Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Makes Explicit His Objection to DOMA

By Scott Wilson
President Obama made clear Monday that he favors the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and intends to ask Congress to repeal the 13-year-old law that denies benefits to domestic partners of federal employees and allows states to reject same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Obama has long opposed the law, which he has called discriminatory. But his Justice Department has angered the gay community, which favored Obama by a wide margin in last year's election, by defending the law in court. The administration has said it is standard practice for the Justice Department to do so, even for laws that it does not agree with.

The Justice Department did so again Monday in its response in Smelt v. United States, a case before a U.S. District Court in California. But, for the first time, the filing itself made clear that the administration "does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal."

Obama and his senior advisers have made that statement before, but never in a court brief. In addition, Obama issued a statement noting that, although his administration is again defending DOMA in court, "this brief makes clear...that my administration believes the act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress."

"While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law," Obama said in the statement.

By Web Politics Editor  |  August 17, 2009; 1:16 PM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Culture Wars  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Dean: Public Option Essential to Real Health Care Reform
Next: At VFW Event, Obama Praises Veterans, Defends Afghanistan Strategy

Comments

"What about the common good of affording alternative couples the same ability to visit one another in the hospital, leave inheritance, or claim a beneficiary in the case of an accident? That's okay to just leave them out in the cold? They perform much of the same function as their heterosexual counterparts. A single parent doesn't have to deal with these issues in the same way. The bottom line is that they are a couple raising kids, and your church defines marriage within it's own walls."

Those who want to allow for this under the law can hire an attorney. Problem solved.

However, they should not be granted this priviledge as male/female marriage couples get currently. This is rightly granted by government because this relationship should be provided with this special status.

Posted by: westsidecougar1 | August 19, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

"I stated before: incest.

As for my thinking being cloudy, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it remains just that."

Response:
Right...but my question is why make that a legitimate reason in your mind (or the law's "mind"). In the context of this discussion/argument, it seems rather random and an artificial constraint.

Posted by: westsidecougar1 | August 19, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

"Rather, marriage is a specific natural and social institution which should be preserved as such for the sake of the common good that depends on it, and not in favor of the particular good of those who feel they ought to be able to marry."

What about the common good of affording alternative couples the same ability to visit one another in the hospital, leave inheritance, or claim a beneficiary in the case of an accident? That's okay to just leave them out in the cold? They perform much of the same function as their heterosexual counterparts. A single parent doesn't have to deal with these issues in the same way. The bottom line is that they are a couple raising kids, and your church defines marriage within it's own walls.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 18, 2009 8:16 PM | Report abuse

itiscloudy wrote:

"Marriage, by definition, is a religious institution. For the government to say who may or may not be married is a direct violation of the first amendment."
------------------

What? You win the prize for "who slept in school?"

Posted by: Dale8 | August 18, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Marriage, by definition, is a religious institution. For the government to say who may or may not be married is a direct violation of the first amendment.

Posted by: itiscloudy | August 18, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Being able to do something is not the same as should be able to do something. Someday we may be able to make two-headed hermaphrodites. Doesn't mean we should.

Re: children. Law should foster the common good. Anyone, regardless of marital status, can already claim child (and elder) dependants. Children are born to single parents, should those individuals be granted marriage benefits because they have children? That would be absurd.

Rather, marriage is a specific natural and social institution which should be preserved as such for the sake of the common good that depends on it, and not in favor of the particular good of those who feel they ought to be able to marry. Once the door of exception is opened, there is no longer a logical reason to exclude other kinds of unions (polygamy, polyandry, etc.), as the basis for defining marriage, which is now only a subjective feeling. "I love this person, or persons, therefore I am DUE the right to marry him, or her, or them." Why not? If the law of nature is set aside, then there really is no reason "why not" save the majority will. And a new kind of tyranny is unleashed.

Posted by: AmBruce | August 18, 2009 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"they serve none of the natural or social purposes of marriage."

This is why I like the previously mentioned suggestion that marriage benefits should be reworked to target children.

As it stands, gay couples actually are serving a social purpose by raising children. However, the environment they grow up in isn't treated the same as their heterosexual neighbors. Arguing that male and female parts go together IS common sense, but it isn't always the norm. And children ARE raised under these 'non-normal' circumstances. Unfortunately they end up being the real victims in the midst of this ideological battle.

Scientists have already discovered a way to transform sperm cells into egg cells. What shall we do once homosexuals can conceive their own children?

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 18, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Marriage is another word for union. It solemnizes the relation of two complementary human beings (that is, human beings whose bodily and pyschic parts are designed for union to achieve the completion of their humanity), which nature, or evolution, or God (take your pick) designed as genotypically, phenotypically and morphologically male and female.

This union both represents the wholeness of humanity, male and female, and perpetuates the species, whether or not it does so in a particular case. For these reasons marriage deserves the benefit of state support and preference, as the state depends on it for continuation.

Homosexual unions cannot be true unions, much less marriage, as they serve none of the natural or social purposes of marriage. They deserve no special status in law, any more than two platonic friends, or siblings, living together under the same roof. Medical and civil rights should be the same as all other citizens, but as individual citizens, to make contracts, to provide for inheritance, medical proxies etc, etc.. The pursuit of special status, particularly marital status, is unreasonable and illogical on the grounds of nature and common sense. No religion is required for this conclusion. The appeal to an alleged discrimination re: marriage is likewise absurd, and the Obama administration continues its current theater of the absurd by making it.

Posted by: AmBruce | August 18, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

>>God defines marriage as the union >>between one man and one woman.

Where is the space on a marriage license where God signs? I keep looking at mine but there is just the clerk of the court and the judge.

Checking...nope...no God signs here line.

Posted by: MarcMyWords | August 18, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

fr gmc4jesus:

>...Get reconnected to God and follow His ways and you will receive His blessings....

I strongly suggest that YOU re-read the part in the Bible that says "Judge not, lest YE be judged".

Posted by: Alex511 | August 18, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

fr Jimmie54:

>I feel very sorry for people who are homosexuals. I believe you have a very hard life and probably not a long life span in many cases...

I'd advise that you quit reading "dr" paul cameron's claptrap where he out and out LIED about the lifespan of gay men. Sir John Gielgud was very elderly when he died, with his PARTNER by his side. Others you can research are Walt Whitman, Michelangelo, Peter the Great, President James Buchanan, King James I, Raymond Burr and Leonard Bernstein for starters. All lived to a ripe old age and all were GAY.

Posted by: Alex511 | August 18, 2009 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"Black voting rights, property ownership, and the usage of the same facilities weren't ideal at the time, but we have certainly adjusted."

Response:

Yes, they were ideal.

===
Really? The people integrating didn't seem to think so, but they went ahead and did it.
===

"Incest. No one's talking about two brothers or sisters getting married, just unrelated homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered human couples."

Response: Seems rather random to me that you would eliminate the possibility of Dads marrying their daughters or Moms marrying their sons, doesn't it? Why not? BTW, I'm stunned that you would support male/male/female marriage. That shows me how cloudy your thinking is.

===
I stated before: incest.

As for my thinking being cloudy, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it remains just that.
===

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 18, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"Black voting rights, property ownership, and the usage of the same facilities weren't ideal at the time, but we have certainly adjusted."

Response:

Yes, they were ideal.

"Incest. No one's talking about two brothers or sisters getting married, just unrelated homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered human couples."

Response: Seems rather random to me that you would eliminate the possibility of Dads marrying their daughters or Moms marrying their sons, doesn't it? Why not? BTW, I'm stunned that you would support male/male/female marriage. That shows me how cloudy your thinking is.

Posted by: westsidecougar1 | August 18, 2009 10:23 AM | Report abuse

"Sexually transmitted diseases, rape, pedophelia, prostitution, AIDS, adultery, abortion and more are the result of man trying to pretend he is a god and can make his own rules."

All of these, happen to heterosexuals.

If someone can merely play God, then your god is weak. This is the rule of man we're legislating, not god's definition. Your contract with God remains intact with your church community.

I reiterate. Do you really think that Atheists that recognize your bond under god or under the law? They're Americans too. They get married as well.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 18, 2009 7:33 AM | Report abuse

God defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. President Obama is not God.

Trying to legalize sexual immorality will not free those who engage in it from the consequences of their behavior. Sexually transmitted diseases, rape, pedophelia, prostitution, AIDS, adultery, abortion and more are the result of man trying to pretend he is a god and can make his own rules.

Get reconnected to God and follow His ways and you will receive His blessings. The only way to connect with God is through His Son, Jesus Christ. A Bible study tool that will help you do that is Getting To Know Jesus - Learning and Applying the POWER of CHRIST in Your Life.

Posted by: gmc4jesus | August 18, 2009 2:26 AM | Report abuse

You can't, so we are left with the status quo.

Posted by: westsidecougar1 | August 18, 2009 12:13 AM"

You seem as though you jump to conclusions though you concede that they raise a family perfectly fine in spite of it not being the ideal.

Black voting rights, property ownership, and the usage of the same facilities weren't ideal at the time, but we have certainly adjusted. It may not be the same as orientation, but it's certainly a paradigm shift that we have adapted to. I don't imagine allowing gays the right to marry being much different.

When you consider how much damage is done by denying them the ability to pool assets, have visitation rights afforded to a spouse, be a beneficiary in the case of an accidental death, and I'm certain a whole host of other ill-fated events. Simply telling them to go straight won't solve the problem. Nor will continuing to treat them with less dignity than a heterosexual couple.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 18, 2009 12:26 AM | Report abuse

"Response: To be very clear, I am not arguing that in specific cases that gays can't raise children "perfectly fine". However, the overall impact to society to re-define this basic social arrangement over time (not days, weeks, or months either) would be very negative. Again, the burden of proof is on you (and those who have the same viewpoint) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it isn't harmful. You can't, so we are left with the status quo.

Posted by: westsidecougar1 | August 18, 2009 12:13 AM"

It is incredulously convenient that you can say that the effects would be negative without explaining how because you hide behind the burden of proof.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 18, 2009 12:18 AM | Report abuse

"Would you support a male/male/female marriage sanctioned by the government?"

Probably, if they're all happy and no one's getting hurt. Tibet has polyandry and monogamy. The wife actually likes it because more husbands equals more wealth from having three men working to support the three children. All kids refer to all fathers as their father. Over time, their plot of land remains expansive as the boys of the family don't seek a new plot and instead find a new wife and start the next generation.

"How about Dad/adult daughter marriage? Just so everyone is a consenting adult, then why not?"

Incest. No one's talking about two brothers or sisters getting married, just unrelated homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered human couples.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 18, 2009 12:16 AM | Report abuse

"If the other arrangements are doing fine as we both seem to agree. Why would you force them to behave another way in the sake of it being ideal, but nonetheless not always realistic? Their way doesn't force your relationship to change."

Response: To be very clear, I am not arguing that in specific cases that gays can't raise children "perfectly fine". However, the overall impact to society to re-define this basic social arrangement over time (not days, weeks, or months either) would be very negative. Again, the burden of proof is on you (and those who have the same viewpoint) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it isn't harmful. You can't, so we are left with the status quo.

Posted by: westsidecougar1 | August 18, 2009 12:13 AM | Report abuse

"If the other arrangements are doing fine as we both seem to agree. Why would you force them to behave another way in the sake of it being ideal, but nonetheless not always realistic? Their way doesn't force your relationship to change."

Response: I'll be a little more blunt now. The idea of male/male or female/female marriage with the same status as male/female marriage is utterly absurd and outrageous. It demonstrates the unbelievably cloudy thinking of too many people who want to re-define what has been the norm for eons. Males and females were made to compliment each other and work together to provide the best framework in which to raise children. The idea that any other arrangement should be equivalent is just plain stupid. Government should promote and support that, and that, only. Any other alternative opens the door to all kinds of bizarre marriage arrangements.

Would you support a male/male/female marriage sanctioned by the government? If not, why not? That is where we'd go as a society. How about Dad/adult daughter marriage? Just so everyone is a consenting adult, then why not?

Posted by: westsidecougar1 | August 18, 2009 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Crucialitis wrote "this suggest that since the most intact specimen as you previously mentioned was buried by flood waters, that the other less preserved specimens were not?"

Correct. There were dinosaurs who lived and died before the flood. The question is why did they become extinct when they obviously are the strongest? Flood is more plausible and asteriods are way too fictional.

Also, an asteroid hitting an ocean would just create a big splash. Too fictional to even flood a small city.

The missiles are coming and it's not fictional.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 17, 2009 11:51 PM

...You're kidding about the notion that a miles-wide asteroid impacting an ocean could cause huge waves is fiction, right? That big splash is called a tsunami. Earthquakes with much less energy than a massive rock traveling at thousands of miles/hr can cause them too...

As for extinction, here's one theory:
Lloyd et al. (2008) noted that, in the Mid Cretaceous, the flowering angiosperm plants became a major part of terrestrial ecosystems, which had previously been dominated by gymnosperms such as conifers. Dinosaur coprolites — fossilized dung — indicate that, while some ate angiosperms, most herbivorous dinosaurs mainly ate gymnosperms. Statistical analysis by Lloyd et al. concluded that, contrary to earlier studies, dinosaurs did not diversify very much in the Late Cretaceous. Lloyd et al. suggested that dinosaurs' failure to diversify as ecosystems were changing doomed them to extinction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Failure_to_adapt_to_changing_conditions
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1650/2483

Missiles? We shoot those down, you were around in the 90s. You know that already.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 18, 2009 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Crucialitis wrote "this suggest that since the most intact specimen as you previously mentioned was buried by flood waters, that the other less preserved specimens were not?"

