Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:58 PM ET, 02/16/2011

Currie says he will vote against Md. same-sex marriage bill

By John Wagner

Thumbnail image for Currie mug.jpgSen. Ulysses Currie (D-Prince George's), one of a handful of Maryland senators who had not declared a position on same-sex marriage, said Wednesday that he intends to vote against the bill.

"It might have a lot to do with my background, coming up in the South, coming up through the churches," Currie, the son of a North Carolina sharecropper, said in an interview. "That has much to do with it as anything."

The vote on the bill, which is expected to reach the Senate floor next week, looks like it will be very close.

A Post tally published earlier this week showed 24 senators -- the bare minimum needed for passage -- having said they would vote for the bill. That tally includes Sen. Joan Carter Conway (D-Baltimore), who told The Post that she was willing to be the deciding vote if needed but would not vote for the bill if it was going to fail. Conway has been more equivocal in statements to other publications.

Currie had previously told The Post that there was about a 40 percent chance he would vote for the bill, which would remove Maryland's requirement that marriages be between a man and a woman. Currie said Wednesday that he will vote to cut off debate if opponents attempt a filibuster.

Another undeclared lawmaker, Sen. James C. Rosapepe (D-Prince George's), confirmed Wednesday that he intends to announce his position on the legislation by the end of the week. That development was first reported by The Diamondback, the student newspaper at the University of Maryland at College Park, which is in Rosapepe's district.

The paper also reported that Rosapepe has been heavily lobbied to vote for the bill by university students.

Another undecided member, Sen. John C. Astle (D-Anne Arundel), is continuing to be lobbied by advocates for the bill.

A list of senators who support the legislation and remain undeclared is below.

Bill sponsors and co-sponsors (18):
Sen. William C. Ferguson (D-Baltimore)
Sen. Jennie M. Forehand (D-Montgomery)
Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery)
Sen. Robert J. Garagiola (D-Montgomery)
Sen. Lisa A. Gladden (D-Baltimore)
Sen. Verna L. Jones-Rodwell (D-Baltimore)
Sen. Dolores G. Kelley (D-Baltimore County)
Sen. Nancy J. King (D-Montgomery)
Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D-Montgomery)
Sen. Roger Manno (D-Montgomery)
Sen. Nathaniel J. McFadden (D-Baltimore)
Sen. Karen S. Montgomery (D-Montgomery)
Sen. Paul G. Pinsky (D-Prince George's)
Sen. Catherine E. Pugh (D-Baltimore)
Sen. Victor R. Ramirez (D-Prince George's)
Sen. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Montgomery)
Sen. Ronald N. Young (D-Frederick)
Sen. Robert A. Zirkin (D-Baltimore County)

Others who have publicly committed to vote for the bill (6):
Sen. James Brochin (D-Baltimore County)
Sen. Joan Carter Conway (D-Baltimore)*
Sen. Edward J. Kasemeyer (D-Baltimore County)
Sen. Allan H. Kittleman (R-Howard)
Sen. Katherine A. Klausmeier (D-Baltimore County)
Sen. James N. Robey (D-Howard)

Senators who said in interviews that they are undecided (2):
Sen. John C. Astle (D-Anne Arundel)
Sen. James C. Rosapepe (D-Prince George's)

Senators who have indicated they oppose the bill (21):
Sen. Joanne C. Benson (D-Prince George's)
Sen. David R. Brinkley (R-Frederick)
Sen. Richard E. Colburn (R-Dorchester)
Sen. Ulysses Currie (D-Prince George's)
Sen. James E. DeGrange Sr. (D-Anne Arundel)
Sen. Roy P. Dyson (St. Mary's)
Sen. George C. Edwards (R-Garrett)
Sen. Joseph M. Getty (R-Carroll)
Sen. Barry Glassman (R-Harford)
Sen. Nancy Jacobs (R-Harford)
Sen. J.B. Jennings (R-Baltimore County)
Sen. James N. Mathias Jr. (D-Worcester)
Sen. Thomas M. Middleton (D-Charles)
Sen. Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert)
Sen. C. Anthony Muse (D-Prince George's)
Sen. Douglas J.J. Peters (D-Prince George's)
Sen. E.J. Pipkin (R-Queen Anne's)
Sen. Edward R. Reilly (R-Anne Arundel)
Sen. Christopher B. Shank (R-Washington)
Sen. Brian W. Simonaire (R-Anne Arundel)
Sen. Norman R. Stone Jr. (D-Baltimore County)

* Conway says she will not vote for the bill if she believes it will fail.

