Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 1:42 PM ET, 12/22/2010

Obama 'wrestling' with same-sex marriage

By Matt DeLong

Updated at 4:36 p.m.

On the eve of signing historic legislation to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, President Obama sat down in the Oval Office with Kerry Eleveld of the gay and lesbian magazine the Advocate. During the interview, Obama said his "attitudes are evolving" on same-sex marriage -- which he said he opposed throughout the 2008 presidential campaign. From The Advocate:

"Like a lot of people, I'm wrestling with this," he said. "I've wrestled with the fact that marriage traditionally has had a different connotation. But I also have a lot of very close friends who are married gay or lesbian couples."

Obama went on to say that he and his lawyers are exploring a "range of options" regarding the administration's handling of legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act -- the 1996 law allowing states to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Obama added that "my preference wherever possible is to get things done legislatively," but "that may not be possible in DOMA's case." Repeal of the law in the near future is extremely unlikely because of the GOP's control of the House of Representatives and the Democrats' lack of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

In a press conference Wednesday afternoon, Obama gave a similar response to a question about gay marriage: "My feelings about this are constantly evolving. I struggle with this," he said. "At this point, what I've said is my baseline is a strong civil union."

By Matt DeLong  | December 22, 2010; 1:42 PM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: 9/11 bill passes Senate, House in final hours of lame-duck session
Next: Senate ratifies New START arms pact

Comments

Yeah back in the civil rights days racists would claim some of their best friends are black. Ending DADT is nothing to celebrate. The courts were going to force it on the military anyway. Obama ran on ending DOMA and there's youtube clips where he states his support of gay marriage. His views on gay marriage aren't evolving they're devolving.

Posted by: madest | December 28, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

I hate that the President trotted out the "Some of my best friends are..." line. Marriage is a contract between two people and equality under the law demands that this be gender neuteral. Families are formed in many ways. Some by adoption some through surrogates. I don't see straights questioning the validity of families formed through these "unnatural" practices unless you count Cathloic Priests who are not supposed to baptize IVF babies on the grounds that they are manmade creatures and thus do not have souls though I think most American Priests have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy about this. I was married in 1982 in the living room of a Justice of the Peace who later ended up on the FBI's most wanted list. We have been married 28 years. We are every bit as married as any couple who stood before a Preacher, a Priest, or a Rabbi. In fact, we are way more married than any couple who stood before a Preacher, a Priest, or a Rabbi and later obtained a civil divorce and I imagine very few of those pursued a religious divorce, if their religion even allows for such a thing. If all of the haters on this Board really believed in the sanctity of marriage they would be all about marriage inclusivness and outlawing divorce but many of these hypocrites are on their second, third or fourth spouses while still having living spouses that the pledged their troth to before whatever God they believe.

Posted by: lmwilker | December 27, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Wrestling with same sex marriage? The boy hasn't learned the lesson yet not to let your mouth get you into trouble that your feet can't get you out of.

Should be interesting to watch how This Kenyan Born, Anti-American, Anti-Constitution, Muslim will wiggle with this one!

Maybe he can consult with his local Imam on how to force gay marriage on his fellow Muslims so he can enjoy political benefits.

Posted by: TexRancher | December 26, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

Posted by: shadow_man | December 23, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

...with DADT--not yet credited the sort of "common sense" change that its evident popularity has made into "law"--some (not all)--who now really are (or seem) "clueless" best might not be subjected to the protracted political abuse or "silly" fray that precedes what might yet be progress in terms of DADT, and also, quite the same about the DoMA, etc. some might yet understand that "extremes of debate," in terms ideology(-ies) and protracted ways and means, if (gradually or long) understood (correctly or otherwise) as disingenuous and/or abusive (self-serving by participants, not also constructively for many others) soon enuff to improve on all that preceded DADT, and much the same about DoMA, and developments after one or both, etc., and surely there suould be few, if any, and none for long, eager/able for any suffering to be caused or continued, much less increased, etc., as a matter of public interest, public policy, and the public record, etc.

Posted by: cdmcl3 | December 23, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.

(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html

Posted by: shadow_man | December 23, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

The new Tea Party folks in Washington should be leading the charge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act seeing that the Constitution does not give the federal government powers over this.

Posted by: erik1 | December 23, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

The rants of the obviously mentally ill on this subject are hilarious. boski66 in particular has chosen to lie about the Bible in order to further a sick agenda of hate. Apparently blasphemy and lies are all this poor deluded person has. Fortunately most Americans do not hate American as much as this person does and most of us believe in Freedom and justice for all.

Posted by: MHCNYC | December 23, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The rants of the obviously mentally ill on this subject are hilarious. boski65 in particular has chosen to lie about the Bible in order to further a sick agenda of hate. Apparently blasphemy and lies are all this poor deluded person has. Fortunately most Americans do not hate American as much as this person does and most of us believe in Freedom and justice for all.

