The Same People

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: m2e13b @ 06/02/2008 10:34:34 AM

    Opposition comes from those claiming it to be immoral, and an atrocity in the view of God, however, we are supposed to be a secular nation, so how can we justify using our individual religous "moral compass" to legally oppose gay marriage? The truth is we can't. If we accept that we are a nation of law, and that all people are equal, with inalienable rights, then opposing gay marriage (legally) is at odds with the law, and very fiber of our country.

  • Posted By: velcrofog @ 06/02/2008 9:48:19 AM

    Sorry for the double-submission. I am a newbie and thought my first comment was lost in the registration process.

  • Posted By: velcrofog @ 06/02/2008 9:46:51 AM

    I don't think it's fair to quote the Bible in support of your argument. I could quote the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment to support my position on the death penalty, but since I don't take the Leviticus prohibitions, for example, very seriously, it would be cheating on my part to try to end a debate on the death penalty by quoting another part of the Bible as authoritative. So, unless you believe that shellfish are an abomination, that if a child strikes his parent he must be put to death, that disobedient sons are to be stoned to death, that slaves should stay content to obey their masters, that showing your hair in church is sinful vanity, and a hundred other claims in the Bible that nobody I know really --unless you believe every one of them wholly and without reservation, you cannot claim to believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken as authoritative. If you would try to stop someone from throwing rocks at a disobedient kid until he died, despite Leviticus, then you understand why I would try to stop people from being mean to gay people, despite Leviticus.

  • Posted By: WisOldMan @ 06/02/2008 7:12:25 AM

    I was drawn to this article by a realclearpolitics link, headlined "The gay marriage debate is over"...of course, I was curious to see just how a debate that never began, did not take place, and became law of the land via judicial fiat could be considered a debate...then when I saw the headline of the article, it said "the issue is over"...of course, the debate has only just begun, the issue is not settled, nor is any issue "settled" among panels of 7 state jurists by a vote of 4-3, instead of at the ballot box...where a change in the definition of marriage should take place.

  • Posted By: disbelief @ 06/01/2008 11:57:42 PM

    Also, the court isn`t supposed to be a "moral" authority, it`s sole purpose is to fact-find and make judgements according to law that has been made, not create law or enforce opinions. The court literally had no right to hand down such a judgement. As another take on the subject, marriage is a RELIGEOUS institution and as such, is already protected by the U.S. constitution----" Congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religeon, nor any function therof." Civil unions dont fall under that distinction since they are a creation of the state.

    • Posted By: frederic1943 @ 06/02/2008 3:12:21 AM

      If you think that marriage is religeous institution then try getting married in a church without a government issued marriage license and then filing your income taxes as "Married". Or do you think that all the people married by a judge are not married?
      And the court based their decision on the California constitution section on equality under the law.

  • Posted By: frederic1943 @ 06/02/2008 2:53:00 AM

    In 1948 the California Supreme Court judges forced people who have deeply principled disagreements with interracial marriage to accept it. Even though Californians had voted against it. It took until 1967 for the US Supreme Court to agree.

  • Posted By: BlacksburgJohn @ 06/01/2008 10:43:05 PM

    History is proving Anna correct. Five nations already allow same-sex couples to marry. This number is six if you count Calilfornia, Massachusetts and New York (which will recognize same-sex marriages from other countries). Other countries are moving closer to allowing same-sex marriages. Most of Europe, if they don't allow same-sex marriages grant gay couples the right to form civil unions. They are the beginning of the wave. Times, they are a' changin.

    • Posted By: Chris5104 @ 06/02/2008 12:09:29 AM

      So you say that just because 5 other countries condone gay marriage, that makes it right? By that logic, the rise in genocide should validate mass killings. If you get your values from shifting standards of "what some people like," then you have no protection against powerful people who disagree with you. "Justice" becomes the will of whoever has power, in this case tyrannical judges and brainwashing media outlets, not to mention teachers' unions.

  • Posted By: johnaperry @ 06/01/2008 4:04:53 PM

    This debate is far from over. I personally don't care if gay people marry, but I do care when courts take on power that they do not have vested in them by the Constiution--state or federal. The ends do not justify the means. We have rights in this nation because we have decided together that such rights exist. This thing called a Representative Republic works because we are free people and agree to live in a society with a constitution and laws we all agree to follow. All of the rights we have today are enshrined in the US or state constitutions. They get there by being there form our founding or by ammendment. Most liberals fail to remember that full equality for all races came not because of courts, but because of the 14th ammendment to the Constiution that guarantees equal protection. The voters of California have voted against gay marriage. When they can be convinced by their fellow citizens that this is an inequality and should change, the new right should be made law by the people. Courts exist to interpret the law-not to make it. They are certainly not charged with overturning the will of the people. No one can argue that the writers of the California constitution meant for gay marriage to exist and just forgot to explicitly say it. If they didn;t, a change requires a new law or ammendment. This is messy, but that is how democracy works. If you believe something is unfair, seek to change the law through the representative government we elect. The cowardly liberals seek to sway a handful of judges to change the law--a role they do not have. Unfortunately, these run away judges think they know best and take on a role that is not theirs. This country was founded on the idea that we serve no king--"We the People" decide. Too bad for liberals that this notion is inconvenient and they seek new kings to force their minority opinion on the rest of us. Our rights are being trampled on by elite judges who think they know what's best for the great unwashed citizenry. Californians should fight back by ammending the California Constitution and replacing these elites with people who understand the role of judges. I don;t think gay marriage is immoral or sinful, but that is not the point. How we get there is the point. I stand for a free country where the people decide--not judges.