By John Wagner  | February 16, 2011; 12:58 PM ET
Categories:  General Assembly, John Wagner, Same-Sex Marriage  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: O'Malley moves against 'LLC loophole' that benefited his campaigns
Next: Md. House sets hearing on same-sex marriage, anticipating Senate passage

Comments

Silly gays! You should have just bribed Currie like everyone else does.

Posted by: getjiggly2 | February 16, 2011 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for proving that there are those in this country who want a theocracy and not a democracy.

Posted by: Falling4Ever | February 16, 2011 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Bill sponsors and co-sponsors (18):
Sen. William C. Ferguson (D-Baltimore)
Sen. Jennie M. Forehand (D-Montgomery)
Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery)
Sen. Robert J. Garagiola (D-Mongtomery)
Sen. Lisa A. Gladden (D-Baltimore)
Sen. Verna L. Jones-Rodwell (D-Baltimore)
Sen. Dolores G. Kelley (D-Baltimore County)
Sen. Nancy J. King (D-Montgomery)
Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D-Montgomery)
Sen. Roger Manno (D-Montgomery)
Sen. Nathaniel J. McFadden (D-Baltimore)
Sen. Karen S. Montgomery (D-Montgomery)
Sen. Paul G. Pinsky (D-Prince George's)
Sen. Catherine E. Pugh (D-Baltimore)
Sen. Victor R. Ramirez (D-Prince George's)
Sen. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Montgomery)
Sen. Ronald N. Young (D-Frederick)
Sen. Robert A. Zirkin (D-Baltimore County)

Others who have publicly committed to vote for the bill (6):
Sen. James Brochin (D-Baltimore County)
Sen. Joan Carter Conway (D-Baltimore)*
Sen. Edward J. Kasemeyer (D-Baltimore County)
Sen. Allan H. Kittleman (R-Howard)
Sen. Katherine A. Klausmeier (D-Baltimore County)
Sen. James N. Robey (D-Howard)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Dear Constituents,

Please shellack the above in the next election.

Posted by: tjmlrc | February 16, 2011 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Currie's rationale for opposing same-sex marriage rights sounds familiar. Lots of white people cited their "upbringing" when opposing equal rights for African-Americans. Unreasoanble and unforgiveable in both circumstances.

Posted by: dcheretic | February 16, 2011 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Who cares what your small-minded church would want. This is America, not Iran.

Posted by: lightenup2 | February 16, 2011 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Earth to tmjlrd: thanks but no thanks for your electoral advice. Sen. Pinsky will win again by several miles. He represents the vast majority of his constituents as well as fairness and common sense. Keep your bigotry in your own district.

Posted by: commonsense101 | February 16, 2011 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Politicians need to leave their religion and personbal views at the door and do the people's work not their own work. We vote you in, we can vote you out. respect the people's wishes and leave your own personal wishes out of it.

As a practicing Buddhist, I find it offensive for politicians to tell me how their religion has taught them these things of inequality, when they are hurtful to others.

If that is what Christainity teaches than so be it. Off with their heads, and let them eat cake, ehhh.

Politicans should quit when they put their needs ahead of the voters needs.

Posted by: patmatthews | February 16, 2011 2:00 PM | Report abuse

@tmjlrd
Fortunately, my Sen., Jamie Raskin, not only supports the bill, but is a co-sponsor. The vast majority of his district supports this bill, which is about the equality of all people. Unlike your small-minded bigotry.

