of what they hate and hash it over and over again. Have you ever read much older versions of the Bible compared to the NIV? Very funny how the older versions barely say anything if anything at all about same sex relations, but in the NIV it is very harshly discussed. Hmmmmm….. wonder who wrote the new interpretation? People full of hate! Do you not realize that in the history of the Bible the language it was written in did not even have words for homosexuals and the act. It was about pedafiles. Raping children, and some men would rape the men that came to thier land to humiliate them. Those things have nothing to do with homosexual relationships today! I am so sick of people using the Bible to advance thier hate. If you are gonna use it how bout stop using small sections that express your hate and how about studying it as a whole and its history! If our marriage laws followed what the Bible layed out then the government should not have made divorces legal. Can you explain that? You should be married one time and be faithful, but wait! Oh we decided we want to be able to divorce and try someone else out! O well the Bible must mean something diff when it comes to that subject so lets just forget about that part of the bible! But those homos, well nahhh they can’t get married because the Bible says. Words of wisdom: Become educated!!! And no I am sorry but secluding yourself in your own little club like the polygamist community is not educating yourself! Sorry.
By steve
May 16, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
Wow. A lot of people sure are missing the point. This is a great example of putting principle ahead of politics. Bar opposes gay marriage but believes that is should be a decision left up to the states. To that end, he authored the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. While I am a supporter of gay marriage and was no fan of DOMA, I am impressed that he has the intellectual honesty and integrity to recognize that the CA case was a victory for the states’ right principles he has been defending.
By Oh Fertwo
May 16, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
Mad Mary is right, the government (federal, state, local) should not endorse or oppose lifestyle choices such as marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. If people want to get married, they should be allowed to get married, without the (legal) “blessings” of the State. Any deals, contracts or agreements should be negotiated by the couple, and as such, the relationship is governed by the law, as opposed to some nebulous, Judeo-Christian “concept”. Barr kinda showed his rear end on this one. This cannot be a “states rights” issue. Check your history. The American Civil War was fought over “states rights issues” and we all know how that turned out. I am no fan of the Federal Government, but until ALL governments get out of the “marriage” business, this issue has to be adjudicated at the Federal level. And frankly, being 0-2 in the heterosexual marriage box score, I find it “unconstitutional” that homosexual couples are “protected” from the madness and financial nightmare that is divorce. It’s very simple, either EVERYONE is entitled to marry, or NOBODY is entitled to marry and we can all enjoy (or not enjoy) Civil Unions, as far as the State is concerned. I bet the polygamists (especially in Texas and Utah) are watching this closely. Be careful what you ask for, Mr. Barr.
By Political Sense
May 16, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
I’m not sure why anyone is even covering this guy or cares what he thinks.
By Craig
May 16, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
The real issue here is not a states’ rights argument. Whether he admits to it or not, this will still fall in the federal court domain. Other states will have to recognize this ‘contract’. This will go to the Supreme Court on the fact that if a gay and married couple go to another state, the state will have to face recognition of this for benefits, survivorship, custody, etc. Yes, initially this is states’ rights but it will still fall into the federal domain once it crosses state lines.
By G. Surratt
May 16, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
California did it for the lulz.
By Tom Flores
May 16, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
To ‘By old friend of Bob’: As a lifelong Californian I just have to laugh at your ‘fruits and nuts’ comment. The fact is that many (if not most) of these so-called ‘fruits and nuts’ emigrate to California from your ‘God’s Country’. No doubt chased out by intolerants such as you. Call me crazy, but I think there are far more important issues in this country than whom someone wants to marry. As long as there is a Republocrat in office things will continue on a downward spiral. The Libertariians are the only party that makes any rational sense, as proven by Mr. Barr’s comments. This is a state issue. Allowing the federal government to mandate the law of the land on an issue like this is just one step closer to losing all personal rights period.
By CJ
May 16, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
Gay rights are the last form of civil prejudice that still exists in America. Gays can buy cars, get jobs, pay taxes, join the military (if they don’t tell), work as doctors, nurses, bankers, policemen, and UPS drivers - but we can’t enjoy the right to marry and divorse like the straights can. When it comes down to it, there really is no separation of church and state because these church-taught beliefs are influencing government policy.
By Benedict
May 16, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
The views of 4 judges are not the views of California people. We need judges who are for the majority of the people. Mr. Barr, are you for us or against us? This is so scary because we are heading to a wrong direction where sinfulness is becoming way of life. What is to gain the world if we are going to loose our soul anyway. May God lead us to the rigth path coz if disaster strikes, these judges caused it.
By Joe
May 16, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this
Reading these comments makes me feel more and more confident in my decision to leave Christianity behind. Who do people think they are telling other people what they may or may not do? Why does it concern you if a man wants to marry a woman or another man? Your argument using the Bible as your justification is ignorant and misinformed - and was not long ago also used to justify banning interracial marriage. Tell me, Bible-thumper, do you think that a white person marrying a black person should still be illegal?
By HowdIGetHere
May 16, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this
If you want a compelling rationale for marriage and family life, based on real numbers analyzed by social scientists and economists, do a web search on “Demographic Winter”. Put a couple facts into the discussion.
By Shane
May 16, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this
Oyi - this argument is so beyond old. Please have your facts straight (no pun intended) if you’re going to debate this. First of all, CA judges aren’t “overturning the will of the people”. It found the 2000 vote to be unconstitutional because it creates two forms of marriage which is inconsistent with CA’s constitution and its past precedents. It still leaves room for the people to vote on an ammendment to their state constitution if they decide to ban same-sex unions. Think of it like a teacher in school. You write a paper supporting a thesis but you do it wrong. You use faulty arguments or your formulae is wrong so the teacher says “Nope, try again.” The teacher isnt saying your thesis is wrong…just that your approach is off. That is exactly what happened here. There was no “activism from the bench”.
And I am so sick of “Christians” out there banging their drums and saying “Gay marriage should be illegal because the Bible says homosexuality is wrong.” Well the Bible says alot of things about what is right and wrong that we in society no longer view as valid (such as stoning a “stubborn and rebellious” child [Deuteronomy 21:18-21] or forbidding women from wearing jewlery or makeup [I Timothy 2:9]). Furthermore, we DO NOT have an established religion in this country. This is part of the First Amendment. Your brand of Christianity says its wrong. Other Christians say its ok. Still other relgions condemn it and others don’t. If you want to be against homosexuality, then go right ahead. But don’t you DARE step in and say “you don’t have the right to be with the person you love because I think its gross.” Marriage in this country is a CIVIL institution. It takes a legal action to institute it and it takes a legal action to dissolve it. You never even have to set foot in a church to be married. That said, either the govt should do away with the whole thing completely (from a civil standpoint) as Mad Mary suggested or they should remove any kind of religious attachment to it. If you want a Christian “marriage”, then you are free to get a christian priest to perform a non-binding, non-civil, spiritual choice ceremony. And if your church doesn’t want to do that for gay couples, then that should be their perogative. But its time we stopped trying to inject some groups religions opinions into our government and laws. When we start doing that, we completely invalidate the First Amendment - something I don’t think any American would wish to see happen.
By chell
May 16, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this
Mad mary is 1,000,000 % right. The government needs to be taking care of much more important issues. War, Gas prices, healthcare, education, civil rights, immagration. Why do we care about who is sleeping with who? If Bob wants to live and have sex with Greg and they are happy and paying taxes as a couple with a child that is a normal and well ajusted bright kid. Then good for them. I don’t live thier life. Bob can just as will be living and having no sex with Sue in an unhappy marrage while having an affair with Greg on the side. They can have a screwed up neglected kid that ends up going to school and shooting everyone. The Bob and Sue story happens every day. That’s okay with the religious bible thumpers. Having families and children living in screwed up broken homes that do nothing but fight and abuse each other because of their own unhappiness. Does that sound like the world that GOD wants? How about this, let GOD worry about it when the time comes and the rest of you mind your own business. Some of us are okay with going to HELL. You need to worry about keeping youreslf out of there. Because I hate you GOD fearing people.
By Terri
May 16, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
Values and morals evolve alongside the culture. As we are exposed to new ideas we can learn to be less frightened by them. The Bible was a wonderful handbood for a people who needed instuction in how to live together in a less warlike manner. All Americans are not all Christians, even though the founding fathers were and do not all want are lives dictated by epic literature from a thousand years ago and another culture entirely. Wake up fundamentalists, look around at the diversity of every kind.
By Anders
May 16, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
Sandra,
Which biblical moral foundations? Slavery? Stoning adulterers? Women as property? Or love, tolerance, and forgiveness?
Dale,
Do you refuse to accept impotent people or people who have had their tubes tied or gonads removed for medical people because they can’t procreate?
Personally I accept all people, because, well, they’re people.
By Rob
May 16, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
how is that heterosexual people came to assume that they were in charge of deciding how I wish to live my life and determining its value? homosexuality is not a sin or evil. this country is founded on the constitution not the new testament by the way. conservatives complain about special rights but they are the most privileged group in this country, and because they are a supposed majority does not mean they are correct in all matters.
By free2be
May 16, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this
I just don’t understand why people are so threatened by gay marriage. Aren’t there more important things to get upset about than who is getting wed to whom?
It just baffles me that people get more upset about this than homelessness, war, etc. How about we just see that we are all people first and stop focusing on our differences. We all need food and water, shelter and humanity. It is so strange that humans always want to find ways to say “I am better than you and here are the reasons”. What is that all about?
It is strange we as a people have trouble just each doing our best to be happy with our own lives and practicing some kindness and understanding towards oneanother.
By DAVID
May 16, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this
YAYAYAYA IM SO HAPPY THAT NOW I CAN GET MARRIED WITH MY BABY BOY…. EDDIE MOMO DAMIAN
WE ARE ALL GAAAAAAAAAY NOW!!!!!!!
By lfcc
May 16, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
Leviticus also declares shellfish an abomination. I don’t see anyone protesting Red Lobster.
Letting a 2000 year old book rule your life is dumb. Gays are real people with real lives that the fundamentalist Christians are trying to control.
By steven fry
May 16, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
Georgia is the most backward pathetic uneducated inbred racist Georgia is a state that is WRONG WRONG WRONG in every way, Georgia is land of rotten fruits and stale mildewed nuts. Georgia is not God’s County it is a heathen state that would sacrifice its own children to satisfy the pride, ego, and greed of its parents definately not of god. this post is in response to the Georgia post above. Perhaps Georgia can be part of Iran, there is a great place which follows god and hangs gays.
By Christopher
May 16, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
A few things to counter the spin here:
The California Supreme did not legalize same-sex marriage. All they did was say that the State cannot have an institution “marriage” that excludes a class of people. It’s the same logic that overturned mixed-race marriage laws (which California was also at the forefront of).
The legislature of the State of California has TWICE passed same-sex marriage provision. It has been rejected by the governor twice as well.
The Supreme Court of California is approved by the people. They are appointed by the governor (6 of the 7 by GOP governors, actually) and those appointments are approved by the people. And reaffirmed on an on-going basis (they come up for reapproval regularly). This is as democratic a process as you can expect in a representative democracy.
I agree, though, that the government should get out of the marriage business. Or just have civil marriages for everyone. Although, there are still benefits (including immigration) that individual state’s having jurisdiction over marriage do not address.
By James F. Brown
May 16, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this
I agree that the states and the people, respectivly, have the right to enact their own laws within the bounds of the 10th ammendment within their state, but judicial activism at any level is wrong and should never be tolerated. This was not a court decision to make it is a legislative decision that should be made by the state legislature and the Governor or by a peoples referendum. Bob Barr has turned into a complete narcisist(sp?)
By Nick
May 16, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this
“How its suppose to work.” Not exactly. California voters passed initiatives during the last election to ban same sex marriage and keeping the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. As a Californian I have my liberal beliefs, and I am not opposed to homosexuals in monogamist relationships to share the same benefits as heterosexuals. If “marriage” is to be between a man and women to keep the right happy, fine then keep it that way, but extend the same tax and insurance benefits to homosexual couples via same-sex “partnership” programs. All that aside, my problem with this situation is the 4 California Supreme Court Justices that completely disregarded the will of the people. They put their personal beliefs ahead of the people. They are abusing their power, and as far as I’m concerned they might as well just throw away the constitution. And has anyone heard/seen the response from Mayor Newsome in SF. I have never seen a more childish, unprofessional response from a public official of his statute. His was the equivalent of a 3rd grader in the playground winning a game of handball and going “neener neener neener” to the other kids. This state is a total joke full of conceded self-absorbed politicians at all level of government.
By Abomi Nation
May 16, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this
I live in south Georgia, it seems all of my neighbors have been divorced. Some of them 3 and 4 times.
Sometimes late at night I hear my neighbors farm animals making weird noises and I wonder…..Are they going to marry their sheep?
By The questionmaster
May 16, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this
If 61% of georgians voted to re-instate slavery, and 4 judges overturned that, what kind of outcry would there be then?
By Ronaldo
May 16, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
Whom, may I ask, gives a whit what Bob Barr thinks?
By Alice Jones
May 16, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this
All this religous crap is fine as the word of god was rewritten by “man”. But why is no one saying ban divorces to protect marriage. I know people who have gotten married 3 - 4 times, what exactly are you protecting when marriage is supposedly a one shot deal?
What about couples that cheat on eachtoher? I know a guy who I worked with cheated on his wife, but didn’t believe in gay marriage as he wanted to protect his. Explain that one to me.
Ban divorce that’s how you protect marriage.
By Bryan
May 16, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this
What do you think is going to happen when the majority gets really mad over these illiberal liberals power trip laws? I would recommend reading The Tyranny of Tolerance by Robert H. Dieker Jr. before it’s to late to turn back.
By Curtis
May 16, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
Most of you miss the historical signifacance of this. Follow your world history to see that every socioty that has accepted homosexuality has failed because of the debotchery that goes along with it. Look at the Roman Empire. Distruction of the core family is a tennat of Marxism. Look that up.
By stephen
May 16, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
I’m an extremely conservative strictly religious republican… and I agree in principle with Mad Mary. The real source of this problem is the fact that at some point in history, the government decided to stick its nose into a traditional religious institution, marriage. If the governments of the past had appropriately separated church institutions and state institutions, this never would have been an issue. Since it’s a state institution, it’s inappropriate to place religious limits on it. However, since it is first and foremost a traditional religious institution, broadening it beyond the religious restrictions is a grave insult to the practitioners of the religions from whence the institution originated. I, too, believe that the only way to save marriage and give rights to all americans is to limit the government to performing contractual civil unions and turn marriage entirely over to religious institutions.
By Dana
May 16, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
Actually, in California, the State Constitution specifically states that there shall be no discrimination based on race, creed, gender, physical disability and SEXUAL ORIENTATION.. so because this verbiage specifically exists, the vote in 2000 and the One man one woman law ARE ACTUALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL… Once you change a constitution to write in discrimination what’s next? How about we say to all you gun owners, that we want to amende the constitution to make it illegal to own a gun, or how about we just start undoing everyone’s rights? That is a slippery slope… Be Warned.
By Darrell
May 16, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
Many people don’t want gays to marry because gay people subsidize straight people. If it costs a single gay person $1,000 a year for car insurance, shouldn’t a family with 4 cars should pay $4,000? If it costs a gay person $100 a month in health insurance premiums, shouldn’t a family of 5 pay $500 a month. If it cost a single gay person $10 to enter an attraction, shouldn’t a family of 4 pay $40? Who is going to foot the bill for families now? Gay people subsidize every aspect of straight society and get none of the benefits. Yet to many, the above examples are not an “entitlement” like welfare. They are simply family friendly policies. Those who foot the bill know different.
By Toonces
May 16, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
What you have with the allowance of gay marriage is a slippery slope of deviants. Once you accept gay marriage, then it is on to polygamy, under age marriage, incest and so on. These deviant behaviors are immoral and will be the ruin of this country.
By RLM
May 16, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
OUR country is going to shambles and the the most people can get excited about is gay marriage, or abortion? If some one wants to get married to a goat, it makes no difference on the subject of economic disaster in this country! You people need to wake up! This is what magicians call “slight of hand”, Politicians call it “political stance”, NOT their agenda! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! They know that they can milk and rape this country while everyone is complaining about these petty issues! These are supposed to be state rights. READ YOUR constitution. If you don’t agree with something, you have the right to move! Force politicians to be PUBLIC servants again! Grow up or MOVE to CHINA!!!!!!!
By CARLOS RUIZ
May 16, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
EVERY GAY AROUND THE WORLD HAS TO BE KILLED . THEY DON´T DESERVE TO BE SOUGHT LIKE HUMAN BEINGS.
By Sandra S.
May 16, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
If it’s not wrong, then why does it take you guys/girls so long to “come outta the closet” - no shame in your game huh?
By Honestly!
May 16, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
Surely the fact that the California Supreme Court had to rule on whether or not gay marriages are legal demonstrates that it doesn’t matter what the majority of the people say that matters. The Government has to step in to make a decision on these matters even though the MAJORITY of the people of California voted NO to gay marriages several years ago.
By Bob
May 16, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
The AJC’s is an outright lie. Nothing in the text of the post supports a statement that “Bob Barr backs California gay marriage ruling.” Rather, Barr said that the Federal government should not intervene in an issue that should be decided by the states.
Maybe the AJC writers are simply too illiterate to understand the written word. But more likely they recognized that lying might be to their temporary benefit, and so they thought it justified. Shameful either way.
Another example of why I don’t subscribe and give the idiots my money.
By Loktari
May 16, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this
The arguments against gay marriage all seem phobia-based and full of fallacies. Glancing over some arguments used here:
“Now I can marry my brother” — irrational: the ruling was about two unrelated adults, not incest. You could use exactly the same argument against heterosexual marriage: would you marry your sister now? Or your mom? No, of course not.
“God says…” — not only is it up for interpretation what God really thinks about it, but our laws aren’t dictated by religion. This is what separates us from nutcase theocracies like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. The Constitution is the basis of our laws, not the Bible.
“Now polygamy will be legal” — no, this case is specifically about removing gender-based discrimination in a union between two adults. Can you logically argue against gay marriage without first attaching unrelated and emotionally charged things to it? Probably not.
“A majority of people is against it” — not relevant: your rights don’t disappear because you’re a minority. Besides, 61% is not a massive majority and this figure is likely to drop significantly once people realize the sky didn’t fall.
“It damages marriage” — if your marriage is in trouble because of gays marrying, you really have strange issues.
So, it’s not really surprising that in a ruling based on logic, such fallacies will not hold, even in a court dominated 6-to-1 by Republican-appointed judges.
In some documentaries about the 60s and even 70s, we can see decent white folk casually using the N-word to refer to blacks.
Today, we are shocked that seemingly nice and normal people once acted that way. It is my sincere hope that future generations will be similarly shocked about what people today are saying about gays.