    • Posted By: Mark In Irvine @ 06/01/2008 5:10:56 PM

      johnaperry says "If you believe something is unfair, seek to change the law through the representative government we elect." He seems not to realize that the people of California adopted a Constitution that protects individual freedom from the tyrannical will of the majority that voted to prohibit same-sex marriage. Funny how the so-called "federalists" and "states rights"ers are all for it when it suits their agenda of discrimination, but wail and gnash their teeth when a state recognizes and protects a minority they wish to oppress.

      • Posted By: InTheSouth @ 06/01/2008 7:30:07 PM

        Good point. Our system was intended to protect individual and minority rights. A lot of people seem to forget that.

        • Posted By: johnaperry @ 06/01/2008 11:11:00 PM

          These two comments are confused on what the system protects. Minority rights are protected in ways such as each state having 2 Senators, regardless of size. Being protected from the "tyranical will of the majority" is no where in teh Constitution or anywhere else. If the majority does not rule, then who does? Is it more democratic to have a minority rule? Should people win elections by getting the fewest votes? Over 60% of Californians voted against gay marriage. Shoudl the less than 40% rule? That makes no sense. When liberals are wrong, they cite concepts that do not exist in our Constitution.

  • Posted By: flyingcow @ 06/01/2008 11:03:40 PM

    A fist up the rectum
    makes a strange "wedding knot"--
    Gay marriage?
    Insanity!
    It ain't "gay"
    & it ain't marriage--
    "Diversity is perversity".....

  • Posted By: flyingcow @ 06/01/2008 11:02:54 PM

    A fist up the rectum
    makes a strange "wedding knot"--
    Gay marriage?
    Insanity!
    It ain't "gay"
    & it ain't marriage--
    "Diversity is perversity".....

  • Posted By: garywebb @ 06/01/2008 10:59:54 PM

    Anna,

    The debate is only over at Newsweek and other moral relativist outlets. The rest of America (80+ percent) opposes gay marriage.

  • Posted By: garywebb @ 06/01/2008 10:58:05 PM

    Anna,

    The debate about homosexual marriage is only over at Newsweek and other moral relavatist outlets. The rest of America (80+ percent) is against gay marriage.

  • Posted By: freedom4all @ 06/01/2008 10:50:16 PM

    Children need to be protected until society feels they are old enough to make decisions about marriage, in in this country, that is age 18, and can't/shouldn't be forced into marriage at any age. Close blood relatives shouldn't marry, because of the possibility of causing birth defects in their children. If they are not able to have children, or choose to surgically end the capability to have children, there is no biological reason they could not marry, altho our culture would still find that repugnant. Other than that, if it is between consenting adults, it's no one else's business. A stable couple is a stable couple, gay or straight, and marriage obviously doesn't guarantee that. Why shouldn't gay couples enjoy the same privileges and protections as straight couples, if they are willing to commit to a legal union? HAL, it doesn't matter if you grew up in a liberal household, with gay family members, your comments define you as a homophobe.

  • Posted By: BlacksburgJohn @ 06/01/2008 10:44:44 PM

    Yes, Hal. I surround myself with free-thinking folks with open minds. Its wonderful to be around smart, intelligent, well-informed people!

  • Posted By: geminirising @ 06/01/2008 10:35:24 PM

    The caption above the article says it all: love won. And love will win again.

    As a gay man, I am thrilled to see a Republican-dominated Supreme Court (6 out of 7 members) vote in favor of marriage equality. (I can already picture some right-wing nut reading my comment and thinking, "Equality? He can't be serious!")

    I am fairly young, and yes, my generation is socially liberal. Even if it takes fifty years, love will win in the end. If I fall in love with another man, that love is just as pure as if I were to love a woman. ("Purity! Bah!") It is certainly not perversion. And if any heterosexual who calls it that were to wake up the next day as a homosexual and have to live in my shoes for a while, I'm sure they wouldn't think the same way.

    Anyone who condemns love deserves to be condemned themselves.

  • Posted By: BlacksburgJohn @ 06/01/2008 10:29:06 PM

    Hal- you are a bigot. To cite bogus studies that say homosexuality is a mental illness and to say that love between people of the same sex is a perversion shows intolerance and bigotry. Yes, Hal. You are a bigot

  • Posted By: BlacksburgJohn @ 06/01/2008 10:26:09 PM

    Intolerance is a perversion.

  • Posted By: WarpedVisions @ 06/01/2008 9:47:35 PM

    I can hardly wait for the legalization of polygymy!

  • Posted By: WarpedVisions @ 06/01/2008 9:46:52 PM

    I can hardly wait until polygymy has been legalized.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse