Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 5:21 PM ET, 02/17/2011

Same-sex marriage approved by Maryland Senate committee; full passage expected

By John Wagner

Legislation that would legalize same-sex marriages in Maryland was approved Thursday afternoon by a Senate committee, easily clearing the first hurdle needed for passage this year by the General Assembly.

The 7-to-4 vote by the Judicial Proceedings Committee sends the bill the Senate floor, where a lengthy and emotional debate is expected next week on the most high-profile social issue facing lawmakers during their 90-day session.

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) predicted Thursday that the bill narrowly would pass in his chamber. The legislation next would move to the House of Delegates, traditionally the more liberal chamber on social policy.

Maryland would join the District and five other states in allowing marriages between same-sex couples.

The vote on the bill is expected to be very close in the Senate. A Post tally published this week showed 24 senators having said they would support the bill -- the bare minimum needed for passage.

The tally includes Sen. Joan Carter Conway (D-Baltimore), who said in an interview last week that she would vote for the bill if she were the deciding vote. Conway has been more equivocal in interviews with other publications, saying she was "still praying" over what to do.

In a brief interview Thursday, Conway told The Post that she was "going to do the right thing" but would not elaborate on what that was.

Two other members who remain undeclared -- Sens. John C. Astle (D-Anne
Arundel) and James C. Rosapepe (D-Prince George's) -- brushed off questions from reporters Thursday.

"You'll see it on the board," Astle said of his vote.

Rosapepe repeated his pledge to announce his intentions by the end of this week.

Miller, who opposes the legislation, predicted that it would pass on a vote of 24 to 23 or 25 to 22.

By John Wagner  | February 17, 2011; 5:21 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: Md. senators told to expect long week of same-sex marriage debate
Next: Familiar themes, more partisan tone planned for O'Malley speech to Va. Dems

Comments

Excellent news! The steady march towards full equality under law for all Americans goes on!

Posted by: QStorm | February 17, 2011 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Please be aware that the anti-gay group, National Organization for Marriage (NOM) had commissioned anti-gay Gary Lawrence (Lawrence Research) to do a poll for SSM approval rates of Marylanders. The results are as expected, now they are pushing them out as credible, which they're not.

Mormon Gary Lawrence was also very active with the Prop 8 passage.

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/blogs/post/2844450/If%20you%20want%20a%20different%20answer.html

Posted by: bobbarnes | February 17, 2011 6:06 PM | Report abuse

The members of the Senate need to face a few facts:

In every state where the voters have been allowed to vote on this issue, they have said NO to same-sex marriage.

In states where same-sex marriage was imposed by the legislature or court, those legislatures (Iowa, New Hampshire) were turned from Democrat to Republican, in large part in large part because the voters didn't like having same-sex marriage imposed on them against their will.

In states where same-sex marriage was imposed, there are strong efforts to repeal it (again, New Hampshire and Iowa).

In Maine, the voters held a "people's veto" of their same-sex marriage law before it could to into effect.

In Wyoming, their senate just voted to ban the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages.

And in Indiana, they are on the verge of passing a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.

These Maryland senators need to understand that same-sex marriage is simply NOT what the voters of this country want, and that they impose it on them at the peril of their own political careers.

If these senators think this is what the voters really want, then let the voters choose it. Let them vote on the issue. Of course, the only reason they wont is because deep down they know the voters would reject it, the way they have everywhere else.

Posted by: klgrube | February 17, 2011 6:08 PM | Report abuse

One other small comment: the only poll that counts is the one at the ballot box. No poll, NOM's or any other poll, is as important as how the voters express their opinions at the ballot box. Don't think for a moment that the voters of Maryland won't let the legislature know how they really feel about same-sex marriage being imposed on them should the legislature be so arrogant as to do that without letting their voices be heard.

Posted by: klgrube | February 17, 2011 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Rosapepe will support the bill (email of 6:11pm from his office). Good news!

Posted by: colinphillips | February 17, 2011 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Hey klgrube,

I'm sure you're aware that in every state where the voters were allowed to vote on the issue, they said NO to interracial marriage. They said they wanted to protect the bedrock institution on which Western civilization was built - the marriage of one white man to one white woman. They wanted to defend the biblically sanctioned notion of white Christian racial purity. They wanted to protect the children from learning that interracial marriage was equal to "traditional" marriage. They worried that interracial marriage would degrade the institution of marriage and lead to the mogralization of the white race, bestiality and plural marriage. Sound familiar?

Posted by: QStorm | February 17, 2011 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Good for Maryland Democrats. Gay and lesbian families should be offered the same protections as everyone else.

Posted by: RJ24 | February 17, 2011 6:26 PM | Report abuse

QStorm, are you calling the African American voters who support traditional marriage racists? Tell that to the overwhelming majority of them who voted to support traditional marriage by passing Prop 8 in California! The comparison is completely outrageous and has no place in this discussion.

Posted by: klgrube | February 17, 2011 6:28 PM | Report abuse

yes, people did defend slavery and segregation at one time(some still do- school boards in NC)- so the comparison to the current issue is not outrageous. And by the way, klgrube- pretty sure, no one is going to force you to same-sex marry. No one is imposing anythng on you.

Posted by: silverspring25 | February 17, 2011 6:54 PM | Report abuse

klgrube, we're ready for the 2012 referendum. Bring it on.

Posted by: boomer400 | February 17, 2011 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Not that it matters what I say, as NOM and its lackeys will get the signatures no matter what and use massive television spending to spew hateful rhetoric that caused at least one Maryland state senator to switch his vote in OUR direction. Kind of pathetic that preventing loving couples from getting married is what animates the lives of people like klgrube but that's neither here nor there. I would say do whatever makes you happy, but when what makes you happy involves facilitating and spreading anti-gay bigotry then it's a different question.

Posted by: boomer400 | February 17, 2011 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Klgrube,

The Republicans in New Hampshire were not voted in because people were angry with the Democrats for supporting gay marriage. In fact a Granite State poll this week showed that 62% of New Hampshirites oppose Republican proposals to repeal the state's gay marriage law.

Posted by: FairfaxIsBlue | February 17, 2011 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Yes, comparing same-sex-marriage to interracial marriage is outrageous. Marriage between any one man and any one woman (within the other relevant laws of consent, age, etc.) should always have been legal in this country, and that was changed years ago. But trying to compare that to "marriage" between two women and two men absolutely is outrageous.

When two men or two women can create a child without outside interference, you might have a point. Not until then. We just weren't created that way. And NO, not every heterosexual married couple can or even wants to have children, but our biology is such that the union of one man and one woman is the ONLY union that can create children and the families that nurture them. Our laws should absolutely protect and benefit that union.

I won't even go into the fact that same-sex couples overwhelmingly do not see monogamy as being significant, preferring the freedom to have multiple partners. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is their business, and anyone is free to love anyone they want or live with whom they want, but please let's not pretend that it's marriage, and let's not legislate it!

Posted by: klgrube | February 17, 2011 7:17 PM | Report abuse

As for the legislature being "arrogant"--they are going to pass a bill. They vote on and pass bills all the time--that's their job. If you don't like the policy outcome, you can work to change your legislators' minds or vote them out next time. The simple act of passing a bill with majority support in both houses, to be a signed by a governor re-elected just last year with massive support, which is what will happen next week, is not "arrogant". What's "arrogant" is presuming that your minority view is actually the majority view. What's "arrogant" is stomping your feet and expecting society to stop moving forward because you don't like it. Welcome to the 21st century klgrube.

Posted by: boomer400 | February 17, 2011 7:21 PM | Report abuse

FairfaxIsBlue: The only poll that counts is the one at the ballot box. The voters of New Hampshire spoke very clearly when they turned out those who voted to impose ssm on their state.

Posted by: klgrube | February 17, 2011 7:21 PM | Report abuse

klgrube, are you seriously trying to argue that the NH state legislature switched control of parties because of same-sex marriage? Do you have ANY evidence to support that claim? It would not be surprising if you don't, but I thought it reasonable to ask.

Posted by: boomer400 | February 17, 2011 7:22 PM | Report abuse

After you provide evidence for marriage equality being the prime contributing factor to the loss of Democratic seats in the NH state legislature, you can continue by explaining how John Lynch, who signed the marriage equality bill, won re-election despite massive Republican gains both in his state and in the rest of the country. Thanks.

Posted by: boomer400 | February 17, 2011 7:25 PM | Report abuse

boomer400: Sorry, I'm not making any presumptions. I am simply saying that the majority of voters in this country have said NO to same sex marriage, not in partisan or biased polls, but by their very real votes at the ballot box. That's nothing to be ignored.

It IS arrogance for the legislature to presume, given this evidence, that this is something the voters of Maryland actually want to be imposed on them. They should never base their votes either way on skewed polls. They should let the voters make this decision for themselves.

Posted by: klgrube | February 17, 2011 7:28 PM | Report abuse

"In states where same-sex marriage was imposed by the legislature or court, those legislatures (Iowa, New Hampshire) were turned from Democrat to Republican, in large part in large part because the voters didn't like having same-sex marriage imposed on them against their will."

"Sorry, I'm not making any presumptions."

Actually, that's exactly what you're doing--making presumptions.

Posted by: boomer400 | February 17, 2011 7:31 PM | Report abuse

To be clear, I absolutley DO think that the New Hampshire legislature was turned over in large part because of the corrupt way they handled imposing ssm on the voters. As I recall, they violated committee rules and did all kinds of other things to force their ssm law through against the wishes of the voters. The voters DID NOT want them even wasting time on this. I absolutely believe that their manipulation and corrupt dealing, like removing from a committee the only Republican committee member, disgusted the voters and that it was a major contributor in how the voters of New Hampshire voted in November. The ony real evidence is the result itself, but I think it's compelling.

No, I can't explain Governor Lynch being re-elected. But does it matter? He has no power any longer. The Republican legislature has a super majority.

Posted by: klgrube | February 17, 2011 7:37 PM | Report abuse

The "because I said so" strategy--brutal but effective, at least in the short run. It's pretty hard to rebut evidence when you don't submit any. But if that's the best your side has in this debate, and it is, then it's not surprising that the inexorable trend toward majority support for marriage equality continues apace.

Posted by: boomer400 | February 17, 2011 7:45 PM | Report abuse

I didn't say "because I said so." I said "because the voters have spoken." I'm not important at all in this debate, except that I have the same vote and the same voice as anyone else. Look, all I'm really saying here is that this decision should always be up to the voters and should never be imposed by a legislature or the courts.

If you and the Maryland legislature thinks this is what the voters want, then let them vote. Remember, if they're given the chance and the voters do decide to vote in ssm, it will be the first time ever. I'm not sure why you or they would pass up that opportunity, unless you somehow know it's not really what the voters want.

Posted by: klgrube | February 17, 2011 7:55 PM | Report abuse

I find it hilarious that so many people are protesting having same sex marriage "forced" on them. Unless this law calls for every marriage to be a gay marriage from here on out, it's not. And I'm pretty sure it's not.

What is happening in many states is that the public - or some of the public, depending on where you are - is trying to force their beliefs on consenting adults who want to get married. No quotation marks needed there.

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | February 17, 2011 7:57 PM | Report abuse

you shouldn't have to have a vote for true civil rights. if a vote was held in 1860 on slavery what would the outcome be?

Posted by: icehouseernie | February 17, 2011 8:08 PM | Report abuse

ravensfan20008: The term "force" is probably a bit excessive, but "impose" is not, when it comes to a legislature or a court passing a law to which there is ample evidence the voters will object. The whole point is that marriage is so central to our society and our culture, that this is not something that should be decided by an easily-influenced, partisan legislature or small group of judges. It is absolutely the one thing about which the voters want their voices heard loud and clear, and not have them silenced.

Posted by: klgrube | February 17, 2011 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Those who note the "voters" likely reaction one should remember that 60% of Americans were opposed to allowing inter-racial marriage when the Supreme Court struck down Virginia's law. The USA is a constitutional democracy, NOT a majority rules country. Countries that rely on the "peoples" wish include such places as Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: tianyisun | February 17, 2011 8:14 PM | Report abuse

The time for marriage equality is NOW!

Posted by: kcflood87 | February 17, 2011 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Cool. It's time for full marriage equality rights now.

Cheers, Joe Mustich,
CT Justice of the Peace,
Washington Green, CT USA

Enough with the marriage police.

Posted by: cornetmustich | February 17, 2011 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Just take a moment and Google "klgrube" you'll find an Internet audit trail of the nastiest, anti-gay bigotry. Her name is Karen Grube and she is against all gay rights. She opposes the DADT repeal, gay parenting and every advance to create fair and equitable rights for LGBT people. She resides in San Diego and works for ResortCom International.

Posted by: bobbarnes | February 17, 2011 8:45 PM | Report abuse

"If you and the Maryland legislature thinks this is what the voters want, then let them vote."

Thanks to people on your side who will spend thousands of dollars of out-of-state NOM cash rounding up the signatures to get this put up as a referendum on the 2012 ballot, Maryland voters will indeed get a chance to have a Gladiator-style up or down vote on the rights of its gay and lesbian citizens. I look forward to watching your TV advertisements, also likely to be paid for by mountains of out-of-state NOM cash, create thousands of James Brochins who realize where die-hard opponents of marriage equality are really coming from and decide to let freedom reign at last in the Free State.

Posted by: boomer400 | February 17, 2011 8:48 PM | Report abuse

San Diego?? Sheesh, mind your own business!

Posted by: boomer400 | February 17, 2011 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Karen, give Maggie G. A big high-five. The demonizing testimony much like your posts have convinced Senator Brochin's "no" to "yes!" We love it when your nasty-arse, poor mannered behaviors win us marriage.

You keep talking, Karen. Your vitriol spew is doing us wonders.

Posted by: bobbarnes | February 17, 2011 9:06 PM | Report abuse

klgrube,

If you don't like the idea of gay marriage, you can place the blame squarely on the shoulders of those heterosexual couples you so proudly define as the only legitimate way to create children. After all, they're the ones who keep having all the gay babies.

Posted by: Kenobi | February 17, 2011 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable. The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as traditionally defined, and survived.

Posted by: skippyjon | February 17, 2011 11:20 PM | Report abuse

“Voters in 31 states have considered the marriage issue, and in every case they have rejected gay marriage and reaffirmed their support of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. If the General Assembly passes this legislation, we are confident that Maryland will become the 32nd state to preserve traditional marriage.”

Derek McCoy, President of the Maryland Family Alliance

Posted by: skippyjon | February 17, 2011 11:22 PM | Report abuse

"Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing."

skippy, you have klgrube's problem--simply stating something doesn't make it true. Clearly, there is no evidence that same-sex marriage "cheapens" opposite marriage because such a judgment is completely subjective. One thing that's for sure is that you do have quite the active imagination. "Destructive" effects! Oh my!

My guess is that you think people who engage in gay sex are going to hell and you think society should do all it can to discourage homosexual behavior. Why you don't just come out and say that, I don't know. One, a lot of people agree with you, and two, it would stop you from having to come up with bizarre parallel non-religious justifications for opposing every new gay rights initiative. For marriage, it's about "preserving traditional marriage". For civil unions, it's about a slippery slope. For DADT, it was about "unit cohesion." For nondiscrimination, it's about religious libery. For sodomy laws, it's about state's rights. There's always some excuse. But it's not about that excuse and we all know it. You just don't like gay people. Own it!

Posted by: boomer400 | February 17, 2011 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Karen, sweetie, you really have to calm down. The marriage of Marylanders will not affect you in any possible way, I promise you.

The reason why New Hampshire went red this year (minus the Governor that you have naively labeled powerless) was because of taxes. It's the economy. It's the same reason traditionally blue states like Pennsylvania, Illinois, etc got a lot more Republicans. It has little if anything to do with gay marriage.

But stay out of our business. No one is forcing you to marry a woman. No one is forcing the Maryland priests to do anything.

Most of Maryland supports this bill.

So calm down. Stay out of our business. Stop going to HuffPo and complaining. Stop going on YouTube and making all your comments about how NOM (a hate group) is absolutely amazing and how you're gonna donate.

Posted by: blenderboy5 | February 18, 2011 12:02 AM | Report abuse

klgrube,

People who affirm human compassion, advocate for human rights, and seek justice, must never make the mistake of confusing a legal or majority right with a moral right. The forced removal of Native Americans from their land and onto reservations was legal. The importation and sale of African slaves was legal. South African apartheid was legal. The confiscation of the property of Jews at the beginning of the Nazi regime was legal. The Spanish Inquisition was legal. Crucifying Jesus was legal and approved by the people. Burning Michael Servetus at the stake for his nitarian theology was legal.
In this country slavery was legal. Forbidding interracial marriage was legal. Women were property of their husbands were legal. Women could not vote was legal. Alcohol was illegal for 13 years. However, klgrube, none of these legal items were morally right. The rich and powerful have always used the legal system to oppress the powerless.
As citizens we should respect the rule of law. More importantly, though, our duty is to create laws founded on our highest sense of justice, equity, and compassion. Loud voices and false propaganda should not urge us to choose fear, denial, reactionary nationalism, racism and homophobia. We must choose the path of compassion and hope. We must choose a path that is founded on the recognition that we are connected, that we are all in this together and to respect and celebrate the human worth and dignity in each and everyone of else.
Adapted from: —{Rev. Peter Morales, Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) President, excerpted from his essay in “A People So Bold”} and modified by Terry Schneider.

p.s. klgrube,
You remind me of the person who called into a talk show about rape in the military. He justified rape as being natural because men have so much testosterone they are driven by sex and disrespecting another person is OK.


Posted by: synchroman | February 18, 2011 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Derek McCoy, President of the Maryland Family Alliance

Heterosexual marriage in this country has been in trouble for decades. You and your kind of people are probably more responsible for this failure and than you can realize. For decades you all have forced homosexuals into heterosexual marriages as being the cure all for homosexuality. This is fact and not some false propaganda fear message.
You all make statements that it will destroy marriage. Explain how. I contend that it will strengthen the family marriage as there will be less marriages of convenience. Ted Haggard and Senator Larry Craig are recent prime examples. And they are not GAY. They are just maladjusted closeted homos.
Legal marriage at one time did not exist. It was the Catholic Church that convinced governments to institute legal marriage along with the Church marriage so the woman and children would not be left without means of support if the husband died.
Same sex marriage is a legal marriage not a church marriage. Anyone who says otherwise is not be truthful. A marriage license is a legal document and has nothing to do with the church. Many religions perform same sex marriages now. However they have no legal ramifications. And this is the crux of the whole same sex marriage. Legal not religious. Gay and lesbians already have religious marriages. It may not be your religion but we are a Nation of States with the freedom of religion.
Derek, Stand on the Side of Love and not hate.

May The Blessings Be

Posted by: synchroman | February 18, 2011 12:53 AM | Report abuse

klgrube,

There is one fact that holds true.
Statistics can be fabricated and manipulated and liars use statistics.

Posted by: synchroman | February 18, 2011 1:15 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, synchroman. That's precisely what I've been saying! Statistics lie, especially those from polls.

But votes don't like and can't be fabricated or manipulated or 'skewed.' All I've been saying is that the Maryland legislature needs to look at what has happened every time the voters have been asked to vote on this issue. They have said NO to ssm. And the legislature should pay attention to what has happened to the legislatures in New Hampshire and Iowa when they did impose ssm on their states. They were turned from Democrat to Republican.

I think these indisputable facts are significant. I'm not sure how you can draw any other conclusion than that the voters of this country have rejected ssm.

If nothing else, this should make it clear to the legislature that the voters don't want ssm imposed on them, but that they want to make this choice for themselves.

Hey what's the problem? If the legislature thinks this is what the voters want, they should let them vote! I'd think they'd want to be the first state where the voters actually chose ssm. But, honestly, I think they already know what the outcome would be if they did: another rejection by the voters of ssm.

Posted by: klgrube | February 18, 2011 2:27 AM | Report abuse

I apologize for the one typo I caught above. What I meant to say was:

"But votes don't lie and can't be fabricated or manipulated or 'skewed.'

Posted by: klgrube | February 18, 2011 2:36 AM | Report abuse

"Hey what's the problem? If the legislature thinks this is what the voters want, they should let them vote!"

I don't know why you keep harping on this -- a Gladiator-style up or down vote is exactly what's going to happen. You'll need to find a new line when you actually have to convince people HOW to vote, and as we have seen in this comment section, little things like "evidence" and "logic" are tough for people on your side.

Posted by: boomer400 | February 18, 2011 8:35 AM | Report abuse

klgrube,
Being you commented not on my first to you only proves that you are inhuman and believe in power over your fellow human beings. It does not make it morally right just because 50.1 percent of people vote against denying other people their human and God given rights. Jesus was killed by the consent of the majority thus with your reasoning it was morally right.
Explain to me how same sex marriage will force you or any other heterosexual to marry someone of the same sex. The reverse is currently true and you will know that if you have read my post to Derek McCoy.
You and others do not believe in diversity but thrive on controversy and maintaining the divide of us and them.
Join the human race and stop trying to destroy it.
If you are not Standing on the Side of Love than you are standing on the side of HATE.

May The Blessings Be

Posted by: synchroman | February 18, 2011 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, synchroman, I didn't answer your first question because it was proposed with an invalid proposition: that there is somehow a God-given right to same-sex marriage. This is about the law, not about religion, so the question itself is fundamentally flawed, as is your assertion that tradtional marriage is somehow "destroying the human race" and not human. But that's okay.

In any event, the point isn't that a vote for same-sex marriage would force gays to marry or stop heteroxexual couples from marrying, so that question is also based on an invalid premise.

My point is that there is enough evidence to show that same-sex marriage isn't what the voters want (based not on polls, but on real votes in every state where they have been allowed to vote on this issue and the removal of legislators who imposed same-sex marriage on their states) that it should at least make the members of the Maryland legislature question their assumption that this is what the voters of Maryland want and actually allow their voices to be heard.

I think the definition of marriage is such a fundamental question that the legislature should allow the voters to make the decision, and no one else. And if they, the voters, choose to allow same-sex marriage, that would be the their choice. I deeply trust the voters to make an informed, truly toughtful decision either way, and for whatever their reasons. The Maryland legislature should have enough respect for the voters and enough respect for the gravity of this decision to allow the voters to be heard.

Posted by: klgrube | February 18, 2011 10:29 AM | Report abuse

klgrude,

Once again, it is immoral to use the vote to deny human rights. It is a legal and human right issue and not a voter issue. Thus it is proper for it to be decided by the legislation as the votes on this issue have been tainted by powerful religious organizations and institutions in this country. The state of California is a prime example. Prop 8 was proposed by religion and the voters were lied to by religion. It is a religious issue and you know it. Stop lying to us that it is not.
Thomas Jefferson believed that only 10% of the voters were really fit to vote as they did not vote the issue but their prejudice, bigotry and unfounded fear.
You have very proved that you are divisive and homophobic and want to put this to a vote because you and others like you will be on front line to use scare tactics to force voters to vote their fears that you created in them.
As far as I am concern this conversation is over. I will not argue with people who are set in their ways and only want to divide this country. I believe you will be more of a fit in Iran or Uganda.

May The Blessings Be

Posted by: synchroman | February 18, 2011 11:01 AM | Report abuse

"The Maryland legislature should have enough respect for the voters and enough respect for the gravity of this decision to allow the voters to be heard."

Again -- the voters will be heard because people on your side have the ability to put the question up for a referendum. Stop whining about this.

Posted by: boomer400 | February 18, 2011 11:17 AM | Report abuse

The dinosaurs didn't all die off at once, the bigots won't either.

Posted by: thomasmc1957 | February 18, 2011 12:16 PM | Report abuse

The homosexual agenda will end up destroying this United States with the help of the legal system with their support, which is not what the people of America want. The government has blocked our voice by overturning our votes at the poles, why do we allow this to continue?

Posted by: georgelgallant | February 18, 2011 6:40 PM | Report abuse

What started out as only a discrimination issue is now a nightmare. The Blacks, Japanese and women rights. ended when the discrimination was evident and removed. They did not demand further rights, especially what they were not qualified for. Everyone has to admit that the Gays are not content as the others to end discrimination. They want what another group has and claim it is a right to have it. Like having a Honda but want the Cadillac that the neighbor has and claim it is their right to be given it. What is the difference between two people that want to go into a venture of whatever,they cannot say, we have a right to be equal to and obtain ALL their rights and benefits of a much larger group and have the Govt. pass a law to get it. This is simply a case of a group wanting all the rights and benefits of another group that is TOTALLY different from the first group. Like asking for the right to be the same when they are totally different. Although Gays did not make a "choice" to be Gay, they did make a "choice" of partners. That "choice" though, does NOT make them equal to the "choice" of Opposite sexes, which has brought about our civilization to this present moment in time. No law can make it equal. Individually they are equal (gay and straight) but their "choice" is not and can never be equal. It is a form of discrimination (of our Govt.)to single out Gays over many others and give them benefits that they are NOT entitled to.

Posted by: daniwitz13 | February 20, 2011 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Oh, the amount of tolerance and acceptance in these comments just warms my heart.

By which I mean it does the exact opposite.

I, for one, am ecstatic that my home state is on the verge of righting a social wrong. Gender doesn't matter when it comes to

Also, who said that marriage was purely for sex? Last I checked, it was a ceremony to bind two people together based on their love for one another, not because they happen to be able to reproduce. (And what about the poor people who are infertile from natural causes or a prior injury? Are they not allowed to marry, now? Honestly, if you're going to use that argument, think it through.) Not to mention there's always adoption, which is a much more noble path to take than to spit out a horde of kids into an already overpopulated world.

And did someone just claim that racism and sexism have been "solved"? Do you live in a fantasy world, or are you just really good at ignoring facts? Have you seen the disparities between pay, or the blame victims of rape are assigned? Or the likelihood of people of color getting targeted by police compared to how the police treat white people? Not to mention hundreds of other cases/examples, which I can't even hope to list here. Discrimination based on sex, gender (yes, they're different), race, religion, and class still exist and are going on strong.

As for this not being "what the people want," you can't apply votes to basic civil rights. People didn't want slavery to end. People didn't want desegregation. Basic human rights aren't something that change depending on how the public votes. They are natural rights that every human being deserves, so no, it doesn't matter that polls show that most Americans are against same-sex marriage.

If you want to get mad at a group of people "ruining" marriage, get mad at the people who have more than three ex-wives/husbands and the people who have six-hour, drunken marriages. Don't get mad at the people who honestly want to have equal rights—to visit their loved ones when they're hospitalized, for instance—and live full lives with the person they love.

Just learn what the words "acceptance," "tolerance," and "love" mean—and if I'm not mistaken, Jesus was a strong supporter of all three—and stop discriminating against fellow human beings who just want to be treated decently. It's honestly NOT that difficult.

Sorry, but I've been reading a lot of idiotic things this week, and ranting really helps remove a lot of the inner rage.

Posted by: ObscureOmen | February 24, 2011 7:52 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

© 2011 The Washington Post Company