By Mad Mary
May 16, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this
**We can not have vastly different rules of marriage in different States. Too confusing. Lawyers do not need more work and the less Judges have to interpret the better.
I say, stop all State (Government) Marriages. If couples want to get MARRIED let them go to a church or any other cult meeting and have a marriage service. The State (Government) should stay out of it. The State should not license marriage in any manner. Benefits, including citizenship, should not be conferred on an individual because of being MARRIED to another individual.
Marriage is a personal lifestyle that adults may choose for themselves. If couples want to co-mingle property and have inheritance from each other sign a contract/make a will. Children are growing up in single family households all over the world so marriage is NOT necessary. Child support can be agreed to or ordered. Benefits from employers should only go to the worker. Period. If the worker wants to cover friends or relatives let the worker pay for the benefit. Tax people not couples (or corporations for that matter).
Get Government Out of the Bedroom. Get Government Out of the relationship between employers, workers, men, men, women, women, employees, children, et al. **
By Paul
May 16, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this
I want more Wives !!!
By andrei
May 16, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this
What everybody seems to forget about is that there is no ban on gay marriage or civil unions. This whole thing is about semantics. Civil unions allow the same exact rights, responsibilities, and privileges of marriage. The gay rights lobby is just p** at the fact that they have to use a different word. Words dont hurt and if I lived in Cali I would be p** off that my tax dollars went into these judges sitting around deliberating this crap only to come up with a decision that doesnt affect anybody….at all since gay people have the option of getting a civil union. This has nothing to do with the Bible or God or religion. This has to do with benefits and privileges that gay people think they are missing out on. Everybody needs to get their heads out of their asses and realize that our taxes would be better spent on a crapload of other issues that would in fact affect all of us, not just a loud minority. Did they only use tax money collected from gay people to arrive at this decision? I think not.
By DB
May 16, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this
I’m really laughing at the folks who keep writing that “God’s wrath” is going to be evoked by this. Are you people serious? It’s honestly a joke how ignorant (and self-righteous) the majority of this Country is… not sure where they’re getting this from.
Anyhow, I’m SO GLAD that this type of person is a minority in New York City… because we’d chew you up, and spit your ignorant asses out.
Go California… I can’t wait till my friens in NYC can get married to whomever they want.
By Chris
May 16, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this
I think all that needs to be recognized is the tone of each side’s argument. In one corner you have the opponents of gay marriage who can only cite religion as their means of opposition. On the pro-gay marriage corner, you have educated people who cite legal opinions and the constitution to support their claims. I’ll defer to the constitution and equal rights any day, and I’ll bet Jesus would too!
By Ian
May 16, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this
I am a straight white Englishman who attends church on a regular basis. A piece of paper does not make marraige LOVE does. If God created you with a natural desire to be attracted to your own sex and you believe God cannot be wrong, why sould you question it. ‘Be happy and walk your own talk’
If you look around our world and see what its like where there is no love you will not have to be a rocket scientist to know what to do.BE HAPPY
God Bless
By YourMom
May 16, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this
About the hate…This is an anti-Christian strategy that those caught in sin usually throw out to deflect God from their choices and to deny its consequence. We hear it mostly from gays, because as we Christians obhor their choice, they assume that repulsion applies to them. It’s not especially wrong to be defensive, as Christians sometimes have to be reminded to love the sinner. But, gays seem to have this problem with being called a sinner! No other Christian feels this way, we know we are sinners, and we reach out in thankfulness to our Savior! But, gays will spend all their time and money working to undermine every law that has a moral basis - in fact, to destroy the free expression of our Christian faith - just to keep from being labeled a sinner! If you follow the thread, you can easily see that the line dividing moral behavior from immoral behavior, in the hands of men, will continue to shift until every law based upon morality will be struck down. People, this is inevitable! When our elected officials appoint judges that can over-rule us, as in California, we need to be afraid! Our futures are in the hands of these judges; they are the ones responsible for the direction our country is going. If you want to lay blame, look at their decisions, and then look to see who appointed them. And get busy! As we see in the march of the relentless homosexual community, it really is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
By CARLOS RUIZ
May 16, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this
EVERY GAY AROUND THE WORLD HAS TO BE KILLED.
THEY ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS.
By Don
May 16, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this
A more relevant question for Bob Barr to answer would be, “Where do you stand on the courts legislating from the bench on controversial issues too hot for state legislatures and Congress to handle?”
By Chuck
May 16, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
Ex Cali-Boy: *What has happened is that the Judicial branch in California has decided that they should have more power than the Legistative branch. What Californias SC did was to decide that the rights of the minority should outstrip the decision of the voting majority.
So much for checks and balances!*
Funny I seem to remember that there were some courts that did that during the Civil Rights era. I guarantee you that some people complained that the rights of blacks (the “minority”) had outstripped the decisions of the voters (the “majority”) when Brown vs. Board of Ed and Loving Vs. Virginia among others were decided.
The Constitution is designed to protect rights. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection. This doesn’t mean anything goes when it comes to religion. Marriage (or a civil union) has to be entered consensually. 15 years olds can’t consent to marriage with a 50 year old. Wives “selected” by a pastor aren’t really consenting. They’re being coerced. So don’t throw out those fallacies.
The US is not a Christian nation and was not founded as one. Most of the founding fathers held religious beliefs that most fundies wouldn’t recognize as Christianity. The US was founded upon the principle of freedom of (or even from) religion.
By Alex
May 16, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
Time and again I read that “…this country was founded on Christian principles.”
No, in fact, it wasn’t. It was founded on Enlightenment principles - specifically, the idea that man’s reason is the highest authority. If some of our laws resemble the Ten Commandments, it is not because the founders were Christians (most were, though not of a sort that you would recognize), but because the application of reason to the question of good governance compels a similar set of laws in different countries and times.
Point is, there is no basis to deny marriage other than religion. We are not a religious nation (though many of us a religious PEOPLE - a very different thing). They’ve got every right to marry.
By HOTT Babe
May 16, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
Im Bi and i think it isnt anyones business of how marries who were all human. whether your a male with a male or the other way around your the one that has to be married with the one your with. People that are Homopbics should just stay out of our life styles and move on with their own!!!!
By John
May 16, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
My only comment for all is: What part of equal protection, guaranteed by the Constitution, do you not understand?
By Sandra
May 16, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
I agree, God is a very forgiving God. However, he is a just God. He is the same now and always. It is a sin, read the BIBLE!!! I believe that one can be forgiven for sins, however first must come repentance. Meaning that someone asked for forgiveness from the sin and turns away from sin and tries to not keep committing the same sin, over and over and over. It also states “do not tempt the Lord Thy God” - so will Cali really fall off in the ocean - as the world churns! what a joke!
By chandra
May 16, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
What do gay marriages give to society 1. No natural pro-creation 2. A confused environment to kids
Family and marriage have their signifance from ensuring the opposite of the two points above. Now recognizing and rewarding gay marriages will not have any useful results to the society.
Its their choice to be with the partner they choose but asking every body to recognize that and claiming rewards of conventional marriage is not right.
By Brian
May 16, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
I support Bob Barr for president. He has the potential to become the next Ross Perot — the conservative who single handedly helped elect President Bill Clinton for 8 wonderful years. SO, if you are a georgia democrat like me, support bob barr, he will HELP us a lot more than he will hurt us. (I’m still voting for Obama on election day though.)
By Larry T
May 16, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
OH YA, good christians, like the ones that SUPPORTED slavery, burned witches at the stake, destroyed new world cultures, run around burning crosses and blowing up churches and killing children. OH YA they really know how to set an example. Next they will would like to build crematoriums for the “unbelievers” (oh, the nazi catholics and lutherans did that already did that). It so amazes me that they can pull out of there little vodo book what ever they would like to support there small mindedness and forget the other stuff that dose not support there cult practice.
By Roman
May 16, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
Since few people are stepping up to defend against the idiotic charge that the court is overstepping its bounds — I’ll have a swing:
There are three branches in the United States government. Get it through your head. THREE. The executive branch is supposed to be the weakest of them all. If you remember your middle school / high school education, you will remember that the judicial branch is there to enforce the constitution and make sure no other branch oversteps its bounds. That is exactly what it did.
Passing a discriminatory law against a certain kind of marriage is unconstitutional. I am assuming that the state’s constitution has some civil rights clauses or amendments that bar discrimination (I have not read the CA constitution, but I’m assuming the judges have). IF the state legislature would like to amend the constitution in order to override whatever clause is making this law unconsitutional, they are free to do so (but need to realize how grave of a decision this is).
On another topic: let’s not pretend that the word marriage is religious. Marriage has been broadened well beyond that. Otherwise, atheists wouldn’t be able to marry. In fact, why are we letting Jews and Muslims marry — since Christianity is clearly the only power to define “marriage”, what others have should be called something else. If Atheists can marry, we can no longer say that marriage is a right reserved for God’s flock alone.
By free2be
May 16, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
Questionmaster — I am afraid there are probably plenty of people who would have no problem reinstating slavery.
People seem to love to hate one another and will back whomever or whatever political branch they see as promoting hate towards someone different from themselves.
By Mad mike
May 16, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
I think that if you allow gay marriage then you should allow polygamy. Where does it stop?
By YourMom
May 16, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this
Darrell, You could say the same thing about any single person. Our society depends upon heterosexual men and women to procreate to carry on the species. As a society, we recognize the importance of caring and nurturing our children, which role typically falls to women. That is why women are usually dependent and need laws to protect them and their children. The men who, in honr, love and care for their wives and children are supported in their efforts with various “family discounts” that single people just don’t need. Single people are free to search after their own pleasures, while Moms and Dads are busy supporting and sacrificing for their families. They are raising children who are contributing to social security that - whoa! - even singles AND gays get the benefit from.
By RamblinLonghorn
May 16, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this
Why the hell do you people care what gay people do or don’t do? You believe that they’ll burn forever in a lake of fire. Is that not enough punishment for you?
By Gary
May 16, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this
The issue now in California is less about gay marriage, and more about how this happened. Is it truly the job of the court to overrule the results of an election?! An election with no close vote, no hanging chads. That is the issue we should all be concerned with, not the issue of gay marriage in California. This bad precedent has been set, a couple of times by Cal courts.
By Get over yourselves
May 16, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
HAHAHAHAHA! Straight people are so scared. Better watch out! Once all those gays get married, you’re marriage will mean nothing and you will have to get a divorce and your children will hate you and all “turn” gay.
Oh and by the way “Your Mom”… it’s ABHOR not OBHOR. But I would not expect people like you to be too worried about education… after all, your too busy hating people.
By mike
May 16, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
what do u people care what other people do with their lives. if gays want to marry let them, it wont effect your life in the slightest. and dont cry about the sanctity of marriage “being betwee a man and a women”, why dont u start looking at the ” as long as u both shall live” part. the divorce rate is a far bigger concern than the right for gays to marry. get over it.
By joe
May 16, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
“State’s rights”, refers to the rights of the people of the states to determine their courses of actions, not the government or courts of the states. When 4 people overturn the will of millions of citizens, it’s not a victory for state’s rights, whether you agree with the ruling or not. It is a victory of the will of a few over the will of the majority.
By DCX2
May 16, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
It might help if some of you read the actual ruling. It was 121 pages, so there’s plenty of supporting evidence for their ruling. Perhaps it would help if I quote a bit of it.
[O]ur task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership, but instead only to determine whether the difference in official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution.
At issue is the secular right to a union. Making a separate-but-equal “civil union” for gay people and “marriage” for straight people fails for the same reasons separate-but-equal fails to be legit for segregation.
The court did NOT rule that gay marriage is legal. The court’s ruling does not affect the religious institution of marriage, only the legal institution of marriage.
By Jimbo
May 16, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this
You people are why I thank GOD every day that this ISN’T a democracy. If this majority ruled we’d be screwed.
By ron
May 16, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
Don’t worry Bob, with all the rednecks and bible nuts here in Georgia it will never happen here, so you just go right ahead and support it!
By Gayrights
May 16, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this
So it’s okay for the courts to decide who will be President, but not okay to decide who can get married? Typical right-wing, conservative, hypocritical double standard!
By ConservativeRule
May 16, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this
Do you all not remember that we live in a Republican state? This is not OK anywhere, especially for GA. Same-sex marriage ought be outlawed nationally!!
By dave
May 16, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
By Disgusted
May 16, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this
There was a vote and same sex marriage was beaten, but then the state of California went ahead and passed it anyway against thier own citizens vote!!!!!!! This is govt deciding issues against what the majority vote!! Where is the Democracy?? How could a Libetarian go against the people’s vote???? Bob Barr your true democratic socialistic views are starting to come out. This Country is falling apart, I guess that’s what happens when you take God out of it.
By iamme
May 16, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this
It is said people are created equal. If this was true gays wouldn’t be an issue in America. We are called the ‘United States’ but we aren’t united at all we are separated because of judging and opposition. Grow up homophobics times are changing and people should be aloud to be who they are. People say that god opposes gays but he also tells us not to judge others and to treat others as we want to be treated. If someone was telling you that you couldn’t marry the person you are in love with i be you wouldn’t be very happy either. So deal with it things are changing.
By Steve
May 16, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
Ah, folks…remember interracial marriage? The popular consensus was 70% AGAINST it in the 1950s. Then the SCOTUS stepped in and said, yes, interracial marriage is CONSTITUTIONAL, and now 90% of us are in favor of it. We have the courts to interpret the Constitution for a reason. Majority or popular belief means SQUAT when it comes to dealing with minorities and minority rights.
Folks against gay marriage need to ask themselves this: why aren’t you concerned with your OWN marriages with a divorce rate over 50%
By RenaP
May 16, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
with all of the problems we have in our country today - why do people exhaust so much energy on this issue. I’m not sure why its my business or the governments business if two people of the same sex decide to marry. We have much bigger fish to fry than this issue.
By anna
May 16, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this
So people (who happen to be straight) can get married one day, have the marriage annulled or get divorced the following week…and yet people (who happen to be gay) who have been together for 50 years can’t be married? I have such a hard time wrapping my head around the hypocrisy. It’s all so absurd. For those of you who want to protect the “sanctity of marriage,” why don’t you go point fingers at divorced people (who happen to be straight) first.
I am in no way judging divorced people. Everyone has their reasons for getting divorced and it’s not my place to tell them whether they should get divorced or not. Just trying to make a point that when it comes down to its most primal level, we’re all just people whose bodies all function the same way and whose hearts can’t help who they love.
It’s so simple, yet some people choose to stick their noses in other people’s business and make it so complicated. It shouldn’t be this way.
By Steve
May 16, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
Being gay is a sin? It’s in the Bible? Gay prostitution is mentioned, vaguely, in the Bible. Not what we know of homosexual commitment today.
If you want sin spelled out in the Bible, Jesus was clear that DIVORCE was adultery. So tell me - why is the divorce rate higher in the bible belt than it is in more liberal agnostic leaning parts of the nation???
You fringe people need to get your heads examined.
By Alex
May 16, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
*Mad mike: * I think that if you allow gay marriage then you should allow polygamy. Where does it stop?
Well, I think that if you allow men to marry women then you should allow people to marry their pets. Makes sense to me!
…except that it really doesn’t at all.
By Red Leader
May 16, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
Looks like Barr took the pro-American, pro-constitutional stance on gay marriage. Personal opinion and the rule of law(the constitution) are 2 separate things. States rights all the way. Anything else is anti-American. Now lets see how in touch you anti-American religious nuts are with the actual constitutional foundations of America. Im a Republican voter by the way.So far so good Mr. Barr, looks you are going to get my vote.
By Dusty
May 16, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this
Letting states decide marriage rights only divides the country. This is about love, not slavery. It’s going to be legal everywhere eventually. Let’s just get it over and done with and make it federal. Gays will be happy and conservatives can quit whining about having to listen to the homosexual agenda. The rest of us can go about our daily lives as we always have.
By Mad Mary
May 16, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
**We can not have vastly different rules of marriage in different States. Too confusing. Lawyers do not need more work and the less Judges have to interpret the better.
I say, stop all State (Government) Marriages. If couples want to get MARRIED let them go to a church or any other cult meeting and have a marriage service. The State (Government) should stay out of it. The State should not license marriage in any manner. Benefits, including citizenship, should not be conferred on one individual because of being MARRIED to another individual.
Marriage is a personal lifestyle that adults may choose for themselves. If couples want to co-mingle property and have inheritance from each other sign a contract/make a will. Children are growing up in single family households all over the world so marriage is NOT necessary. Child support can be agreed to or ordered. Benefits from employers should only go to the worker. Period. If a worker wants to cover friends or relatives let the worker pay for the non-workers benefit. Tax people not couples (or corporations for that matter).
Get Government Out of the Bedroom. Get Government Out of the relationship between employers, workers, men, men, women, women, employees, children, et al.**
By Churchill
May 16, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
Perfect timing. This will go to the people of CA as a constitutional admendment in Nov. The libs claim this is a wedge issue, the CASCOTUS has set this up perfectly.
By Sad in CA
May 16, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
Yes, but what Bob Barr doesn’t seem to understand is that the California voters decided in 2000, by a 60+% margin that marriage should be between a man and a woman in CA. Why doesn’t that count as the state’s position? For that matter, why should 4 Californians (members of the CA Supreme Court in the majority on this case) be able to overrule the determination of at least 21 million Californians? If Barr is all for state’s rights, then the vote of the majority of the state’s voters should be decisive.
By YourMom
May 16, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
Dear “Get over yourselves” Oh dear - does a typo exclude me from the human race? And, you are right - I am not worried about my children’s education - I took care of that myself as a home schooling parent. I gave up my ability to earn money and have many of the luxuries that others afford to make sure my children understand their Creator’s expectations of them. Your diatribe reveals the suffering you are trying to run from - the sense of condemnation that you feel. It is impossible to really lay the blame for this at other sinners’ feet, just by labeling them ‘haters’. It just doesn’t wash. Your sense of condemantion comes from God alone, Whose Spirit ‘convicts the world of sin’. Uh..that was from the bible, which I suppose you have all kinds of objections to, and - by the way, have you ever read it? There is power in its pages, but if you are too afraid to take a peek, I would understand…..