Posted by: MHCNYC | December 23, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The new Tea Party folks in Washington should be leading the charge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act seeing that the Constitution does not give the federal government powers over this.

Posted by: erik1 | December 23, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

The new Tea Party folks in Washington should be leading the charge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act seeing that the Constitution does not give the federal government powers over this.

Posted by: erik1 | December 23, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

The new Tea Party folks in Washington should be leading the charge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act seeing that the Constitution does not give the federal government powers over this.

Posted by: erik1 | December 23, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Hey he is still our teabagger in charge so lets treat him with all the respect he deserves! Barney Frank could have told you Obama was a Fannie Mae but no one listens to him!

Posted by: Loxinabox | December 23, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

The new Tea Party folks in Washington should be leading the charge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act seeing that the Constitution does not give the federal government powers over this.

Posted by: erik1 | December 23, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

The new Tea Party folks in Washington should be leading the charge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act seeing that the Constitution does not give the federal government powers over this.

Posted by: erik1 | December 23, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse

The new Tea Party folks in Washington should be leading the charge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act seeing that the Constitution does not give the federal government powers over this.

Posted by: erik1 | December 23, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

If Obama and his wife are so dedicated to having equal rights, I believe their daughters are just at the age of how they will adopt life time understanding on love, sex and marriage, they should have their daughters have some sleep overs at the White House with kid's that are gay, bi-sexual and transsexuals. They should be the cornerstone of what this brave new world of raging sexuality. If they do this and put it out their on television, for all to study, then maybe they'll make headway for the citizens to understand. They should also invite all the different sexual combinations on vacations with them
and sleep overs for the girls to go to their friends houses. We need to see how youths will fare with these new revalations of what sex and sexulaity can be when experimented with. After all if they expect soildiers on the battlefield to share blood with homosexuals, then they should do their part so we can check out the sitution.

Posted by: boski66 | December 23, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

"Will someone please tell me where Obama has the power to rule on these things????
All of a sudden he is the omnipotent being who rules on every aspect of our lives. What a freaking ego? Since his election he thinks he is god and can set rules to which we must obey.
Get a grip Obummer, you are a third rate president at best, your teleprompter is not a direct link to the heavens. How about focusing on the really important matters that face our country.
Posted by: brooklynborn1" Didn't you know Obama is God? Just ask any Democrat! We no longer need to think for ourselves he knows what is best for his flock of sheep

Posted by: Loxinabox | December 23, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Obama is 'wrestling' with same-sex marriage.
------
Shouldn't he get a divorce first? Or maybe not since, logically, plural marriage must now be OK too.

There is nothing in Contract Law barring multiple parties to a contract and besides, lots of religions allow plural marriage and it's not right to discriminate against their beliefs.

Frankly, I think there is far more state/public interest in the licensing of children rather than the licensing of cohabiting adults.

Posted by: CincinnatiRIck | December 23, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Obama's silence on Sinclair's allegations is deafening. It speaks volumes about what likely happened in Chicago back on November 6 and 7, 1999. And although I was not there to witness the events, it sounds like, judging from the consistency of Sinclair's story over a year and a half, and the fine details he provides in the book, that Sinclair is in fact telling the truth. It appears that indeed Obama was leading a life as a closeted bisexual at least through 1999. Oh, and of course, he also seemed to have been fudging the truth regarding his drug use since, especially since college... --Chirpy Rumblings, October 24, 2009

Now we know how Obama likes to take his Frank it would seem he is a Fannie Mae Why am I not surprised

Posted by: Loxinabox | December 23, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Will someone please tell me where Obama has the power to rule on these things????
All of a sudden he is the omnipotent being who rules on every aspect of our lives. What a freaking ego? Since his election he thinks he is god and can set rules to which we must obey.
Get a grip Obummer, you are a third rate president at best, your teleprompter is not a direct link to the heavens. How about focusing on the really important matters that face our country.

Posted by: brooklynborn1 | December 23, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

"I was with you until the statement of gay marriage as a 'radical' concept. Obama need to get off their high horse on this issue and FAST. Marriage should be a commitment between two consenting adults." I could not agree with you more! This is America adults should be allowed to have sex with other adults same sex different sex different species sheep pigs dogs what ever. I love America. Hey animals need health care too!

Posted by: Loxinabox | December 23, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing
odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Posted by: drew105 | December 23, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Jesus said
Homosexuals, their blood is upon them

Mr. and Mrs. Obama
Isn't that right?

MR. AND MRS.
Bride and Groom
Husband and Wife
Father and Mother
Producing Children
From generation to generation

God's Creation
Don't Ya KNOW!

Posted by: boski66 | December 23, 2010 7:55 AM | Report abuse

Jesus said
Homosexuals, their blood is upon them

Mr. and Mrs. Obama
Isn't that right?