Correct. There were dinosaurs who lived and died before the flood. The question is why did they become extinct when they obviously are the strongest? Flood is more plausible and asteriods are way too fictional.

Also, an asteroid hitting an ocean would just create a big splash. Too fictional to even flood a small city.

The missiles are coming and it's not fictional.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 17, 2009 11:51 PM | Report abuse

: "As a general principle, the degree of carcass decomposition and skeletal disarticulation relates strongly to the time elapsed between mortality and burial."

The better the condition of the preserved skeleton, the faster it was deeply buried.

In general only raging flood waters are able to deliver such quantities of sediment quickly enough to preserve the bones. "

Wouldn't this suggest that since the most intact specimen as you previously mentioned was buried by flood waters, that the other less preserved specimens were not?

Well.. an asteroid hitting the ocean would definitely cause flooding, among many other ways to die. *shrug*

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Crucialitis,

You can also read it here :

"Only if bones were quickly and permanently buried in sediments carried by a flooding river, did they have much chance of being preserved. (Discover January 1981 p. 85)

The field trip guidebook to Dinosaur Provincial Park (1984 p. 43) said the same thing: "As a general principle, the degree of carcass decomposition and skeletal disarticulation relates strongly to the time elapsed between mortality and burial."

The better the condition of the preserved skeleton, the faster it was deeply buried.

In general only raging flood waters are able to deliver such quantities of sediment quickly enough to preserve the bones. "

http://www.create.ab.ca/articles/drowned.html

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 17, 2009 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Response: Uh...your "apocalypse" comment appears to indicate that you have me confused with another poster.

Anyway...

=======

"I want to hear someone's apocalyptic* scenario where homosexual partnerships and polygamy feasibly manage to actually destroy America.

We're going in circles about the same stuff over and over..."
------
"No. Doesn't work that way sir... The burden of proof is on YOU to provide beyond any reasonable doubt that making the change you are proposing will not harm our society significantly over time. I don't need to prove anything on this issue."
-----
"Ain't that convenient..."
-----
"Response:

You may sarcastically make light of that, but it IS your burden to prove. You want the radical and absurd change to the definition of marriage. Not me."
-----

*That "apocalypse" comment.. I shared my side, now I want to hear why it's gloom and doom if dudes are wed.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 11:11 PM | Report abuse

I'm talking about encouraging (via government policy as is done now) what everyone KNOWS is the ideal basic social arrangement (i.e. Dad/Mom TOGETHER raising children). No one I know can dispute that this is the best arrangement...and one we should strive for in the U.S.

Posted by: westsidecougar1 | August 17, 2009 10:59 PM

If the other arrangements are doing fine as we both seem to agree. Why would you force them to behave another way in the sake of it being ideal, but nonetheless not always realistic? Their way doesn't force your relationship to change.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Crucialitis, I got it from Discovery channel.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 17, 2009 10:59 PM | Report abuse

"""Ain't that convenient..."


Response:

You may sarcastically make light of that, but it IS your burden to prove. You want the radical and absurd change to the definition of marriage. Not me.

Why should I (or anyone else opposed to gay marriage) have to prove anything to you on this issue?

Posted by: westsidecougar1 | August 17, 2009 10:14 PM"

Nope, you're right. And if you paid enough attention to society, you'd notice that there are already homosexual couples raising adopted children perfectly fine. (I trust you're not going to blame the current financial crisis on homosexuals, hm?)

It's just that "mom" and "dad" can't legally share anything. Which more than likely makes life harder on their ward.

Now, about that apocalypse..."


Response: Uh...your "apocalypse" comment appears to indicate that you have me confused with another poster.

Anyway...

I'm not sure if this is a reading comprehension issue for you or if you are just not carefully reading my words, what I am arguing is not whether gays can raise children (and are doing this currently) "perfectly fine". I'm talking about encouraging (via government policy as is done now) what everyone KNOWS is the ideal basic social arrangement (i.e. Dad/Mom TOGETHER raising children). No one I know can dispute that this is the best arrangement...and one we should strive for in the U.S.

Posted by: westsidecougar1 | August 17, 2009 10:59 PM | Report abuse

jamshark7 wrote "Some countries have legalized gay marriage, and where is the destruction there?"

The destruction will come just before WW3 will end. Yes, WW3 is coming and for a while America will be defeated. An all-out nuclear war will be inevitable.

Obama don't think that it's coming. Dumb. If he was born during Noah's time, he too would drown. There's a possibility that the White House won't be spared of the coming destruction.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 17, 2009 10:57 PM | Report abuse

"Dinosaurs didn't die because of asteroids. The most intact dinosaur scientists have discovered have been found out to have DROWNED.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 17, 2009 10:35 PM"

I'd like to read about it, if you'd please.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 10:47 PM | Report abuse

DouginMountVernon wrote "I'm waiting for my missile rain. Please send it soon."

Guess what? Even if the missiles are heading in your direction right now you would still be clueless. Stupidity is simply mysterious.

The same stupidity the idiots demonstrated during Noah's time. I guess they were still laughing until they realized that the flood has no intent of abating.

Dinosaurs didn't die because of asteroids. The most intact dinosaur scientists have discovered have been found out to have DROWNED.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 17, 2009 10:35 PM | Report abuse

@westsidecougar: Some countries have legalized gay marriage, and where is the destruction there? Just like, some countries have allowed gays in the military, and the decimation of troop morale predicted by the loony right in the US is nowhere to be found.

Your assertion that gay marriage will destroy the country is, frankly, implausible. Presumably you have some reasoning for believing so. I'd like to hear it.

Going back to your 8:40 PM points:

"1. I know that the rallying cry of those who support gay marriage is "they should have the same rights as "straight" folks. I have news for those who make this absurd claim. Gays have the SAME rights as every one else! Any single adult male can marry a single adult female (as long as they aren't violating incest laws). Gays want special rights!"

Absurd. You (presumably straight) have the right to marry the person that you love. Gays don't have that right.

Or, are you saying that marriage has nothing to do with love?

"2. You can't change the definition of marriage. In other words, marriage "is what it is"...one man/one woman. Check all dictionary versions (prior to some attempting to be politically correct in recent years and adding gay marriage) going as far back as you'd like if you doubt that."

Marriage used to be about maintaining the status of women as property of men. Why do we not think so anymore? Because *society's concept of marriage changed*.

"3. Government has an interest in granting special status to traditional male/female marriage relationships...because we know that this is the ideal social arrangement for raising children."

Sociological studies have failed to find any evidence that children are harmed by growing up in same-sex households. Well, unless you look at disgraced liars like Paul Cameron who have been expelled from professional associations for their misuse of others' work to "prove" the ills of gay people.

As for "we know..." -- there are lots of things people used to know, like, the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, atoms couldn't be split, etc. etc. etc. Once upon a time, everybody knew that, until science showed otherwise.

But hey, you've already made up your mind, so there's no point in my going further, is there?

Posted by: jamshark70 | August 17, 2009 10:22 PM | Report abuse

""Ain't that convenient..."


Response:

You may sarcastically make light of that, but it IS your burden to prove. You want the radical and absurd change to the definition of marriage. Not me.

Why should I (or anyone else opposed to gay marriage) have to prove anything to you on this issue?

Posted by: westsidecougar1 | August 17, 2009 10:14 PM"

Nope, you're right. And if you paid enough attention to society, you'd notice that there are already homosexual couples raising adopted children perfectly fine. (I trust you're not going to blame the current financial crisis on homosexuals, hm?)

It's just that "mom" and "dad" can't legally share anything. Which more than likely makes life harder on their ward.

Now, about that apocalypse...

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 10:20 PM | Report abuse

"Ain't that convenient..."


Response:

You may sarcastically make light of that, but it IS your burden to prove. You want the radical and absurd change to the definition of marriage. Not me.

Why should I (or anyone else opposed to gay marriage) have to prove anything to you on this issue?

Posted by: westsidecougar1 | August 17, 2009 10:14 PM | Report abuse

DouginMountVernon wrote "correction. You obviously mean George W Bush's idiotic war.
Short memories. Idiots extraordinaire."

Lack of reading comprehension is the usual mistakes of idiots. Im not against the Afghan war. Im against the kind of war Obama wants to employ. I don't also approve of Bush's method.

But at least Bush promotes missile defense program while Obama doesn't use his brains.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 17, 2009 10:11 PM | Report abuse

"I want to hear someone's apocalyptic scenario where homosexual partnerships and polygamy feasibly manage to actually destroy America.

We're going in circles about the same stuff over and over. I find it fairly easy to imagine waking up and finding a gay couple outside walking their dog. I'm wondering how two dudes holding hands is going to cause the entire country to burn to ashes."

No. Doesn't work that way sir. You (and others) want this radical and absurd change to the basic and traditional social arrangement. The burden of proof is on YOU to provide beyond any reasonable doubt that making the change you are proposing will not harm our society significantly over time. I don't need to prove anything on this issue.

You aren't able to do that...so we need to stay with our current male/female arrangement of marriage.

Posted by: westsidecougar1 | August 17, 2009 9:39 PM

======

Ain't that convenient...

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Crucialitis wrote "I want to hear someone's apocalyptic scenario where homosexual partnerships and polygamy feasibly manage to actually destroy America"

It is mysterious that states who are for gay marriages are actually located in areas that are very vulnerable to enemy attacks. It is also mysterious why such people don't believe that any defense missile shield is necessary.

It's a truckload of mysteries but it has a common denominator -- stupidity.

And stupidity is self-destructive. When stupid people rule the world (the stupidity is global), doomsday is just around the corner. The destruction would not only be confined to liberal gay marrying states in America. It would be global.

Even the leftists' weird interest in global warming will play a big role to the fulfillment of doomsday. Everything they do to save themselves is actually harmful for them. That's the mystery.

Proverbs 5:22 says it all.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 17, 2009 9:57 PM | Report abuse

"westside, you are the idiot. It's already been proven, first of all. (from Massachusetts to Canada to South Africa to Netherlands to the UK to New Zealand to Spain....and the list grows).

Second, I'm waiting for my missile rain. Please send it soon.

Love to your neighbors, westside, love to your neighbors. If not, you might burn in hell if the missile rain doesn't get you first..."

Response:

Ah yes, name-calling is what those who are losing the debate/argument resort to when frustration boils over.

Yes, love your neighbors (Does calling one an "idiot" demonstrate "loving your neighbors"? Just asking the question. Loving another person means not encouraging them to continue destructive behaviors. You know that, right?

It's been "proven" in those states/countries. Uh..."no", it hasn't. Quite the opposite.

As for "missile rain", I've just joined this discussion, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

One hint: keep this discussion with me in the realm of what is in the best interests of government. I know you'd love to go down the "religious" path and show your hate, but I'm not playing that game sir.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: westsidecougar1 | August 17, 2009 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: DouginMountVernon | August 17, 2009 9:39 PM

aso, by following westsidecougar's logic (and that is one interesting name...), the black slaves that were emancipated in America in the 19th century should have had to prove, without any doubt, that their freedom would not destroy the American economy, whatsoever.....and when women achieved the right to vote after the suffrage movement, they should have had to prove, without a doubt, that their judgement was similar to men's judgement in choosing who they would elect....

And so it was with the advancement of the human condition throughout the ages...."

Response:

"...advancement of the human condition". LOL.

Objection your honor...speculation. Total speculation in fact.

Very poor analogy with respect to slaves and women. We are talking about the basic social arrangement in society and the fact that it deserves special status from government, because it is a critical component of every society (show me evidence that any country in history has thrived without a strong family social structure). Males and females working together bring unique and critical perspectives in raising children (I hope you can acknowledge that). That is why government should encourage this social arrangement for their own self-interest (that is, government's).

One other point, there is no proof that one is born "gay". There is undeniable proof that one is born with dark skin and/or female.

Posted by: westsidecougar1 | August 17, 2009 9:48 PM | Report abuse

westside, you are the idiot. It's already been proven, first of all. (from Massachusetts to Canada to South Africa to Netherlands to the UK to New Zealand to Spain....and the list grows).

Second, I'm waiting for my missile rain. Please send it soon.

Love to your neighbors, westside, love to your neighbors. If not, you might burn in hell if the missile rain doesn't get you first...

Posted by: DouginMountVernon | August 17, 2009 9:42 PM | Report abuse

"to fight his idiotic kind of war"

Ummm, correction. You obviously mean George W Bush's idiotic war.

Short memories. Idiots extraordinaire.

Posted by: DouginMountVernon | August 17, 2009 9:39 PM | Report abuse

"I want to hear someone's apocalyptic scenario where homosexual partnerships and polygamy feasibly manage to actually destroy America.

We're going in circles about the same stuff over and over. I find it fairly easy to imagine waking up and finding a gay couple outside walking their dog. I'm wondering how two dudes holding hands is going to cause the entire country to burn to ashes."

No. Doesn't work that way sir. You (and others) want this radical and absurd change to the basic and traditional social arrangement. The burden of proof is on YOU to provide beyond any reasonable doubt that making the change you are proposing will not harm our society significantly over time. I don't need to prove anything on this issue.

You aren't able to do that...so we need to stay with our current male/female arrangement of marriage.