By Willie
May 16, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this
For all of you who read the constitution: Since when does judges make law-especially individual rights? I am waiting….. Point 2: Many of you have stated what it matters if there are gay marriages because it does not affect you. Well, if I am a Christian and I believe in the Bible even though I may backslide here and there, the Bible teaches that God punishes nations for their evil ways. Remember Israel and Judea! So yes I am against it if I think there is a chance that Divine intervention may happen. But of course, you who do not believe will not understand this because you have no moral foundation. Anything goes! I believe the people of California will overturn this by voting it out (constitutional change). They need only a majority vote to make it happen. Point 3: Some of you said we have separation of church and state. That is the most misinterpreted clause used by fanatics for special interests. Like the right to privacy is no where in the constitution. Some of you said it’s the duty of the state to protect the individual rights over a majority. This is like changing the name of a town because it somehow offends the belief of one person. La Cruz is the town I am referring to. The constitution is not a living document and is not to be changed because some people are tired of the traditional life styles. I am a Christian and I believe the Lord MY God will punish this nation as it did Israel and Judea for its violation of God’s laws. So now what do you tell me. This my belief and I must fight to the very end to save my country, my home, and my life.
By Georgia Boy
May 16, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
After reading these comments, it’s not surprising to see why the Southern Baptist population in Georgia - and nationwide - is slipping.
Bickering, grandstanding and sweeping judgments like those echoed right here are driving people to seek their own opinions and truths about the country in which we live.
As a former Southern Baptist myself, I think the trend is quite a shame - most of my fellow congregants were good people at heart. But a loud minority set the perception of an overall population.
Terrible statements like the ones listed on this page will soon fade into history as a new generation of American thought leaders begins to emerge.
So don’t hate Bob Barr, the California courts or the judicial system - becuase in only a few years, today’s children ultimately will be the ones who correct our mistakes.
By Georgia Boy
May 16, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this
After reading these comments, it’s not surprising to see why the Southern Baptist population in Georgia - and nationwide - is slipping.
Bickering, grandstanding and sweeping judgments like those echoed right here are driving people to seek their own opinions and truths about the country in which we live.
As a former Southern Baptist myself, I think the trend is quite a shame - most of my fellow congregants were good people at heart. But a loud minority set the perception of an overall population.
Terrible statements like the ones listed on this page will soon fade into history as a new generation of American thought leaders begins to emerge.
So don’t hate Bob Barr, the California courts or the judicial system - becuase in only a few years, today’s children ultimately will be the ones who correct our mistakes.
By Jennifer
May 16, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this
What people seem to forget when they get into the whole God vs. Gay Marriage debate is that gays and lesbians have never asked that any religious institution be forced to recognize their unions. It’s the media and the christian right who’ve created the misconception that gays want religious marriage equality. All that’s ever been asked is that they and their families be given the same legal rights, responsibilities and protections taken that heterosexuals take for granted.
By judunno
May 16, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
The investigation of spygate is much more important than this issue. J/K
I agree with Mad Mary to a point. But then if theres no intrusion whatsoever who stops polygamists and the catholic church from abusing children :( However, there are certain issues the gov’t should just back the F off. Marriage may be one of them
By Professor
May 16, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
HISTORICAL NOTE: To those of you who wrongly believe this country was founded on Christianity….About half of our founding fathers were Desists,(ie.. George Washington,John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,and Thomas Paine)! Furthermore,a main reason for the founding of this great country was for “Freedom of and from religion”
By thefirstone
May 16, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
The Bible aside, homoness is unnatural and disgustng. I love my father and mother but I wouldn’t have sex with them. So let’s not discriminate against incest or homosexuals or we’ll be grouped with the racist, feminist, male chauvinist,anti-national groups,etc. If something is unnatural it just is and that’s it. When animals do it it’s unnatural,it’s a phenomena , unnatural, not suppose to happen. When unnatural things happen it causes mutations and morphing. We can choose to live like animals or be better than them. By the way, I love my cat, should I marry her?
By immigrant
May 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
At what point are people going to learn that America is NOT a democracy? Read the constitution! Why are people even MENTIONING that the majority of people voted against it? This is socialism/mob rule talk. The law must be upheld by the courts for all individuals. Oh…save the God and bible talk too, because we are talking about the constitution and law…bible and God is simply a matter of very personal opinion.
By Michael
May 16, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
Individual freedom. What a novel concept. Is he stating that we have a Constitution that grants individuals rights and liberty? B/c that’s not what either Republicans or Democrats want us to believe right now. What a breath of fresh air. You don’t have to agree with the topic just the principle of freedom, that is, if you are patriotic. Right?
By JMLM
May 16, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
I’m not a Christian expert, but I believe that Jesus’ overall message was one of tolerance and respect. A positive attitude towards someone you don’t agree with will go a lot farther than slurs and hatred. It doesn’t mean you are forced to sit down and have coffee with them if you don’t want to…but it will make the time pass easier. I’m curious of all the people that scream of restrictions and persecutions of others lifestyles…how do you think it’s going to end? Gays aren’t going away. The attitudes and lifestyles which you fear have been around for thousands of years with only the public’s perception changing, for the better. The morals of the 1950’s never existed except for those who choose to imagine television to be the mirror of human existence. If you wish to believe in rules that determine where you spend your next life, great. Hatred and fear are going to make the rest of this life pretty bleak for you, though. Let those of us who are trying to do the best we can with it alone….otherwise you’re just a waste of what time we do have.
By Anders
May 16, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
Dear Sandra and like minded readers,
First, I’m not prepared to grant that according to a thorough reading of the Bible homosexuality is a sin. There are basically 2 passages which support your position. The first is in Leviticus. Within pages are all the Jewish dietary rules, a call to stone adulterers and children who don’t obey their parents, and a description of how slavery ought to work. The second is in Romans, Paul ought to familiar with Jesus’ teachings, namely, love your neighbor as yourself, don’t judge - that is God’s job, acceptance of outcasts (lepers, tax collectors, prostitutes), and “let he who is without sin throw the first stone.” It seems to me that Paul’s prohibition is at odds with Jesus’ teachings.
So either we take the Leviticus passage and follow all the OT laws (you don’t eat pork do you) or we take Paul’s passage and ignore the parts of the Bible that include Jesus. (I would think you should start calling yourself a Paulite instead of a Christian then.) If Jesus would hang out and forgive prostitutes (who, according to Leviticus should be burned alive) it is quite a leap of logic to declare that a Christian can share this earth peaceably with the prostitutes, but we simply must not allow the gays in our society.
It is my contention that Jesus even if he were to declare homosexuality a sin (which he never did) would accept same sex marriages in the same way he accepted Mary Magdalene.
Now, even I were to grant that homosexuality is a biblical sin, you have to demonstrate that the laws of this nation should enforce the laws of that particular religion. There is a great myth that the US was founded on Christian principles, I implore anyone about to make this argument to read a tad about Thomas Jefferson. This nation was founded on Enlightenment principles. The constitution reads, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” If our public officers and legislators aren’t required to be religious what makes anyone think that our laws which are the product of the legislators should require religious considerations? Again, if we were to make consideration for the biblical perspective on homosexuality, why shouldn’t we consider the biblical perspective on poverty when crafting our welfare laws, I find Jesus to be much clearer on caring for the poor than persecuting the gays.
By MP
May 16, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this
I’m just hoping that the people that are complaining about homosexuality as being a “sin as indicated in the Bible” are not the same people that are fornicating (sex out of wedlock), drinking ‘til they can’t stand up, cursing, lying, cheating, stealing or coveting there neighbors belongings……
By Allen
May 16, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
Apparently a lot of people that have posted here do not read accurately, and have not read the constitution… ever. It specifically declares that only those rights given to the federal government are those they are allowed to act upon. All others are individually determined by the states. We are not supposed to be the “United States” as in one entity. We actually… constitutionally speaking are the “united” “states”. In other words 50 individually operating states, with 50 different governments that are bonded together to perform certain functions. Those functions that the federal government are specifically granted are to protect us from force and fraud. That’s it. End of responsibility. So Bob Barr is Constitutionally accurate. Each state has the right to determine, by law, what shall be the law within that state. If you don’t happen to like that, than do something, I mean actually DO something to change the law. You know, like vote, canvass, politic, be active in the process. And if it still is not what you want, then you’re allowed to b*** and then finally move to a state that is more in line with your beliefs.
Think about it. Wouldn’t it be great to have 50 options instead of 1?!
Check out freestateproject.com I haven’t moved yet, but we are in 2 to 3 years. We have the land and are saving to build the house that we want, in the area of the country that most espouses our individual values.
For the love of all that is good and holy, somebody, anybody, please take personal responsibility for their lives instead of asking the government to coddle them throughout their lives. Whether it’s the Democrats with their individual entitlement programs, or the Republicans with their corporate entitlement programs, nobody seems to know how to live up the examples that have been left by the founding fathers and previous generations of self-determining, hard working, get it done Americans.
By gttim
May 16, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this
So much for checks and balances!
This is exactly why checks and balances were included in the constitution. The checks and balances are to protect citizens. It was the courts that protect African American citizens from institutional racism that persisted all over the country denying them the right to vote, to equal schools and to equal access. It was the courts that made it illegal for states to outlaw birth control for women. Just because a majority of people want a law, does not make it legal or right. The courts exist as part of the system of checks and balances designed by our founding fathers.
BTW, the founding fathers also separated the church and state for similar reasons. Not only does that separation protect you from having a religion forced upon you, it protects your religion from government persecution. You and your church are protected against a majority who may be against your faith. So maybe think about that and then quit trying to shove your faith down our throats! Nobody is trying to shove their beliefs down yours, they are just trying to get equal rights to what you have- the right to have the legal protections and rights of marriage with their significant other. They are not trying to take yours away, just to get the same rights you have.
By admirably in tune
May 16, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
Reading the last four comments on this blog is like listening to the supreme court debate the finer points in a case. You guys should take the bar, you’d pass without even studying. The law needs fine minds like yours. In fact, it would be a disservice to jurisprudence if you dont become lawyers.
By Nazarethjewelz
May 16, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this
According to the bible for those who believe we are not to divorce expect for catching that woman in adultery. MATT 19:9….So we are all wrong if we divorce.As far as same-sex marriage according to the bible..LEV 18:22 You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Their it is enough said! ALSO SEE ROMANS 1:27 THE WORLD IS A HATER OF YAHWEH’S LAWS..see sOdOm & GOmoRrah
By Copyleft
May 16, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this
By the way, I love my cat, should I marry her?
No. I think your cat could do better.
By an atheist
May 16, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
Jesus was gay, I think. He has all the characteristics of a gay man. (check out those sandals).
So all you christians best be careful. Jesus might not like the way you treat his fellow homosexuals.
By Gar
May 16, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
Government should get out of the marriage business (period).
The fact that we, as Americans, need the government’s blessing on a deeply personal level (such as who I intend to spend my life with) is alarming.
By jr
May 16, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this
It can be called a legal union, but you can’t really call it a marriage any more than I can write ‘lamb’ on a piece of bacon and call it kosher.
By Mad Mary
May 16, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this
**We can not have vastly different rules of marriage in different States. Too confusing. Lawyers do not need more work and the less Judges have to interpret the better.
I say, stop all State (Government) Marriages. If couples want to get MARRIED let them go to a church or any other cult meeting and have a marriage service. The State (Government) should stay out of it. The State should not license marriage in any manner. Benefits, including citizenship, should not be conferred on an individual because of being MARRIED to another individual.
Marriage is a personal lifestyle that adults may choose for themselves. If couples want to co-mingle property and have inheritance from each other sign a contract/make a will. Children are growing up in single family households all over the world so marriage is NOT necessary. Child support can be agreed to or ordered. Benefits from employers should only go to the worker. Period. If the worker wants to cover friends or relatives let the worker pay for the benefit. Tax people not couples (or corporations for that matter).
So today we have two states that allow same sex marriage. Eventually we will have states that do and states that don’t. The issue will go to the SCOTUS. Then those wise folks will decide what couples will be called in the USA. I like my idea better.
Get Government Out of the Bedroom. Get Government Out of the relationship between employers, workers, men, men, women, women, employees, children, et al.**
By sandra
May 16, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this
I bet you are the gayest of all - don’t be a hater Mr Atheist! Bet you wear socks with your sandals. All joking aside, I pray for people that would be so blaspheming!
By ByMan
May 16, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this
By what authority do you assert your opinion(s) as unadulterated TRUTH, and that all others and all other views are wrong? Are YOU an authority to yourself and will dictate to the rest of humanity and creation that YOU and ONLY YOU have the TRUTH? Could it be that YOU are missing a few thousand facts that will make YOUR opinion the wrong world view? As for constitutional law, are the JUDGES following the CONSTITUTION when it assigns the specific duties and responsibilities between the branches of government? The PEOPLE did not approve of hte JUDGE’s new “Law” or “ruling”: the Republic for which THEY stand has been usurped; the USA was not established as a “democracy” but a “republic….read what the founders said about judges who usurp their positions. Most just need to be fired. And, if we were discussing states’ determining succession, would Barr apply his opinion about states’ rights. At some point, states’ rights cease to exist and the “union” rights to preservation override personal opinion. Let’s get some educated reasoning into this sea of wavering opinions.
By Concerned Citizen in Arizona
May 16, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this
The demeanor of many people here is absulutely sickening. Our country was founded on the freedom of our people. Those of you spouting hate speech and bigoted, prejudiced opinions have no place in the United States of America.
By the way, read the passages preceding and following the “anti-Gay” passages in the Bible. They’re antiquated relics. Thou shalt not wear two threads of different cloth at the same time - if you’re wearing cotton and polyester, you’re just as sinful as your homosexual neighbors.
By Concerned Christian in Arizona
May 16, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this
I am a Christian man in Arizona, and the amount of hatred coming from so called “Christians” is an embarrassment to our religion which preaches acceptance and love. The demeanor of many people here is absolutely sickening. Our country was founded on the freedom of our people. Those of you spouting hate speech and bigoted, prejudiced opinions have no place in the United States of America.
By the way, read the passages preceding and following the “anti-Gay” passages in the Bible. They’re antiquated relics. Thou shalt not wear two threads of different cloth at the same time - if you’re wearing cotton and polyester, you’re just as sinful as your homosexual neighbors.
By rich
May 16, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
Early Greek copies of the bible are actually very unclear on the topic of homosexuality. The terminology used makes it clear that homosexual promiscuity, and man-boy love are wrong, but as for homosexuality in general, it has nothing to say. Anyone who will tell you different is reaching for meaning that isn’t clearly, literally there, and that’s how jihads/crusades/witch trials are made.
By toopster
May 16, 2008 12:40 PM | Link to this
I am always amazed by the people in society who think that their personal beliefs should be shared with (read: forced upon) others. How is the marriage of two people who are in love a threat to your life AT ALL? You can still own YOUR house, have YOUR job, love YOUR spouse, raise YOUR children, go to and support YOUR church, and live YOUR life. Get over yourselves. Gay marriage does not hurt society. And ‘cause the bible tells me so’ is not an acceptable arguement against it!
By Bob Barr is lost
May 16, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
The people chose and the supreme court overturned it. Ha. Watch the amendment get added to the CA constitution. Freak the out of control judges in the country.
By Sarah
May 16, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this
How many sexually insecure, closeted homosexuals can you get on one BLOG? As a secure heterosexual female I really care about as much about the sex life of others as I do what they had for dinner last evening. I bet ninety per cent of you posting your hate towards this are unattractive, obese, sexually frustrated, bored married people who do not want anyone to be happy because you all are miserable in your personal and sexual lives. Instead of caring what others do, remove your large butts from the sofa; put down the 48 oz. cola, join a gym, get a life and you may not care what others in a state as far away as California do in their own state. Has California insisted we bring up the SAT scores of your dumb kids? No. Has Austin, Texas who was voted the best outdoor city for fun and excercise insisted that Georgia, who ranked at the bottom of the list, get off their 40 lbs. on average large rear ends and excercise? No, I don’t think they have. You people have many more issues to worry about than what people in California do. I work with a lady who was ranting and raving about this issue this moring, in between her two biscuits and a large soda and I just had to look at the tub of lard and think to myself, can the big whale just go ahead and explode and get it over with.
By ncgreybr
May 16, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this
I think ‘jimbo’ hit the nail on the head (although I haven;t read all the mutterings here). “The sanctity of marriage crap!” If the two guys next door to me get married how is that supposed to affect my marriage? Will I love my wife less? Will I have a reason to get a divorce? Will my childre mean less to me if the guys next door are officially married?
The whole arguement is stupid. The Constitution of the United States states that “all men are created equal” and there is also an equal protection clause in the Constitution. This isn’t “equal protection for heterosexuals”. It is equal protection for EVERYONE! AND the rights given to Americans by the COnstitution surpass any rights given to the states.
I AM a Christian. I’m also intelligent enough to know that the Bible was not written by God but by man, with all his prejudices. (Isn’t it interesting that Jesus Christ never said a word about homosexuality? Maybe he felt it didn’t matter.) It is just a matter of time before (as one person has already said) the will be a DNA test for “gay”. If that can (and will) happen, then the Bible is clearly wrong. GOD make all of us and he makes some heterosexual and others homosexual.
NOW…with all that said. The Judges in California didn’t rule that gay marriage was OK. They only rules that the law banning gay marriage was in violation of the California Constitution’s equal rights protection claus. Remember one thing, this is a group of conservative judges that were appointed by conservative Republicans. The weren’t “activist judges” “making law”. They were able to read clearly and were upholding the Constitution of California.
By Abomi Nation
May 16, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this
Oh my God, I’m so sorry Al Gore.
Apparently, after reading some of these comments, you should have been President Mr Gore.
The Supreme Court should have announced they were ruling in favor of Gore because he won the majority of votes in the 2000 election.
Since the Supreme Court had no concept of democracy they became activist judges. Didn’t anyone ever tell them majority rules?????
Thank you for clearing this matter up fellow bloggers! It makes so much sense now.
I feel so ashamed.
By Dwayne
May 16, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
Haven’t we learned from history? How many of us have read and studied about how women had to fight for equal rights? How many of us have read and studied about how minorities had to fight for equal rights? Why must we now repeat this for homosexuals?
Lots of people say that there is no comparison of “gay rights” to “women’s suffrage” or “civil rights”, but lots of people don’t realize that they are more similar than one thinks. The main difference is that for gay people, their difference isn’t readily evident. It took me thirteen years to realize that I was gay and ten more to accept it. It wasn’t as easy as being a woman or being black. You can’t see my homosexuality. Just because it’s not an apparent difference, does that make it any less valid?
Lots of people say that homosexuality is a choice. I beg to differ. Let me give you an example. Imagine a food that you love to eat (e.g. chocolate, cheese, pork, shellfish, etc). Now, think about why you like that food. Most likely, it’s because it has a taste that you like. It’s something you feel. Quite possibly, it’s very common preference, but even so, it is a preference, not a choice that you like that food. That’s very similar to being gay. There’s nothing stopping me from marrying and having sex with a woman, but I do not feel attracted to women.