Posted by: luridone | February 16, 2011 2:35 PM | Report abuse

@tmjlrd
Fortunately, my Sen., Jamie Raskin, not only supports the bill, but is a co-sponsor. The vast majority of his district supports this bill, which is about the equality of all people. Unlike your small-minded bigotry.
______________________

1. Changing the definition of marriage has very little to do with equality under our laws. As gay people do not consitute a suspect class the states can limit marriage in a way they see as rationally benefitting the majority of citizens of a state without offending the 14th amendment of our constitution.

2. Defending the traditional heterosexual definition is not bigotry. It is having a different opinion about a fundemental social institution. Calling it bigotry obviates any discusssion of the merits of the issue.

Posted by: captn_ahab | February 16, 2011 2:58 PM | Report abuse

So growing up in the (no-doubt) segregated south, and 'coming up' through the church, he learned what - how to be intolerant and bigoted? I can't even understand how some of these idiots can live with themselves after saying some of the stupid things they say. If anyone should be inclined to help a disenfranchised group achieve a measure of liberty and equality, you would think this nappy-headed idiot would be the one. What a disgrace. For all of the other bigots on here – (this is coming from a married, heterosexual man – no, I don’t need to qualify myself, but I just thought I’d throw that out there) – homosexual Americans deserve, have earned, (and shouldn’t have to be granted) – the right to marry, adopt children, bequeath their belongs to their loved ones, and otherwise live their lives with all of the freedom and equality granted to every other tax-paying American. The idea that some folks become so enraged at the thought of other Americans happily living their lives is just ridiculous! These are adults! They don’t need anyone’s permission to be happy and fulfilled! Homosexuals have every right to marry and they should withhold their tax money from ANY STATE / CITY or COUNTY THAT DENIES THEM THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO! Enough is enough. This is a disgrace.

Posted by: guisher | February 16, 2011 3:01 PM | Report abuse

tjmlrc you'll have to find some brainwashed repiglets to vote against these people, and you're not going to find them here. peabrainedbigot.

Posted by: red2million | February 16, 2011 3:06 PM | Report abuse

The 'logic' of bigots never ceases to amaze me: "I'm an in-bred, wife beating, murderous, meth-dealing 'Rebel', who hates every one who ain't W.A.S.P. like me and my kin folk, but because I can spell Bible, I goes to church most Sunday's (with close-minded Neanderthals like myself), and (most importantly) because I keeps the gays from marryin' up just like real folks, when Jesus comes back he'll say to me and my hate-filled brethren 'Well done, boys'"
-- Bubba, are you serious? Do you have any idea who Jesus was? I have a new bumper-sticker slogan for you and your knuckle-dragging crew: "Who would Jesus hate?" – Nobody you morons.

Posted by: guisher | February 16, 2011 3:29 PM | Report abuse

capt ahab you can spew all of the gibberish and legalese you want but there is no way from a legal standpoint one can reconcile prohibiting same sex marriages and the Constitution of MD or any state constitution that includes an article requiring equal treatment under the law, as almost virtually all do. "conservatives" are wrong on the issue, and they're wrong on the law. Then again, it took about 20 years literally for them to give up the fight on the Terri Schiavo matter. The problem wasn't "activist judges" the problem was that the courts applied the law instead of - what would baby jesus do? equality is equality, although republicans exist to legislate their personal beliefs and opinions. most un-American thing I can think of.

Posted by: red2million | February 16, 2011 3:37 PM | Report abuse

nice post guisher, keep up the good comments. couldn't have said it better.

Posted by: red2million | February 16, 2011 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I don't care what 2 people do or how they evolve their relationship. But they don't have to call it marriage if they are not opposite sex. Call it something else and all will be fine. If you still feel like you are entitled to the same name just because you are entitled, then you are barking up the wrong tree. Having 2 women or 2 guys have the same last name because it is just weird , both Mr. or Mrs.. Keep marriage for opposite sex couples and come up with the a new name for same sex couples all with the same rights.

Posted by: neil64 | February 16, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Neil64
Do you seriously not see how that would be "separate but equal"? As we know from history that just cannot work.