Posted by: westsidecougar1 | August 17, 2009 9:39 PM | Report abuse

aso, by following westsidecougar's logic (and that is one interesting name...), the black slaves that were emancipated in America in the 19th century should have had to prove, without any doubt, that their freedom would not destroy the American economy, whatsoever.....and when women achieved the right to vote after the suffrage movement, they should have had to prove, without a doubt, that their judgement was similar to men's judgement in choosing who they would elect....

And so it was with the advancement of the human condition throughout the ages....

I will be awaiting the "rain of missiles" that is coming for we "democrat" states, you know, like Virginia that voted for Barack Hussein Obama for President.

Posted by: DouginMountVernon | August 17, 2009 9:35 PM | Report abuse

"You know, "slippery slopes" happen..."

I want to hear someone's apocalyptic scenario where homosexual partnerships and polygamy feasibly manage to actually destroy America.

We're going in circles about the same stuff over and over. I find it fairly easy to imagine waking up and finding a gay couple outside walking their dog. I'm wondering how two dudes holding hands is going to cause the entire country to burn to ashes.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 9:31 PM | Report abuse

"The definitions of words and their usage change through the ages e.g. the word "cleave".

So the definition of the word "marriage" has also changed, reflecting its present usage i.e. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other."

Response:

All definitions prior to the politically correct versions of late have defined it as one man/one woman. This is the way it has been for eons. This is the ideal social arrangement in which to raise children. Government has rightfully recognized the need to give this social arrangement special status...as it should continue to do so.

By the way, I know of someone who is a "bi-sexual" who wants to marry a man and a woman at the same time. Problem? Or no problem? You know, "slippery slopes" happen...

Posted by: westsidecougar1 | August 17, 2009 9:19 PM | Report abuse

kgriffin,
I believe this country was founded on a belief in God.
I believe our country would not have had the courage to fight for freedom if not for their faith in God. Perhaps you haven't been faced with a "Save me Jesus" moment such as Peter did when he walked on the water to Jesus and began to sink when he took his eyes off the Lord, but I have and I can say without a doubt that the Lord is alive on Planet Earth.

I know different documents talk about separation of church and state and I can see that is tearing us apart here. We went wrong in several areas such as taking prayer out of school - thanks to that woman who has since been murdered. I find it ironic that an atheist who caused such a disruption in prayer in the public school system which affected many many children was later found murdered. Coincidence? I think not. Better mend your ways. God will forgive you and so will I.

Posted by: Jimmie54 | August 17, 2009 9:14 PM | Report abuse

The definitions of words and their usage change through the ages e.g. the word "cleave".

So the definition of the word "marriage" has also changed, reflecting its present usage i.e. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other.

Posted by: larryross | August 17, 2009 9:14 PM | Report abuse

The definitions of words and their usage change through the ages e.g. the word "cleave".

So the definition of the word "marriage" has also changed, reflecting its present usage i.e. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other.

Posted by: larryross | August 17, 2009 9:12 PM | Report abuse

"President Barack Obama chastised the defense industry wasting tax dollars "with doctrine and weapons better suited to fight the Soviets on the plains of Europe than insurgents in the rugged terrain of Afghanistan.""

I hope he gathers all the idiots here in America to fight his idiotic kind of war. These insurgents are like ants compared to the more dangerous enemies of America. The kind of enemy capable of wiping out these liberal gay marrying states.

We have a president suited to fulfill that prophecy. A president who would make America very vulnerable to such attack.

Stupidity is self destructive. That statement can never go wrong and it's being demonstrated by this idiotic president.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 17, 2009 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Agree that divorce has been very destructive to marriage and society. However, society should strive to reinforce the IDEAL basic social structure...and government has rightly recognized that, which is why they should continue to provide that social arrangement (Dad, Mom, children) with special status (via laws, tax policy, etc.).

Posted by: westsidecougar1 | August 17, 2009 8:54 PM | Report abuse

With over half of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce I fail to see what is so "ideal" about them

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 17, 2009 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Just a few points...

1. I know that the rallying cry of those who support gay marriage is "they should have the same rights as "straight" folks. I have news for those who make this absurd claim. Gays have the SAME rights as every one else! Any single adult male can marry a single adult female (as long as they aren't violating incest laws). Gays want special rights! Thus, their rights are not somehow less than what I have regarding marriage.

2. You can't change the definition of marriage. In other words, marriage "is what it is"...one man/one woman. Check all dictionary versions (prior to some attempting to be politically correct in recent years and adding gay marriage) going as far back as you'd like if you doubt that.

3. Government has an interest in granting special status to traditional male/female marriage relationships...because we know that this is the ideal social arrangement for raising children. Men and women working together bring an important and critical perspective to this social arrangement. It doesn't matter if some married couples choose not to have children or cannot have children (that is beside the point)...we are talking about striving for, and upholding, the IDEAL social family arrangement...which is what government has an interest in promoting by providing it with special status (special tax status, legal status, social status, etc.).

To me, the burden should be on those who want to make this radical change in defining traditional marriage such that they should have to prove- without any doubt- that this change will not negatively impact society going forward. They can't...so we are left with maintaining the status quo. And that is a good thing.

Posted by: westsidecougar1 | August 17, 2009 8:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm totally in favor of this. They should have addressed this sooner, though. No more pandering to the right wing who will never like anything this president does. He should do exactly as he believes is right without ever consulting the neanderthals. During the past 8 years they were given an exaggerated sense of their own importance, now we can get back to reality. Ignore them, they just want attention.

Posted by: bgormley1 | August 17, 2009 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Crucialitis wrote " is the world really 6000 years old to you?

If you guys don't understand the Bible, don't quote it. The Bible never said that the world is 6000 years old. You idiots should learn how to read and think.

Also apes like you cannot understand the Bible. It's written for humans. No amount of evolution can allow apes to read a Bible. Not a single word, idiot.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 17, 2009 8:34 PM

Yep.. definitely trollin'

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Crucialitis wrote " is the world really 6000 years old to you?

If you guys don't understand the Bible, don't quote it. The Bible never said that the world is 6000 years old. You idiots should learn how to read and think.

Also apes like you cannot understand the Bible. It's written for humans. No amount of evolution can allow apes to read a Bible. Not a single word, idiot.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 17, 2009 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Stupidity is self-destructive. This is not only biblical but very scientific. If you idiots don't believe the Bible, at least, have mercy on your neighbors by believing in basic science. Don't let your neighbors burn with you.

Do you fools have a brain? We have a brainless president already so please don't add to the troubles of this country.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 17, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

"Do you mean the people who think that their ancestors were apes? Do you also mean male animals having sex with another male animal like rooster with another rooster?"

...Is this troll bait? Or is the world really 6000 years old to you?

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 8:26 PM | Report abuse

kgriffin63 wrote "please, can't we move forward and ignore these fools?"

Fools? Do you mean the people who think that their ancestors were apes? Do you also mean male animals having sex with another male animal like rooster with another rooster?

No wonder the Bible says that you guys will burn. Stupidity is self-destructive you know. If you guys are left alone, you will destroy America.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 17, 2009 8:15 PM | Report abuse

billalves714--

JaxMax does admire the way Obama by his ACTIONS supports DOMA

especially while using his WORDS to say he opposes DOMA to LGBT.

See, there is some good in the worst of us.

As for the rest of your post--Thank you.

it was kind of a down day when I found out the White House SHUT OFF the Informer web site

"flag@whitehouse.gov"

where JaxMax was #1--

but such are the fleeting 15 nano seconds of fame

JaxMax--#1 commenter reported to the White House Informer Site--before it went defunct

Posted by: JaxMax | August 17, 2009 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Jimmie54,

Whatever you believe about "your God" - belief in such an entity should have no business in shaping public policy. Many people, myself included, don't believe in any God. Why should we have to live by the so-called "rules" of something we don't believe in? If you believe in them, fine. Let them guide your own life. But this country was founded on separation of church and state. Its time we start to act like it.

Posted by: kgriffin63 | August 17, 2009 8:06 PM | Report abuse

For the new poster here: JaxMax is a 'serial' troll and a Rethuglican agent-provacateur. After awhile you'll notice that there's never,ever a single instance that would make him agree with Pres. Obama. Not one. He is so rigid in the "just say NO" agenda, the "Obama must fail" anti-American wing-nut tripe, that I sometimes wonder if he's not Rush himself. Unlike the typical Republican-base "dittohead", he can actually spell, write coherent sentences, and can cleverly spread dis-information with a truthful-sounding patina. The give-away comes from prolonged exposure to his posts; i.e. it's not possible for Any intelligent person to disagree with each and every thing a Pres. does no matter what, unless you're a bigot or Rush (same thing?). Most Americans will admit to approving Some things G, Bush did--he Was elected (sort of) to 2 terms. Not JaxMax.

Posted by: billalves714 | August 17, 2009 8:02 PM | Report abuse

"Likewise, their men have given up natural sexual relations with women and burn with lust for each other. Men commit indecent acts with men, so they experience among themselves the punishment they deserve for their perversion." (Romans 1:27)

Why does Obama continually calls himself a Christian and yet defies what true Christianity teaches.

If a state wants to burn, they should burn alone. The prophecy states that democrat states in America will burn.

The Bible is never wrong. The punishment will arrive very soon in the form of missiles raining on liberal gay-marrying states.

This idiotic president is destroying America.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 17, 2009 8:02 PM | Report abuse

I feel very sorry for people who are homosexuals. I believe you have a very hard life and probably not a long life span in many cases. What I do not believe is that marriage is meant for anyone other than what my Bible says it is for which is one man and one woman. God gave us marriage with the intent that we marry and reproduce children and raise the children in a christian home and stay together for the children, as much as is humanly possible except in extreme circumstances. Two people of the same sex cannot reproduce thereby negating what God says marriage is for. If you want to join with another human being of the same sex in some sort of contract, I have no problem with that. I feel that marriage is a sacred agreement given to us by God for one man and one woman. I will stand up for my God and protest any suggestion that marriage be changed to include same sex couples. That will be the final downfall of this administration and this country. Please keep God in your thoughts. Pray for this country.

Posted by: Jimmie54 | August 17, 2009 8:01 PM | Report abuse

I'm sick of the backwards portion of our populace impeding any progress and solutions for the many problems our country faces. Let them scream about the perverts, about socialized medicine, and about Obama's citizenship. But please, can't we move forward and ignore these fools? Repeal DOMA and DADT, have a viable public insurance option to compete with the for-profit health insurance giants, and start to address the real problems of energy independence, public education, corporate greed and misconduct, etc. Our country would be so much better off and more advanced if it weren't for the fools on the far right who won't shut up and adapt to the times. They really are ruining our country, and have been for decades since the "moral majority" organized politically.

Posted by: kgriffin63 | August 17, 2009 7:58 PM | Report abuse

For the new poster here: JaxMax is a 'serial' troll and a Rethuglican agent-provacateur. After awhile you'll notice that there's never,ever a single instance that would make him agree with Pres. Obama. Not one. He is so rigid in the "just say NO" agenda, the "Obama must fail" anti-American wing-nut tripe, that I sometimes wonder if he's not Rush himself. Unlike the typical Republican-base "dittohead", he can actually spell, write coherent sentences, and can cleverly spread dis-information with a truthful-sounding patina. The give-away comes from prolonged exposure to his posts; i.e. it's not possible for Any intelligent person to disagree with each and every thing a Pres. does no matter what, unless you're a bigot or Rush (same thing?). Most Americans will admit to approving Some things G, Bush did--he Was elected (sort of) to 2 terms. Not JaxMax.

Posted by: billalves714 | August 17, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

"So, since the public is very much against the nitwit's government health care takeover, he now goes to pander to the perverts. Guess he thinks he needs their votes.

Posted by: LarryG62 | August 17, 2009 7:30 PM"

You'd prefer he continued to unsuccessfully pander to closed-minds like yourself..?

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 7:52 PM | Report abuse

What a waste of time and money.

Most NATO countries already have gay members actively serving in their armed forces, dying in Afghanistan, and getting married.

What happened when it became legal?

NOTHING.

Seriously, just do it, get it over with, and let the Birther Tin Foil brigade declare the end of the world is nigh like they've been doing for the last two decades of wasted time.

Posted by: WillSeattle | August 17, 2009 7:35 PM | Report abuse

So, since the public is very much against the nitwit's government health care takeover, he now goes to pander to the perverts. Guess he thinks he needs their votes.

Posted by: LarryG62 | August 17, 2009 7:30 PM | Report abuse

In light of jward52's (August 17, 2009 6:44 PM) evident difficulties with spelling, grammar and punctuation, let's just hope that his idea for staffing the "Fedaerl Poat-Office" goes no further than this page.

Posted by: HughBriss | August 17, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

To those who question President Obama's motives in supporting the law of the land while at the same time questioning it, I ask, "What would you have the President do? Defy the law or enforce the law while working for it repeal? The two are not incompatible even if you cannot seem to grasp the connection. I'm sure you'd howl if Mr. Obama simply defied the law.

I respect Mr. Obama's concurrent respect for the law and wish to see the law changed in the interest of fairness to all our citizens. While the majority may make the laws, the laws enacted the majority may not reflect what is just.

Posted by: Kneourl | August 17, 2009 6:49 PM | Report abuse

JaxMax (August 17, 2009 5:58 PM) wrote that "No civilization EVER has survived the widespread adoption of homesexuality as "Normal"

"Homesexuality"? Is that like having sex at home? And when did that become a threat to civilization?