To further illustrate this example, what if the state where you live made it illegal to eat your favorite food? What if someone justified it by saying that (insert your religious book of choice, e.g. the Bible, Qaran, Torah, Book of Mormon, etc) dictates that (insert the name of your religious deity, e.g. God, Allah, Jehovah, Jesus Christ, spirit guide, etc) will punish you if you consume that food. How would you feel? Of course, you would survive, but is it fair that you are denied the right to enjoy your favorite food, while others aren’t (because their favorite food is not prohibited)?
I admit that this example does not illustrate the level of unfairness in this situation, but I think it illustrates the case. If my choice does not encroach on the rights of someone else, why is it justified that you want to deny me? I can handle it if you disagree with me. There is NOTHING wrong with that. THAT is the basis of a great society: difference of opinion. However, I do not accept someone else attempting to limit my rights and impose his/her beliefs on me. I am an American as well. I have the right to think, feel, believe and live how I best see fit, just like everyone else.
By Ways
May 16, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this
Like the vast majority of Americans, I’m not gay and I don’t hate gays. There is a very vocal 5% of the population to whom this issue is important. The rest of of America realizes that there far more important issues facing this country.
By Mike
May 16, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this
I don’t have the time to read all these comments, but Barr is right. It should be up to the states and the people of this country to decide whether or not gay marriage will be legal. But I do have a question for those of you that are adamantly against the idea. How would it affect your lives if gay couples were allowed to marry? What effect would it have on you in your day to day lives? I am a straight man who is married to a great woman, but I can not think of one reason why gays shouldn’t be allowed to have the same rights as me and my wife.
By mark
May 16, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this
I guess you don’t realize how closeminded, bigotted, and stupid the people of GA are until you read the comments here. I’m ready to move to CA!
By Bob
May 16, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this
I don’t have a problem with state’s rights. I think each state should make it’s own decisions but California did vote on this before. 60 percent voted against and now a 4-3 decision by the court overturns the will of the people. That’s the real problem.
By Anders
May 16, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this
Ways,
Regardless of ones sexual orientation, race, sex, creed, or country of origin issues of civil rights have been and will continue to be some of the most important issues facing this country.
By LMS
May 16, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this
I always thought of Bob Barr as being very conservative republican, but now he is against the war and for gay marriage?? What happened?? Did he become a liberal democrat overnight or something??
By Eric1
May 16, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this
It’s about freakin time. Eventually the whole country will follow the lead of Massachusetts and California and do the right thing. Until then, every wing nut in Georgia can vote for Bob Barr and he’ll NEVER be president.
By Jennifer
May 16, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this
The people who hide behind the name of their God and use that as justification to spew their personal hate and judgment make me literally sick to my stomach.
The ignorance and vitriol that back the belief that gay marriage is “evil” and “destructive” and will send us all spiraling into your “hell”…it’s just mind-blowing.
Worry about your life, your beliefs and your sins. Let others worry about theirs.
Those that believe in a hateful, vengeance seeking God serve to do nothing that fill their own lives and hearts with hate and foolishness. This world would be so much better off, and God would be so much more proud of his children, if you could just learn to practice as Jesus preached - love thy neighbor and reach out to those you feel are in need. Don’t kick them while they lie dying in the streets.
I hope that this is the start of something wonderful, but I fear love will once again be pushed aside for hate and self righteousness.
By ChampDawg
May 16, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this
Homosexuality is unnatural and wrong. Therefore, for that reason and no other, I am against gay marriage.
Male (seed) amd female (egg) exist for only 1 reason and that being to reproduce. Male and female have natural/sexual “urges” that attract one to the other thus perpectuating the “desire” to create.
Sexual activity and attraction of male to male and female to female is unnatural. Thus, I see no reason for governments, state or national, to recognize it.
Argue all you want to about whether or not homosexuality is “right” or “wrong”……. argue till you’re blue in the face. That argument doesn’t change the fact that it’s UNNATURAL.
By jr
May 16, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this
Concerned Christian in Arizona:
Not everything is antiquated OT law. Jesus had the last word on marriage and clearly defined it as one man, one woman. I agree Christians shouldn’t spew hate speech; the golden rule is of the most important of laws next to loving God according to Jesus. But you were very, very misleading about the Scripture concerning homosexuality, and you should take time to read it, as it is quite straight-forward what is new and what is old.
By John
May 16, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this
I’m against gay marriage but my same-sex boyfriend is for it…
By Matt
May 16, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this
A blog on gay marriage? Yep, it didn’t take long for the hate filled start spewing their venom! It will happen eventually folks so you might as well start dealing with it.
By Abomi Nation
May 16, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this
What were the public referendum vote totals that gave women the right to vote? Blacks the right to vote? The right to interracial marriage?
It would be great to compare them with the gay marriage issue.
Surely those issues were left to referendum. After all this is a democracy, majority rules. Right?
By JR
May 16, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this
LMS (and others), Barr didn’t suddenly become a liberal. He’s a libertarian, and a fairly strict constitutionalist. Under the Constitution, you can’t deny government benefits basedd on sexual orientaiton. You can’t grant public benefits to married couples and then deny gays the right to marry. Also, “the war” is also not a bright idea from a libertarian or constitution party point of view. Bottom line, it will cost one hell of a lot of money with little tangible benefit. Right now, the main effect has been to double the price of oil.
And Eric1, if more politicians were in favor of following the Constitution, we’d be a lot better off. Wingnut, my eye.
By AH
May 16, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this
I’m for gay marriage and/or civil unions, but I don’t agree with the CA Court. Judges shouldn’t legislate from the bench, they’re to interpret laws on the books. And I think what those judges did is harmful to the gay marriage issue. CA would likely vote to enact a gay marriage law in 3-5 years: they have a liberal legislative body and majority of CA citizens would probably vote in favor. But now, opponents will work to get a referendum banning gay marriage on the ballot (a very easy thing to do in CA), people will be angry that 4 judges decided to take away their right to vote, and the referendum could pass. It takes lots of time and creative legislating to undo a constitutional ban. Judges who legislate from the bench are poisoning the political landscape. Neither left nor right has a need to compromise because compromise is born in the legislative branch. There is no compromising with the judiciary - bingo! the most obvious reason why we don’t allow judges to create laws. I think this ruling slows down the process of allowing gays and lesbians to marry in peace. Now we’re just poster children for a cause.
By A concerned citizen
May 16, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this
At 10:06 AM, The O-Gee wrote “The Bible says gay marriage is an abomination. Read the Bible and believe, or leave this state and this county”
Translation:
If you don’t happen to fall under the religious right’s small umbrella of beliefs and values, leave all your freinds and family and move far away instead of daring to promote social change.
But I have a question for The O-Gee, where exactly in the bible does is state “gay marriage is an abomination?” Because I too have read the good book and I can’t seem to find that verse anywhere.
By Miss Manners
May 16, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this
This is total confusion. Next thing you know people are going to try to marry animals. There needs to be some counseling for these people who think it’s okay to be with the same sex, you can’t produce the next generation. People, we have to change the mindset of the government and the people around us. Our future is at stake here. There is no love in this, just an idea going bad!!!!!!!
By Jimbo
May 16, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this
California has their own set of people with stupid bigoted prejudices.
stupid prejudices aren’t the sole domain of the “religious right”. UC Berkeley is brimming with hatred (for example) the things they hate are different, to be sure, but they hate them all the same.
By Who Knows
May 16, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this
As an ex-minister of a very conservative church organization, I have read and taught the Bible. What has that got to do with anything?
The California decision is awesome and goes a long ways in human rights. We pride ourselves as a human rights country but have a long history of the opposite. Hardly a day could go by without seeing our president slam another nation in the press for their treatment of their citizens. We stand in a glass house.
Two people who are in love or have passion one for the other should not be suppressed because we don’t share the same form of intimacy. I am a heterosexual and am happily married. But I live in a gay community with several gay, lesbian, and heterosexual friends. I would that all of us could obtain the same benefits of marriage regardless of orientation.
What difference does it make what one thinks God thinks? We are supposed to have freedom of religion too. We are not a Christian nation… We are a free nation to worship how we please. That’s another thing we pride ourselves in… Yet we suppress that too.
We cross the ocean to fight for freedom and suppress it on many fronts. Figure it out folks. This is not brain surgery. It is simple sense if I could figure it out.
By Concerned Christian in Arizona
May 16, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this
JR - You’re completely misguided. Take a look at the passages which speak of a man lying with another man. Now take a look at what context the passage is in. It’s smack dab in the middle of other versus which are downright silly in today’s society (such as the “laws” governing pork).
By C
May 16, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this
Actually, we can produce the next generation. I have two female friends who have offered to be a surrogate mother for my partner and my next child. You religious zealots might use your majority status in Georgia to hinder our gaining official rights, but there is nothing you can do to prevent us from loving one another, living together for the rest of our lives in monogamous healthy relationships, and having kids. Try what you will, but you have and will continue to fail. Back to living my happy, gay life now…
By Fix-It
May 16, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this
*Maybe I am stupid or some thing, but don’t judges rule by law, and interpret law. When did they get the right to MAKE law? If the judges make the laws then what use do we have for congress and the senate? *
By Educated Human Being
May 16, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this
Redneck hillbillies and uneducated prejudices are the voice of the dying generation. What a better, more open and accepting society our country will be in 50 years, when you southern hicks are all dead and gone.
It’s a shame it has gotten to this level of hatred in a country that stands for equality. You don’t like homosexuals having the EXACT same rights as everyone else? Get out of the land of the free.
By Jimbo
May 16, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this
Hey, if being gay is unnatural what’s up with all the same sex mating in the animal kingdom?
You humans with your brains and your clever thoughts…
You think and think and think but you know nothing.
As for the Christians.. Hey, if marriage is for a man and a woman.. don’t marry the same sex. IF YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.. I can’t help you.
The sheer audacity of the people on this blog.. THE BIBLE SAYS!! YOU SHOULD READ IT!! I don’t care what the bible says. The LAW doesn’t care what the bible says.. nor should it. We’re not some Jesusharia nation.. by the way that’s trademarked so you can’t use it.. and unfortunately.. as much as it upsets you people have rights. You may not agree with them.. lord knows I would go to jail if I exercised my beliefs on some of you people.. but they have them and your lousy opinion shouldn’t matter. It’s the long nose in my business that gets cut off, remember that.
By Fix-It
May 16, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
*Maybe I am stupid or some thing, but don’t judges rule by law, and interpret law. When did they get the right to MAKE law? If the judges make the laws then what use do we have for congress and the senate? *
By Who Knows
May 16, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this
So, Miss Manners and others who believe procreation is necessary in a union, if a man or woman is unable to provide an offspring, should we legistlate that they cannot marry?
By Action
May 16, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this
Marriage whether by church or state is by definition between a man and a woman. If the state wants to regulate perversion and debauchery call it something else. Whats next legalized pologamy, look at those messed up folks. Marrying your favorite farm animal or blow up doll?Lets raise the standard people, goodness knows we cant sink much lower.
By Phil
May 16, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this
ChampDawg - My attraction to other males came quite naturally, thank you.
If marriage is all about planting ‘seeds’ then lets outlaw sterile men or women past their child bearing years from marrying. - Ridiculous.
By Copyleft
May 16, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this
Quite right, Fix-It. Judges DON’T make the law; they just rule on whether the law should stand or fall.
Which is exactly what the California court did. You should be thrilled at this proper functioning of our three-branch system of governance.
By Abomi Nation
May 16, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this
“Would all the women contributing to this blog please stop!
The Bible clearly states this is not a place for women.
From the Bible:
“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence For Adam was first formed, then Eve.”
By Craig007
May 16, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this
Barr is right…It’s called protecting the rights of minorities. And it is not legislating from the bench.
By Tired of stupid people
May 16, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this
Ok all you stupid rednecks in Georgia that cannot understand how the people voted and did not want it but the justices passed it. Let us remember the election of George Bush how the people voted for Gore but the Supreme Court decided that Bush was the winner. You can only use that argument when it goes against your Republican paranoid beliefs.. My being Gay has nothing to do with you.. Stop using the Bible to make your points when you are breaking half the rules in the Bible.. the bible also states women are to be servants to their husbands.. you are not to wear multiple fabrics.. does anyone follow those? Why does religion have anything to do with this.. where do you get a marriage license ?? At a courthouse not at a church!!!! Grow up and stop living in the dark ages you idiots. We are here , we are Queer get used to it!!
By Neal
May 16, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this
I like how people hide behind “don’t judge others” when they don’t know anything about the Bible in the first place! I would like for anyone to show me ONE verse where Jesus condones homosexuality and sleeping around. It is better to be told you’re wrong here than to be judged by Jesus and it is too late!
By Libertarian straight guy
May 16, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this
It’s funny how so many of you big-government, moralizing christian wackos are trashing the ruling in California (and CA in general) when 6 of the 7 judges on the CA Supreme Court are REPUBLICAN APPOINTEES.
But I guess you can blame it all on “liberal activist judges…”
By Tim in Colorado
May 16, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this
Georgia, the bigot capital of America.
I’ll bet these people are quite proud of their red necks and trailer parks, getting off on people who have happy, successful gay lives on the west coast.
If you’re going to intrude on fellow American’s right to exist with equal rights as heterosexuals, get out of this country.
By JH
May 16, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this
First of all - why on earth are we pandering to a radical, minority group? Statistics would have you believe that there are large numbers of actual gay, lesbians, bi & trans living in the US and globally. The fact of the matter is that this group makes up a very small portion of the population.
The other point is that I find no problem in agreeing that being gay, lesbian, etal is biological - no argument there. What we do disagree on is that being gay, lesbian is in fact a biological defect that again represents a tiny portion of our world population.
Gay marriage in no way minimalizes traditional marriage. Marriage between man and woman is the only valid marriage to begin with - because this is the only marriage that can physically reproduce. Most are not worried by what this small percentage of the population does with their private lives.
On a final note, stop using the false percentages of divorces in traditional marriages. These numbers again are totally inaccurate - just as the numbers of actual gay, lesbians, etal are completely skewed.
When is political pandering to the minority going to stop? This is one of the bigest problems I have with my former polical affiliation - the Democratic party.
By Onan
May 16, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this
I don’t completely disagree with Mr. Barr. I think it should be up to each state, but I think that it should not be up to the courts. This should go before the people of California to be decided. As has happened in other states the people have struck down gay marriage, but then the courts step in and overturn the people’s wishes. It is dangerous for the courts to have this much power.
By Martin
May 16, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
Let them marry and live their lives. How does it hurt you?
Do you really feel that your marriage will no longer be special just because “the gays” can do it too?
What a pitiful and sad existence it must be to constantly worry yourself about other people’s business.
By Robert
May 16, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
It amazes me that in 2008 we are having this argument. Really people…what difference does it make to anyone if the happy, gay couple down the street happens to be married? Wouldn’t you rather see them happily married than going from one failed relationship or one night stand to another? Why is it that the so-called christians cannot stand to see people that are different from them happy? The reason why people from other parts of this country and world for that matter laugh and make fun of us is because of the close-minded, redneck mentality that surrounds us all in the south. If you are happy and secure in your own relationships, it shouldn’t bother you at all if other people, who happen to be gay, are happily married. Get over it and get a life you losers!
By Joe
May 16, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this
Barr cannot possiblly call himself a Conservative after these misguided statements. Activist judges have no business overturning the will of the people but obviously Barr thinks so. I guess he and Obama have the same core values though so maybe he’ll pull a few votes from him…..
By Neal
May 16, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this
I must serve a “redneck” God because he doesn’t put up with homosexuality as well as heterosexuals sleeping around. I will listen to God instead of these liberals who are out to destroy this country!
By scot
May 16, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this
there was also a time where a majority would have also held the view that blacks shouldn’t be free. that’s why constitutions are based on principles, not opinions. trying to wrap your opinions (and hatred) in the word of god is b-s and only proves that you have no real reasoning in your opinion - just hate pure and simple.
By Gayrights
May 16, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
We need a constitutional amendment banning rednecks, hillbillies, bigots, racists, and all other ignorant idiots who can’t seem to live and let live. Gay people do not care what you think about them, but we do care about our human and civil rights. We will persevere and we will win.
By Donna Elder
May 16, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
Ever wonder why California stays on Fire.. God’s judgement against Homosexuality.
By Leslie
May 16, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this
I personally am glad I don’t have this much hatred toward others. It’s disgusting.
By Walter
May 16, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this
Christians, why is it that things you cannot relate to are “wrong”? Things that are different are just that…different. It doesn’t mean that you are any better. This world is made up of many differnct races, cultures, etc. It would be a boring place if everyone was the same. Maybe the narrow minded people on this blog should start experiencing life. Travel to a foreign country for your next vacation instead of going to the redneck riviera or to Gatlinburg Tennessee. Try eating something exotic instead of your usual grease-laden fried food. Talk to someone outside of your trailer park. The world is an exciting, beautiful place full of different people. Experience it! You will be a happier person in the end!
By Somethingdifferent
May 16, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this
If a man marries another man does he break the law? If a woman marries another woman does she break the law? If a man marries a ten year old boy does he break the law? If a woman marries a ten year old male/female does she break the law? Where do we draw the line? And a lot of people want to say how this country was founded- remember they left England for religious freedoms- no other reason.
By root4au
May 16, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this
Mr Barr..The state of CA voted down gay marriage then those low life judges say it’s ok. They should all be jailed and the key thrown away.
By scot
May 16, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this
yes neal, you must then serve a “redneck” god. you said it, not me.
just to make sure i understand it: different point of view/way of life = the end of civilized society and doom for us all?
By Gay
May 16, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this
C’mon people! The bible, really? Mary was a virgin, god created the Earth in 6 day (7th for rest—whew he was tired), Jonah in the belly of a whale, Noah and his miraculous Ark. It all seems a bit silly if you REALLY think objectively about this book of fiction. Then you use it as a resource to hate others and deny them equal rights. That is not a god I would be happy to follow.
By Jason
May 16, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this
Root4au-
The judges ruled it down because the “state’s decision” was unconstitutional. The Constitution is the law of the land. The judicial branch of government is to interpret the laws, and the former law banning gay marriage was found to be unconstitutional. You’re a fool.
By gws
May 16, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this
Maybe I missed something, but the CA Surpreme Court in a 4-3 vote overruleed the will of the people of CA on this issue. What say you Bob Barr?
By gws
May 16, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this
Maybe I missed something, but the CA Surpreme Court in a 4-3 vote overruled the will of the people of CA on this issue. What say you Bob Barr?
By scot
May 16, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this
to all those invoking god, no doubt everything - every single thing you do and have ever done, god will be ok with right? get your own house in order and stop worrying about everyone else. i see enough trouble in the world today to go around.
By i hate everyone
May 16, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this
It’s Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve ya gayfers!!!
By pillow biter
May 16, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this
I think it’s a super fabulous idea!!
By RWL
May 16, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this
Donna Elder,
Get a grip you old bag!