Posted by: crook32 | February 16, 2011 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Neil64
Do you seriously not see how that would be "separate but equal"? As we know from history that just cannot work.

Posted by: crook32 | February 16, 2011 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Neil64
Do you seriously not see how that would be "separate but equal"? As we know from history that just cannot work.

Posted by: crook32 | February 16, 2011 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Dear tjmlrc:

I'm going to wage a campaign to prevent you from using the internet. Why? Because my religion says that's the way it should be.

Makes sense, right, to prevent you from enjoying the same rights as me because of some flimsy "belief" I have?

Posted by: broode | February 16, 2011 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Does the Maryland Constitution prohibit laws respecting the establishment of religion, as does the U.S. Constitution? If so, Mr. Currie's decision clearly violates the state Constitution. Also, if the state Constitution has an equal protection clause, his decision also violates the Constitution.

Posted by: northernharrier | February 16, 2011 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Curry’s bigoted position and clouded memory makes me sick to my stomach. The knuckle draggers in the Senate chamber who show their anti-Gay bias with their votes in opposition need to be shown the door.

Posted by: Jeff_in_DC | February 16, 2011 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Currie, I disagree with your rationale, but I do appreciate that you've at least agreed to let the bill come up for a vote in the first place. That might be half the battle here. One step at a time, apparently.

Posted by: jackstrawdc1 | February 16, 2011 4:53 PM | Report abuse

JeffinDC wrote:

"Sen. Curry’s bigoted position and clouded memory makes me sick to my stomach. The knuckle draggers in the Senate chamber who show their anti-Gay bias with their votes in opposition need to be shown the door."
____________________

When did a discussion of the social conception and definition of marriage become a discussion solely about anti-gay bias????

That is totally dismissive of the opposite side, when there are valid arguments on both sides.

I thought that's what democracy was all about... listening with respect to the arguments on both sides.

When did the pro-same sex marriage people get the absolute corner on the truth such that anyone disagreeing with them can be labeled a knuckle dragger?? Believing you have an absolute handle on the truth is no less offensive when it comes from a secular perspective than when it comes from a religious one.

Posted by: captn_ahab | February 16, 2011 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Well said, Jackstraw!

Posted by: DCSteve1 | February 16, 2011 5:03 PM | Report abuse


For at least 5 thousand years the institution of marriage has been between a man and a woman, (although occasionally some societies in the past have had plural marriage, but I’ll leave that for another time). No society has ever considered marriage as between 2 people of the same sex, because that makes it NOT MARRIAGE by definition.

So even if some state legislature passes a law to legalize gay so-called marriage, because it just wants to be “cool” one day and show how liberal it is, it doesn’t change the primal nature of marriage any more than if the MD legislature decided that the earth was flat, or that black should now be called white. This is like saying the word “marriage” means one thing in one state and has a totally different definition as an institution in another.

And just for the record, I am not religious whatsoever, have friends of many faiths and ethnicities, and would have no objection to same sex unions giving equal tax treatment, hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.

And good for this Currie guy, at least he has some values.

Posted by: I_can_see_DCfrommyhouse | February 16, 2011 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Hey Currie is free to do as he pleases, just please lets not hear any more whining about "racism" from black politicians since they clearly don't have any problem discriminating against other people.

Posted by: MarcMyWords | February 16, 2011 5:52 PM | Report abuse

"Defending the traditional heterosexual definition is not bigotry. It is having a different opinion about a fundemental social institution. "

You aren't "defending" heterosexual marriage by barring gay marriage. If heterosexual marriage is so valueless and weak that it needs a government monopoly to defend itself, it doesn't need defending - but I think it's quite strong enough and quite worthwhile enough that it can stand the competition from a legal alternative that, by definition, IS NOT EVEN ATTRACTIVE to heterosexuals.

Frankly, my marriage doesn't need your defense. My marriage doesn't need to be defended against serial divorcees like Gingrich or Limbaugh who don't take marriage seriously enough to commit to it for life, or adulterers like Edwards or Giuliani who don't take their vows seriously enough to honor them - it certainly doesn't need defense against the long-lived, loving, committed marriages of George Takei and Brad Altman, or Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. If anything, the latter two marriages offer me the inspiration of people who value marriage enough to cherish it and fight for it.