Does JaxMax prefer getting it on in church?

Posted by: HughBriss | August 17, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Why would the President OBAMA Only support and speak-Up for Federal Employees?! - How about the 65 Million U.S. Citizens whomare DISABLED & ELDERLY LIVING in "POVERTY"??!! tHIS Discriminating Attitude is Totally anti-Citizen, and of course un-Constutional to the MAX!! - Our Patriotic DISABLED & ELDERLY Living in " POVERTY" ARE JUST AS MUCH cITIZENS AS THE SPOILED OVER-PAID Federal Goof-OFFS!! - Mr. President OBAMA, - READ OUR LIPS,- "ALL u.s. Citizens should get Equal Rights,- Period!! And Fedaerl Poat-Office Jobs should be rotated evry 4-5 years to the U.S. Citizens whom Live in POVERTY & are un-Employed!!! God Almighty,- We-the-People are Tired of this non-stop DISCRIMINATION against the Most Hurting & Suffering of Our PATRIOTS CITIZENS!!!

Posted by: jward52 | August 17, 2009 6:44 PM | Report abuse

fr zman4:

>Homosexuals do not generate family...

I am a gay Christian woman who married my WIFE last year. Our FAMILY is strong.

Posted by: Alex511 | August 17, 2009 6:44 PM | Report abuse

If WylieD (August 17, 2009 6:25 PM) lived in Afghanistan, he'd probably be throwing acid in the faces of schoolgirls.

Posted by: HughBriss | August 17, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

If Mindboggle (August 17, 2009 6:03 PM) lived in Saudi Arabia, he'd probably be fervently convinced that women shouldn't drive cars.

Posted by: HughBriss | August 17, 2009 6:39 PM | Report abuse

It's about time!

Posted by: maphound | August 17, 2009 6:36 PM | Report abuse


Nature is far crueler to gays than is DOMA.

Posted by: WylieD | August 17, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

The worst general abuse of the Bush Administration was the concentration of power in the executive branch. This was done with, among many other things, signing statements that prepared the way for ignoring laws passed by Congress. It was egregious abuse of power. It still would be.

DOMA is a law passed by Congress. As bad a law as it is, the last thing that I want is for a President to follow the Bush lead and pick and choose which laws to enforce. It is up to Congress to fix it, not the President.

Posted by: richard42 | August 17, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Show me your "institution of thousands of years" and I'll show you a genetic variation that has been in existence since life began....

Please, civilization is far more threatened by the widespread normalization of stupidity in the human population, as evidenced by some of the commenters on this article, than it ever has been by any organism that forms loving bonds with another organism of the same sex, regardless of the species....

But, you people would amuse me were it not for the greivous injustice that you exhalt against your fellow human beings.

Posted by: DouginMountVernon | August 17, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

"Well, I was stating that the majority isn't always right. Thus, it makes sense that the debate would continue. You are right on the surface, but like many issues of past days, it doesn't mean you're correct unequivocally.
I'm afraid there'll be no apologies today.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 5:37 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Then you were arguing with the wrong guy. Go take issue with someone who you disagree with.

Posted by: ZZim | August 17, 2009 6:04 PM"

I'm certain what transpired was meant to be such. :\

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

obama's paniced so once again he reaches out.
go sh!t yourself Obama

Posted by: newagent99 | August 17, 2009 6:11 PM | Report abuse

The gleefully nasty comments left here by religious fundamentalists are inspired by the same view of the world that led to Osama bin Laden's delight in killing thousands of "infidels" on 9/11.

Posted by: HughBriss | August 17, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Well, I was stating that the majority isn't always right. Thus, it makes sense that the debate would continue. You are right on the surface, but like many issues of past days, it doesn't mean you're correct unequivocally.
I'm afraid there'll be no apologies today.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 5:37 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Then you were arguing with the wrong guy. Go take issue with someone who you disagree with.

Posted by: ZZim | August 17, 2009 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Axelrod and his Chicago crooks probably did a poll and found that they could get some votes on this one. Defense of Marriage Act--isn't it terrible to defend an institution that has existed for thousands of years before the Pelosis and the Reids and the Kennedys and the Franks entered the scene. Obama believes in votes; does not matter from whom or why as long as he can get lots of them. All of his pecadillos will start to haunt him in the midterm elections when Americans reject what he is doing to this country.

Posted by: Mindboggle | August 17, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

"No civilization EVER

has survived the widespread adoption of homesexuality as "Normal"

not one.............

Posted by: JaxMax | August 17, 2009 5:58 PM"

Of course, all civilizations have a beginning and an end. You're somewhat insinuating that homosexuality was the cause of demise and not say.. the egregious expansion of territory beyond what is feasibly sustainable.

Show me an example, and I'll consider the notion again.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

No civilization EVER

has survived the widespread adoption of homesexuality as "Normal"

not one.............

Posted by: JaxMax | August 17, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Estoban, your ignorance of evolutionary theory is showing, actually.

Evolutionary theory actually has a strong place for advancement of species in such "dead ends"....regardless of the level of procreation that is lost, often these "dead ends" are in fact additional resources that support the whole community of a species, and frequently resulting in greater success rates of species offspring because of what the "dead ends" contribute to the community population as a whole, typically in the form of advanced food gathering, defenses of the species, or even in assisting in procreative activity, believe it or not....

Just remember, in the hive of honeybees, there is only one procreative adult out of thousands of adult individuals in the population....but that one procreative adult could not survive and lay the necessary eggs were in not for the activity of the thousands of worker bees...

be careful "Estoban" you may not be aware of what your "dead end" brothers and sisters are doing to enrich your world, and enrich all of our survivorship....

Posted by: DouginMountVernon | August 17, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

"The 'Higher Powers' of all major world religions do not recognize homosexual marriage as valid. On the other hand, the theory of evolution classifies such as dead ends, as they cannot naturally keep the species viable. What a quandry?

Posted by: Estoban | August 17, 2009 5:40 PM"

How many humans burn petrol to move metal allows down asphalt paths in order to feed their young? Not by hunting game, but by trading time performing a task in exchange for currency that's used to buy what would've been hunted if things were 'natural.' There's a lot to question of what is 'natural' these days.

Perhaps not alone can they conceive, but 'natural' is something to question with the current state of affairs. Especially considering how many 'natural' pairs cannot take care of their own offspring, let alone conceive. Thus, although genetically classified as a dead-end. Socially, LGBT individuals can still make a contribution to society as a couple. As much as we put an emphasis on nurturing the young, this should be just as meaningful.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

To the crackpots--NONE of you have EVER, to my knowledge, ever explained precisely how any two people in love getting married (civilly--ie with a government sanctioned license) under the same laws as everyone else in this country, if they happen to be of the same sex, EVER amounts to "ramming something" down anyone else's throat? What is this pathetic argument all about? Does that mean that gay & lesbian couples are having straight marriage "shoved down their throats" every day as people get hitched?

It makes no sense. NONE of the arguments against giving any citizen equal access to marriage licenses to marry the person they love EVER make any sense if one examines the core of it, objectively.

Spare me your religious viewpoint, as there is no law made in this country respecting religious viewpoints....or there is not supposed to be....there are also religions in this country (and a growing number of Christian denominations and MEMBERS of those denominations) who believe that love is love, and that neither God nor Jesus EVER spoke out against anyone two people in love (for Christians), and that all love is sacred and blessed.

But again, your religion, nor mine, is what matters in this situation. What matters is the adherence and moral clarity of those great founding documents....that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL....and LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS....do they belong to all of us, or don't they?

Moral truth always wins out, and it's pretty clear which version is moral in this story...EQUALITY

Posted by: DouginMountVernon | August 17, 2009 5:47 PM | Report abuse

The 'Higher Powers' of all major world religions do not recognize homosexual marriage as valid. On the other hand, the theory of evolution classifies such as dead ends, as they cannot naturally keep the species viable. What a quandry?

Posted by: Estoban | August 17, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

""Honestly: They are the will of the MAJORITY of the people.
Posted by: ZZim | August 17, 2009 4:31 PM"

Such a shame that the majority once thought that the world was flat and the sun orbited around us. Hell, the majority supported the subjugation of rights on the basis of skin tone. The majority is always right, eh?

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 4:38 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I made to mention of whether or not the people were right. I was pointing out that the “will of the people” consists of the will of the MAJORITY of the people, not the will of ALL the people. Get your facts straight, then come back and apologize or try a new argument.

Full disclosure: Like President Obama, I support civil unions and oppose “gay marriage”.
Posted by: ZZim | August 17, 2009 5:34 PM"

Well, I was stating that the majority isn't always right. Thus, it makes sense that the debate would continue. You are right on the surface, but like many issues of past days, it doesn't mean you're correct unequivocally.
I'm afraid there'll be no apologies today.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Approximately 5% of American males and 8-12% of females are gay. It's a biological fact. No choice, no perversion, just the biology of the situation.

If "marriage" is defined in only a religious context, then the imposition of religion on a civil relationship is unconstitutional. Don't like gay sex and relationships? Don't have them. Persecution based on ancient religious taboos is bigotry and ignorant.

Posted by: thebobbob | August 17, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

"Honestly: They are the will of the MAJORITY of the people.
Posted by: ZZim | August 17, 2009 4:31 PM"

Such a shame that the majority once thought that the world was flat and the sun orbited around us. Hell, the majority supported the subjugation of rights on the basis of skin tone. The majority is always right, eh?

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 4:38 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I made to mention of whether or not the people were right. I was pointing out that the “will of the people” consists of the will of the MAJORITY of the people, not the will of ALL the people. Get your facts straight, then come back and apologize or try a new argument.

Full disclosure: Like President Obama, I support civil unions and oppose “gay marriage”.

Posted by: ZZim | August 17, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

the president can't impose upon the States RIGHTS. The 10th amendment restricts the power of the Federal Government and that protection is in place to keep DICTATORS from imposing laws without restraint . Whether the homosexuals like it or not, they are not going to force 100% of the people to accommodate the 5% of their population imposing SPECIAL PROGRAMS of recognition and entitlements...We have had enough of that SPECIAL INTEREST CRAP. Call me HOMOPHOBE if you want , but what would I be if I wanted to burden 100% of our innocent children with my NON GAY adult sex life to prepuberty school children in classes like are allowed for " GAY ALLIANCE " ?

Posted by: noHUCKABEEnoVOTE | August 17, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

The Bible Obama was sworn in on as President had Romans Chapter 1:27

"27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

It is unknown if this verse was cited by Obama in his law brief which supported DOMA.....

Posted by: JaxMax | August 17, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Of course repealing DOMA is the right thing to do, and I'm glad to see the administration making this statement. I understand the academic reasoning why the administration is "defending" the law in court briefings, as they are obliged, but it doesn't make it any easier to swallow given the denial of basic fairness to so many good American citizens and their families.

However, commenters like jsherman62, zendrell, and BubbaRight....the more your ilk opens your loud and bigoted mouths, the more people realize the wrongs being perpetrated....so please keep spewing your venom as I'm certain it will only increase the speed with which justice finally rolls down like water...

Posted by: DouginMountVernon | August 17, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

"You said liberals are shoving this down your throat, but how does it change your marriage eh? You're denying rights of fellow Americans that you yourself enjoy and saying you love them? Nonsense. The real bully is your ilk."

Still at it, eh? Where did I say my marriage is changed, or even that I am or am not married? Nor did I say I love anyone- I said that you don't know if I do, and asked for your unique definition of love which denies me the right to disagree. I occasionally disagree with my loved ones at home; no problem, we love and respect each others opinion enough to refrain from silly attacks.
You, however, are yet offering non-sequiturs in place of reason as you continue to attack a stranger about whom you know nothing but assume a great deal.

My ilk? Labeling all who disagree with you with the same brush? You, madam/sir, appear to be the very definition of a bully. I am not impressed, or intimidated.
Posted by: FlyDiesel | August 17, 2009 5:22 PM"

Well then, mister. What IS being shoved down your (and your ilk's) collective throats?

That two people loving each other (committing to a monogamous relationship) that happen to be of the same gender is somehow less important than a heterosexual relationship?

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Glad to see Obama making his position clear on this issue, and proving so by the nature of the new legal brief alluded to.
Haters, your days of dominance are numbered even if the fanatics on the Supreme Court rule in you favor.

Posted by: ronaldoroso | August 17, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

LBGT-- DO NOT worry Obama's got your back

oh no--LGBT DO worry!!!

see Obama is STABBING you in the back

Obama--consistently inconsistent

Posted by: JaxMax | August 17, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Marriage MEANS male-female. GAY marriage is an oxymoron--mm or ff coupling is not marriage, and, therefore, cannot be defined so. It's another incidence of "rewriting history on the barn wall." If people choose to be gay and live the gay life, well, society tolerates it, but society cannot define marriage in gay terms, because to do so would un-do the definition of marriage. You can make up fake laws but they are still fake laws.

Posted by: IIntgrty | August 17, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

"You said liberals are shoving this down your throat, but how does it change your marriage eh? You're denying rights of fellow Americans that you yourself enjoy and saying you love them? Nonsense. The real bully is your ilk."