By Abomi Nation
May 16, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this
Donna Elder, You cannot willfully choose to blog here and say that you are a follower of Jesus, that is blasphemy to God. God is longsuffering, He gives us many chances to turn away from our sin and to accept Him as our Savior.
The Bible tells women to keep quiet in these matters. Its a choice that you blog here. You will burn in Hell.
“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence For Adam was first formed, then Eve.”
By Drewbob
May 16, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this
It’s a great day for California and a great day for civil rights. Let religious institutions do what they want about marriage, but the government cannot deny equal civil rights to gay and lesbian people.
By Andrew
May 16, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this
**IT DOES NOT MATTER IF 60% OF PEOPLE VOTED TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE. IF 60% OF PEOPLE VOTED TO BRING SLAVERY BACK WOULD THAT BE CONSTITUTIONAL? THE JOB OF THE COURTS IS TO RULE ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAWS, NOT TO SET THEM. PICK UP AN AMERICAN HISTORY BOOK YOU INBRED IDIOTS.
By GAindependant
May 16, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this
Bush’s admin must have gotten to the Ca supremes. This will be a major issue in november, just like it was in 2004. Hillary or Obama will constantly be answering questions about their support for Gay Marriage. THIS IS NO ACCIDENT. The Republicans have a Wedge Issue. This issue has natioal appeal, and most, when given a chance, support those on the right. It is an ugly fact. Those State gay mariage bans pass with 60+%.
By sl 12207
May 16, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this
robert needs to read the bible
the bible says nothing about gays. god love whoever you are.
no matter who you are in love with. i’m glad gays can marry
im in love and now i can marry without gong to canada.
if the world is sopposivly so “equal” why dont gay people get the right to be married whereever they want
and everything is so steriotypical theses days. we dont tell you how to live your life.
so stop trying to tell us how to live ours.
By sandy
May 16, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this
Dale….Really?
There are plenty of hetero couples that are unable to procreate. Should we strip them of their rights also?
By NO
May 16, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this
This is not an issue for states to decide. This is an issue of morality. Our country was founded on certain moral principles and these principles should never ever be put in jeopardy. We are one nation —not 50 seperate nations.
Of course we do not want gay marriage in this country —topic not open to discussion —move on to issues of importance —not issues of certain individuals who want our country to accept their moral misgivings.
By JH
May 16, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this
Gayrights says: Gay people do not care what you think about them
So if you don’t care what others think - why are you trying so hard to mandate the approval of the majority.
Your biological defect alters rational thought as well….
By wrong bible
May 16, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this
By sl 12207 May 16, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this robert needs to read the bible the bible says nothing about gays. god love whoever you are. no matter who you are in love with. i’m glad gays can marry im in love and now i can marry without gong to canada. if the world is sopposivly so “equal” why dont gay people get the right to be married whereever they want and everything is so steriotypical theses days. we dont tell you how to live your life. so stop trying to tell us how to live ours.
Uh… don’t know what bible you have been reading there tinkerbell —but the Lord considers a man/man or woman/woman sexual relation to be an abomination and a sin.
By DaninMacon
May 16, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this
Obama does not support Gay Marriage. Neither does Hillary.
By Sara
May 16, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this
When will the BIGOTS in this country realize that not everybody believes in God? There are lots of other religions, in case that has managed to slip past you. Who is being harmed by gay marriage? Are you afraid it is going to mess up your little straight marriage? How could it? Most gay people who want to get married have been together for years waiting for their chance, unlike any straight couple who can have a shotgun wedding because the girl is knocked up after a month together. Keep your nose out of other people’s business!!! Stay out of my bedroom, my house and my family!!! There is a separation of church and state in this country for a reason!!! Stop telling other people what to do. How would you feel if people were saying these things about you? Go find the one gay person among your family or friends and ask them how they feel. Don’t delude yourself into thinking you don’t know a gay person, because you do. They just see how you treat or talk about gay people and fear backlash from the BIGOTS they know. Stop letting other people think for you and have an original brain wave for once, and you might realize that ALL people are created equal, not just peolpe who go to church on Sunday!!!
By anonymous
May 16, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this
the Bible is very clear about homosexuality. Sodom and Gomorroh and its inhabitants was destroyed because of their unclean practices and homosexuality. Sodomy comes from the city name Sodom. The Bible is the oldest book and it good for all purposes. God does love all people, but doesn’t approve of all peoples lifestyles or actions. A person who doesn’t get away from this can get help or be expelled from the Christian congregation to keep it clean. God doesn’t change, nor do his principles.
By Pine Knot
May 16, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this
I agree with Bob let each state decide, and then maybe all the queers and lesbians will move to California and Massachusettes.
By AFnPC
May 16, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this
I always have one question whenever this argument gets brought up…Is marriage a religion or government? Many of the arguments against same-sex marriages are backed up with something about church involved. Religious convictions should have nothing to do with this argument. If “married” heterosexual couples get tax benefits because of their status as man and wife, then why should any “couple” not get the same benefit. Taxes, insurance, loans, you name it, there is no reason to ban homosexuals from being eligible for the same things everyone else is entitled to based on who they sleep with. And not because it matters, but I am a straight, married father of 1. I vote Republican, and I am in the military.
By Wrong
May 16, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this
“Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress).
I could not disagree more. This IS an instance where one-size-fits-all should be mandated. No gay marriages in this country.
By Shawn
May 16, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this
This is worth repeating:By anonymous
May 16, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this
the Bible is very clear about homosexuality. Sodom and Gomorroh and its inhabitants was destroyed because of their unclean practices and homosexuality. Sodomy comes from the city name Sodom. The Bible is the oldest book and it good for all purposes. God does love all people, but doesn’t approve of all peoples lifestyles or actions. A person who doesn’t get away from this can get help or be expelled from the Christian congregation to keep it clean. God doesn’t change, nor do his principles.
By Robert
May 16, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this
How can loving someone be so wrong? How can you dictate to me what I should or should not do. This IS a biological, not a learned behavior in my situation. I can’t help who I am just like you can’t help who you are. Live and let live! Why is it that religion has turned so hateful and negative? Every time I hear someone speak about religion, it is not the positive, uplifting, loving thing that it should be. I used to remember going to church and listening to the pastor scream the entire time. I did not walk out feeling good. Maybe if Christians were more accepting and loving people, the membership rolls will increase. Organized religion has become such a turn-off. Why is that?
By Bobby
May 16, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this
Yesterday CA protected the minority from the wrath of the majority (a weak majority mind you). As a society based on God or not, we are about love. And gay marriage is a wonderful step in the right direction to bring more people into an equitable sharing of the benefits of marriage. Marriage is good for our society and barring one population from it is wrong. If Jesus were to walk among us today, he probably wouldn’t spend time in the USA, but if he did, he would walk among our sick, our poor and gay and lesbian Americans who have been ostracized, beaten and maligned by others.
By Bobby
May 16, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this
Yesterday CA protected the minority from the wrath of the majority (a weak majority mind you). As a society based on God or not, we are about love. And gay marriage is a wonderful step in the right direction to bring more people into an equitable sharing of the benefits of marriage. Marriage is good for our society and barring one population from it is wrong. If Jesus were to walk among us today, he probably wouldn’t spend time in the USA, but if he did, he would walk among our sick, our poor and gay and lesbian Americans who have been ostracized, beaten and maligned by others.
By 3stripes
May 16, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
GodHatesShrimp.com(http://www.godhatesshrimp.com)
By Laura
May 16, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this
A lot of you are kind of ignorant. The judicial branch was created to determine whether laws are constitutional. It’s in the constitution. Meaning, hi, the CA decision? NOT judicial activism. It was a supreme court doing what it EXISTS to do. Guess what? They overturn laws passed by the people and legislative branch all the time - when they find them unconstitutional! Democracy at work! Some of you just have your panties in a bunch over THIS particular ruling because you disagree with the decision the judges made. Grow up. If the people of CA passed a law that conflicted with the 1st or 2nd amendments the same people sqwauking about “judicial activism” wouldn’t have a damn thing to say about it when the judges rightly overturned it.
By AFnPC
May 16, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this
Amen Sara! Too many people that think they know what separation of church and state really means, are the same individuals wanting the government to support their doctrine’s teachings. Christians, Hebrews, Muslims, Athiests, Agnostics, Hindu’s, Buddhists, and any other major, minor, or deceased religion/spirituality that I may have missed should practice life as they see fit, but stay out of the lives of others.
By A Friend of Christ
May 16, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this
I believe Jesus love gay and straight people. He also knows the consequence that sin brings in a person life. According to God’s word homosexuality is sin and the wages of ALL sin is death. Jesus loves us so much he paid the ultimate price to save us from the penalties of our sins (death). So instead of trying to make sin right we as Christians need the love gays to the point that they see there homosexuality acts as sin and repent so that they too can enjoy the salvation, freedom from sin, that Jesus offers to us.
By Donna Elder
May 16, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this
I have a right to my own opinion. I was in a gay relationship and God saved me. I was also in a relationship that involved incest and God saved me from that too. You canbe cured, look at me, I am a fine example of how you can be cured.
By scott
May 16, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this
One day, sooner or later, we all will have to give an account for the CHOICES, we make. If you are big and bad enough to make a choice, then you are big and bad enough to deal with the consequences. Just do not come back asking for a do over crying “woulda, shoulda, coulda”.
By jk
May 16, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this
last time I checked, this country is supposed to be run by “we the people”, NOT “we the judges”. How can 4 judges overrule the wishes of millions of Californians? That’s not democracy at work, that’s dictatorship. The Californian people should make their voices heard loud and clear-for the second time.
By Golly
May 16, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this
What has God or the Bible got to do with this? It is simple human rights… Who really knows what God thinks anyway? If it were clear cut, there would be only one church and one religion.
Let freedom and human rights rule. That is what so many have died to protect, or so we are told.
By Francis Martin
May 16, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this
I find it funny that right wingers want state rights when it is convenient to them but not when it bothers them.
Me personally i could care less about the religion aspect of marriage. It is suposed to be a union for all purposes. Like a merger between two companies. The Government should just crush religion when it intervenes with tax purposes and civil liberties. The moment religion infringes our rights for equal rights the government should put a stop to it.
BTW I find funny you call Georgia God’s country, after all the atrocities that state committed and stills does to black folks. Believe me, god is keeping score. The funny thing is all relevant states Like New York Michigan and entire westcoast and east coast will eventually pass gay marriage. It’s just a matter of time. Which is ironic, cause that’s the same thing that happened with slavery. It was phased out. So enjoy the fact that this time the union army wont burn your cities to the ground.. you will just have a bunch of wealthy homosexuals openning book shops in your town
By 24,970
May 16, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this
The Bible- 24,970 documented manuscripts —the most of any ancient writing.
Homer’s ‘Iliad’- 643 existing manuscripts, the SECOND most documented of all ancient writings.
Don’t hear to many doubting old Homer’s existence.
By Christian
May 16, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this
I believe in Jesus, but that doesn’t mean everyone else does. The religious zealots in this blog need to realize not everyone is Christian. This is one of the rights of America, to practice whatever faith you have.
Don’t push your beliefs on others in this free country.
By Earl
May 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this
We were talking about this at work this morning and most people just said ” Oh well” except for one guy. He went on and on about God and the Bible. The funny thing is that we all know if you pull up is zip code in the GBI sex offender list, which we have done several time, he is listed as a sex offender who apparently had an unlawful relationship with a girl under the age of 15. Now, he is a fine example of God and the Bible. Personally I don’t have a dog in this race so I don’t care, but you dogs barking too loud…especially some of you men….I think you may want some backdoor action and you’re afraid of the thought. I wonder what thoughts really enter into the minds of some of these people posting hate when they are all alone, self pleasuring…????? No dang telling what they really think about!
By Mr Constitution
May 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this
It’s so unfortunate that few people really understand the type of government we have in the United States. If people actually READ the U.S. Constitution, they would uncover the very basic principle that Mr Barr is referencing…federalism.
Like Mr Barr (and others), I don’t support the homosexual agenda, BUT IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVT TO IMPOSE MANDATES ONTO THE STATES! That’s all he is saying.
The good news (for those who haven’t read the Constitution), is that in order for an amendment to be added to the Constitution, 3/4 of the states have to ratify. So hopefully, nonsense like a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage will never come to fruition.
Ignorance is killing this country from the inside. Forget the terrorists, U.S. citizens (and voters) are doing the most damage in this country.
BARR FOR PRESIDENT!
By jungleland
May 16, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this
The Libertarian view of this is (1)If gay marrage does not harm others, then it should not be made illegal by a government law. (2) States ruling should not affect another state’s ruling / law. (which I think is also Barr’s reason for supporting the federal law -not that he was anti gay marrage or pro)
By anonymous
May 16, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this
I can say that the only religion that actually practices what the Bible teaches are Jehovah’s Witnesses. They actually want to help people learn about a hope for mankind and are peaceable people. They stay neutral in politics and want people to learn what the Bible teaches. It does not support gay marriage or homosexuality.
By Smart Enought to Know Better
May 16, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this
If Bob Barr were a true libertarian he would support equal rights and tell you the government should not determine with whom a person can enter into a marriage or life partnership. Equal rights would indicate that any two CONSENTING adults should have the same rights and benefits as any other regardless of gender. And please don’t equate homosexual marriage with group sex or beastiality or pedophilia. Anyone who thinks they share anything in common is obviously incapable of logical thought processes.
By anonymous
May 16, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this
I can say that the only religion that actually practices what the Bible teaches are Jehovah’s Witnesses. They actually want to help people learn about a hope for mankind and are peaceable people. They stay neutral in politics and want people to learn what the Bible teaches. It does not support gay marriage or homosexuality.
By anonymous
May 16, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this
I can say that the only religion that actually practices what the Bible teaches are Jehovah’s Witnesses. They actually want to help people learn about a hope for mankind and are peaceable people. They stay neutral in politics and want people to learn what the Bible teaches. It does not support gay marriage or homosexuality.
By It's a choice
May 16, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this
Robert wrote:
May 16, 2008 3:26 PM | This IS a biological, not a learned behavior in my situation. I can’t help who I am just like you can’t help who you are.
I could not disagree with you more.
You say that you were born this way —I do not doubt that.
I was born the way I am —I’m sexually attracted to females. I cannot help that, it’s the way that I am. I am married and I have to curb that natural attraction to the opposite sex. On a daily basis I have to supress my worldly desires of the flesh and follow what I know is right in the spirit.
You must do the same. You are sexually attracted to your sex. That is wrong. You have to overcome this by supressing your worldly desires of the flesh.
It’s the same thing really. Neither one of us should succumb to the desires of the flesh. We are the same in this way.
By Laura
May 16, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
Quote: last time I checked, this country is supposed to be run by “we the people”, NOT “we the judges”. How can 4 judges overrule the wishes of millions of Californians? That’s not democracy at work, that’s dictatorship. The Californian people should make their voices heard loud and clear-for the second time.
How is that dictatorship? Please explain. You might disagree with their decision, and that’s fine, but those judges were performing the job that the judicial branch was created to do. Nothing more.
I ask you. If a ballot initiative was passed by 60% vote in CA that said something like.. people who move to CA from other states no longer have the freedom of speech, and the CA supreme court overturned it, they would be ignoring the “will of the people” .. but in that case the people’s will was to pass an unconstitutional law. Which the courts are SUPPOSED to overturn. Even if they pass by 100%. Like I said, you don’t HAVE to agree with the court’s decision in this case but they were NOT being “activists”.
By Garrett Reynolds
May 16, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this
I agree with Bob; each state should decide if they wish to approve or oppose gay marriage. We need more local control and less federal intervention. After I finish supporting Mr. Obama, I may consider a switch to the Libertarian party.
By Jennifer
May 16, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this
EXACTLY “something different” - the key words in your post are “religious freedoms” - so why is the conservative Christian right trying to force THEIR beliefs on everyone else? Why is that ok?
If you (general ‘you’)want to believe that your beliefs are the “right ones”, go for it - but stop trying to force them on me!! You are taking away my freedom because of your beliefs.
And you know what? I’m not gay. But you’re still intruding on my beliefs and freedoms by trying to force feed your God to me.
This country was founded for religious FREEDOM - not Christian conservatives.
By Jessica
May 16, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this
I have no scientific proof that homosexuality is in the DNA or not, but what I do know is that man’s law comes directly from God’s law. Don’t kill. Don’t steal. Don’t lie (perjury). There even used to be (man) laws on the books about not committing adultery until “man” took the laws off the books. So, don’t say man’s law has nothing to do with God’s law because that’s simply not true.
As far as California overturning the law that bans same sex marriage. I think each one of us need to “police” ourselves and do what we know is right. No law can legislate morality. I personally think it’s morally wrong for 2 men to marry or 2 women to marry. I also think that the benefits of marriage should be only given when 1 man marries 1 woman. But, I’m torn about rather I want to put what I know to be right and true on others. I think homosexuality could be a “gene defect” and should not be celebrated. But I do think we should not “mis-treat” people because of their homosexuality. That’s my opinion. Don’t beat me up because of my opinion and I will respect your opionion.
By Somethingdifferent
May 16, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this
Everyone says don’t push your beliefs on other people but you want to push your lifestyle on other people….Gay marriage cannot be just a state’s right what happens when they move to another state everything that they accumalate together will not have any legal rights. It has to be reognized by all states…How about we ship all homosexuals to one place with one set of laws, hispanics to another, and so on, we as a people have to decide what is right. And all those people spouting off religious texts like it this is GODs law and not mans then give up the TAX breaks that governments give you. Cut the crap…
By Faith, Hope, Love
May 16, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this
Such a powder keg of a topic here. I’m heterosexual and do not desire gay marriages in this country. Does not mean that I dislike someone who is gay or is pro this topic. Does not mean that I will ever let go of what I believe either.
We as people are going to disagree, but there is no reason for name calling on someone who is anti-gay marriage —just as there should be no nastiness aimed at those who are pro.
Those who are spreading the venom are the one’s who really have a problem, not the hetero’s or gay’s who simply have an opinion.
Love the Lord and love your neighbor.
By Smart Enought to Know Better
May 16, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this
Mr. Constitution, what is this “homosexual agenda” with which you disagree? No gay person I’ve ever met knows anything about any such agenda. I’d love to see it if it exists!
By J
May 16, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this
Accept it folks. The judiciary has taken over!
By Mad Mary
May 16, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this
** We can not have vastly different rules of marriage in different States. Too confusing. Lawyers do not need more work and the less Judges have to interpret the better.
I say, stop all State (Government) Marriages. If couples want to get MARRIED let them go to a church or any other cult meeting and have a marriage service. The State (Government) should stay out of it. The State should not license marriage in any manner. Benefits, including citizenship, should not be conferred on an individual because of being MARRIED to another individual.
