Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Barry Warns of "Civil War" Over Gay Marriage

D.C. Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), the only council member to vote against the bill today to legalize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, predicted today there could be a "civil war" in the District if the Council decides to take up a broader gay marriage bill later this year.

"All hell is going to break lose," Barry said while speaking to reporters. "We may have a civil war. The black community is just adamant against this."

Barry made his remarks a few hours after a group of same-sex marriage opponents, led by black ministers, caused uproar in the Wilson Building after the Council voted 12 to 1 to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. They caused such a ruckus that security guards and police had to clear the hallway. The protesters shouted that council members who voted for the bill will face retribution at the polls.

Although he has been a longtime supporter of gay rights, Barry said he voted against the bill to satisfy his constituents in Southeast Washington.

"What you've got to understand is 98 percent of my constituents are black and we don't have but a handful of openly gay residents," Barry said. "Secondly, at least 70 percent of those who express themselves to me about this are opposed to anything dealing with this issue. The ministers think it is a sin, and I have to be sensitive to that."

But Barry said he disagrees with the ministers' antics today at the Wilson Building, saying the chaos "sets the movement back."

--Tim Craig

By Tim Craig  |  May 5, 2009; 2:26 PM ET
Categories:  Tim Craig  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: D.C. Council Votes 12-1 to Recognize Other States' Gay Marriages
Next: The Hip-Hop Mayor?


Most black guys apparently prefer to get their gay sex on the DL.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | May 5, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

You know your movement is getting desperate if you have to enlist Marion Barry as your spokesperson.

Kudos to the rest of the Council for endorsing equality under the law. Now, how long before we get our own marriage bill?

Posted by: jescowa | May 5, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

An ignorant man representing ignorant constituents.

Posted by: websterwalter | May 5, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

The ministers are against equal rights?

How utterly bizarre.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 5, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Was Marion Barry on the side of God when he smoked crack? Evaded taxes? I'm sure he was just reading the Bible to that prostitute! I'll see you in Hell, Marion!

Posted by: mmcandrew | May 5, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

One should never be surprised at how low Marion Barry can sink - but after a long career of being on the right side of Civil Rights, it's a sad commentary on how far his political career and courage has dropped that he finds it necessary to ally himself with the Bible Bigots to maintain his tenuous hold on his Ward 8 Council seat. Of all people, he should know better than to rationalize bigotry - whether it's in the name of god or just for political expediency. Shame on him and the black bishops who have turned their backs on their fellow man. They're no better than those who defended Jim Crow.

Posted by: BethesdaDad | May 5, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

How will the councilmembers suffer retribution at the polls. The loud mouth bigots all live in suburban Maryland and can't vote in the District.

Posted by: uh_huhh | May 5, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Funny. When Marion Barry was the chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committe, he fought against politicians who voted to keep African Americans disenfranchised because "it was what their constituents wanted." To me, this represents the final leg of Mr. Barry's fall from his formerly esteemed role as a civil rights leader.

He certainly did not vote according to my wishes. I'm now even more ashamed than ever that he represents my ward on the city council.

Posted by: jollyolympian | May 5, 2009 3:00 PM | Report abuse

"What you've got to understand is 98 percent of my constituents are black and we don't have but a handful of openly gay residents"

Exactly! Minorites shouldn't have rights! Thank you Marion Barry!

Posted by: chibbs2000 | May 5, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Just look how Barry is trying to make it a white gay versus a black church going thing. There are hoards of black gay men and women in DC. Who's Barry kidding? He's just trying to get support from someplace. He's turning to retrograde pastors who need to get their noses out of consenting adults' bedrooms and back in the business of sharing God's love.

Posted by: chelita | May 5, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Why should anyone listen to what Marion Barry has to say about this subject? Where is his credibility anymore? His stance is hypocritical trying to deny basic human rights to a besieged minority group. Come on, was it that long ago that blacks and whites had no rights to intermarry that he forgets? Or is it that it's a minority group that he personally despises. Since when is that a good reason to deny a group their rights?

Posted by: astorg | May 5, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, if it's such a big deal, how come they were only able to round up about 150 people to come out for what was supposed to be their big rally a few weeks ago?