Still at it, eh? Where did I say my marriage is changed, or even that I am or am not married? Nor did I say I love anyone- I said that you don't know if I do, and asked for your unique definition of love which denies me the right to disagree. I occasionally disagree with my loved ones at home; no problem, we love and respect each others opinion enough to refrain from silly attacks.
You, however, are yet offering non-sequiturs in place of reason as you continue to attack a stranger about whom you know nothing but assume a great deal.

My ilk? Labeling all who disagree with you with the same brush? You, madam/sir, appear to be the very definition of a bully. I am not impressed, or intimidated.

Posted by: FlyDiesel | August 17, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Whataboutlove posted:
"Whether anyone chooses to believe is neither here no there, where truth is concerned. If you choose not to believe that gravity exists or the sun will rise again tomorrow, matters not. The truth is the truth; it stands on its own and does require you to believe it."

Indeed, but it is too bad you and other religious conservatives do not listen to your own words. I can prove that the sun will rise and that gravity exists. Furthermore, I don't require you to believe crazy things without any proof except for a book written thousands of years ago. If you beleve so firmly in the Christian God, why not believe in the Muslim God? They have the very same teachings, and actually adhere to the writings of their prophets...unlike 99.99999% of American Christians.

Posted by: truth_stalker | August 17, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama's WORDS on DOMA please the LGBT

Obama's ACTIONS on DOMA please Republicans.

Posted by: JaxMax | August 17, 2009 5:20 PM | Report abuse

"I do not need to fall back on God or some pseudo religion to be against this. It is really simple, I do not want my tax dollars going to someone who, for all intents and purposes, does not propogate to ensure the survival of the species"
__________________________________________

What a bunch of BS.
So by this definition, automatic divorse or dissolution of MARRIAGE should happen that instant that a MARRIED HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE
1. Finds out that they cannot procreate
2. Makes a conscioius decision to not have children

In addition, no marriage licenses should be issued for those people of non-procreating age, which of course would be discriminatory to women who obviously cannot procreate after a certain biological age. BUT HEY I WOULD GO WITH THAT>

Now, as for a non married homosexual couple or people like myself who are single, because I do not have children then
1. I should not have to pay for things like school taxes or any other tax that is for the BENEFIT of HETEROSEXUAL MARRIED people with children
2. This would also apply for things like public fees for kids daycares, childrens parks, baseball fields, soccer fields etc.

If you want to be married fine - that is religious notion and what a church is for.
There should be no relationship between who gets married (or civil union) and who does not.

And spare me all the bible quotes, and telling me how my friends are going to hell in a handbasket. From what I have seen of many mainstream people, especially many posted here, the level of hatred is disgusting, and in no way reflects the idea of how any true GOD would possible want his followers to feel.

Posted by: kare1 | August 17, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Another Obama lie.

Posted by: affirmativeactionpresident | August 17, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

what can the LGBT expect??????

Obama DID marry a person of the opposite sex.

and you can't trust ANYONE who has done that to repeal DOMA.

Posted by: JaxMax | August 17, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Does IIntgrty remember when he "chose" to be straight? I'm sure his wife might be very interested in knowing how he came about choosing his sexual orientation. I'm sure she'll be glad to know he chose her over all the men that he could have chosen...

Posted by: downtoearthguy | August 17, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"LOL This is great the entire planet condemns it for 2,000 years but Obama doesn't."

Well, they certainly condemned astronomy for much of that time as well.. as well as geography, mathematics, science...

Yeah. Copernicus was totally barking up the wrong tree..

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Another Obama lie.

Posted by: affirmativeactionpresident | August 17, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama slaps the LGBT, but says he loves them

"In addition, Obama issued a statement noting that, although his administration is again defending DOMA in court, "this brief makes clear...that my administration believes the act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress."

See, say you want DOMA repealed for the LGBT, then actually support DOMA for voters.

Nice.

Posted by: JaxMax | August 17, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

"but society cannot define marriage in gay terms, because to do so would un-do the definition of marriage."

How?

Would heterosexual couples suddenly cease to be married? Would they be turned away at the hospital doors while their loved one ailed? Do tell.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

life is unfair. Get over it.

Posted by: loudountaxrevolt | August 17, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Hi Annubis21 - if you don't believe the Bible to be the Word of God then I can understand your feelings. Jesus did say "let those with ears, let him hear. Let those with eyes, let him see.".
He hasn't opened your eyes or ears yet. I pray he does

Annubus21 said: No-bama God has never came down and said homosexuality is a sin, what we have heard over the past two millennium is what PEOPLE think what god wants, god has never come down and stated anything of the sort, it's has been and always will be man who hates, judges, and kills over religion

Posted by: NO-bama | August 17, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

LOL - This idiot keeps burying his head in the sand.

Go ahead and try repealling it.

LOL This is great the entire planet condemns it for 2,000 years but Obama doesn't.

What else is new, the guy is an idiot.

Chevy

Posted by: MrPotatoHead98 | August 17, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama needs to SAY PUBLICLY he wants DOMA repealed

while PIVATELY making sure it never happens.

and blame the Republicans for both......

and the LGBT never catches on.

Posted by: JaxMax | August 17, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"Homosexuals do not generate family. Do not create progeny."

So they children they're raising don't deserve the same protections? They're not as American as the progeny of Heterosexual couples?

What about women who can't conceive, but are nonetheless married? Are they an abomination as well?

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Marriage MEANS male-female. GAY marriage is an oxymoron--mm or ff coupling is not marriage, and, therefore, cannot be defined so. It's another incidence of "rewriting history on the barn wall." If people choose to be gay and live the gay life, well, society tolerates it, but society cannot define marriage in gay terms, because to do so would un-do the definition of marriage. You can make up fake laws but they are still fake laws.

Posted by: IIntgrty | August 17, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

One group's religious beliefs should never guide the country's lawmakers and laws. Civil rights and benefits must be blind to race, creed, color, religion and sexual orientation.

Posted by: jblippman | August 17, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Even if God says it's a sin, I shouldn't need to remind you that this country has many faiths, all allowed to flourish through the law of MAN. Freedom for you to pray as a heterosexual means freedom for homosexual couples to do the same. This would also apply to making a 'divine contract' with God.

Spare me what your God thinks of homosexuality as a sin. It doesn't matter here, that matters within the walls of your church. Out here, where your beliefs meet those of others, you must learn to accept that what your God has written for you is not to be proscribed to everyone. You are supposed to spread the word, not administer it.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

REPEAL OF DOMA WOULD BE OBAMA'S GIFT TO REPUBLICANS

If Obama is REALLY going to get the DOMA
REPEALED........

and not just blabbering to the LGBT

PLEASE PLEASE Obama do so BEFORE the midterm elections !!!!!!

Thank You, for A new Republican House in 2010.

Posted by: JaxMax | August 17, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

fr blessingsalways:

>If you are a believer in Jesus Christ and his Word, you would know that God does not recognize marriage other than between a MAN AND A WOMAN! If gays and lesbians want to have a life-time relationship with their same gender, don't call it a marriage -- it's a civil union - anything other than marriage is blasphemy against God!

My WIFE and I were legally MARRIED last year, we are gay Christian women, and He blesses our MARRIAGE each and every day. Our pastor was a special guest at our WEDDING, she couldn't perform it, but she was there, and so was Christ.

I'm sorry that you are so misinformed.

Posted by: Alex511 | August 17, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Homosexuals raise families too. I guess forgetting that fact is something conservatives are good at?

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 4:04 PM

Homosexuals do not generate family. Do not create progeny. Tax breaks like those made available to married couples for families were created at a time when the country was growing, let alone the economy, and the more people the better. Different solutions for different times(perhaps there is no point to any of these breaks any longer) Beyond that you miss my point. We do not have the money to spread around to everyone for everything they consider important. That is what liberals miss every time. Just tbecause we might have simpathy for a group does not mean we can afford to make available to them various costly benifits. Only so much to spread around.

Posted by: zman4 | August 17, 2009 4:15 PM
======================================

And as long at those resources are being spent on straight, white couples then the world is right.

Posted by: ag1976 | August 17, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"I'm fine with civil unions and allowing benefits to those couples who feel that they need that connection to heterosexual
normality."

Then we should call heterosexual unions "civil unions" as well in the law books and leave "marriage" as what your church refers to your bond as.

Posted by: Crucialitis
==

Well said!

Opposition to gay marriage is simply religious bigotry.

Posted by: HumanSimpleton | August 17, 2009 5:02 PM | Report abuse

When the ignorant attempt to modify the best health care system in the world to the point where it will no longer function..
Posted by: zman4 |

==

WTF? Who is attempting to change France's health care system?

Posted by: HumanSimpleton | August 17, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

To ecraloon are you so ignorant that you dont understand that gay people do propagate and take the discards of society and raise them to be productive members of society? Also all the old bigots and the others GET READY EQUALITY IN MARRIAGE IS COMING TO AMWERICA so get over it!

Posted by: nrsgary | August 17, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

No-bama God has never came down and said homosexuality is a sin, what we have heard over the past two millennium is what PEOPLE think what god wants, god has never come down and stated anything of the sort, it's has been and always will be man who hates, judges, and kills over religion

Posted by: annubis21 | August 17, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

I'm basically a fair minded person, but I find myself vehemently opposing everything that he wants or stands for because of the questions about his past and my concern for this country's future.

Posted by: spiris333
==

No you are not fair-minded. In fact, the fact that your oppose a stance just because someone you hate supports it shows that you are not fair-minded. If you were fair-minded about it, you'd hate or love it not based on who else supported it, but on its own merits.

Posted by: HumanSimpleton | August 17, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

You can make excuses to the end of time about lack of funds, etc.etc. but it's all just a smokescreen used by people who fear change that doesn't fit their narrow definition of right vs. wrong.


Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 17, 2009 4:30 PM

Wrong. When I say something I mean it. If I say I do not care that you live together happpily with whomever you chose, then that is precisely what I mean and nothing other. Do not presume to know me. I have the same argument for the people in my town who want to build a new library when the current one is only 9 years old and in no way needs to be replaced. I have the same argument When the ignorant attempt to modify the best health care system in the world to the point where it will no longer function while costing double what it does now to operate. We do not have the money to waste on extraneous programs and inept bureaucracy.

Posted by: zman4 | August 17, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

No-bama, no you're stating you THINK god hates homosexuality, you like the rest of us have no idea what god thinks, and won't know till your judgment. You're saying that you don't judge anyone, that's a crock, you're just hiding behind your religion, like most zealots do.

Posted by: annubis21 | August 17, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

"What if this guy is right and I meet my maker upon death - will I be able to look Him in the eye and say I lived a life that glorified Him?
Posted by: NO-bama"
=========================

That would depend on several things:

For example, if that maker of yours really frowns upon people like you denouncing others' sexual preferences, then you would have to answer NO.

On the other hand, if that maker of yours shares your homophobia, then you would have to answer YES.

So, isn't it imperative that you find definitive proof of your maker

a. Existing, and
b. Your compatibility with his or her or its or their stance?

Posted by: HumanSimpleton | August 17, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Just some observations on the idea of same sex couple being allowed to participate in civil marriages.

Objection. They will use benefits needed for families. Hmm. Well if two couples get married, John marries Marry and Bob marries Carol, you have two couples receiving state and federal benefits. If John marries Bob and Mary marries Carol, you have two couples receiving state and federal benefits.

Marriage is for the production of children.

I happen to be the product of a marriage that could not produce children. I have no idea who my biological parents are, but there was a couple who wanted me and I was lucky. That couple was always considered a family even after I grew up and left home.

I have several friends in that same condition now. Kids grown and gone but still "married" and receiving benefits. Some are on second marriages and there will never be any children.

Permitting same sex couples to marry will lead to people marrying their pets. I have to say that this really confused me. I have several gay friends in relationships and want to marry each other. I have never had a gay man or lesbian for that matter ever tell me he wanted to marry his dog. Are there really that many str8 men who want to marry their dogs and are only being saved from this awful fate because same sex couples are not allowed to marry? Is there any data on str8 men in Massachusetts applying for licenses to marry their dogs?

I recently saw an article by a Christian polling outfit that stated that the fastest growing religious(?) group now is that of atheists, agnostics and humanists.

Small wonder with the hatred being spouted by so many religious groups.

Posted by: mickle1 | August 17, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

"I'm fine with civil unions and allowing benefits to those couples who feel that they need that connection to heterosexual
normality."

Then we should call heterosexual unions "civil unions" as well in the law books and leave "marriage" as what your church refers to your bond as.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I was going to ignore all of the rants but I feel I need to respond to the homosexuals who are claiming to be following Christ and that I'm not showing Christ in my post. I'm actually being loving to you by calling you to account and repentance. If you know you're living in sin, why do you think God is going to overlook that sin? You need to repent - which means "turn away". Otherwise, you are living in a false dotrine. Show me scripture that says it's OK to be sinful as long as you live a "good" life? God calls homosexuality an "abomination".
So why would he say it's "OK" now? He hates all sin and calls us sinners to repent thru our Savior, Christ Jesus.

Posted by: NO-bama | August 17, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Once again, 44 is wrong.

If he wants to treat domestic partners the same as married employees, fair enough. To declare domestic partners to be "married" is the wrong tact.

44 remains naive and arrogant.

Posted by: AWWNats | August 17, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I agree with President Obama and hope he can get this done.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | August 17, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

We need to maintain DOMA because it gives States the right to reject same-sex marriages and call them what they are, civil unions.
Marriage is between a man and a woman and obama can color it any way he wants but when a law receives enough votes to ratify a majority, it should be respected.

Obama is just playing two ends to the middle to maintain his vote total, but things will be different next time around.

I'm fine with civil unions and allowing benefits to those couples who feel that they need that connection to heterosexual
normality.
The problem that I have is listening to the White House and hearing the lies and fabrications that seem endless these days.
The drivel that is obama has only solidified my opinion of his character and his lack of ability to lead this country. He's only now getting the picture on the ill fated health care issue, and will continue to loose support with his socialist-european mentality.
I'm basically a fair minded person, but I find myself vehemently opposing everything that he wants or stands for because of the questions about his past and my concern for this country's future.

Posted by: spiris333 | August 17, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"I still say though that if he had not bouught your votes, this would be a non-issue. Chew on that for a while."

Define "bought". I'm tired of your insinuations.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

ecraloon
___________________
I do not need to fall back on God or some pseudo religion to be against this. It is really simple, I do not want my tax dollars going to someone who, for all intents and purposes, does not propogate to ensure the survival of the species.


JMGinPDX
_A) If your camp were on the losing end, would YOU take no for an answer? Don't be a hypocrite. When - and I emphasize WHEN - these discriminatory laws go down in flames where they belong, you and your type will certainly not take "NO for an answer."
_________________________
Don't read much do you, or is this just some knee jerk reaction so you can go home and tell your better half what a brave person you acted like today? What I said in my first reply to ecraloon is, "My rights are voted on almost every day of the year by the government and to what degree I can I have my say." No bashing, no being a hyopcrite, no name calling, no holier than though attitude, just my own opinion.

I still say though that if he had not bouught your votes, this would be a non-issue. Chew on that for a while. Doesn't it feel good to be used yet again by another set of politicians? Take ole Chuckie Schumer, he did not come out in favor of gay marriage until he had to think about re-election. Bill Clinton sis the same thing as does every other politicians. Get used to it.

Posted by: zendrell | August 17, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

On this issue Obama has crossed the Rubicon to a one-term office and probably the start of impeachment. Mid-term elections for the Democrats will be burtal.

Posted by: KBlit | August 17, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

""So "love thy neighbor" is being forced down your throat? Wow, what a world."

Pardon, but you don't get to respond to imaginary arguments you attribute to me. No one is telling me to "love thy neighbor"; for all you know I already do, and merely disagree with you. I'm all ears for your unique definition of love that strips me of the right to disagree. You are telling me to redefine marriage your way while impugning my motivations as a substitute for argument. That's not reason, that's bullying. My answer, like the majority of Americans even in California, is still no. If you don't like it, bully away.

Posted by: FlyDiesel | August 17, 2009 4:38 PM"

You said liberals are shoving this down your throat, but how does it change your marriage eh? You're denying rights of fellow Americans that you yourself enjoy and saying you love them? Nonsense. The real bully is your ilk.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Let's EXPAND the DOMA to make recognition of heterosexual marriages illegal as well.

Posted by: toq999 | August 17, 2009 4:45 PM | Report abuse

To annubis - Read my post again - I didn't judge anyone - I simply stated that God hates the sin of homosexuality and I simply asked a question. It's not my place to judge anyone....read it again, I think you inserted judgment into my words.

Posted by: NO-bama | August 17, 2009 4:45 PM | Report abuse

I posted here only to explain that there are Christians who honor God by loving all men. We live by precepts because we want to honor God. And that truth is truth whether we choose to belive or not.

Posted by: Whataboutthelove
==

When the Christian God can be shown to exist like Obama is shown to exist, I can consider giving your "truth" credence.

Till then it shall remain a superstition worthy of ridicule.

Posted by: HumanSimpleton | August 17, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

If you are a believer in Jesus Christ and his Word, you would know that God does not recognize marriage other than between a MAN AND A WOMAN! If gays and lesbians want to have a life-time relationship with their same gender, don't call it a marriage -- it's a civil union - anything other than marriage is blasphemy against God!

Posted by: blessingsalways | August 17, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

I'll believe it when I see it.

Posted by: kare1
==
I co-sign the above.

Obama is just another fork-tongued politician when it comes to such social issues.

===
And this is exactly why the states are rebelling against the shadow of the government in their everyday business. If there folks say no, then they mean no - just as in California; not once, but twice and people just cannot take no for an answer.

Quite simple emough, if you throw enough sh*t against a way eventually something will stick.

Posted by: zendrell
==

Like the sh*t that sticks with Roe v Wade?
Like the sh*t that sticks with cries of socialism and death panels?
Like the sh*t that stuck when a minority of the people wanted their enslavement to end?

Please, don't spew your sh*t regarding how rights of others should actually be subject to a vote!

Posted by: HumanSimpleton | August 17, 2009 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Hello B2O2,

I think you confused me with another poster. I don't belive in what that person wrote about stoning. I am sorry for your hate and pain towards me who you do not know or have any idea of who I am or how I act. I try to live by all that God intends in his word.

The new testament says that we no longer live by the law, but by the living spirit of God. The law asked for stoning people; "Man's law". Since Jesus died for our sin, we longer live by the law, but by the love relationship with the Father.

I have no judgement for anyone's soul. God asked that we love everyone, and I do. I live by love and grace of the Father.

I posted here only to explain that there are Christians who honor God by loving all men. We live by precepts because we want to honor God. And that truth is truth whether we choose to belive or not.

Posted by: Whataboutthelove | August 17, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"So "love thy neighbor" is being forced down your throat? Wow, what a world."

Pardon, but you don't get to respond to imaginary arguments you attribute to me. No one is telling me to "love thy neighbor"; for all you know I already do, and merely disagree with you. I'm all ears for your unique definition of love that strips me of the right to disagree. You are telling me to redefine marriage your way while impugning my motivations as a substitute for argument. That's not reason, that's bullying. My answer, like the majority of Americans even in California, is still no. If you don't like it, bully away.

Posted by: FlyDiesel | August 17, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

"Honestly: They are the will of the MAJORITY of the people.
Posted by: ZZim | August 17, 2009 4:31 PM"

Such a shame that the majority once thought that the world was flat and the sun orbited around us. Hell, the majority supported the subjugation of rights on the basis of skin tone. The majority is always right, eh?

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

It is incredible the depth of this man’s depravation while claiming to be Christian he rejects as he defiles and totally ignores the precepts of the very God he claims to serve. He is an abomination to both God and man especially those of the Islamic, Judea-Christian faiths. Is it any wonder why his popularity has declined and continues to decline based on his atrocities committed before God and Man?

Posted by: JohnLHarriSr | August 17, 2009 3:59 PM


Said by this Guy...

John whatever Harris,

You should be more concerned about what God will think of you full of stife and hate person. How do you know what God feels or thinks about anything? Has he come down and spoken to you personally? I find that hard to believe because the God I've come to know will go to someone who loves and not hate the way your post read. I am so sick of people like you and the other wack jobs out there. For eight years you defended a war criminal and profiteer, you watched as he bankrupted the global ecomony, while innocent men and women went to war on a lie and lost thier life. You support the hatred that's out there and now you are outraged because we now have a President who thinks before he speaks, who actually has a brain that's of use. You should go into your little closet shut your mind off and ask God to direct you, if you don't become filled with love for your fellow man then you will know that it is not God who you have been listening to, it will be the talking heads on talk radio and tv, haven't you been dummied down enough? Oh forget that, I forgot who I was talking to, A lost cause moranic idiot...

Posted by: lajones82 | August 17, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

If you don't want gay couples to have benefits, fine. Let's just amend the tax laws to eliminate the tax breaks for married couples. And make it illegal to cover your spouse on your insurance. And every other benefit that married people get from the government.

You got yours, none for anyone else seems to be the logic. OK, for me I guess that means do whatever you want, just keep alimony payments as a deduction. Thanks.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 17, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

zman4 So we have to pay for you, but you don't want to pay for us? We pay taxes too, and that's an extremely silly stance to take

Posted by: annubis21 | August 17, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Many Anti-gay rights commentators seem to forget that these measures did not pass with 100% of the vote in any forum, anywhere. In fact, a very large part of the population voted against these discriminatory laws. Whether they like it or not, you cannot declare that these laws are the 'will of the people'. They are the will of SOME of the people. And certainly not the population of any state in it entirety. So let's be more honest about whose will is being represented, and why.

Posted by: NWAmerican | August 17, 2009 3:03 PM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Honestly: They are the will of the MAJORITY of the people.

Posted by: ZZim | August 17, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

time. Just tbecause we might have simpathy for a group does not mean we can afford to make available to them various costly benifits. Only so much to spread around.
======================
You know what, you're right.
We should only be extending those rights to a limited number of Americans.

I say we change the law so that those benefits only go to people with an IQ of 115 or above. After all, we don't want to encourage stupid people to pro-create.

Your attempt to mask your bigotry behind a facade of pragmatism is lame at best. Seriously, if you're going to be ignorant, at least be proud of it, don't try to masquerade as someone who knows what they're talking about.

Some stupid ideas need to be struck down on principle alone, and DOMA is one of them.
You can make excuses to the end of time about lack of funds, etc.etc. but it's all just a smokescreen used by people who fear change that doesn't fit their narrow definition of right vs. wrong.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 17, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I have a right to marry a woman of my choice; I want the same rights for every one to marry a person of his/her choice. I can understand religious believes, but hey religion is personal to me, I can not force someone to abide by same religious ideologies.

Posted by: logic123 | August 17, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Zendrell said:
"And this is exactly why the states are rebelling against the shadow of the government in their everyday business. If there folks say no, then they mean no"
=================
If it's states rights you're concerned with, then you should have no problem with a repeal of the DOMA.
DOMA is a federal law, after all.
Let the states decide, right?

"just as in California; not once, but twice and people just cannot take no for an answer."
=====================
A) If your camp were on the losing end, would YOU take no for an answer? Don't be a hypocrite. When - and I emphasize WHEN - these discriminatory laws go down in flames where they belong, you and your type will certainly not take "NO for an answer."
B) The anti-gay marriage lobby has the money and connections to get these things passed even though they win by slimmer and slimmer margins every time.
Eventually, they will fail.

Not because you are wrong to oppose gay marriage or same-sex benefits...that's for you and you alone to decide for yourself...but because you don't have the right to tell other people that it's wrong for them.

Or...perhaps you would have supported similar laws in the 1st half of the 20th century that went by the name "Jim Crow?"

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 17, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Live together, fine. I have no problem whatsoever with that. I just know that we do not have the wherewithal to dish out any more benifits to any more groups. It is the rights to benifits I question. Not the right to be joined as a couple. Get togther, have fun. No problem. I just don't want to pay for it.

Posted by: zman4 | August 17, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"Precisely- so listen to the first, and not to the liberal fringe in the second group as they try to ram their agenda down everyone else's throat.

Posted by: FlyDiesel | August 17, 2009 4:17 PM"

So "love thy neighbor" is being forced down your throat? Wow, what a world.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Whataboutthelove - cut the crap. You pick and choose what you follow from the Bible all the time. When was the last time you participated in a fatal public stoning of stubborn kids, or someone who cheated on their spouse? Go throw stones at Mark Sanford or harrass your female relatives for not doing their menstruation rituals properly.

Nobody listens to you hypocrites anymore. You had your day - back in about 1550 AD.

Posted by: B2O2 | August 17, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

CaptAwesome,
"This is the law of God, and you, regardless of anything, cannot change it or Him. So, please stop trying to. There is forgiveness even here. Praise God for that."

God is not the same for all religions. Our country allows freedom of religion. All religions accepted. No one is trying to change god. Just the oft wicked minds of his so-called devout followers who would sooner profess hatred than love.

As you've conceded, there's a separate legal issue. Your 'divine contract' with god exists within your church. When the bank or the hospital recognizes you as married, they surely aren't referring to your 'divine contract.' Please stop trying to rationalize YOUR god as the law of ALL humans. Some of us aren't religious, but American all the same.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"It seems to me that in the current marriage debate, one side is generally happy and wanting to celebrate the lives they've built for themselves and the other side is grumpy, has to much free time and enjoys telling people they've never met what to do.

California would be well served if we decided to use the first group as our role models."

Precisely- so listen to the first, and not to the liberal fringe in the second group as they try to ram their agenda down everyone else's throat.

Posted by: FlyDiesel | August 17, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

JohnLHarriSr -

LOL. Yep, Obama continues to go against your stone age cave-wall depiction of "god" - and thank goodness! Next he's going to put out a statement nullifying "God's" command to STONE MISBEHAVING CHILDREN TO DEATH, and that'll REALLY get you American Talibaners in a fit. You guys hate it when people choose common sense and decency over your barbaric Bronze Age BS.

Can someone please stop the progress? It's killing Mr. Harris here...


Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (King James Version)

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Posted by: B2O2 | August 17, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

There is a basic break in ideology and philosophy between most people who adhear to Christian beliefs and / or those who do not choose to believe in God. Those who look to God and his scriptures to guide their lives are living by precepts and principles which are laid down in the bible. They don't live their lives by making it all up as they go along.

Most are trying to live by standards in the holy scriptures that are written to honor a holy and just God (love and justice go hand in hand). They believe that God created man and woman to glorify who He is. They believe that anything different than what God commanded them to do is dishonoring to God. Not only what they do, but what others do in error is harmful to all.

We all live by self will and cannot force others to believe what is true, holy, and good. But we can show the love of the Father, by pointing all to His precepts and why He asked us to live our lives honoring what He has written in His word.