Marriage is a personal lifestyle that adults may choose for themselves. If couples want to co-mingle property and have inheritance from each other sign a contract/make a will. Children are growing up in single family households all over the world so marriage is NOT necessary. Child support can be agreed to or ordered. Benefits from employers should only go to the worker. Period. If the worker wants to cover friends or relatives let the worker pay for the benefit. Tax people not couples (or corporations for that matter).
Get Government Out of the Bedroom. Get Government Out of the relationship between employers, workers, men, men, women, women, employees, children, et al.**
By Karen
May 16, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this
I am so tired of the “Bible excuse” that homosexuality is wrong. That interpretation of the bible is as short sighted as saying Fox News is truly “fair and balanced”
Based on analysis from Rev. Peter Gomes (preacher & professor of Christian morals at Harvard University), Newer interpretations assert that the creation story is not meant to present a paradigm for all human relationships but simply to answer the question, Where do we come from?
He wrote: “The creation story is the basis and not the end of human diversity, and thus to regard it as excluding everything it does not mention is to place too great a burden on the text and its writers, and too little responsibility upon the intelligence of the readers, and on the varieties of human experience,” Scholars of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah observe that the sin of Sodom is never specifically identified.
Furthermore, the interpretations of Paul’s letters fail to account for the fact that the sexual practices between men that existed 2000 years ago typically took the form of prostitution, not mutual loving relationships. Therefore, the scholars argue, one may not conclude that Paul was condemning something that only came into open existence within our century.
Also, there is no consistency in citing the bible for it’s supposed stand against homosexuality, but ignoring all of the other references that are clearly outdated.
By Rich
May 16, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this
For those of you who think marriage is a vehicle for procreation what about the men or women who cannot bear children? Are they less “Christian” or less heterosexual ? I am so sick of stupidity ruling.. stop worrying about whom i want to marry or sleep with.. worry about the people that are dying in Irag that your president put there. For those that believe Gay people are against the will of God. Remember each time you masturbate without having sexual intercourse you are going against the will of God.. or each time you look at another women with lust.. or for women any time you dont please your man.. You are all hypocrites!! The last 8 years has been proof that stupidity is rampant in the US. I just hope that one day you dont need anything from gay people.. like medical help or military help from the terrorist that you swear are going to kill us at every turn. GROW UP!! IF it was up to most of you we would still not allow women to vote and have slaves working in the fields. You make me sick..
By DrBear
May 16, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this
Those of you who choose to believe in the invisible man in the sky and his magical son are delusional.
All of the arguments here were made 100 years ago when interracial marriages were first allowed. How wrong were the opponents then? How wrong are they now? How ashamed will we be 20 years from now?
“Civil unions” are the Colored Water Fountains of the 21st century.
Religion is the opiate of the masses. Nothing eats away at your IQ faster than opening a bible.
In a truly free society any adult should be allowed to do ANYTHING they want. As long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others. Anything.
Those of you against the right of any adult American to marry any other adult American make me ashamed to call myself American. So much for “The land of the free”
By Robert
May 16, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this
In response to :By It’s a choice
May 16, 2008 3:50 PM | “I am married and I have to curb that natural attraction to the opposite sex. On a daily basis I have to supress my worldly desires of the flesh and follow what I know is right in the spirit.
You must do the same. You are sexually attracted to your sex. That is wrong. You have to overcome this by supressing your worldly desires of the flesh.”
First of all, you say that because you are a married man you have to suppress your worldly desires of the flesh. I agree with that statement. Married people should only sleep with their spouse. How is that the same situation as mine? Why is my desire for the same sex and the one I am deeply in love with wrong? I can be in love just like you and not “desire flesh” of others. Secondly, you say my attraction to the same sex is wrong. Says who? You? I don’t live my life by your rules. The bible? The Bible says many things that can be taken out of context or that is not with the times.
By jp
May 16, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this
Wow…have American citizens always been this ignorant as to their own government?
By Nodoginhunt
May 16, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this
I know this is off topic…but when does football season start?
By Jimbo
May 16, 2008 4:26 PM | Link to this
To JP,
Yes, Americans are completely ignorant of the wonder and glory of the system they pollute and corrupt daily. The government doesn’t help because they’re either equally ignorant or just plain corrupt.
It’s ok though, Americans have always been ignorant of the wonder and glory of this system they’ve been trying so diligently wreck since day one.
I blame public schooling and the government.. and also the people, for they are stupid… well.. most of them anyway.
By Jim from Clinton
May 16, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this
Sheesh. He sure is stirring things up, ain’t he? Go get ‘em Bob, this time around it might actually be fun!
By jewcowboy
May 16, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this
12 reasons to ban gay marriage:
1.Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2.Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3.Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4.Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’s 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5.Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn’t changed at all: women are property, Blacks can’t marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6.Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7.Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That’s why we only have one religion in America.
8.Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9.Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10.Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11.Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12.Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.
By Alex
May 16, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this
“I don’t have a problem with state’s rights. I think each state should make it’s own decisions but California did vote on this before. 60 percent voted against and now a 4-3 decision by the court overturns the will of the people. That’s the real problem.”
To which I say: Why do you hate America?
Seriously. Our federal and state governments have three branches. The CA state supreme court’s ONLY RESPONSIBILITY is to rule on the constitutionality of laws. It does not decide the outcome of cases, as a lower court does; again, its ENTIRE REASON FOR EXISTENCE is to rule on the constitutionality of laws. So when you say the Supreme Court oversteps its bounds when it strikes down a law, it is not the court you criticize but the very structure of our government - you know, the one that our grandfathers fought and died in multiple wars to defend. Yeah, that one.
So, explain to me again why you hate America?
By Ed
May 16, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this
You must be stupid. No Vote for you. Tell Jerry hi.
By Sunshine
May 16, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this
I want to marry my dog. I love him!
By Tommy
May 16, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this
…people who are opposed to same-sex marriages are: ignorant, bitter, closeted, hate-filled, or brain-washed by their religion…..period.
By Jimbo
May 16, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this
Bah, your dog wouldn’t have you..
He has to consent too.
By Jason Young
May 16, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this
24,970 you do realize the reason so many fewer manuscripts exist is because early Christians burned many many copies of the ancient Greek manuscripts that they felt challenged their religion or could have a “heathen” or satanic influence upon the population and the control exerted by the Roman Catholic church which is the remnant of the Roman Empire. The West reacquired the ancient knowledge through our contact with the Muslim world which preserved what few copies they found left.
So you have one set of manuscripts that was subject to book burnings and another set that would get you burned at the stake for burning it or even speaking ill of it. I wonder which one will have more copies survive to the present.
The problem with Christians is that they don’t even read their own holy book much less learn the history of their religion. I used to be a fundamentalist Christian until I read the Bible and found huge parts of it morally repugnant as any decent human being should. The Bible is a book of fiction just like the Iliad. There is no evidence for the supernatural or even an ultra-powerful being of any kind. The world is exactly what it should be like if it lacked a god. There is no evidence for the “God Hypothesis” therefore it fails. There is no way to prove 100% that Yahweh does not exist since you can’t prove a negative but there is absolutely no evidence that it/he does exist.
Since there is no evidence to support even your most basic beliefs about the universe there is certainly no evidence to uphold your bigoted views toward non-heterosexual orientations. It is ridiculous that so many Americans believe they use the power of government to force others to live according to their religious code. America was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment and the biggest mistake our ancestors ever made was to not pursue a course of action that would have given the populace a real education and broken them from the shackles of religious indoctrination.
You do not need imaginary friends to live. Reality is still beautiful without a celestial dictator. Life can have purpose and meaning without the dictates of ancient peoples thoughts of the world. It is harder to live a life pursuit to truth but it is worth it.
Please read your holy book cover to cover and then study its history examining those who claim the Bible to be “verified” and those who claim it to be mere fiction. Also study the criticisms of your religion. The life unexamined is one not worth living.
By michelle
May 16, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this
what a bunch of hate-filled, self-righteous, hypocritical, JERKS that roam this state. i’m absolutely ashamed to call some of you people my neighbors.
what in the world are you people threatened by? how are 2 people of the same sex that want the same rights you have as hetero couples ruining YOUR life?
things like this are only made into “minority” issues because folks like the people i see here make it so.
equal rights for all, whether you’re female, gay, black, latino, asian or anything else but a straight white-bread american.
By jethroBodin
May 16, 2008 5:25 PM | Link to this
This issue should be resolved by the church. People of alternate(Gay Lesbian) lifestyles want equal protection for incidents such as the death of a lover and property rights, insurance claims, benefits, etc just as married couples have.
They use bogus arguments such as the gay lifestyle is normal and animals practice homosexaulity. No human can biologically changes sex naturally so that argument is not valid and that argument has been used also.
They also try to use the bible as justification but God condems sin and that lifestyle just like drunkness, adultry etc are sins also.
Gays and lesbians are trying to change the definition of sin which you can not do.
Why not just call it civil union to reap the benefits and leave it alone. My church doesn’t recognize these marriages or civil unions so that resolves that issue for me.
By phonydemocrats
May 16, 2008 5:32 PM | Link to this
Neither, Barack Hussein Osama-Obama nor Her Thighness, Hillary Rotten Clinton support gay mariage. How do you figure that? I thought they were Deocrats?????
By RealityDemocrat
May 16, 2008 5:54 PM | Link to this
Both Democratic Presidential candidates support Gay marriage, they just cannot come out and say it. They have to parse this issue. Intellectuals on the left, like me, understand this. There is a time and place for all issues, this is not the time for Gays and Lesbians to make a stand. The “gay” issue will hurt our chances in November if it is a centerpiece of the campaign. Unfortunately, we must lower expectations.
By Tommy
May 16, 2008 5:55 PM | Link to this
…donna elder? shut up woman, the bible clearly says you are to be submissive and quiet….and quit the pork, you damned sinner…..says god
By Pastor G
May 16, 2008 5:56 PM | Link to this
What are we afraid of? The moral, or should I say, immoral skid that this nation is on. Homosexuality, along with adultery, sex outside the bounds of marriage (read the Bible for the rest) is sinful, immoral behavior. There is no DNA evidence (and never will be) for any of it. It is simply the sin nature of man unbridled. Marriage is God’s covenant relationship, created by God’s design, for God’s purposes, between a man and a woman. Man’s laws were tagged on long afterwards.
The only truthful answer to the sin nature for every man and woman is accepting the saving and mind renewing grace found only in Jesus Christ. Sadly, biblically, most will reject the truth. Historically, great nations generally fail from the inside morally first. What I and many others fear is, as it has in the past, it will take great national tragedy to bring us back to a reasonably moral ground and sane thinking. Gay marriage is just an attempt to sanitize sinful behavior.
By ron
May 16, 2008 6:17 PM | Link to this
Mike K, I hate to burst your bigoted bubble but there are many, many, many churches more than willing to perform gay marriages. The world is changing, even Georgia. According to the AJC, only 1 in 10 Georgians are now Baptist Bigots whereas in 1970 that pathetic excuse for a church claimed 1 in 5 Georgians. You folks are on the way out so get used to it.
Obama in ‘08!
By Sunshine
May 16, 2008 6:22 PM | Link to this
I don’t understand why my dog and I can’t get married. It’s so unfair! We both love each other. I tell you it’s K-9 discrimation!!!
By Dante
May 16, 2008 6:27 PM | Link to this
Since we need to keep this christian: Love thy neighbor, unless he is gay, black, athiest, witch, one-legged, unusual, different, old, latin, oriental, jewish, greek, anything not WASP.. You know… HATE EVERYBODY!! A VERY CHRISTIAN IDEA. QUITE OLD TESTAMENT I MUST SAY OL’ CHAP.
It is sad that freedom must be dictated by a mean, heartless and christian majority. I am glad that my catholic wife and I had a nondenominational marriage (in Vegas Baby I am happy to say). SIN SIN SIN. We also had .. gasp… premarital relations….
Do not fret my fellow patriots, christian belief is crumbling from within. I believe in my lifetime, they will be a minority in this country and that will make a lot of people happy.
Oh BTW, for all of you “This Country was built on christian morals and principles” people… you need a little lesson….. Those Morals and Principles are shared by a lot more religions OLDER than yours. MUCH OLDER!!! Get a grip you Carl Baugh Wannabes.
Have a good evening, Christians and All.
By Dante
May 16, 2008 6:28 PM | Link to this
Since we need to keep this christian: Love thy neighbor, unless he is gay, black, athiest, witch, one-legged, unusual, different, old, latin, oriental, jewish, greek, anything not WASP.. You know… HATE EVERYBODY!! A VERY CHRISTIAN IDEA. QUITE OLD TESTAMENT I MUST SAY OL’ CHAP.
It is sad that freedom must be dictated by a mean, heartless and christian majority. I am glad that my catholic wife and I had a nondenominational marriage (in Vegas Baby I am happy to say). SIN SIN SIN. We also had .. gasp… premarital relations….
Do not fret my fellow patriots, christian belief is crumbling from within. I believe in my lifetime, they will be a minority in this country and that will make a lot of people happy.
Oh BTW, for all of you “This Country was built on christian morals and principles” people… you need a little lesson….. Those Morals and Principles are shared by a lot more religions OLDER than yours. MUCH OLDER!!! Get a grip you Carl Baugh Wannabes.
Have a good evening, Christians and All.
By Dante
May 16, 2008 6:29 PM | Link to this
Since we need to keep this christian: Love thy neighbor, unless he is gay, black, athiest, witch, one-legged, unusual, different, old, latin, oriental, jewish, greek, anything not WASP.. You know… HATE EVERYBODY!! A VERY CHRISTIAN IDEA. QUITE OLD TESTAMENT I MUST SAY OL’ CHAP.
It is sad that freedom must be dictated by a mean, heartless and christian majority. I am glad that my catholic wife and I had a nondenominational marriage (in Vegas Baby I am happy to say). SIN SIN SIN. We also had .. gasp… premarital relations….
Do not fret my fellow patriots, christian belief is crumbling from within. I believe in my lifetime, they will be a minority in this country and that will make a lot of people happy.
Oh BTW, for all of you “This Country was built on christian morals and principles” people… you need a little lesson….. Those Morals and Principles are shared by a lot more religions OLDER than yours. MUCH OLDER!!! Get a grip you Carl Baugh Wannabes.
Have a good evening, Christians and All.
By Dante
May 16, 2008 6:30 PM | Link to this
Since we need to keep this christian: Love thy neighbor, unless he is gay, black, athiest, witch, one-legged, unusual, different, old, latin, oriental, jewish, greek, anything not WASP.. You know… HATE EVERYBODY!! A VERY CHRISTIAN IDEA. QUITE OLD TESTAMENT I MUST SAY OL’ CHAP.
It is sad that freedom must be dictated by a mean, heartless and christian majority. I am glad that my catholic wife and I had a nondenominational marriage (in Vegas Baby I am happy to say). SIN SIN SIN. We also had .. gasp… premarital relations….
Do not fret my fellow patriots, christian belief is crumbling from within. I believe in my lifetime, they will be a minority in this country and that will make a lot of people happy.
Oh BTW, for all of you “This Country was built on christian morals and principles” people… you need a little lesson….. Those Morals and Principles are shared by a lot more religions OLDER than yours. MUCH OLDER!!! Get a grip you Carl Baugh Wannabes.
Have a good evening, Christians and All.
By jewcowboy
May 16, 2008 7:24 PM | Link to this
realitydemocrat-
the “gay” issue will only hurt the democrats chance in november if they let it. it’s a red herring. it’s also an inevitability unless people push it to the background. sure, it’s a bit inconvenient, just like those pesky dark skinned people in the 60’s. we as a nation, through the judiciary, move relentlessly forward on civil rights, despite the majority. they eventually come around and adapt. i don’t see to many women today wearing petticoats.
By Rarl Kove
May 16, 2008 7:50 PM | Link to this
“petticoats”…LOL
By FLDavid
May 16, 2008 8:20 PM | Link to this
Mad Mary: stop making so much sense!You are driving the bigots into pretzel-logic contortions (!)
…and Bob sez: “This nation was founded on Christianity…”
I have read the entire Constitution (has Bob?)—please show me one instance of the use of “Christian,” or “Jesus,” or “Christ”—it’s not in the Declaration of Independence, either
“Christian” principles? Really? Bwahahahahahahah—hahahahaha!
By Michael McCarthy
May 16, 2008 9:41 PM | Link to this
Unfortunately for Mr. Barr’s thinking, the federal government is in charge of interstate commerce. Gay marriage involves federal benefits, such as social security. So other states need to recognize such marriages? The Supreme Court of the United States will eventually decide the fate of this law. Yes, we are a federation but we also are one nation. I like many of the libertarian ideas but they are so immature and so unorganized that I can’t take them seriously yet.
By 'Heartless Christian'
May 16, 2008 10:18 PM | Link to this
Dante!
I have read ‘The Book’. I know how it all ends. Perhaps, you should read and study ‘The Book’ as well.
Heartless Christian
By 'Heartless Christian'
May 16, 2008 10:18 PM | Link to this
Dante!
I have read ‘The Book’. I know how it all ends. Perhaps, you should read and study ‘The Book’ as well.
Heartless Christian
By Matthew
May 16, 2008 11:05 PM | Link to this
In 1948 over 90% of the American public opposed interracial marriage, and then CA became the first state to make these marriages “legal”. The minority must be protected, including gays. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue as honorable as the movement of MLK.
By Eric
May 17, 2008 12:28 AM | Link to this
I agree with the state’s right argument Mr. Barr is making, but the fact is that the activist, lawmaking and not law interpreting judges in CA got it wrong again. For those saying this isn’t the same as incest or polygamy, YOU are the ones being inconsistent. How dare YOU put such limitations on marriage if you want to be consistent. Or does the “anyone can marry whoever they want” argument end after you’re taken care of? It is the ONLY logical opinion that if I as a man can marry a man I sure as hell can marry any woman (any valid reason to prohibit incest has already been shot down now) and there’s not really a good case to be made that I couldn’t marry as many as I’d like. After all, it’s basically just a consensual agreement now, isn’t it?
By Kris G
May 17, 2008 5:38 AM | Link to this
The entire point of a court is this:
If my family is allergic to all food but strawberries, but the rest of the country/state/city/neighborhood hates strawberries, that majority may vote on a whim to ban strawberries. My family now cannot legally eat without becoming ill, but to the logic of some, since the majority really doesn’t like strawberries, justice has been served.
Judges overturn these laws because one group has taken an issue of PERCEIVED relevance and imposed their will on a group for whom the issue is TANGIBLY relevant.
This is the definition of the phrase you need to learn to understand: Tyranny of the majority.
By JOHN HATFIELD
May 17, 2008 8:16 AM | Link to this
How its supposed to work??!!How is it that four judges overturning the will of the people a good thing??That is the Liberal way though.(We dont need the people when we got judges!!)The moral faberic of this country had been removed in the last 50 years and look what its done,single mothers,no fathers at home schools failing despite throwing billions at it.Thats liberism at work!!
By JOHN HATFIELD
May 17, 2008 8:16 AM | Link to this
How its supposed to work??!!How is it that four judges overturning the will of the people a good thing??That is the Liberal way though.(We dont need the people when we got judges!!)The moral faberic of this country had been removed in the last 50 years and look what its done,single mothers,no fathers at home schools failing despite throwing billions at it.Thats liberism at work!!
By Christian Schultz
May 17, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this
Why is it that when 4 judges overturn the will of 61% of the people of California the Liberals seem to find God and thank Him for Justice.
But when a judge makes an abortion ruling they don’t like the scream how horrible people of faith are. The same God becomes evil.
By Stepen
May 17, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
The founding fathers wanted seperation of church and state in matters of policy such as this. Keep religion where it belongs in a church not in the courts, white house or any other service that my tax dollars pay for.
By just me
May 17, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
Wake up, people. Those REPUBLICAN judges knew what they were doing to strike down the law. If you read the ruling, you will note that the California Constitution rendered the Gay Marriage Ban unconstitutional. So, the only way to re-enact the law is to propose a constitutional amendment to California’s constitution. This amendment will be on the ballot in November—-while we are trying to elect the next President of the United States. Republicans are betting that the conservative right base will come out in droves to beat the Democratic nominee in California and end the Democrats’ hopes of taking back the White House. The court’s ruling was engineered so that this could happen. If these so-called “activist judges” had upheld the law, there would be no amendment on the ballot and many Republican voters in California would stay home, aiding the Democratic nominee in November.
By Bob
May 17, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this
Looking at most of these posts, it looks like the organized religion folks have decided not to throw the Latinos under the bus this election cycle as anticipated, they’re sticking to their old fav!
By RationalThinker
May 17, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
It’s so funny how the media can manipulate people into veering off important topics. Who cares who marries who. It’s none of your business anyway. You should be more concerned about the ecomomy, the problems in third-world countries and resolving the issues with Iraq.
The Bible is full of wonderful anecdotes and parables,and great guidelines for living (don’t kill, don’t steal), but that’s about it. Stop trying to use it as though it’s relevant today beyond that.
Most Christians I know are arrogant, self-serving, conservative (read:wealthy) people who never care for the other people on this planet. It’s all about your own personal beliefs, your own wealth, and having lots of your own kids while others’ children are free to starve and suffer.
Is this how Christ would live if he were here today? You are, for the most part, hypocrites and I feel if there is a hell, you have an assigned parking space.
By Bill
May 17, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this
The state (government at any level) has no business sanctioning gay marriage - nor heterosexual marriage for that matter. The state has an interest in property and inheritence rights, child custody, and some liabilities. All of these are covered by civil union which should be available to anyone regardless of orientation. Then, let churches decide who they want to marry.
By spinotter
May 17, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this
In 50 years those of you who decry same sex marriage now will be seen as antiquated as those who opposed interracial marriage in the 1950’s. Young people have little or no problem with the concept of the right to equal marriage whether with an opposite or same sex partner. Even in Georgia!
By Rick
May 17, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
People in this part of the country have no right to tell people in another part of the country how to live their lives.
Every argument against gay marriage resorts to God is against it, therefore it should be illegal.
God is a myth and Jesus only exists in your imagination. There is not a single shred of evidence supporting the God Hypothesis.
People in this country have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People who love and care for each other should have the same rights regardless of their sexual orientation.
BTW, I am a happily married man, and I love my wife. I’m also tired of the religious BS that permeates this state.
I don’t understand gays, but I support their right to the same freedoms as every other American. I even support the right of christians to practice symbolic cannibalism (also know as holy communion which I suppose is literal cannibalism for Catholics) even though that makes me a sick to my stomach.
By Matt
May 17, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this
Christians sound more and more ridiculous every time a subject like this comes up. Just throw something they disagree with out there, and they immediately start whining that in the bible it’s a sin, and this is a Christian nation, and God will punish everyone, and that God’s way is the only way, and YACK YACK YACK YACK YACK!!! CAN’T YOU PEOPLE JUST SHUT THE HELL UP FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE???? If you want to believe everything that comes out of your own mouth, then believe it. BUT DON’T EVEN THINK FOR ONE MINUTE THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL EVERYONE ELSE WHAT TO BELIEVE!!! Your Christ said that you should love your neighbor as yourself and to treat others the way you want to be treated, but it seems to me that all you people do is go through the bible and pick out the things you want to believe and the things you want done, and the vast majority of you completely ignore the teachings that SHOULD be followed. You call yourselves Christians, but in reality, you are NOTHING like your Christ. YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK!!!
By Hetro is the way to go
May 17, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this
Separation of Church and State Just
There is no provision for separation of Church and State in the Constitution.It was a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in an address to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.The first ammendment was written to keep the government out of the church,like the the British government had done to the Church of England. Sodomy(the act of) is condemned by God,yes God loves those that has practiced it, it’s apparent from the Bible(old testament/ Leviticus,new testament/ Romans) HE considers it sin.Don’t like it take it up with him.Ever wonder why a north pole and south pole magnet attract and two north or two south don’t attract?
By Charlie
May 17, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this
I’ve been scanning through these comments and noticed a pattern. The most childish, illogical and sometimes downright stupid arguements seem to be put forth by individuals claiming a moral or biblical basis for their views. I’m wondering, is it that people with poorly developed analytical skills are drawn to fundamentalist religion or does fundamentalist religion lead to poorly developed analytical skills?
By Tommy
May 17, 2008 5:57 PM | Link to this
…if all of these idiotic, completely ignorant, so-called christians were to judge themselves, they would all be in hell. The bible is a farce, god is a farce, and jesus was just a dude who try to do some good, but would be utterly ashamed at how these morons use his name to spew hatred. You christians posting comments on this page have made a mockery of yourselves…..it’s no wonder why the christian church is thought of as a joke today- it’s your fault, you’ve brought it on yourselves. Life will go on without you and the world will be a much better place once the last generation of christians are gone. Good riddance
By Jesus
May 18, 2008 11:09 PM | Link to this
will the last idiot turn out the light
By Steve
May 19, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
After reading the preceding comments, I am left with a question:
When will the good, religious people of this country realize that they have been used by dishonest right-wing power-grubbing politicians and religious leaders?
The Bible teaches us to love one another. We are to feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the naked, care for the sick and the elderly,
etc. etc… Jesus condemned the priests for using the scripture to increase their own power and wealth. And, that is the only time Jesus ever condemned anyone. Yet, politicians and religious leaders have continued doing the same thing ever since.
Our current batch of “religious” leaders use “gay” as a hot-button issue. They tell people that every good “Christian” must give money to oppose those evil gay people. In the next breath, they cut funding for feeding the hungry and housing the homeless, because those programs do not increase their power or wealth.
The whole of the so-called evangelical movement over the last thirty years has been about increasing the power an wealth of the leaders. The followers do what they are told because the leaders claim “the Bible says” something. In reality, the Bible says we are to love one another, feed the hungry, house the homeless, and care for the sick and the elderly.
Jesus never said to condemn gay people. He did condemn the religious leaders.
By Jasmine
May 19, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this
I think that you should not barr or ban gay marriage. When you get to know us gay people then you will see that we aren’t bad people, we are not different either. We just want to be treated like normal people. Gay people are not a threat to the world, we just want the same rights as anyone else.We just want to be treated with respect instead of like animals or creatures. Gay people are really cool as well. We need the world to except us for who and what we are.
By Jasmine Owens
May 19, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this
I think that you should not barr or ban gay marriage. When you get to know us gay people then you will see that we aren’t bad people, we are not different either. We just want to be treated like normal people. Gay people are not a threat to the world, we just want the same rights as anyone else.We just want to be treated with respect instead of like animals or creatures. Gay people are really cool as well. We need the world to except us for who and what we are.
By Jasmine
May 19, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this
I think that you should not barr or ban gay marriage. When you get to know us gay people then you will see that we aren’t bad people, we are not different either. We just want to be treated like normal people. Gay people are not a threat to the world, we just want the same rights as anyone else.We just want to be treated with respect instead of like animals or creatures. Gay people are really cool as well. We need the world to except us for who and what we are.
By Liz
May 19, 2008 5:37 PM | Link to this
I think this is absolutely brillant, even living in “the Bible Belt, somehow I didn’t end up being as bigoted as some people who left some of these comments. There’s nothing wrong with two CONSENTING ADULTS getting married. Every American is guaranteed the pursuit of happiness, and if this makes them happy, let them get married. It seriously won’t be the end of the world.
By Liz
May 19, 2008 5:38 PM | Link to this
I think this is absolutely brillant, even living in “the Bible Belt, somehow I didn’t end up being as bigoted as some people who left some of these comments. There’s nothing wrong with two CONSENTING ADULTS getting married. Every American is guaranteed the pursuit of happiness, and if this makes them happy, let them get married. It seriously won’t be the end of the world.
By Bruce
May 19, 2008 6:20 PM | Link to this
Why are all of you being so ignorant? The constitution was meant to protect the minorities. It was amended to give women the right to vote and freed the slaves. No where has any amendment denied or taken away rights.
California was the first state in the nation to recognized interracial marriages in 1948. The right wing has spent over 2 million dollars to get signatures to amend the California constitution and will spend another 10 million to get the amendment passed. Why don’t they spend this money on the poor and homeless? Issues that really matter?
The right wing extremists are no better than the terrorists. They use fear to get the public to send them money. They fly around in private jets and live in mansions and yet stupid americans continue to send them money. WAKE UP!
We as the LGBT community are denied over 1049 rights that all other americans get automatically. Quit being a Homophobe. Gays and Lesbians deserve the same rights as anyone else. It hurts no one to grant gays and lesbians the same rights as any one else. Our families count, just like any other family. Our children deserve the same.
By libertynow
May 20, 2008 9:46 PM | Link to this
I thought all marriage was “same sex”
I would go for a “some sex” marriage
What can you do for me there Mr. Barr?
By JOKER
May 22, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this
Barr i got your back don’t listen to these guys just do what u do and if u need any thing like help or some thing just let me know
By JustAThought
May 23, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
A few thoughts: 1. Some of the best points that have been brought up here include the fact that the word marriage has two very different meanings; one in a legal sense, the second in a religious sense. While both definitions were ultimately created to further society, in a country which purportedly has a separation of church and state, the religious definition of marriage should have no bearing. This is difficult both because the two are so intertwined, but again, a legal marriage should be a contract between two consenting adults who agree to share certain aspects of their life (i.e. financial and familial). 2. It’s sometimes difficult for people who are not in a minority position to appreciate the difficulties faced by the minority. People have brought up issues such as ‘the gays have civil unions and can take care of the rest privately through lawyers.’ This is only partially true, and definitely misleading. Although gay people can take care of certain things privately, such as appointing their partner to have power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, etc, these legal contracts can be tenuous and much more subject to being overturned than are the rights automatically granted with a marriage. Additionally, to state that everybody can share these rights, but that a subset of the population must pay for them out-of-pocket is not equal treatment under the law. Additionally, there are some laws that are federal laws under which the gay community has even less rights. One example of this is the inheritance tax (AKA the death tax). If two people build a life together and fifty years later one dies, here’s how the situation differs based on the couple: Heterosexual and legally married - the surviving partner doesn’t pay inheritance on joint property, or on any property left to them by the deceased part. Heterosexual and not legally married - but wait! there’s a common-law marriage. In most states, if a couple has been living together for X amount of years, they are still considered married; same privileges apply. Homosexual couples - the surviving partner must pay the inheritance tax. Again, not equal treatment under the law. 3. Marriage is an institution which was created to protect the ‘family’. Historically, even in Christianity, there has not been an issue with people of the same gender raising children; how else could a group of nuns raise children in an orphanage, for example? If the issue is not about people of the same sex raising children, the only issue is what goes on behind closed bedroom doors. Again, this is not something the government has a right to interfere in provided that what goes on behind closed doors is between two consenting adults. 4. Again, if you’re in the majority (regarding sexual orientation or religion), you might not realize that calling marriage a sacrament is just not accurate for many people. A sacrament is a very Christian concept and this country is made up of not only an abundance of Christian sects, but also Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, just to mention a few. This is why the law needs to accommodate the broadest definitions of marriage, so that the tyranny of the (Christian, in this case) majority does not dictate the minority. Nor should the minority dictate the majority; by granting one group these rights, the rights of the majority are not affected, although perhaps their sense of aesthetics is.
5. The simplest solution is to take marriage out of the constitutional equation, replace it with a civil union (a legal contract between two consenting adults), and let different religious groups grapple with the question of marriage on their own time.
By Matt Combest
May 25, 2008 5:58 PM | Link to this
Wow Bob Barr is evolved on this issue it would appear. Proof that in order to move our Country forward, one needs to approach these issues with a progressive mindset.
By JCR
May 26, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this
KEEP RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS…ARNOLD GOT THE MESSAGE….FOR A PARTY WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE IN SMALL GOVERNMENT, BEING IN ONES ZIPPER SEEMS PRETTY LARGE TO ME………HOW MANY OF YOUR COMMENTING ARE DIVORCED OR CHILDREN OF DIVORCE….IT IS YOU WHO TAKE THE MARRIAGE WITH A GRAIN OF SALT…LEAVE OUR MMORAL DECISIONS TO OUR PASTORS, RABBI’S AND OH YEAH PRIESTS….THATS A GOOD ONE…ANYWAY…FOR ALL OF YOU WHO COMMENT NEGATIVELY , YES IT IS A FREE COUNTRY…..THAT YOU ALONE DON’T RUN….OR AT LEAST YOU WON’T ON JAN.20TH 2009 AT 12:00 PM EST………I SAY AMEN……….BITTER HEARTS CAN BE MADE USEFUL WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THE POOR MEN AND WOMEN COMING BACK FORM THAT WELL I WON’T CALL A WAR AND ARE IN NEED OF ARMS AND LEGS AND PSYCHOTHERAPY AFTER THE ABORTION THEY HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE IN THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATIONS GAME……….GIVE TO THEM PLEASE……….THEY CAME BACK TO HORRIFFIC CONDITIONS AT THEIR MED HOSPITALS………..AND SO MUCH MONEY IS NEEDED TO KEEP THEM ALIVE AND WELL FOR YEARS TO COME………..NOW THAT’S A PROBLEM …………THE BREAKDOWN OF FAMLIY IS NOT DUE TO GAY MARRIAGE IT IS DUE TO THOSE WHO ABUSE THE GIFT OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE AS A PARTIME JOB………50% END THAT WAY……..YOU ARE NOT THE BEST ROLE MODELS TO VOTE ON ANYONES FUTURE!!!!!!!! PUT YOU COLD HEARTS TO GOOD USE, KEEP YOUR OPINIONS AS THIS IS AMERICA…….REMEMBER YOU DON’T HAVE TO LIKE IT …….BUT YOU ALONE DON’T RUN THIS WONDERFUL COUNTRY FULL OF DIVERSITY……BTW I AM A STRAIGHT MAN, MARRIED FOR 31 YEARS AND HAPPIER THAN MOST OF YOU…..ONE CANNOT HAVE GOD IN THEIR HEART AND HATE ALSO……BIBLE QUOTES ARE BEAUTIFUL TO UNITE US AS HIS CHILDREN NOT TO CREATE A WEDGE …………..I SERVED IN VIET NAM………PLEASE HELP THESE MEN AMD WOMEN COME BACK AND BE LOVED AND NOT SEE YOU MOUTHING OFF ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE WHEN ALL THEY WANT TO BE IS FIRST CLASS CITIZENS AND A FULL FLEDGED FAMILY…..REMEMBER GOD UNITES AND RELIGION BECAUSE OF MAN AND WOMEN CAUSE DIVIDES…..ONES OPINION SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED BUT OTHERS CONSIDERED……..MAYBE JUST MAYBE THAT IS WHAT GOD’S PLAN IS FOR US..AS WE LIVE AS HIS CHILDREN TOGETHER……CALIFORNIA WILL THRIVE BECAUSE OF THS LAW LIFE GOES ON…………LET GO AND LET GOD….AS I SAID WE ARE ALL HIS CHILDREN AND NONE, AND I MEAN NONE OF US HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACT OR VOTE FOR THE TAKING AWAY OF FREEDON OF ANYONE ELSE..OUR CONSTITUTION GIVE US FREEDOM , AND LAWS TO ABIDE BY , NOT TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO SOME THINK ARE INFERIOR …GOD BLESS….AND GOOD LUCK TO ALL THE GAY AND LESBIANS IN CALIFORNIA…MAY YOU DO A BETTER JOB AT MARRIAGE THE YOUR HETEROSEXUAL BROTHER AND SISTERS…PEACE
By JCR
May 26, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this
KEEP RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS…ARNOLD GOT THE MESSAGE….FOR A PARTY WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE IN SMALL GOVERNMENT, BEING IN ONES ZIPPER SEEMS PRETTY LARGE TO ME………HOW MANY OF YOUR COMMENTING ARE DIVORCED OR CHILDREN OF DIVORCE….IT IS YOU WHO TAKE THE MARRIAGE WITH A GRAIN OF SALT…LEAVE OUR MMORAL DECISIONS TO OUR PASTORS, RABBI’S AND OH YEAH PRIESTS….THATS A GOOD ONE…ANYWAY…FOR ALL OF YOU WHO COMMENT NEGATIVELY , YES IT IS A FREE COUNTRY…..THAT YOU ALONE DON’T RUN….OR AT LEAST YOU WON’T ON JAN.20TH 2009 AT 12:00 PM EST………I SAY AMEN……….BITTER HEARTS CAN BE MADE USEFUL WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THE POOR MEN AND WOMEN COMING BACK FORM THAT WELL I WON’T CALL A WAR AND ARE IN NEED OF ARMS AND LEGS AND PSYCHOTHERAPY AFTER THE ABORTION THEY HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE IN THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATIONS GAME……….GIVE TO THEM PLEASE……….THEY CAME BACK TO HORRIFFIC CONDITIONS AT THEIR MED HOSPITALS………..AND SO MUCH MONEY IS NEEDED TO KEEP THEM ALIVE AND WELL FOR YEARS TO COME………..NOW THAT’S A PROBLEM …………THE BREAKDOWN OF FAMLIY IS NOT DUE TO GAY MARRIAGE IT IS DUE TO THOSE WHO ABUSE THE GIFT OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE AS A PARTIME JOB………50% END THAT WAY……..YOU ARE NOT THE BEST ROLE MODELS TO VOTE ON ANYONES FUTURE!!!!!!!! PUT YOU COLD HEARTS TO GOOD USE, KEEP YOUR OPINIONS AS THIS IS AMERICA…….REMEMBER YOU DON’T HAVE TO LIKE IT …….BUT YOU ALONE DON’T RUN THIS WONDERFUL COUNTRY FULL OF DIVERSITY……BTW I AM A STRAIGHT MAN, MARRIED FOR 31 YEARS AND HAPPIER THAN MOST OF YOU…..ONE CANNOT HAVE GOD IN THEIR HEART AND HATE ALSO……BIBLE QUOTES ARE BEAUTIFUL TO UNITE US AS HIS CHILDREN NOT TO CREATE A WEDGE …………..I SERVED IN VIET NAM………PLEASE HELP THESE MEN AMD WOMEN COME BACK AND BE LOVED AND NOT SEE YOU MOUTHING OFF ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE WHEN ALL THEY WANT TO BE IS FIRST CLASS CITIZENS AND A FULL FLEDGED FAMILY…..REMEMBER GOD UNITES AND RELIGION BECAUSE OF MAN AND WOMEN CAUSE DIVIDES…..ONES OPINION SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED BUT OTHERS CONSIDERED……..MAYBE JUST MAYBE THAT IS WHAT GOD’S PLAN IS FOR US..AS WE LIVE AS HIS CHILDREN TOGETHER……CALIFORNIA WILL THRIVE BECAUSE OF THS LAW LIFE GOES ON…………LET GO AND LET GOD….AS I SAID WE ARE ALL HIS CHILDREN AND NONE, AND I MEAN NONE OF US HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACT OR VOTE FOR THE TAKING AWAY OF FREEDON OF ANYONE ELSE..OUR CONSTITUTION GIVE US FREEDOM , AND LAWS TO ABIDE BY , NOT TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO SOME THINK ARE INFERIOR …GOD BLESS….AND GOOD LUCK TO ALL THE GAY AND LESBIANS IN CALIFORNIA…MAY YOU DO A BETTER JOB AT MARRIAGE THE YOUR HETEROSEXUAL BROTHER AND SISTERS…PEACE
By JCR
May 26, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this
YES, I ENTERED MY COMMENT IN TWICE, BECAUSE SOME MIGHT HAVE TO REREAD IT FOR IT TO SINK IN….PEACE
By Churchill
May 26, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this
Get help now, JCR. I read it twice, as posted, and I am doubly sure that you need immediate help. Peace, back at cha.
By Errol Smythe
June 17, 2008 5:18 AM | Link to this
In the city of Sodom and Gormorrah sat a righteous man that was weak on convictions and afraid to denounce the wickedness of Sodom and Gormorrah.In Sodom and Gormorrah men had left the sanctity of marriage and debased themselves by sleeping man with man. This perversion of the sex act was a debased sex act condemned by GOD, by nature and condemned by societies that upheld the sanctity of life and the sacredness of marriage. The righteous man Lot vexed his righteous soul by not speaking out and condemning the wicked filthy lives of the Sodomites in Sodom and Gormorrah.Everything he had in Sodom and Gormorrah was destroyed by fire and brimstone. WHEN THE NATURAL ORDER OF LIFE IS DESTROYED THEN THE REASON TO LIVE IS NEGATED. Homosexuality is wrong and no perverse judgements by any Court of proper legal status can change that. Murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Bestiality is wrong.Sodom and Gormorrah was destroyed with fire and brimstone. The wickedness of homosexual sin will finally be done away with when the whole earth is burnt with fire and brimstone. The tectonic plates have fractured. Volcanoes on the increase.Earthquakes will split the earth open and spew fire and brimstone on this wicked earth just like in Sodom and Gormorrah.SCIENCE KNOW THAT. They know that tremour activity is on the increase and the earth is cracking open and poisoning the earth and the oceans and the seas and ocean and sea water life are dying a slow agonising death. There is no such thing as gay marriage. It is not a gay marriage but a perverse wicked filthy union. MARRIAGE IS ONLY BETWEEN A RIGHTEOUS MAN AND RIGHTEOUS WOMEN WHO LIVE FAITHFUL TO EACHOTHER AND KEEP THE MARRIAGE BED UNDEFILED. The pornography industry has wormed its way into the Federal courts and is corrupting the legal system. When a man wants to be a woman and a woman wants to be a man it is a perversion.This world is on a collision course with judgement and all the legal statutes enacted by any legislative body cannot stop that.They call an unholy union of two genders of the same species a “ gay marriage”. It should be called a “perverse union” and as such it is condemned by the Holy Bible. Filth is filth. A spade is a spade. Corruption is corruption. Homosexulaity is a perverse sickness caused by perverse demons,unclean rebellious filthy spirits. Wishy washy politicians that support gay marriage should be booted out of office. Supreme Court Judges that support gay marriage should be booted out of office. Any presidential candidate supporting perverse Supreme Court decisions should be shunned and not supported by the righteous voting public that still believe in the sanctity of life and the sacredness of marriage. Can homosexuals be delivered? In Sodom and Gormorrah they refused to repent and refused to change their way of life even when struck with blindness. The righteous Judge of all the earth will be righteous in His judgement to destroy this wicked sinful world that has perverted the natural order of life in the streets and in the courts of the land and in the Laodocean Churches. The gay priests are an abomination in the sight of God and should be booted out and excommunicated from their churches .Filth is filth whether clothed in priestly garbs, or court trappings or politician clothes. LET GOD BE TRUE AND EVERY MAN A LIAR. Errol Smythe.
By Errol Smythe
June 17, 2008 5:23 AM | Link to this
In the city of Sodom and Gormorrah sat a righteous man that was weak on convictions and afraid to denounce the wickedness of Sodom and Gormorrah.In Sodom and Gormorrah men had left the sanctity of marriage and debased themselves by sleeping man with man. This perversion of the sex act was a debased sex act condemned by GOD, by nature and condemned by societies that upheld the sanctity of life and the sacredness of marriage. The righteous man Lot vexed his righteous soul by not speaking out and condemning the wicked filthy lives of the Sodomites in Sodom and Gormorrah.Everything he had in Sodom and Gormorrah was destroyed by fire and brimstone. WHEN THE NATURAL ORDER OF LIFE IS DESTROYED THEN THE REASON TO LIVE IS NEGATED. Homosexuality is wrong and no perverse judgements by any Court of proper legal status can change that. Murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Bestiality is wrong.Sodom and Gormorrah was destroyed with fire and brimstone. The wickedness of homosexual sin will finally be done away with when the whole earth is burnt with fire and brimstone. The tectonic plates have fractured. Volcanoes on the increase.Earthquakes will split the earth open and spew fire and brimstone on this wicked earth just like in Sodom and Gormorrah.SCIENCE KNOW THAT. They know that tremour activity is on the increase and the earth is cracking open and poisoning the earth and the oceans and the seas and ocean and sea water life are dying a slow agonising death. There is no such thing as gay marriage. It is not a gay marriage but a perverse wicked filthy union. MARRIAGE IS ONLY BETWEEN A RIGHTEOUS MAN AND RIGHTEOUS WOMEN WHO LIVE FAITHFUL TO EACHOTHER AND KEEP THE MARRIAGE BED UNDEFILED. The pornography industry has wormed its way into the Federal courts and is corrupting the legal system. When a man wants to be a woman and a woman wants to be a man it is a perversion.This world is on a collision course with judgement and all the legal statutes enacted by any legislative body cannot stop that.They call an unholy union of two genders of the same species a “ gay marriage”. It should be called a “perverse union” and as such it is condemned by the Holy Bible. Filth is filth. A spade is a spade. Corruption is corruption. Homosexulaity is a perverse sickness caused by perverse demons,unclean rebellious filthy spirits. Wishy washy politicians that support gay marriage should be booted out of office. Supreme Court Judges that support gay marriage should be booted out of office. Any presidential candidate supporting perverse Supreme Court decisions should be shunned and not supported by the righteous voting public that still believe in the sanctity of life and the sacredness of marriage. Can homosexuals be delivered? In Sodom and Gormorrah they refused to repent and refused to change their way of life even when struck with blindness. The righteous Judge of all the earth will be righteous in His judgement to destroy this wicked sinful world that has perverted the natural order of life in the streets and in the courts of the land and in the Laodocean Churches. The gay priests are an abomination in the sight of God and should be booted out and excommunicated from their churches .Filth is filth whether clothed in priestly garbs, or court trappings or politician clothes. LET GOD BE TRUE AND EVERY MAN A LIAR. Errol Smythe.
By Steve
June 18, 2008 12:55 AM | Link to this
The guy up at the top, Mike had it right.
Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article IV, Section 1, US Constitution.
Besides, what does it matter anyway - are you going to go run out and marry the same gender just because you’re allowed to? I’m sure all the men will be hitting on each other at Hooters now. Please.
By Errol Smythe
June 18, 2008 6:21 AM | Link to this
In Genesis chapter 18 and Genesis 19 The RIGHTEOUS JUDGE visited Abraham. ABRAHAM and his group were camped in the mountains far away from wicked perverse Sodom and Gomorrah where men had no regard for women. Perverse wicked men had no desire to live normal and in their depraved state of mind they moved in groups committing vile acts of wickedness contrary to nature.
“….THOU SHALT NOT LIE WITH MANKIND AS WITH WOMANKIND; IT IS AN ABOMINATION…..”. ( READ LEVITICUS 18 VERSE 22 IN THE OLD TESTAMENT)
This Sodom and Gomorrah group had crossed the line separating grace from judgement. They resisted calls to repent from their evil ways. Consumed with burning lust for strange flesh they turned their faces towards certain destruction and marched onwards on the broad road leading to destruction into the flames of fire and brimstone and were burnt to ashes and wiped off the map of the earth. The spirits that drove them to destruction have now come out of the bottomless pit and are invading weak minded wishy washy principled people that give them entrance to inhabit their souls when they refuse to stay on the righteous path of living good clean lives.
The defence system of Sodom and Gomorrah, if they had one, was a total failure to prevent total destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Sodom and Gomorrah had been given space to repent and they repented not. Their cup of iniquity was full. They had crossed the line separating mercy and judgement.They had nothing left but judgement from the Righteous Judge that had created the heavens and the earth.
Before the fire and brimstone fell , Investigating judgement Angels were sent to Sodom and Gomorrah to save the righteous and condemn the wicked. Today in the modern world, INVESTIGATING JUDGEMENT ANGELS HAVE BEEN ON ASSIGNMENT TO THIS EARTH. STRANGE SIGHTINGS HAVE BEEN SEEN IN THE SKY. INTELLIGENCE THAT MOVES FASTER THAN THE BLINK OF AN EYE. SCIENTIST HAVE NO EXPLANATION FOR THESE STRANGE SIGHTINGS IN THE SKY.
The judges in Sodom and Gomorrah also perished. All inside Sodom and Gomorrah perished. It was like a nuclear bomb was dropped from the sky to totally consume those wicked cities and burn them to ashes.Forensic scientist have found radioactive substances in ashes of Sodom and Gomorrah under the DEAD SEA where nothing lives.
The Lot group fled to the mountains and all their belongings their property, clothes ,riches and savings were destroyed when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.
Lot’s wife looked back and turned to a pillar of salt. She had been told by the Angels of deliverance not to look back but she refused to listen. When she looked back, she turned to pillar of salt.
The next morning when it was over,the smoke and the flames were still ascending “….as the smoke of a furnace…..” ( Genesis chapter 19 verse 28 ). A mushroom cloud ???? Errol Smythe.
By Errol Smythe
June 18, 2008 6:28 AM | Link to this
In Genesis chapter 18 and Genesis 19 The RIGHTEOUS JUDGE visited Abraham. ABRAHAM and his group were camped in the mountains far away from wicked perverse Sodom and Gomorrah where men had no regard for women. Perverse wicked men had no desire to live normal and in their depraved state of mind they moved in groups committing vile acts of wickedness contrary to nature.
“….THOU SHALT NOT LIE WITH MANKIND AS WITH WOMANKIND; IT IS AN ABOMINATION…..”. ( READ LEVITICUS 18 VERSE 22 IN THE OLD TESTAMENT)
This Sodom and Gomorrah group had crossed the line separating grace from judgement. They resisted calls to repent from their evil ways. Consumed with burning lust for strange flesh they turned their faces towards certain destruction and marched onwards on the broad road leading to destruction into the flames of fire and brimstone and were burnt to ashes and wiped off the map of the earth. The spirits that drove them to destruction have now come out of the bottomless pit and are invading weak minded wishy washy principled people that give them entrance to inhabit their souls when they refuse to stay on the righteous path of living good clean lives.
The defence system of Sodom and Gomorrah, if they had one, was a total failure to prevent total destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Sodom and Gomorrah had been given space to repent and they repented not. Their cup of iniquity was full. They had crossed the line separating mercy and judgement.They had nothing left but judgement from the Righteous Judge that had created the heavens and the earth.
Before the fire and brimstone fell , Investigating judgement Angels were sent to Sodom and Gomorrah to save the righteous and condemn the wicked. Today in the modern world, INVESTIGATING JUDGEMENT ANGELS HAVE BEEN ON ASSIGNMENT TO THIS EARTH. STRANGE SIGHTINGS HAVE BEEN SEEN IN THE SKY. INTELLIGENCE THAT MOVES FASTER THAN THE BLINK OF AN EYE. SCIENTIST HAVE NO EXPLANATION FOR THESE STRANGE SIGHTINGS IN THE SKY.
The judges in Sodom and Gomorrah also perished. All inside Sodom and Gomorrah perished. It was like a nuclear bomb was dropped from the sky to totally consume those wicked cities and burn them to ashes.Forensic scientist have found radioactive substances in ashes of Sodom and Gomorrah under the DEAD SEA where nothing lives.
The Lot group fled to the mountains and all their belongings their property, clothes ,riches and savings were destroyed when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.
Lot’s wife looked back and turned to a pillar of salt. She had been told by the Angels of deliverance not to look back but she refused to listen. When she looked back, she turned to pillar of salt.
The next morning when it was over,the smoke and the flames were still ascending “….as the smoke of a furnace…..” ( Genesis chapter 19 verse 28 ). A mushroom cloud ???? Errol Smythe.
By An Aussie
June 18, 2008 10:24 PM | Link to this
Oh boy! I bet all the news pics of grown men passionately kissing will help improve the image of the US in the eyes of those religious fundamentalists in the middle-east.
I just wonder when your government will get around to making unnatural sex COMPULSORY for ALL citizens?
And why stop at “gay” rights? Surely a pedophile has the right to have sex with young children and not be discriminated against on the grounds of age. After all, doesn’t your constitution guarantee everyone the “right to pursue happiness”?
By Ted
June 22, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
The problem here is that Barr is to Libertarianism as Bush 43 was to conservatism (Bush was never conservative - he just took their money, and then spent money like a drunken sailor - that’s not conservative). While he wears the sweater, he knows nothing of the doctrine. No grass-roots Lib would ever introduce DOMA, which essentially attacked the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution. Libs are not interested in these sort of matters, nor would they support measures to limit medicinal access to marijuana. Unfortunately, the Lib Party often ends of for unsuccessful “conservatives.” I say Barr should leave the Libs alone and go elsewhere.
By Wesstin
June 30, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
Judging others is a sin. If you do not believe me, read the bible. What is more, all sins are equal. Therefore, your judging of others is as much as a sin as the supposed marriage between people of the same sex. Let them sin in peace and save yourself.
By Nathan Owens
July 15, 2008 12:44 AM | Link to this
The issue here isn’t rights. That is a red herring to the real issue. The issue is what a universal acceptance of same-sex marriage would lead to. I will not say that such people do not care for each other, but they do not have the same level of dependence on each other as a traditional couple does. It should not be treated the same as a traditional marriage.
By bob barr
October 10, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this
i am homoooo!!! i like gay people
By Errol Smythe
October 17, 2008 2:47 AM | Link to this
The State Supreme Courts should read their law books. Their law books recognise that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.Marriage certificates by the millions attest to that. Marriage is defined as “….. the institution under which a man and a woman become legally united under a permanent basis…..”( Webster’s Dictionary ). The State Supreme Court may be guilty of proverbially putting “…..lipstick on a pig…”. Literally speaking, a pig is a pig with or without lipstick.The lipstick doesnot change it’s nature or it’s character. Pinning the label of “marriage” on two people of the same sex makes a mockery of law books , judicial precedent, traditional christian values and traditional moral values that regard marriage as between a man and a women.A man marries a woman. The woman becomes the wife to the man who becomes her husband. For the courts to try and equate a man and a woman getting married in holy matrimony in the eyes of God to any same sex union under the definition of “…marriage …” is to go against legal certainty and to introduce absurdity in the law. Right now there is a debate of changing marriage licence forms . What a legal mess ! Errol Smythe
By Errol Smythe
October 24, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this
Marriage has always been defined as that union between a man and a woman who on being being married become husband and wife and on the birth of their first child become father and mother. Their Marriage Certificate like countless millions of marriage certificates before them reflect their marital status as Mr and Mrs Jo Public. Regrettably pressure groups are twisting the arms of officials that sit on the bench to redefine marriage .May the judges be firm and resolute and not be like reeds blowing in the wind. They should not bow down in the temple of sacrilege and offer slaughter legal precedents on the altars of perversion.
That is like taking a sledge hammer to a Rolls Royce and smashing it like a maniac that escaped from some nightmare induced rage, or a graffitti artist practicing new style writing using the original Mona Lisa to practice graffitti .Talk about putting lipstick on a pig! Talk about a tone deaf orchestra trying to play one of Beethoven or Mozart’s composition. Madness. Total madness. A bull in a china shop is more polite.
Some people just want to destroy every vestige of respectability in the face of so called modernism.Enough is enough . Away with all this foolishness! Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage Certificates have always attested to that. Case law and Statutes recognize the proud institution of marriage. Grandfathers and grandmothers, fathers and mothers proudly show their grandchildren and children their marriaged certificates. Errol Smythe.
By DH
November 5, 2008 8:16 PM | Link to this
Today, it’s been decided by the voters in the state of California to BAN gay marriage. Although I’ve had many close gay friends, I voted in favor of this ban….it’s not about hate or intolerance of gays for me…it’s about LOVE of tradition. The institution of marriage between a man and woman has been the same for thousands of years, in all cultures around the globe, and I, for one, am glad that this tradition will remain unchanged.
By DH
November 5, 2008 8:19 PM | Link to this
Today, it’s been decided by the voters in the state of California to BAN gay marriage. Although I’ve had many close gay friends, I voted in favor of this ban….it’s not about hate or intolerance of gays for me…it’s about LOVE of tradition. The institution of marriage between a man and woman has been the same for thousands of years, in all cultures around the globe, and I, for one, am glad that this tradition will remain unchanged.