"Civil War"? Seriously, what a joke.

Posted by: marza | May 5, 2009 3:08 PM | Report abuse

I agree with uh_huhhh: If you drive around most of the traditionally black churches in DC on a Sunday morning, the nearby street parking is totally taken up by cars with Maryland license plates, especially on Capitol Hill. I don't think there is any "Civil War" on the horizon and most of these people can't vote in the District anyway.

Posted by: showmeindc | May 5, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

While I do not often agree with negroes, Barry is correct in this point. The struggle for civil rights for negroes cannot be compared with homosexuals demanding rights which are clearly prohibited by the Bible.

Posted by: SavedGirl | May 5, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Kudos for Barry! Gays are a bunch of narrow minded psychophants.

Posted by: wlockhar | May 5, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I must admit that Councilman Barry simply "cracked" me up with his comment.

Posted by: Viennacommuter1 | May 5, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Change a couple of words around and Barry's justification sounds like something Richard Russell might have said... "What you've got to understand is 98 percent of my constituents are white and we don't have but a handful of black residents." But then who expected moral courage from Marion Barry, anyway?

Posted by: thirflelev | May 5, 2009 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Is this the same Marion Barry that got busted smoking crack with a prostitute? By the way "savedgirl" the laws of the bible are not the laws of the U.S.

Posted by: whatelsecanisay | May 5, 2009 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Whatever Barry is for, I'm against. And anything he's against, I'm for...let he spread of liberty continue, regardless of what an ex-crackhead-for-mayor has to say about it.

Posted by: B-rod | May 5, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, the outcome of the Civil War was horrible for Blacks and the Nation. We certainly don't need anymore of "that" kind of progress.

Posted by: tspady1 | May 5, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

So Marion Barry has decided to stand with the "ministers who stand on the moral compass of God."

Just as he has for decades? Yeah, right. There's a word for this, Councilman: H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | May 5, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Barry's position on this one is indefensible. He should just remind his "constituents" (I agree most of these people are in PG Co. or will be in the next 5 years) that there is a separation of church and state.

If the pastors have a problem, don't allow gay people to join your specific churches, that is all the power they should be allowed to employ. If other members of his supposed constituency have an issue, tell them now's a good time to buy some property in MD.

Good or bad, even SE, after the reconstruction of Anacostia is complete, will be at least half "happy" and white anyway. Refocus on education homie.

Posted by: graywilson | May 5, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

God's wrath is upon us..Mankind will suffer for allowing this..Civil War isn't nothing compared to God's wrath..Think this swine flu is bad?..Ever read what happened to Sodomites in the Bible?..Oh wicked generation and perverse generation.

Posted by: coxe2004 | May 5, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

You know, I'm not all that sad that a man like Marion Barry is not on our side. Marion Barry is to DC what Michele Bachmann is to Minnesota: an embarrassment.

Posted by: RJ24 | May 5, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

So funny, A politician does what he is suppose to do and represent the people that put him in office and he gets blasted by the hate mongers. On top of this any one that disagrees with your point of view is also a target. Excuse me but I believe this is the United States and we all have the right to our own opinion. So those crying please build a bridge and GET OVER IT.

Posted by: mburton325 | May 5, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

It’s been self evident for some time now that black communities have been disproportionately poisoned by religion. As a biracial person who happens to be half black I am particularly troubled by this trend. I can only speculate as to why this would be the case but my speculations would probably be incomplete at best.

The black leaders who are spreading hatred from the pulpit need to be destroyed, discredited and disempowered before any true freedom can begin to be obtained. People aren’t really free if they still consider themselves to be the servants of a heavenly dictatorship.

Posted by: freeman4eternity | May 5, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

I don't think any politician should be criticized for voting the way of their constituency. However, I do not like him speaking for the black community as if we are one bloc.

All of the other personal attacks on Barry is what you would expect from those with zero tolerance for opposing points of view. Don't like a policy--make it person.