Whether anyone chooses to believe is neither here no there, where truth is concerned. If you choose not to believe that gravity exists or the sun will rise again tomorrow, matters not. The truth is the truth; it stands on its own and does require you to believe it. It remains the truth. If you want answers, just ask the loving and just God. He created you and can answer all your questions.

Posted by: Whataboutthelove | August 17, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Homosexuals raise families too. I guess forgetting that fact is something conservatives are good at?

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 4:04 PM

Homosexuals do not generate family. Do not create progeny. Tax breaks like those made available to married couples for families were created at a time when the country was growing, let alone the economy, and the more people the better. Different solutions for different times(perhaps there is no point to any of these breaks any longer) Beyond that you miss my point. We do not have the money to spread around to everyone for everything they consider important. That is what liberals miss every time. Just tbecause we might have simpathy for a group does not mean we can afford to make available to them various costly benifits. Only so much to spread around.

Posted by: zman4 | August 17, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Denying rights to ANY American is a potential denial of rights to EVERY American. LGBT are people, too; citizens of this country who should expect to enjoy the same inalienable rights that the rest of us enjoy, including the right to wed the consenting adult of our choice.
I appreciate Obama's stance on this issue, but I don't like the wording of this part: "While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law". Under existing law seems to lay to rest the idea that a new law might be passed to ensure the rights of EVERY American to equal treatment.
How sad that a country built on the premise of freedom of religion allows Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief structures to shape its laws and public policies! Our rationalist-humanist founders would be ashamed if they knew what obscenities were being committed against the American people in the name of religion -- especially when church and state are supposed to remain separate!

Posted by: let_it_raine | August 17, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

NO-bama, you said "will I be able to look Him in the eye and say I lived a life that glorified Him?" Me being homosexual, I can say an emphatic yes to that. I love my family and friends, all god wants is for us to love and respect each other, we have NO idea what the lord does or thinks, so it is you who should be frightened at your judgment, I've never judged another man on something as silly as attraction and whom he loves, you have, so live in fear of the judgment coming your way after death, I'm sure you're going to be surprised at what the lord has to say to you ;)

Posted by: annubis21 | August 17, 2009 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Heterosupremacist in Chief Obama promised preachers he would uphold their right to not go to jail if they refused to conduct wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples. He promised his supporters that he was not for marriage equality at all. While his supporters voted for him, they all joined the tyrannical theocRAT lynch mob and voted to stop marriage equality for gay and lesbian Americans in California, Arizona and Florida. In Arkansas they voted to make sure that no children who were abandoned by their heterosexual parents could ever be adopted by gay American parents.

Now Obama claims to be against the Discriminatory Offensive Marriage Attack, but he is not for marriage equality (all you tyrannical theocRATS will be happy to know). What you don't know is that DOMA was not necessary at all, but was just part of the Gingrich Contract on America. States already have the right to only recognize marriages considered legal in those states.

DOMA or its reversal will still not allow same-sex couples to be covered by the more than 1100 Federal marriage rights. Again you theocRATS will be happy to know that too.

So the question is why does Obama keep trying to stop the Supreme Court from hearing cases challenging DOMA? Obama is keeping his promises to the theocRATS who joined the tyrannical mob to stop marriage equality.

Obama claims he will sign a law ending DOMA, but Congress better pass a veto-proof law, because Obama will never break his promises to the tyrannical theocRATS who voted against marriage equality and voted for him.

The tyrannical theocRATS writing here will surely be glad that tyranny rules in America.

Posted by: planetspinz | August 17, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

So every woman who shacks up with a guy, or visa versa, gets the full privileges of a spouse? That's crazy. People will be auctioning off these arrangements on Ebay.

Posted by: InTheMiddle | August 17, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Ribbie 100, and many others,

As a matter of fact, yes. The Catholic Church, the body of Christ in the world, has in-fact barred re-marrying if your first marriage ends in divorce for adultery. 1) Adultery is a totally forgivable sin (hard, but it's true) and 2 - More importantly) Marriage is a covenant (aka: divine contract) between God and man, NOT between 2 people. So 2 people cannot create or dissolve a marriage. This is God's doing. (The modern local law thing is a tax-write-off, and nothing more according to Biblical theology.) Christ makes this explicitly clear in the Gospels "What GOD has joined, let NO MAN put asunder."

And for all the people trying to create their own version of God:
He is never-changing.

He wrote a ban to homosexuality since pre-Moses times, Abraham obeyed, Moses obeyed, the Prophets obeyed, and in the NT Paul writes about it several times, continuing to obey, thus the Christian world today still does (as do the Jews).
This is the law of God, and you, regardless of anything, cannot change it or Him. So, please stop trying to. There is forgiveness even here. Praise God for that.

"Real" Christians are obedient to the teaching of God, His Apostles, and His Church. Not to their own rules. It's just the way it is. Read the Bible, and if you don't acknowledge the bible, then you are not Christian, and again should stop pretending, you are giving a bad name by misrepresenting the Body of Christ.

You don't have to LIKE it, but you do have to acknowledge it.

In Love,
(Truly, no matter how upset this may make you.)

"This is a hard teaching, Lord, who can accept it?"

Posted by: CaptAwesome | August 17, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"What if this guy is right and I meet my maker upon death - will I be able to look Him in the eye and say I lived a life that glorified Him?
Posted by: NO-bama"
=========================
That all depends on your definition of "a life that glorified Him."

Jesus was a compassionate, loving, tolerant man who reached out to the downtrodden, the poor, the outcasts of society, and taught them that faith and love were the path to a redeemed life.
Jesus advocated for freedom and acted in defiance of what was essentially a theocratic state and a culture of religious and social oppression at the hands of both the Romans and the Jewish power structure.

I actually would ask many evangelical Christians how they think THEY are going to be able to look Christ in the eye and say they truly glorified him. Seems like much of present company is speaking in terms exactly the opposite of Christ.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | August 17, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing, pathetic, and sad how people want to interfere with the rights of others....

What's worse is people are more concerned about depriving other people the same rights they themselves enjoy than letting people simply be happy....

Worst of all is how cruel, intolerant, and vicious people can be all in the name of religion...

Reminds me of some folks in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran....

Posted by: abby0802 | August 17, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse

MikeinLA, in reality Republicans need to protect marriage against themselves. Divorce is well-documented as more common in the red states than the blue. In the typical fashion of someone with a problem they don't want to face, they find a scapegoat.

Gays and lesbians are conservatives' scapegoats for their own failing marriages.

Posted by: B2O2 | August 17, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse

JohnLHarriSr
Best comment I've read about anything Obama, you nailed it!
God Bless America~ and forgive us for the 2008 election results

Posted by: jsherman62 | August 17, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"The benefits were put in place to support family. Not this type of union. That is why the law was passed in the first place.

Posted by: zman4 | August 17, 2009 4:00 PM"

Homosexuals raise families too. I guess forgetting that fact is something conservatives are good at?

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to see and aggressive move to curb the extremely high divorce rate in America. The Americans for Divorce Reform estimates that probably, 40 or possibly even 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue.

If the institution of marriage is as precious as the anti-gay lobby contends, then why are so many heterosexual couples walking away from it? Aren't precious institutions worth salvaging?

Hypocrisy runs abundant in America and it is nauseating. For once, I'd like for people to look beyond their personal prejudices and start looking at the man or woman in the mirror and improve themselves and their lives as opposed to trying to manipulate and control how others live theirs.

Posted by: concernedaboutdc | August 17, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Yes I agree with many of you, it is just another attempt on Obama's to pander to this vocal fringe group. But it is also another way to spend money we don't have. The one thing Liberals are good at is spending other peopels money. We can barely afford to make the benifits available to legitimate domestic partners, let alone this group. The benefits were put in place to support family. Not this type of union. That is why the law was passed in the first place.

Posted by: zman4 | August 17, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

We attended a gay marriage in california, during the few months when it was legal. Nice guys. They obviously care about each other. I wish them well.

It seems to me that in the current marriage debate, one side is generally happy and wanting to celebrate the lives they've built for themselves and the other side is grumpy, has to much free time and enjoys telling people they've never met what to do.

California would be well served if we decided to use the first group as our role models.

Posted by: rwolf01 | August 17, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

It is incredible the depth of this man’s depravation while claiming to be Christian he rejects as he defiles and totally ignores the precepts of the very God he claims to serve. He is an abomination to both God and man especially those of the Islamic, Judea-Christian faiths. Is it any wonder why his popularity has declined and continues to decline based on his atrocities committed before God and Man?

Posted by: JohnLHarriSr | August 17, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

I would have thought repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would have come first. There, you have a majority of Iraq and Afghanistan combat vets favoring it.

Posted by: Garak | August 17, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

pgr88
very well put !

Obama is the best thing to happen to the Republican party since Hmmm? Bill Clinton & Jimmy Carter...

Posted by: jsherman62 | August 17, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Stupid republican law - repeal it!

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | August 17, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Obozzo's objection amounts to "holy crap, the nation is finally tired of my BS so I better pull the gays out from under the bus I threw them under since I became POTUS".

This scum sucking weasel will do and say anything to anybody to get his socialist agenda in place. He's getting on his knees now for the gay agenda because he needs to finally pass something since he has yet to have a single accomplishment.

1) FISA which was supposed to be gone but isn't
2) The wars which were supposed to be gone but aren't
3) Gitmo which was supposed to be closed but isn't
4) Skyrocketing unemployment which was supposed to drop but is climbing
5) Partisan politics on steroids which was supposed to end but has only worsened
6) Gaff after gaff after gaff which was supposed to be Bush's claim to fame but apparently is what Obozzo wrote about in his doctoral thesis
7) Racist comments from the "uniter"
8) Korea & Iran conflicts which were supposed to end and have only worsened
9) Runaway government spending which was suppose to be brought under control and has run unabated since inauguration day
10) Shrinking GDP which was supposed to increase

Posted by: Bcamp55 | August 17, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama is going to get slapped down again.

He and the Dems are living in fantasy land. Battling Bush gave the Democrats delusions of grandeur. The fantasies cooked up by their special interests and fringe supporters do not have majority support in the real world.

Posted by: pgr88 | August 17, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Who is making the decisions on which comments are not to be posted or are to be removed? I made a comment - and saw other posted; which were not offensive (at least no more so than than the current group of comments) and appear to have been removed.

Posted by: vickistired | August 17, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone demonstrated how a single marriage, or the institution of marriage as a whole, has been harmed in any of the six states now allowing same-sex marriage? If not, then marriage probably doesn't need "defending". Perhaps the "Defense of Marriage Act" would be more accurately and honestly called the "Defense of Bigotry Act."

Posted by: MikeinLA | August 17, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

My parents celebrated their 40th wedding anniversary on Feb. 1, 2009, in a legal, now same-sex marriage.

My parent, Dainna, transitioned from male to female more than 25 years ago. To the people who are reading this who are against LGBT marriage and non-traditional families, I ask: Did the world stop spinning because my folks stayed together? No. Did the sun rise in the West instead of the East because I was raised in a non-traditional family? No. Are cats breeding with dogs or any other sort of folly? No.

When my parents married in a Catholic church in Milwaukee in 1969, they committed in front of their god, their families and their friends to "Let no one rend asunder" their wedding vows. Despite the ongoing efforts of lawmakers, well-intentioned therapists and ill-intentioned members of the public, my folks stayed together and are now possibly the first couple in the United States to stay married throughout a gender transition.

As for me, I've been told my entire life that being raised in a non-traditional family, I would grow up to have serious moral deficiencies, that I would be a drug abuser, would commit suicide, or be stricken by some other affliction that befalls someone who is malcontent. On the contrary, I'm a well-rounded, law-abiding, tax-paying adult. If I've fallen into any morass, it's that I identify as bisexual (gasp!), but then again, so do many other people.

Along the way in my journey, I have spent time with countless LGBT families who have been utterly destroyed by federal and state lack of recognition of their relationships. I have met several LGBT families who want their children to be respected the same as children raised in traditional households. It's awesome spending time with LGBT families where the kids are so loved and respected because their parents made a conscientious decision to bring them into the world, unlike some traditional families I know that were created in what can only be described as "Whoops! We weren't expecting this mess, but I guess we're having another kid."

So I hope and pray (yes, pray!) that all families will be recognized and not just the "traditional" ones, whatever that means these days, given the number of single parent households, divorces and whatever else.

Peace out.

Posted by: KahunaMatata | August 17, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

The President isn't being very intelligent.

Why at this time is he giving the "rednecks" more ammunition at a time when he's trying to get important legislation passed with zero support from the right? He's obviously forgetting that his Democratic Congress needs to get reelected in those same Southern Districts.

Has the President ever heard of picking his fights? Or is he really trying to play into the hands of the GOP who will stifle everything he attempts to throw against the wall in an attempt to see what will stick.

He's getting an awful lot of bad advice.