And by your standards, it's not bigotry to insist that women should be property within marriage, or that the Lovings shouldn't have been permitted to marry, or that Catholics or Protestants or Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists or atheists don't have real marriages and shouldn't be permitted to marry, it's just "having a different opinion about a fundemental [sic] social institution."

Here's why it's bigotry, though. You don't just "have a different opinion," you have the all-fired gall to insist that YOUR opinion should be imposed, using the secular law, on everyone's life and everyone's choices. It is not bigotry for a Catholic to argue publicly or preach that gay marriages or remarriages of divorcees or any marriage not held in a Catholic church is not a real Catholic marriage by Catholic law. It IS bigotry for a Catholic to state that any of those marriages should not be recognized under SECULAR law as CIVIL marriages because they disagree with CATHOLIC opinion. It is not bigotry for me to state that I don't think that those of you who define marriage by the genitals involved deserve to be married - it would be if I tried to deny you the right to marry under civil law as you see fit. See the difference?

Posted by: Catken1 | February 16, 2011 6:17 PM | Report abuse

"Defending the traditional heterosexual definition is not bigotry. It is having a different opinion about a fundemental social institution. "

You aren't "defending" heterosexual marriage by barring gay marriage. If heterosexual marriage is so valueless and weak that it needs a government monopoly to defend itself, it doesn't need defending - but I think it's quite strong enough and quite worthwhile enough that it can stand the competition from a legal alternative that, by definition, IS NOT EVEN ATTRACTIVE to heterosexuals.

Frankly, my marriage doesn't need your defense. My marriage doesn't need to be defended against serial divorcees like Gingrich or Limbaugh who don't take marriage seriously enough to commit to it for life, or adulterers like Edwards or Giuliani who don't take their vows seriously enough to honor them - it certainly doesn't need defense against the long-lived, loving, committed marriages of George Takei and Brad Altman, or Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. If anything, the latter two marriages offer me the inspiration of people who value marriage enough to cherish it and fight for it.

And by your standards, it's not bigotry to insist that women should be property within marriage, or that the Lovings shouldn't have been permitted to marry, or that Catholics or Protestants or Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists or atheists don't have real marriages and shouldn't be permitted to marry, it's just "having a different opinion about a fundemental [sic] social institution."

Here's why it's bigotry, though. You don't just "have a different opinion," you have the all-fired gall to insist that YOUR opinion should be imposed, using the secular law, on everyone's life and everyone's choices. It is not bigotry for a Catholic to argue publicly or preach that gay marriages or remarriages of divorcees or any marriage not held in a Catholic church is not a real Catholic marriage by Catholic law. It IS bigotry for a Catholic to state that any of those marriages should not be recognized under SECULAR law as CIVIL marriages because they disagree with CATHOLIC opinion. It is not bigotry for me to state that I don't think that those of you who define marriage by the genitals involved deserve to be married - it would be if I tried to deny you the right to marry under civil law as you see fit. See the difference?

Posted by: Catken1 | February 16, 2011 6:18 PM | Report abuse

"But they don't have to call it marriage if they are not opposite sex. Call it something else and all will be fine. If you still feel like you are entitled to the same name just because you are entitled, then you are barking up the wrong tree."

And if you feel you are entitled to own the word "marriage" and dictate to the rest of us who may use it and who may not, then YOU are barking up the wrong tree.

The ONLY reason for insisting on a different name for exactly the same civil relationship, with exactly the same responsibilities and rights, is to maintain a sense of government-granted heterosexual privilege. To which, I might add, you are not and never have been entitled.

Posted by: Catken1 | February 16, 2011 6:21 PM | Report abuse

"For at least 5 thousand years the institution of marriage has been between a man and a woman, (although occasionally some societies in the past have had plural marriage, but I’ll leave that for another time). No society has ever considered marriage as between 2 people of the same sex, because that makes it NOT MARRIAGE by definition. "

If you define marriage as a matter of male genitals + female genitals with only incidental people attached, if dangly bits really are more important to you than anything else for the definition of what makes a marriage a marriage, then you do not understand marriage enough to have one, and you cannot have a marriage, by definition. Please call your relationship something else, something second-class, like "genital-focused breeding union".