Posted by: dcis1 | May 5, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

SavedGirl must be smoking the same crack that Barry is on. If you want to use the bible as a means to deny rights, then you better look at it a little closer. If I am not mistaken the bible condones slavery, denies women's rights since they are considered property, and also prohibits the consumption of shellfish and pork. But that has always been the problem. Bigots use the bible for personal gain when it suits their needs. SavedGirl also needs to come into the 21st century, no one uses the word 'negro' anymore.

Posted by: richardsrj64 | May 5, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the Right is really losing this battle! They now have a crack addict and an air headed beauty queen to be their spokes people. Good luck with that! LOL!

Posted by: giusalamone | May 5, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: freeman4eternity | May 5, 2009 3:27 PM ---It’s been self evident for some time now that black communities have been disproportionately poisoned by religion.

Er, as an american who happens to be fully black, speak for yourself. Find me "nonblack" communities who haven't been poisoned by religion and then you would've made an intriguing point.

Posted by: dcis1 | May 5, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I was raised a Protestant and I went to Church and I listened to all of the Sermons and I was told to heed the Ten Commandments. Have you forgotten Mr Barry that one of those Laws of God was "Judge NOT yet ye be judged". It is that plain and simple.

How dare any person deny the rights of any other person in this Country. And oh yeh "Love thy Neighbor as thyself"

Posted by: URKiddingRight | May 5, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

If it ever really comes to civil war, I already know which side I'll fight on. I'll fight on the side that promotes love over hatred, intelligence over bigotry, and truth over lies. I'll fight on the side of equal justice under law. And I'll die for it if necessary. Those principles won once, they will win again.

The homophobes know in their hearts that they are senseless haters and bigots. They screech and holler but have nothing to say but "I hate them." I will never let monsters like that win. Ever.

Posted by: bigbrother1 | May 5, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I say equal rights for polyamists too. There is no reason they can have equal rights. I say equal rights for all couples, even if they are related(if they cant have children). There should never be any distinctions after all this is about equal rights isnt? Or is this really only about Gay rights?

Posted by: niceday971 | May 5, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Marion Barry: Moral Compass.


Posted by: joeg20003 | May 5, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Marion Barry is an embarrassment to this entire city and should not purport to represent "the" Black community because he certainly doesn't represent me. Where was his "moral compass of God" when he wasn't paying his taxes, took a kidney that a more deserving person should have had, and snorted cocaine with his girlfriend?

Posted by: CrestwoodKat | May 5, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

These so-called "christians" who oppose marriage equality are no more christian than nazis or the KKK. Yes, God created Adam and Eve, but God also created Adam and Steve and Carol and Eve, as well. When you ignorant bigots pay my taxes, my mortgage and my bills, MAYBE then you will have a right to tell me who to marry, but until then YOU DON'T OWN ME. YOU AIN'T MY MASSA AND SHOULD HAVE NO SAY IN WHO I MARRY. And the worst part is look at the people who are opposed to marriage equality--those whose ancestors were owned and told who they could marry. What hypocrites!

Posted by: frankzerilli | May 5, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Er, as an american who happens to be fully black, speak for yourself. Find me "nonblack" communities who haven't been poisoned by religion and then you would've made an intriguing point.

Posted by: dcis1 | May 5, 2009 3:31 PM

Well put, dcis1. There aren't many. But many communities, religious or not, are beginning to see that even their religion doesn't make a very good case against the equal rights of gay and lesbian Americans.

Not so long ago, religion - specifically a white American version of christianity - was used to fight against equal rights for black people, against interracial marriage and in support of lynching. Now the same "religion," even if wielded by blacks as well as whites, is being hauled out again for another campaign of senseless hatred.

History isn't kind to the people who stood for bigotry in the past. It won't be kind to those who stand for it now.

Posted by: bigbrother1 | May 5, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Then again it would have been even better if the Post ignored the details of Barry's comments. It's annoying that the media always seems to temper any positive news on the progress of gay rights with equal or even more coverage granted to the opposition -- just compare length of both of the Post's articles on this issue. But outrageous quotes are great for sales.

Posted by: kasmsh | May 5, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse


why not keep your backward, racist and hateful comments to yourself.

No one cares what you perceive as being prohibited in the bible. it has nothing to do with government.

Posted by: savedgirl_isanidiot | May 5, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Many of us have a lot more respect for the African American community than Marion Barry seems to have.

I do not believe that the community is 98% against same sex marriage and we have seen in votes even in California that isn't the case. The African American community like all communities is separated by age in their views on this issue.

It is time for us all Black and White to discuss this on a rational basis and talk about equality and I know that when I talk to African American friends they agree.

With the move toward same sex marriage in Ct.VT. Maine, Iowa and other places some of the more radical right wing see DC as the place to raise a ruckus and Marion Barry is playing right into their hands. He claimed today he is not a bigot so let him prove it. Let him be the leader he once was and play to peoples hopes not their fears.

Marion Barry should be calming things down not riling the waters like he is doing if he really isn't a bigot as he claims.

This can be Marion Barry's last big issue and I would hope that he understands that it could lead to those who have maintained some respect for him through all his troubles to finally give up on him or to justify why they still stick with him.

Same sex CIVIL marriage is inevitable- Marion can be part of making the clergy understand that we have a separation of church and state or he can do what he seems to be doing and fanning the flames of bigotry and hatred. That would be a really sad legacy for someone who was a leader in the civil rights movement.

Posted by: peterdc | May 5, 2009 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Niceday, You can't make that comparison that it will cause us to "slide".

A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.(niceday)

Posted by: giusalamone | May 5, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I don't get it. "Equal Justice Under the Law?" Marriage has a historical connotation/definition, which, by its nature, requires one woman and one man. Anything other than that is not really "marriage." Call it something else.

Any prohibition against 1 man marrying 1 man or 1 woman marrying 1 woman is not bigoted. Instead, it's being definitionally true. The prohibition against "gay marriage" turns on the fact that it isn't "marriage," not that it involves "gay" couples.

This isn't an issue of equality.

Posted by: drewdog1 | May 5, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

how DARE this minority group (the loudest and quickest to call foul on suspected discrimination issues) blatently OPRESS another minority group and think they have any ground to stand on! Barry's 98% are living in ignorance... maybe they don't remember (or were never taught) what the Civil War was about the first time around!

Posted by: ocean196 | May 5, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse


I want a glass of whatever incoherence-inducing moonshine you're guzzling (in the middle of the day, mind you)...oh, and I'll have a "polyamist" marriage on the rocks while I'm waiting.

Posted by: RJ24 | May 5, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

If Barry voted his conscience, I'd disagree with him but respect him for it.

But for a former civil rights advocate to say he voted against his own beliefs because the majority of his district doesn't like the minority, and then cast it in religious and racial terms, is so despicable I don't even have a word for it.

Especially since, at his stage in life, he should be free from ambition and free to follow his conscience.

What a pathetic, disgusting performance.

Posted by: Meridian1 | May 5, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse


Do us all a favor and shut up

Posted by: savedgirl_isanidiot | May 5, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Stupid trolls, How have they hacked the Washington Post? I am sure politician everywhere are saying to them selves that will be the day that I have the moral courage to say no, when to do so is to risk the wrath of the homosexual community, wrapped in the flag...

Posted by: Owhen | May 5, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Drew Dog, "Marriage is traditionally one man, one woman."

This is morally the weakest argument. Slavery was also a traditional institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginnings of human history - further back, even, than marriage as we know it. But by the 19th century, humanity had generally recognized the evils of that institution, and has since made a serious effort to abolish it. Why not recognize the truth - that there is no moral ground on which to support the tradition of marriage as a strictly heterosexual institution, and remove the restriction for same sex couples.

Posted by: giusalamone | May 5, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Putting aside Mr. Barry's current tax troubles (how is that probation going, Mr. Barry?), putting aside his conviction for crack possession, putting aside the shame and ridicule he has brought on DC, should we really be listening to moral lectures from a man who's been married FOUR TIMES?! I see how this works, Mr. Barry can dump wife after wife, whenever they fail to meet his current needs, and grab another one, but gays and lesbians are not supposed to have any such option. That makes a lot of sense.

And while 98% of the people in Mr. Barry's Ward may be African-American, his salary comes from the entire city, and his job on the Council is to provider LEADERSHIP, not following. If we wanted to pass laws based on popularity, we would not need the Council, or the $$ they cost us. As long as Mr. Barry takes MY tax dollars (tax dollars I have paid on time and in full every year of my adult life - including the 20 years I've spent in DC) he has no business trying to limit my life or my participation in the life of DC.

Posted by: CPT_Doom | May 5, 2009 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately this has NOTHING to do with rights for they can have ALL the rights anyone else has in a civil union. It is all about the radical leftists gays that want to change the definition of marriage to be able to harass and SUE various groups for excluding them in activities where it would not be appropriate because of sex differences. The same reasons why we have separate bathrooms for men and women. The ignorance in this country has risen it's ugly head to make certain people desperate for a Socialist government.
One day in the future, Americans will wake up to the fact that they have turned over our freedoms to government. If they want those freedoms back that were cherished by our forefathers who were much smarter than the average American today, they will have to spill blood for it.
Power corrupts and absolutely power corrupts absolutely. The Obamination of America continues.

Posted by: ekim53 | May 5, 2009 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: chrisfox8:

The ministers are against equal rights?

How utterly bizarre.
I'm sure they'll haul out that handy fundamentalist cannard that being gay is a decision and not a natural occurrence. Either that or they'll bring up the real laugher - that it will discourage gay blacks from becoming half of the parental partnerships so desperately needed in the D.C.'s black community, as if the typically small minority of gays could really make a difference.

Posted by: st50taw | May 5, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

To be against gay marriage is not to hate gays, it is to hate their chosen lifestyle. It is wrong. Black or white, it is wrong. The people in the "real" America absolutely do not believe in gay "marriage". Once this stuff plays out in the very liberal northeast, you will see that nobody else will stand for this nonsense. Be happy that your "marriages" are recognized where they are. It will stop there. The fact is that gays are NOT being persecuted. Marriage is between a man and a woman. A gay person can marry anybody they like that qualifies under this description. Anything else IS NOT MARRIAGE. Thank god people in my state don't go around holding hands with the same sex, let alone kiss each other. I can only imagine what the reaction would be. Our kids aren't taught all of your politically correct garbage. We will fight against anybody who tries to change this. Blacks can't choose to be black, so should NOT be discriminated against. Gays CHOOSE their lifestyle. You can't be born gay. If you were, it would be considered a birth defect.

Posted by: therock2 | May 5, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Did they catch Barry on tape again?

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | May 5, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I've noticed that many Black preachers became anti-gay after Rove and Bush started doling out "Faith Based" funding.

Posted by: Southsider | May 5, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

What a waste of a perfectly good kidney. They should have let the miserable SOB die.

Posted by: dem4life1 | May 5, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I love how these black "leaders" cry racism and bigotry whenever anyone looks at them the wrong way, yet they feel that have the right to deny gays rights on much of the same irrational arguments that white racists used against them in the 1950s. Do they not realize that blacks could not marry whites until 1967 with Loving v. Virginia!? Ugh how hypocritical can you get??? Why don't we just change the laws to how they were and then everyone can be equal in their eyes.

Posted by: FairfaxIsBlue | May 5, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Marion Barry your brain is fried.

Even though you represent my ward 8, you certain as hell don't represent me, it is now clear.

What happened to you? I will do everything that I can to see you are voted out next time. Ward 8 has had enough of you and your lies.