Posted by: helloisanyoneoutthere | August 17, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Newsflash -- other religions get married too..
There goes your religion-based arguments. They obviously don't believe in the same god, but we still honor their marriage. Therefore, your god which burns homosexuals is solely for you and your marriage. As far as the law is concerned, it's declaring an official couple secularly. Your minister of choice is what makes it of religious significance. When you walk around in public, do you think Atheists that recognize that you're married do so in respect of God? Nonsense. This country is for all of us. Stop pretending that sharing a life-long bond with another is solely for heterosexual Christians.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

When you are a right-wing authoritarian, it pleases you to not only submit yourself to authority, and to be authority, but also to insist that others adhere to whatever delusional ideas that you may harbor. Matters of life, death, and sex loom large in the world that RWAs construct for themselves to live in. They certainly don't want to offend God by condoning the pleasures of the flesh that cannot lead to conception. Others, it follows, must also not condone and certainly not engage in sex with same-sex partners. Public policy as to what kinds of persons may legally be considered to be a spouse naturally follow the repressive pattern. To do otherwise, RWAs believe, leads to chaos and disrupts their self-constructed world. So, they'll have none of that. And neither will you.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | August 17, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

I notice a lot of Americans who are progressive call themselves "conservative". That is just calling for a party name, folks... "Progressive Conservatives": the party with the pragmatic approach to issues like gay marriage and other issues.

Posted by: rickyrab | August 17, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

The most accurate and truthful bumper sticker of the 20th & 21st centuries:

"THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT IS NEITHER" !

Posted by: lufrank1 | August 17, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

But... Obama.. does not believe in Gay Marriage.. huh?

Posted by: newbeeboy | August 17, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Gay marriage? (yawwwn) It's recognized in a few states. I could care less about whether others want to recognize it, although I support the idea of recognition.

Posted by: rickyrab | August 17, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

DOMA is offensive to me. But I don't see why Obama wants to kick a hornet's nest while he is struggling with health care. It's only gonna blow up in his face.

Of course, it took Nixon to go to China; so maybe it'll take a black president to challenge the church-based (and often black) opposition to gay marriage.

Feels like bad timing. Though a just cause is, in some sense, always timely.

Posted by: RealityCheckerInEffect | August 17, 2009 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"And to this I have had my say, whether you like it or not, agree with it or not. "

Yeah... but um.. your 'say' is that other law-abiding Americans can't have the same rights as you because of who they've fallen in love with.

You are NOT the subject of discussion, if the law changes, you will still be married. Stop playing the victim whist being a complicit oppressor.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Zendrell -- I'm not sure that you're familiar with the separation of church and state, but I'd like to see how you could justify denying certain people the same rights you have, without invoking the supposed beliefs of your personal God. All that would be left would be personal bias, discomfort, or a need to feel superior to people who aren't just like you. Except they are -- no doubt you, too, have a gay family member whom you would deny equal rights because of your professed religious beliefs. And as for the President buying votes, I wonder what's behind your anger and resentment at him. Maybe he's not just like you, either?

Posted by: ecraloon | August 17, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

NO-Bama: God forbid we should throw out those American and God given traditions of discrimination and hate out the window. I just don't know how I could live in a country that espouses ideals like equality, forgiveness, freedom.....

Frankly, it's beliefs such as yours that make me darn near ecstatic that my marriage isn't a covenenant with your god. I'll take my blessed, happy, loving and respectful "fake" marriage any day over your love-free version.

And for your request that if I disagree I not bother responding to you? Sorry - you don't get that kind of power over me. I'm kind of a fan of that whole freedom of speech thing and intend to express my feelings just as loudly and brashly as you do.

And you know what, I'm looking forward to that day when I get to stand shoulder to shoulder with my maker with my back straight and my head held high knowing that I lived a truly christian life (you know, the one where you're kind and giving, unconditionally loving, forgiving...all that leftist stuff). Silly me, I'm thinking that He or She will be pretty much ok with that. And if that isn't the case....well then I guess I'm looking forward to joining my fellow "real" christians in hell.


Posted by: vickistired | August 17, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Many Anti-gay rights commentators seem to forget that these measures did not pass with 100% of the vote in any forum, anywhere. In fact, a very large part of the population voted against these discriminatory laws. Whether they like it or not, you cannot declare that these laws are the 'will of the people'. They are the will of SOME of the people. And certainly not the population of any state in it entirety. So let's be more honest about whose will is being represented, and why.

Posted by: NWAmerican | August 17, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Last I checked adultery was a bigger sin then the perceived sin of homosexuality. Thus a commandment for one and not the other. For those who are most against gay marriage are you also willing to ban people from re-marring if their first marriage ended in a divorce?

Posted by: ribbie100 | August 17, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Funny how the liberals are opposed to the executive branch injecting ideology into the Justice Department - when Republicans are running the executive branch, but insist on the opposite when they are in power.

Oh, yeah, I guess it's just par for the course, lol. Nevermind.

Posted by: ZZim | August 17, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Many people assume that sexual preference is a conscious decision that a person makes. I don't believe that it is. I believe that it is like handedness, something we don't decide on, but is part of who we are. Why would anyone want to regulate something like that? If a couple, regardless of gender, decide to make public their commitment to each other, they should be welcome to do so.

Posted by: nawit1 | August 17, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

I don't agree with much that President Obama is doing as President. I didn't vote for him and I won't in the future. But I don't see how two people of the same sex getting married affects hetero-marriage in any way. It certainly won't affect mine.

The case against same sex marriage boils down to religion (wanting a theocratic government) or bigotry (real men mock and beat up homos).

I say that when two people find love and happiness, we should celebrate it. Keep your religion out of government! And let people be who they are without having to opine about it.

Posted by: tamdar | August 17, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Its unbelievable that people are making comments about public policy based on religion and a biased sense of American tradition. We used to think that blacks were inferior, and upheld state's rights to enslave. We used to think that it was un-American for a woman to own property. Public policy based on tradition and religion alone rarely hold up to the test of time. If you want to speak about tradition in America, you will find that compassion for people's differences wins out over prejudice.

It is inevitable that the LGBT community will receive the same rights as everyone else. Bigots die, and their children, thank God, are wiser.

Posted by: MrTree | August 17, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Judge not lest ye be judged

Posted by: magic8 | August 17, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

ecraloon
Maybe you don't see the problem with putting people's rights up to a popular vote, but chances are you would if it were YOUR rights, or your child's rights.
____________________________________
My rights are voted on almost every day of the year by the government and to what degree I can I have my say.

And to this I have had my say, whether you like it or not, agree with it or not. The only reason this is on the table at this point in time is because the Pres bought your votes, and other officials are scrambling for votes. If they were not, then this would not even be an issue.

Posted by: zendrell | August 17, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

crucialitis wrote: "What we're doing right now treats good Americans as freaks."
================================================
Exactly. Nicely put.

Posted by: carlaclaws | August 17, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

And religious right-wingers are so sure of their own beliefs (having no doubt often received direct words from God), that they believe they have the right to impose those unproven beliefs on everyone else. To say that "God hates homosexual sin" is so patently ridiculous -- that statement is based on whatever religious training you personally experienced. For centuries, religious zealots used God's supposed preference for certain groups to discriminate against, and even massacre, those who were supposedly not favored by their God. It's 2009, people, and it's time to stop using your personal religious beliefs to justify blatant discrimination against people you don't like.

Posted by: ecraloon | August 17, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"For those on the left who disagree with me - don't bother to respond to this because I already know that you will attempt to berate me and my "crazy" belief. Before you do - ask yourself; What if this guy is right and I meet my maker upon death - will I be able to look Him in the eye and say I lived a life that glorified Him?

Posted by: NO-bama | August 17, 2009 2:37 PM"
=====
And if you're wrong? oh, that doesn't occur does it?

-----

ut it should not be called marriage and by no means should their ceremony be done in a church or house of God.

Posted by: JBfromFL | August 17, 2009 2:36 PM

====

Believe it or not, homosexuals believe in God as well.. They still deserve the covenant of marriage as a commitment to one another. If you would have a separate name, then your legal union's name should be changed as well if you'd like to keep the societal word 'marriage' exclusive to heterosexuals.

It's as if the notion of many denominations never occurs to any of you...

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse

The Gay / Xgender community is nothing but a very vocal mis-guided group of angry confused sexual deviants that wants justication for their sexual lifestyle period!
Obama is a go with the flow liberal fruit cake that is so far out of touch with reality he believes causes like this carry weight...
It's the Stupid leading the blind~

Posted by: jsherman62 | August 17, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

You can't simply just redefine the meaning of marriage to suit your own purposes. Just because homosexuals want to be married in the conventional sense does not mean it should be so.

Posted by: BubbaRight | August 17, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

This is just another Obama attempt to make the USA into a Euopean nation...He's attempting to throw every American and God given tradition out the window. It's too bad that most people don't know what marriage is supposed to represent. It has nothing to do with how much someone "loves" another. Just because you "love" someone doesn't mean they should be "married". Real marriage used to be a covenant between a man, a woman and God. If God hates homosexual sin , which he does, how can you ask for a covenant with Him if you are swimming in sinful behavior?
For those on the left who disagree with me - don't bother to respond to this because I already know that you will attempt to berate me and my "crazy" belief. Before you do - ask yourself; What if this guy is right and I meet my maker upon death - will I be able to look Him in the eye and say I lived a life that glorified Him?

Posted by: NO-bama | August 17, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Marriage is between a man and a woman, i have no problem calling it a civil union and homosexuals getting benefits for themselves and children. But it should not be called marriage and by no means should their ceremony be done in a church or house of God.

Posted by: JBfromFL | August 17, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Zendrell -- And this is exactly why the states are rebelling against the shadow of the government in their everyday business. If there folks say no, then they mean no - just as in California; not once, but twice and people just cannot take no for an answer.

So, Zendrell, if the "folks" say that Irish-Americans or German-Americans, or Catholic Americans, or Latvian-Americans can't get married, then that's OK with you? No -- that's why we have an independent judiciary, and why "states' rights" can't be used to discriminate against an unfavored minority. I'd like to see how you would react if YOUR rights were put to a popular vote. And make no mistake -- the rights we're talking about here are real, economic rights that are being denied a certain group of Americans who pay their taxes just like everyone else, but are denied hundreds of rights everyone else gets to take for granted. It may be that lots of people don't approve of the life YOU lead, but that's not a basis to deny you your equal economic rights. Maybe you don't see the problem with putting people's rights up to a popular vote, but chances are you would if it were YOUR rights, or your child's rights.

Posted by: ecraloon | August 17, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I completely agree that DOMA should be repealed, but Obama is truthful in his statement that the Justice Department must defend the law in court. The Justice Deparment represents the Federal Government not the White House. As much as I may not like it DOMA was passed by congress and signed into law. Therefore the Justice Department has an obligation to defend the law until it is repealed.

Posted by: cmb1 | August 17, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"so the system should be changed to provide benefits to, and only to, children." --harrisonppicot

Sounds good, except that there still needs to be some designation that allows homosexuals to do things like declare each other as beneficiaries in case of accidental death, or to visit a spouse in the hospital. What we're doing right now treats good Americans as freaks.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Good for Obama. I agree with Obama, if some states preffer not to accept marriage of LGBTs then they should have the right to do so. There is nothing wrong with LGBTs but if a whole state says no it should not be forced down their throat, it would be like accepting poligamy as a practice in a religion and telling a state that they need to accept it. If CA likes it fine, if TX doesn't fine too.

Posted by: angelou | August 17, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

The Justice Department is absolutely useless and should be abolished. It can be abolished the same way it was created, by Presidential decree.

I say it's useless because it's defense of the DOMA is in error, and obviously so.

It's against the Constitutional prohibition of discrimination base on sex. Since the Constitution trumps all other legislation; the DOMA is not valid. The DoJ engaging in defending the DOMA means they are conspiring to deny people's constitutional rights - thereby placing themselves in violation of the law. Any lawyer that conspires to violate the law in this fashion should immediately be dismissed, disbarred, and banned from ever holding public office or government position.

Posted by: mhoust | August 17, 2009 2:28 PM | Report abuse

This whole thing is absurd, either give homosexuals marriage benefits, or take marriage benefits away from married couples. -- Crucialitis

Giving any benefit to married couples is really a shortcut to giving benefits to children. No taxpayer gets any benefit from tax breaks to DINKs, so the system should be changed to provide benefits to, and only to, children. So if homosexuals are raising a child, the child they are raising should get a benefit check (just as the Netherlands already do it). There is no reason to for any taxpayer to celebrate the marriage of two 65 year olds by sending them a check, or any other couple that has no children under 18. And that includes any benefit that dips its hand into the public's pocket. Extending government health care benefits to a stay at home mom is one thing, extending them to spouse that can afford not to work because a single income is enough, may require the public to pick up additional costs, and we should deny them; there is no "government money" there is just taxpayer money.

Posted by: harrisonppicot | August 17, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

So the DOJ is planning on arguing that not discriminating against gays is unfair to taxpayers.

Couldn't this same argument have been made about black voting rights? That the states that didn't agree would still have taxes affected, and thus be unconstitutional.

I'm sure if that argument came up these days people would laugh that mere money validates the denial of rights.

This whole thing is absurd, either give homosexuals marriage benefits, or take marriage benefits away from married couples. Anything else is completely discriminatory. We protect sexual orientation from discrimination in so many other circumstances. It's pure hypocrisy that marriage isn't included.

Posted by: Crucialitis | August 17, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

And this is exactly why the states are rebelling against the shadow of the government in their everyday business. If there folks say no, then they mean no - just as in California; not once, but twice and people just cannot take no for an answer.

Quite simple emough, if you throw enough sh*t against a way eventually something will stick.

Posted by: zendrell | August 17, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I'll believe it when I see it.

Posted by: kare1 | August 17, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company