MR. AND MRS.
Bride and Groom
Husband and Wife
Father and Mother
Producing Children
From generation to generation

God's Creation
Don't Ya KNOW!

Posted by: boski66 | December 23, 2010 7:53 AM | Report abuse

The progressive liberals are all about destruction, They want marriage, it's meaning and core, it's essence and found-
ation to mean nothing. But all KNOW WELL
Marriage for all of humanity is about the
promise a man and woman, make to one another, it is the promise of their family
their children, under the law of the land
bride and groom
husband and wife
fahter and mother

brotherhood, sisterhood, motherhood, fatherhood
Not Homosexualityhood
It about blood related family
the promise of the union
With all that they offer each other for LIFE
It is about it's esence, it's core, it's foundation
If you don't know this
Don't Get Married
DIMWITTS!

Posted by: boski66 | December 23, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

Make no Mistake about it
Marriage is the Promise
of a man and a woman
bride and groom
husband and wife
father and mother
coming together as one
To produce the promise
of LIfe, Itself
Their children
of their hearts, minds, souls and bodies
And Blood
Related Family From generation to generation
Family forever
throughout eternity

Posted by: boski66 | December 23, 2010 7:21 AM | Report abuse

Make no Mistake about it
Marriage is the Promise
of a man and a woman
bride and groom
husband and wife
father and mother
coming together as one
To produce the promise
of LIfe, Itself
Their children
of their hearts, minds, souls and bodies
And Blood
Related Family From generation to generation
Family forever
throughout eternity

Posted by: boski66 | December 23, 2010 7:21 AM | Report abuse

Stop the Abuse of Innocent Children
And their families

http://www.massresistance.org
http://www.drjudithreisman.org
httP://www.silentscream.org
Also google
Dawn Stefanowicz Out from Under
Also Dr. Money the Boy with no P.E.N.I.S.
Also The transgendered janitor in Oxford, Massachustts elementry school
Also Obama's Bi-sexuality
Also Planned Parenthood as this organization goes into the public schools and gives young girls low dose birth control pills so they will become pregnant
then they take them for an abortion, many times without the parents permission
So much abuse
It's No wonder many have no principals, values, nor morals

Govenor McGreevy the Homosexual American
Barney Frank forgot his purse
and a whole hosts of politicains with their aids. A.I.D.S.
A Country in the Bowels of Hell

Posted by: boski66 | December 23, 2010 7:08 AM | Report abuse

As the sun of the earth must rise
To give sustaining Warmth, Light and Life
The son of man
Must rise
For he has a purpose too
To rise up
and bring forth Life
With all that God has given him
To honor and protect
To defend the blood of his offspring
To give and recieve this love
It takes a heterosexual
The blueprint of the Creator
You are heterosexual

Posted by: boski66 | December 23, 2010 6:47 AM | Report abuse

The entire purpose of homosexuality is child sex abuse, they the homosexuals claim you must get them before their
eight or it's too late. Homosexuality
could not survive if it were not for
adults promoting children into the
Practice. That is why most homosexuals
were sexually abuse as youths. This practice is not natural, not normal by
any strech of the imagination.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/
BloodBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186

Men who have had sex with other men at anytime since1977(the beginning of the Aids Epidemic in the United States) are currently deffered as blood donors. This is because MSM are as a group, at increased risk for HIV, HepatitisB and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion

This policy is not unique to the United States. Many European Countries have recently reexamined both the science and
ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral, and have retained it (see the transscprit of the FDA workshop on Behavior-Based Donor Deferrals in the NAT ERA for further information)

This decision is also consistent with the prevailing interpretation fo the European Union Direective2004/33/ECArticle2.1 on donor defferals

Posted by: boski66 | December 23, 2010 6:41 AM | Report abuse

The entire purpose of homosexuality is child sex abuse, they the homosexuals claim you must get them before their
eight or it's too late. Homosexuality
could not survive if it were not for
adults promoting children into the
Practice. That is why most homosexuals
were sexually abuse as youths. This practice is not natural, not normal by
any strech of the imagination.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/
BloodBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186

Men who have had sex with other men at anytime since1977(the beginning of the Aids Epidemic in the United States) are currently deffered as blood donors. This is because MSM are as a group, at increased risk for HIV, HepatitisB and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion

This policy is not unique to the United States. Many European Countries have recently reexamined both the science and
ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral, and have retained it (see the transscprit of the FDA workshop on Behavior-Based Donor Deferrals in the NAT ERA for further information)

This decision is also consistent with the prevailing interpretation fo the European Union Direective2004/33/ECArticle2.1 on donor defferals

Posted by: boski66 | December 23, 2010 6:40 AM | Report abuse

The entire purpose of homosexuality is child sex abuse, they the homosexuals claim you must get them before their
eight or it's too late. Homosexuality
could not survive if it were not for
adults promoting children into the
Practice. That is why most homosexuals
were sexually abuse as youths. This practice is not natural, not normal by
any strech of the imagination.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/
BloodBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186