Posted by: cranberry | May 5, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

This is terribly sad. It's like a sickness that's pervading large parts of society. This entire "civil rights" argument is based on flawed reasoning, that is, that this is an issue comparable to the fight against racial injustice. There's nothing comparable about it. This isn't about "rights" and choosing to be homosexual does not make one a protected class. And save your keystrokes in telling me it's biological or some such other tripe - the only reason that argument exists is because without it, there's no foundation for the "rights" argument. And I don't think it's a religious argument - I can't tell you what the Bible says one way or the other on this topic but the point is that's not relevant either. It's all smoke. I'll tell you what this is about - it's about money. That's right. Money.
Here's a list of what you want and why this is so critical to your "community."
(from the text of the most recent vote in favor of this abomination in another northeastern state)
• Victims' rights, including the right to receive notifications and benefits allowances.
• Business succession rights.
• Legal process rights, such as the ability to sign certain documents, the requirement to join in certain petitions, rights to cause of action, and ability to transfer licenses without charge.
• The right to use sick leave to care for a spouse.
• The right to wages and benefits when a spouse is injured, and to unpaid wages upon death of spouse.
• The right to unemployment and disability insurance benefits disability insurance issues
• Workers' compensation coverage.
• Insurance rights, including rights under group policies, policy rights after death of spouse, conversion rights, and continuing coverage rights.
The right to claim financial benefits; manage inheritance outcomes; insurance coverages.
Like I said, Money.
So let's put away the Bibles and the Constitution and all the rest and call this for what it is.
Cold hard cash.

Posted by: GloriaFenwick | May 5, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: giusalamone |

The problem with your argument is I am very serious. There should be equality. That is the gay Movement argument, there is no rational distintion that should be made between same sex unions and opposite sex unions. The same arguments are just as valid and relevant for polyamists and relatives. The only distintion in the case of relatives is that the could not conceive children because of the potential of birth defects. Other than that the argument is the same. Example brother and sister who were separated at birth and 50 years later they meet and fall in love not knowing they are brother or sister. Why should they not marry as much as any gay person. There is no distinction to be made. I guarantee that nobody will ever argue the distinction they simply chant their slogans that they have been told to chant and say.

Posted by: RJ24

I like your sense of humor. Your a real laugh riot. Now maybe you can tell me rationale behind the rhetoric, because that is mainly what is being posted. Mear rhetoric without any substance.

Posted by: niceday971 | May 5, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

To giusalamone:

I'm not making a moral argument, because that, I agree, is a weak argument. I am making a definitional argument.

I am saying that marriage has a historical definition. Just like the game of "football" has a historical definition. I could not show up at FedEx Field in shoulder pads and a helmet, but insist on using a baseball and have this pass as a game of "football." Instead, I would have to use a ball commonly known as a "football," even though I brought the proper attire.

And as to the issue of slavery -- see my argument above and you'll realize that is a non sequitur.

Posted by: drewdog1 | May 5, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Being Gay is not a CHOICE! If your junk doesn't get hard from a woman, then that is not a choice - ITS A FACT!

The fact is that when you say being gay is a choice you are implying that being a heterosexual is choice too. So all those that say its a choice could have chosen to be Gay....Laughable~!

Posted by: giusalamone | May 5, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Here's a first: a representative actually voting his / her constituents' values, views, opinions.

Now how do we clone Barry so that the buffoons in Congress vote THEIR constituents' values, view, opinions?

Posted by: segeny | May 5, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

ekim53 cried: "One day in the future, Americans will wake up to the fact that they have turned over our freedoms to government."

Ummm, says the idiot who wants the GOVERNMENT to dictate who can marry whom?

You're just dumb.

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | May 5, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

First of all, I really have a problem with black folks who want to deny a right to anybody. If there's any group of people who should know just how harmful discrimination can be, it's us. If Marion Barry really wants a "Civil War" on something that truly impacts black folks, might I recommend the prison industrial complex or the failing educational system? I realize that gay marriage is low-lying fruit for he and his fellow ministers, but in my opinion those guys have bigger fish to fry. The package of cornmeal and the cast iron skillet is on the counter.

Secondly, if your marriage is in trouble, it's not because you saw two dudes picking out china patterns at Nordstrom's. Let's not use that as an excuse, folks. Don't want to marry a gay person? You don't have to. Don't want to perform a wedding ceremony for two gay people? Don't. It's your choice. If everyone let everyone else make up their own minds about things, we'd all be much better off.