Oh, you don't like others telling you how to define your most intimate relationship, or telling you that you must structure your personal life to fit someone else's idea of what makes a marriage? How about not doing unto others what you would not have done to you?

As for "no culture has ever recognized same-sex marriage" - any reputable anthropologist will tell you that's just BS. See here for a few examples. http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=2004&x=ssmarriage

Besides, "it's TRADITION" is not a good reason to refuse to change a rule that hurts people. It wasn't a good reason to support the continuation of slavery, the treatment of women as property, or monarchy, or the union of church and state, or any other of a number of venerable traditions. You have to provide REASONS for insisting that marriage be defined predominantly by dangly bits, not just "it's always been that way".

Posted by: Catken1 | February 16, 2011 6:35 PM | Report abuse

That's just too bad. He isn't going to end up on the right side of history.

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | February 16, 2011 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Funny how rich white folks try to claim "bigotry" when people won't sign off their sexual behavior. . All of the gus t my workplace make over 100k. Those poor discriminated folks are forming households and taking over neighborhoods that used to belong to low income blacks. At the end of the day they are two white men. with two white incomes, engaging in sexual behavior. Anal sex, which involves fecal matter, is not the basis of a "beautiful" marriage. They have a right to form unions. But in no way does it compare to the union of a man and a woman.

Posted by: davis_renee | February 16, 2011 7:42 PM | Report abuse

and the separate but equal argument is bogus. You can't compare the right to education, public access, something as simple as being allowed in a store, to establishing a facebook status. Not being married never hurt ANYONE. And technically gays can still marry, just not each other. This all has come from the self esteem movement. You want to feel "equal". You folks compare it to race. I know plenty of racist gays.

Posted by: davis_renee | February 16, 2011 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Sen. James O. Eastland (D-Mississippi), said Wednesday that he intends to vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

"It might have a lot to do with my background, coming up in the South, coming up through the churches," Eastland said in an interview. "That has much to do with it as anything."
__________________________________________

Currie is no better than Eastland. Maybe worse. Just another embarrassment to PG.

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 16, 2011 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Too bad that instead of teaching Sen. Currie that bribery, corruption and stealing is wrong, the church chose to teach him to take away basic human rights. Classy.

Posted by: elizabethcarr | February 16, 2011 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Too bad that instead of teaching Sen. Currie that bribery, corruption and stealing is wrong, the church chose to teach him to take away basic human rights. Classy.

Posted by: elizabethcarr | February 16, 2011 8:54 PM | Report abuse

For at least 5 thousand years the institution of marriage has been between a man and a woman, (although occasionally some societies in the past have had plural marriage, but I’ll leave that for another time). No society has ever considered marriage as between 2 people of the same sex, because that makes it NOT MARRIAGE by definition.....

Posted by: I_can_see_DCfrommyhouse | February 16, 2011 5:16 PM | Report abuse
__________________________________________

It was, until relatively recently, illegal for blacks and whites to marry. The law is the embodiment of the moral standard of a society. Moral standards evolve over time. Racial bigotry was once extolled, now it is seen as immoral. Same with prejudice grounded in sexual preference. It is not about a lack of morals, but an evolving view of what is considered moral. You used to be able to beat your wife, too, didn't make it right then or now.

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 16, 2011 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Too bad that instead of teaching Sen. Currie that bribery, corruption and stealing is wrong, the church chose to teach him to take away basic human rights. Classy.

Posted by: elizabethcarr | February 16, 2011 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Too bad that instead of teaching Sen. Currie that bribery, corruption and stealing is wrong, the church chose to teach him to take away basic human rights. Classy.

Posted by: elizabethcarr | February 16, 2011 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Too bad that instead of teaching Sen. Currie that bribery, corruption and stealing is wrong, the church chose to teach him to take away basic human rights. Classy.