Men who have had sex with other men at anytime since1977(the beginning of the Aids Epidemic in the United States) are currently deffered as blood donors. This is because MSM are as a group, at increased risk for HIV, HepatitisB and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion

This policy is not unique to the United States. Many European Countries have recently reexamined both the science and
ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral, and have retained it (see the transscprit of the FDA workshop on Behavior-Based Donor Deferrals in the NAT ERA for further information)

This decision is also consistent with the prevailing interpretation fo the European Union Direective2004/33/ECArticle2.1 on donor defferals

Posted by: boski66 | December 23, 2010 6:40 AM | Report abuse

The entire purpose of homosexuality is child sex abuse, they the homosexuals claim you must get them before their
eight or it's too late. Homosexuality
could not survive if it were not for
adults promoting children into the
Practice. That is why most homosexuals
were sexually abuse as youths. This practice is not natural, not normal by
any strech of the imagination.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/
BloodBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186

Men who have had sex with other men at anytime since1977(the beginning of the Aids Epidemic in the United States) are currently deffered as blood donors. This is because MSM are as a group, at increased risk for HIV, HepatitisB and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion

This policy is not unique to the United States. Many European Countries have recently reexamined both the science and
ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral, and have retained it (see the transscprit of the FDA workshop on Behavior-Based Donor Deferrals in the NAT ERA for further information)

This decision is also consistent with the prevailing interpretation fo the European Union Direective2004/33/ECArticle2.1 on donor defferals

Posted by: boski66 | December 23, 2010 6:40 AM | Report abuse

The entire purpose of homosexuality is child sex abuse, they the homosexuals claim you must get them before their
eight or it's too late. Homosexuality
could not survive if it were not for
adults promoting children into the
Practice. That is why most homosexuals
were sexually abuse as youths. This practice is not natural, not normal by
any strech of the imagination.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/
BloodBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186

Men who have had sex with other men at anytime since1977(the beginning of the Aids Epidemic in the United States) are currently deffered as blood donors. This is because MSM are as a group, at increased risk for HIV, HepatitisB and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion

This policy is not unique to the United States. Many European Countries have recently reexamined both the science and
ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral, and have retained it (see the transscprit of the FDA workshop on Behavior-Based Donor Deferrals in the NAT ERA for further information)

This decision is also consistent with the prevailing interpretation fo the European Union Direective2004/33/ECArticle2.1 on donor defferals

Posted by: boski66 | December 23, 2010 6:39 AM | Report abuse

I, for one am so sick and tired of hearing about gay rights, gay and lesbian unions and anything else to do with the gay movement. Our president should be more concerned with the national debt, making jobs and improving our economy instead of pandering to all the special interest groups

Posted by: ren51 | December 23, 2010 1:09 AM | Report abuse

This dolt of a president has no moral foundation. His evolving is just the shifting in polls more favorable to gay marriage, he is just weighing the political ramifications before he jumps into the fray.

Posted by: richardch_2 | December 23, 2010 12:41 AM | Report abuse

Not having married myself, I can only derive the characteristics of this union, between adults, by my parents example. By my observations, the love they shared for each other was their bonding. Together with their love of each other, was the love they both shared with God, and the love they shared with me.

When the purpose of the license was explained to me, it was sensible, that they would pledge their love for each other lawfully. Which means, they would both insure each others health, and well-being with all of the humanitarian, and economical resources available to them. That is, what I came to understand as, a marriage.

Gender specification for this type of union can be singularly identifiable, but because of the life commitment by both adults to each other, equal allowances should exist in a differently specified union as well.

For the adults who cannot come to grips with the aspect of two people loving each other so deeply, that they would do everything possible to insure the other is given the best life has to offer, you misinterpret the proposition of commitment. Characterized as a marriage, or as a civil union, both adults obligate their lives to each other, and both agreements should be afforded the equivalent moralities.

The obvious, and basic reason for either lawful acknowledgement, is love. If there is a question of whom we are to love, may I offer the following quotation.

Mark Chapter 12, Verses 30 & 31

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” “The second is this: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” There is no commandment greater than these.”


Posted by: dwight_e_robinson | December 23, 2010 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Not having married myself, I can only derive the characteristics of this union, between adults, by my parents example. By my observations, the love they shared for each other was their bonding. Together with their love of each other, was the love they both shared with God, and the love they shared with me.

When the purpose of the license was explained to me, it was sensible, that they would pledge their love for each other lawfully. Which means, they would both insure each others health, and well-being with all of the humanitarian, and economical resources available to them. That is, what I came to understand as, a marriage.

Gender specification for this type of union can be singularly identifiable, but because of the life commitment by both adults to each other, equal allowances should exist in a differently specified union as well.

For the adults who cannot come to grips with the aspect of two people loving each other so deeply, that they would do everything possible to insure the other is given the best life has to offer, you misinterpret the proposition of commitment. Characterized as a marriage, or as a civil union, both adults obligate their lives to each other, and both agreements should be afforded the equivalent moralities.

The obvious, and basic reason for either lawful acknowledgement, is love. If there is a question of whom we are to love, may I offer the following quotation.

Mark Chapter 12, Verses 30 & 31

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” “The second is this: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” There is no commandment greater than these.”


Posted by: dwight_e_robinson | December 23, 2010 12:38 AM | Report abuse

In the beginning God created man (1 man not two) and when He saw man was alone He created woman (1 woman not 2). That was God's plan. It was only when man got so full of himself that he decided he would do things his way that God abandoned him to have his own way. When man got too far from God's plan (as in the cases of Sodom and Gomorrah) He destroyed them. Let's hope we don't go so far that He decides to leave this country to its own devices and destroys us too. (Before you say it: I am not Republican, conservative, homophobic or a bigot but I am a Christian.)The real conflict comes in that once Christians, Jews, Muslims allowed their representatives to make homosexuality legal and did not stand up against it because of fearing public opinion, then you opened the door for them to enjoy and receive all civil rights that are granted to any American, including the civil act of marriage. Stop being afraid of being called a "homophobic", I really don't know anyone who is "afraid of homosexuals", and stand up for your beliefs. And don't think polygamists, those who believe in child marriages, etc. aren't waiting to see how this goes so they can start screaming about "equality". If the law regarding marriage for one man and one woman is repealed for one group, it will then have to be changed for all groups.

Posted by: Indy60 | December 23, 2010 12:19 AM | Report abuse

In the beginning God created man (1 man not two) and when He saw man was alone He created woman (1 woman not 2). That was God's plan. It was only when man got so full of himself that he decided he would do things his way that God abandoned him to have his own way. When man got too far from God's plan (as in the cases of Sodom and Gomorrah) He destroyed them. Let's hope we don't go so far that He decides to leave this country to its own devices and destroys us too. (Before you say it: I am not Republican, conservative, homophobic or a bigot but I am a Christian.)The real conflict comes in that once Christians, Jews, Muslims allowed their representatives to make homosexuality legal and did not stand up against it because of fearing public opinion, then you opened the door for them to enjoy and receive all civil rights that are granted to any American, including the civil act of marriage. Stop being afraid of being called a "homophobic", I really don't know anyone who is "afraid of homosexuals", and stand up for your beliefs. And don't think polygamists, those who believe in child marriages, etc. aren't waiting to see how this goes so they can start screaming about "equality". If the law regarding marriage for one man and one woman is repealed for one group, it will then have to be changed for all groups.

Posted by: Indy60 | December 23, 2010 12:17 AM | Report abuse

If you believe Obama's position on gay marriage is evolving, you believe his position on evolution is "evolving" as well. What is really "evolving" is his comfort in advancing his agenda, which was long in place before he ran for president.

If gays want to have a contract that governs their lives that is outside the bounds of traditional marriage, have at it. But let's not kid ourselves that same sex "marriage" is anything other than what it is.........a sham and a scam. What is to prevent brothers and sisters or parents and children -- same sex or otherwise -- from marrying one another if we allow this nonsense. Luckily, there will be no repeat of the current "lame duck" congress in 2012, or who knows what we would have in two years time.

Obama needs to go, and he proves it on a daily basis.

Posted by: buggerianpaisley1 | December 23, 2010 12:08 AM | Report abuse

.


I wonder if anybody in the history of internet forums has ever changed his mind because of what somebody else posted?

Judging from these comments here, the world may never know.


.

P.S. to lyn3 who wrote, "FACT!
God ordained marriage is between one man and one woman."

Genesis 16:3 (King James Version): And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

Exodus 21:10 (New International Version) If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

Oops. It looks like the Bible (the Old Testament at least) condones marriage between one man and MORE than one woman. But even so, you still a problem: America is not a Christian theocracy. You might want to live in another country where Christianity is the official religion.

Posted by: egc52556 | December 22, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

It's mind-blowing to see people worried about the survival of humanity if same-sex marriage is made legal on the whole land. How can people be that morally weak?

Posted by: rolandberger | December 22, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

It's mind-blowing to see people worried about the survival of humanity if same-sex marriage is made legal on the whole land. How can people be that morally weak?

Posted by: rolandberger | December 22, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. Not between a man, a woman and the Govt. Not between two women, nor between two men.
Marriage started as a religious covenant between one man and one woman, and that's the only way it should be.

It is absolutely none of the Govt's business to control how religious groups function. The Govt has absolutely no business adding in a new definition of marriage nor changing the current definition of marriage.

I don't care if any certain President is feeling a bit arrogant over his self-perceived power, marriage is still not any of the Govt's business. President Obama apparently has gotten a bit ego-bloated over the disgusting DADT repeal's (alleged) 'victory', and now wants to completely destroy the US and the US Constitution.

Posted by: momof20yo | December 22, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse


http://ta.gg/4or


Wonderful.
Share a website with you ,
fashionable + popular men's clothing and women's dress
beautiful shoe + tide bag。
delivery is free.

Posted by: itkonlyyou429 | December 22, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Since Proposition 22 passed in California in 2000 – defining marriage as between one man and one woman – people have attacked the voters’ decision from all sides. They say that this definition of marriage is unconstitutional and backward thinking.

FACT!
God ordained marriage is between one man and one woman.
The history of this country was built upon the foundation of marriage and Biblical principles.
The traditional institution of marriage is the best institution for raising children.

Posted by: lyn3 | December 22, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, the procreative committed relationship of a man and a woman is more valuable than any other relationship in society because it is necessary for society's very survival. To comprehend the impact of this, you just need to consider two questions.

(1) What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage? Our country would thrive with a drastic reduction in numerous social problems including illegitimacy, crime, welfare, and abortion.

(2) What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage? Society wouldn't thrive because it wouldn't even survive. It would end the human race!

Posted by: lyn3 | December 22, 2010 6:09 PM

==============================================
Since neither scenario has ever happened in this country and is very unlikely to occur at any time in the future, your questions are equally meaningless.

Posted by: OldFogie | December 22, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. It is not for man to say otherwise.

Posted by: racam | December 22, 2010 4:23 PM

=========================================

Man so defined it so why can't man change it? By the way, the definition of marriage has changed several times over the ages.

Posted by: OldFogie | December 22, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

msjn1 comments show that he is supported of only blacks. Obama is by the way bi racial. The homosexual bill passed including our new senator in MA who voted for it and should be ousted in the next primary for his voted, which I bet will lead to the end of doma.

The situation of not stopping the START treaty with no oversight such as trust but verify. Sounds familiar. This president cares not for our country. A CFR'er the new world people while taking away at a fast rate, our liberties many of readers new we had.

Our freedom is being taken away Home Land Security who does not care about us, but does not restrict the enemy who we all know is not restricted in spreading their way, but CHRISTIANS are the target, with removal of the name of CHRISTMAS in schools and government and this week the FED, I have has it! I lost my country and have to go with the flow.

Posted by: gmdouglas | December 22, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

DOMA has already been ruled to be unconstitutional by the lower courts, and it will be the same on the appeal. The simple fact that it infringes on states rights to regulate the institution of marriage is why it will be repealed. The law is forcing states that have legalized marriage for all its citizens to discriminate against its gay citizens.

Marriage equality will happen in this country, and there is nothing that a bigot can do to stop it.

Posted by: gsalamone | December 22, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

The world is changing and some of what we have "believed" came from the source may be subject to some interpretation as to the level of the severity of the sin.

We just recognized the rights of gays to be so, and to serve in our military, so what is the next logical SOCIAL step, not the RELIGIOUS step, as marriage is a social custom.

Posted by: ronjeske | December 22, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, the procreative committed relationship of a man and a woman is more valuable than any other relationship in society because it is necessary for society's very survival. To comprehend the impact of this, you just need to consider two questions.

(1) What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage? Our country would thrive with a drastic reduction in numerous social problems including illegitimacy, crime, welfare, and abortion.

(2) What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage? Society wouldn't thrive because it wouldn't even survive. It would end the human race!

Posted by: lyn3 | December 22, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

A certain wise man (rabbi?) once told us: Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's.

So, it's really pretty simple...civil unions (essentially the same as the licensing) for everyone who wants to do a legally recognized "coupling contract." For those so inclined by religious and/or social reasons, let a ceremony and reception be done subsequently.

Historically, marriage is a religious ceremony but we have a separation of church and state. The First Amendment is thusly well served and at the same time, the sensibilities of the religious are respected.

Posted by: CincinnatiRIck | December 22, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Marriage should be between 2 humans who love and respect each other ...whether that is heterosexual or 2 men or 2 women...is no one's business but theirs. So get over yourselves and legalise same sex marriage. In a time when divorce is running at close to 50% ...any marriage between any two people of any sexual orientation that lasts beyond a decade deserves kudos and the legal right to the institution is they so desire...

Posted by: kmdyson | December 22, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Silly screwjob23. Congress writes and passes legislation that has FREQUENTLY been declared unconstitutional. Silly screwjobs can say DOMA is the law of the land as often and as loudly as they want. But DOMA is truly doomed.

Because just like DADT was, it's headed for the court. Once the court rules that the military cannot discriminate against legally married couples, it doesn't matter diddly what the legislative wording of the DADT repeal is, DOMA is dead. If the Department of Defense is prohibited from discriminating against legally married couples, so is the Department of Revenue.

Marriage equality is just around the corner.

Posted by: dastubbs | December 22, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. It is not for man to say otherwise.

Posted by: racam | December 22, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. It is not for man to say otherwise.

Posted by: racam | December 22, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse


Hilarious Dims, surely you were not made to believe the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell gives any military benefits to the civilian boyfriends of homosexual soldiers? If so, you never read the legislation:

(d) Benefits- Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to require the furnishing of benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of `marriage' and `spouse' and referred to as the Defense of Marriage Act).

Posted by: screwjob23 | December 22, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse


It is a singular oppurtunity for showing pleasure in a Union-it is two brothers or sisters, has any one objected how any one derive pleasure? divorce is the same-living with some one under the same roof, shows up the discontent after some time.
Union or divorce,locks or unlocks, what is the worry.My diagreement, only when it becomes Public Health issue.It is a well known fact a male and female are equipped for the physical act for procreation.

Posted by: jayrkay | December 22, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse


It is a singular oppurtunity for showing pleasure in a Union-it is two brothers or sisters, has any one objected how any one derive pleasure? divorce is the same-living with some one under the same roof, shows up the discontent after some time.
Union or divorce,locks or unlocks, what is the worry.My diagreement, only when it becomes Public Health issue.It is a well known fact a male and female are equipped for the physical act for procreation.

Posted by: jayrkay | December 22, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

screwjob23 wrote:

«Actually, the Democrats still control the Senate, not to mention the White House, and there is not a damned thing you can do to change it.»

jaypem wrote:

«Wrestle away Barry, wrestle away. The Defense of Marriage Act is federal law and there is not a damned thing you can do to change it.»

O jaypem, O screwjob23, wrong, you are both wrong.

O jaypem, Defense of Marriage Act, it is still federal law, Senate and President by themselves, they cannot repeal laws, it takes another law passed by both Republican house and Democratic senate and signed by Democratic President, our President Obama, to repeal a law, Republican house of representatives, it will not pass a repeal law, so Senate and White House do not *have* to do a «d***ed thing» to change law, law will not be changed unless Republican House passes a repeal law.

O screwjob23, our President Obama can do something, it would indeed be a «d***ed thing» if he did it, he could ignore the oath he took to «take care that the laws be faithfully executed», he could instruct his government lawyers not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act against lawsuits from the Sodomy Lobby trying to carry out the «Gay Agenda», trying to get USA courts to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.

O President Obama, please keep your oath, please take care that the Defense of Marriage Act be faithfully executed, please do not disregard the law passed by the Congress, please do not disregard the will of the people of 30 states who have put amendments in their state constitutions limiting marriage to one man and one woman, USA majority is homophobic, please listen to the people even though they are homophobic, please do not neglect taking care that this law be faithfully executed, please do not let the Sodomy Lobby convince you to break your oath, please defend Marriage by defending the Defense of Marriage Act vigorously against the Sodomy Lobby in court. Thank you, Mr. President!

Posted by: abu_ibrahim | December 22, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

I really love to read screwjob as he is just so vicious as well as wrong every post. Obama will be reelected by all the people you hate like the rest of the republicans. And then the GOP will choose an nut job just like you to run against him like Sarah or Ron and lose even most of the red states. Why don't you admit you are racially prejudiced against him and hate to see anything a black man accoplishes as positive. Join McConnell with his crocodile tears. I can't believe you actually read the Washington Post and nothing gets through your pointy skull. Do you think that this is the New York Post (Beck in print)?

Posted by: msjn1 | December 22, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

I admire President Obama. He is honest. And he is rather square. When he says he struggles with the concept of gay marriage, I believe him.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | December 22, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse


Silly Dims, see how far Barry the incompetent boob Obama gets with his leftist social agenda in the House after January the 3rd. We shall see.

The 63 Dims who were given a swift kick in the pants by the voters not month will not be voting on anything for Barry the inept bungler.

Miserable failure Obama


Posted by: screwjob23 | December 22, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

A couple of thoughts:

In Germany it is required that all marriages be conducted by a judge with a religious service optional.

There seems to be a block to the same sex marriage issue in that all of these unions are expected to be "gay". Are there not any not-gay couples who would benefit from the legal protections that a same sex marriage contract would offer? I'm thinking of the right to make legally binding decisions for each other as well as inheritance.

If we remove the stigma of "gay" from the issue, as far a federal law is concerned isn't it then an equal opportunity issue?

Posted by: stephanidon | December 22, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Many people today are still "wrestling" with mixed race marriage. That doesn't mean that laws against mixed race marriage should still be an option. Like those in the 1960s, Obama seems to have problems dealing with his own prejudices in the face of facts.

Posted by: MHCNYC | December 22, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

I am surprised that a law professor has such a hard time with this. It's rather simple actually. The government's role in marriage is to protect each party in the same way it protects businesses through contract law. That's it. Nothing needs to be added to prevent underage marriages or marriages to animals, they're all already covered in contract law. Minors cannot enter into binding contracts nor can animals. Polygamy on the other hand, another step to far by the government. While I would never 2 or more spouses on anyone, that's not my business any more than it is the governments. As long as all parties involved are equally protected contractually under the law. Now, if the answer includes forcing churches to marry people then that is a clear violation of the First Amendment and should never be allowed. Given the financial loss of not catering to all of its potential customers, there will be enough churches more than willing to accept a same-sex couples money as they are a traditional couple. It really is that simple. Given that the POTUS is more likely than not to be a one-termer, this is his opportunity to make the biggest impact on history and be more than a rose trimmer in the garden during his 1 term.

Posted by: dauerad | December 22, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama 'wrestling' with same-sex marriage
========================================
The picture of the President, eyes downcast, nervous frown, seems to indicate the headline is something by which the First Lady (and the kids) will be devastated when they hear the news.

Congratulations, WaPo, you are now FoxNews.

Posted by: gannon_dick | December 22, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Marriage traditionally has a different DENOTATION, not connotation. That's the issue here -- what the DEFINITION of marriage is, not what some people FEEL about it.

What a buffoon of a lawyer POTUS is to be so imprecise in his wording!


Posted by: nadie1 | December 22, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone ever used the Separation of Church and State to challenge (legally or otherwise) the ability of priests/ministers/rabbis to perform marriage ceremonies? It seems to me one way around this conundrum is to require all couples to have a civil ceremony to be performed by judges, justices of the peace, etc. and let the religious folks perform the "Married in the eyes of God" ceremony.

Posted by: ValleyForge62 | December 22, 2010 2:38 PM
====================

I believe that the majority of the legal requirements of marriage are accomplished by the licensing, not the ceremony, so it may not be an issue from a legal standpoint. Certainly, 2 ceremonies would not be required. I do think that First Amendment protections will provide cover for those religious institutions that would prefer not to recognize same-sex marriage, which is as it should be.

Posted by: OldUncleTom | December 22, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

if it gets more votes for our first black and totaly worthless president he will be for it.fagmander in charge

Posted by: dagner49 | December 22, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

I was thinking about this topic earlier today, and what occurred to me is that the connotations of the word "marriage" matter a lot here.

When most people think of marriage, they think of the ceremony performed in a house of worship, the "sacrament" of marriage and all the tradition that accompanies it. The legal contract of marriage is secondary (connotation-wise), but in the case of gay marriage, it would be primary because that's all the gay community is asking for.

Legalizing gay marriage would not require private institutions like churches to perform gay marriages, but I think many people are afraid that it would. The point that needs to be made more strenuously is that gay marriage rights amount to allowing gays marry in city hall, with all the legal rights that go along with it. But any religious congregation that does not believe in gay marriage does not have to perform marriages for them because the government has no authority there. That's the beauty of separation of church and state.

Posted by: rosefarm1 | December 22, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone ever used the Separation of Church and State to challenge (legally or otherwise) the ability of priests/ministers/rabbis to perform marriage ceremonies? It seems to me one way around this conundrum is to require all couples to have a civil ceremony to be performed by judges, justices of the peace, etc. and let the religious folks perform the "Married in the eyes of God" ceremony.

Posted by: ValleyForge62 | December 22, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Wrestle away Barry, wrestle away. The Defense of Marriage Act is federal law and there is not a damned thing you can do to change it.

The Dims' control of Congress is over.

Posted by: screwjob23 | December 22, 2010 1:54 PM
__________________________
Actually, the Democrats still control the Senate, not to mention the White House, and there is not a damned thing you can do to change it.

Posted by: jaypem | December 22, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Straights should just change the name of marriage to something else, anything, even Broccoli, and then gays and liberals, acting liek teh children they are, will demand it be called broccoli too.

Posted by: scoran | December 22, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

DOMA will be tossed by the courts. Obama is not "wrestling" with marriage equality...he is pro-equality and always has been (he stated as much back in the early 1990s when he first ran for public offic in Illinois). What he is "wrestling" with is how to get back on the right side of this issue since he sold out the LGBT community when he decided to run for President and flip-flopped on marriage equality.

Screwjob, we democrats are not worried...republicans will overreach (as both sides tend to do when they have a big win) and Obama's re-election is virtually guaranteed since he will now have the Republican House to run against.

Posted by: Coloradem1 | December 22, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse


Wrestle away Barry, wrestle away. The Defense of Marriage Act is federal law and there is not a damned thing you can do to change it.

The Dims' control of Congress is over. The lame duck session is de facto over: 80 members of the House have already skipped down.

Pathetic loser Dims lost 63 seats in the House and lost control of the House. The GOP majority will be seated in less than two weeks.

Posted by: screwjob23 | December 22, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company