Posted by: elizabethcarr | February 16, 2011 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Too bad that instead of teaching Sen. Currie that bribery, corruption and stealing is wrong, the church chose to teach him to take away basic human rights. Classy.

Posted by: elizabethcarr | February 16, 2011 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Should have stayed in the south.

Posted by: Reader1000 | February 16, 2011 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Too bad that instead of teaching Sen. Currie that bribery, corruption and stealing is wrong, the church chose to teach him to take away basic human rights. Classy.

Posted by: elizabethcarr | February 16, 2011 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Should have stayed in the south.

Posted by: Reader1000 | February 16, 2011 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Too bad that instead of teaching Sen. Currie that bribery, corruption and stealing is wrong, the church chose to teach him to take away basic human rights. Classy.

Posted by: elizabethcarr | February 16, 2011 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Too bad that instead of teaching Sen. Currie that bribery, corruption and stealing is wrong, the church chose to teach him to take away basic human rights. Classy.

Posted by: elizabethcarr | February 16, 2011 8:58 PM | Report abuse

"[Opposition to same-sex marriage] might have a lot to do with my background, coming up in the South, coming up through the churches," Currie, the son of a North Carolina sharecropper, said in an interview. "That has much to do with it as anything."


- - - - - - - -

And during the time that Senator Currie was coming up in the South, interracial marriage in North Carolina was a felony, punishable by up to ten years in jail, plus a fine. And there were plenty of churches that preached that that was just peachy keen. In fact, Rick Warren mentor got to be president of the Southern Baptist Convention in part on the basis of his statement that it was fine to use thugs to keep SBC churches segregated.

Incidentally, what is the status of his Federal indictment last September for bribery and corruption?

Posted by: edallan | February 16, 2011 10:53 PM | Report abuse

I bet if the CEO of Shoppers Food Warehouse was gay he would have voted for this bill.

Posted by: abelefkowitz | February 17, 2011 8:33 AM | Report abuse

For all those that say marriage should be only between a man & a woman - why?? With a 52% divorce rate, sometime in as little as a few days to a few months, and often due to infidelity, obviously heterosexuals no longer consider that union sacred.

For those that like to use the argument that marriage is for creating a family I point out to you this: Why should A)infertile - whether known @ time of marriage or during, B)older folks beyond the typical childbearing or raising age, or C)those who choose to be childless & take steps to ensure such (tubal lig or vasectomy) - be allowed to marry? They are not going to have a family - whether by natural means, assistance, or adoption.

Yet these heterosexual couple ARE allowed to marry, and have many legal benefits that have no correlation to the presence of children.

But a homosexual couple who have been together 25 years, while their straight friends are likely on their 2nd+ marriage - cannot have these legal benefits. If one partner does not have insurance offered at their job, they cannot go onto their partner's policy. They cannot have a ensured right to estate & medical-related decisions for their loved one - blood family that hasn't given a darn for decades can swoop in & override. They pay more in taxes. Need I go on?

But I, who am infertile & will not birth another child nor adopt due to cost & career needs after putting my son first for several years, can remarry w/ all the benefits therein. And I can leave my home state of Virginia & go anywhere else in the US, and my marriage would be recognized.

But my GLBT friends & family cannot do the same.

And that's sad, and messed up. And not what I think of when I think of "all men are created equal" with a right to the pursuit of happyness.

Posted by: VAharleygirl | February 17, 2011 10:26 AM | Report abuse

catken1 wrote:

"Here's why it's bigotry, though. You don't just "have a different opinion," you have the all-fired gall to insist that YOUR opinion should be imposed, using the secular law, on everyone's life and everyone's choices."
_____________________

It's not an opinion. It's the way marriage has been defined by biology and secular culture in Western civilization since time immemorial.

It is your opinion that your new definition of marriage should be imposed on everyone else using the secular law.

Therefore, by your own logic, you are the bigot.

Posted by: captn_ahab | February 17, 2011 11:48 AM | 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

© 2011 The Washington Post Company