Thirdly, there's no harm that gay people can do to marriage that will in any way equal the harm that straight people have done to it. Want proof? Both Michael Jackson and Britney Spears have managed to find two people apiece to enter into marriages with them. I have a real problem with the reverence that we seem to have given a sacrament that we then allow to be performed by such people as Elvis impersonators. If marriage is this be all end all that folks like these ministers would like for us to believe it is, maybe there should be a little more sobriety to it.

Posted by: Raiderfan | May 5, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Hurray for MAINE whose state House passed a marriage equality bill today -- already passed by the state senate.

FREEDOM and EQUALITY are on the march!

I'm proud to be a Mainer!

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | May 5, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

First Marion Barry voted for the measure; the second time he voted against it.

Does this mean he favors recognition of marriages between bisexuals?


Posted by: MikeLicht | May 5, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

If I am such a bad person, stop sending your (e.g., Ballou high school marching band) to my front door every week begging for donations for uniforms, trips, etc.

Posted by: dwaldman | May 5, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Marion Barry squandered an opportunity to lead on equal rights for all DC residents not just for the pastors of the churches in his ward. The former civil rights champion is, sadly, a shadow of his former self and everything he used to stand for.

Posted by: JohnnyU2Berry | May 5, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

I am confused by all this. My understanding is the Institution of marriage was created by the churches to bind a man and a women in the eyes of God. This of course is the God of the Bible. The bible as written is against same sex unions. So why then are we arguing about a equality right as pro same sex supporters call it when this right seems to go against their beliefs.
Does not civil unions cover the equality rights. Why force a aquare peg in a round hole only to find you had to trim it to fit.

Posted by: paulmaxwell46 | May 5, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

To paulmaxwell46,

If you are correct, then the government should not be in the business of issuing marriage licenses to anyone! If Marriage is merely a religious term, then Civil Unions should be the only option for ALL. That is true separation of church and state.

The reason we have this separation is because my church sanctifies gay unions while another may not. Religious institutions have been arguing over their interpretations of the Bible for centuries! Let them keep arguing and keep them out of the Government!

Posted by: giusalamone | May 5, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Blockbuster speech on “The Gay Gene Hoax” silences pro-gay crowd at Framingham State College
Very powerful and informative - it blew them away, said one observer.
Framingham, MA - March 31, 2008

Link to draft copy of upcoming book "The Gay Gene Hoax" by Ryan Sorba
(Much of the speech quoted from key chapters.)

Hear audio of the speech
(and questions following)

The concept of a “gay gene” started out as marketing strategy and has had stunning success. But the mountain of historical and contemporary evidence – from both ends of the political spectrum – make one wonder how anyone could believe it. That’s what author and researcher Ryan Sorba laid out before a full lecture hall at Framingham State College on Monday evening, March 31.

Posted by: coxe2004 | May 5, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Sorba talked for a little over an hour. His speech was mostly taken from several chapters of the current draft of his upcoming book, “The Born Gay Hoax.” (See link to current draft above.)

Chatting with audience members afterwards.

He began with the factual history of the homosexual movement from its beginnings in the 1800s. He showed that until the mid-1900s the concept of “homosexual” did not even exist – that even its practitioners thought of it as aberration of normalcy – and that among men it had nearly always also been associated in some way with pederasty (sex with young boys).

He then described the modern homosexual propaganda movement, which blossomed in the 1980s, and how the “born that way” strategy was a central part of the plan to proselytize America. It was conceived by two Harvard graduates, Marshall Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry, and Hunter Madsen, a PhD in politics and expert on public persuasion tactics, who wrote “After the Ball” and other articles. Interestingly, the “born that way” strategy was largely rejected by the movement when it was first proposed. But it soon caught on and – along with the strategy of demonization of Christian critics – became a centerpiece of the larger campaign which continues in full force to this day.

Talking to campus reporter.

Sorba also discussed the large amount of evidence against the “gay gene” or “born that way” theory, including writings and observations from prominent homosexual activists. The more overwhelming cause of homosexuality, as he points out, involves severe issues with parents and sexual abuse at a young age. For example, in the famous lesbian couple of Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche, both of them were sexually molested by their fathers (or step-fathers) when they were teenagers.

Ryan Sorba’s book “The Gay Gene Hoax” is expected to be published within 6-9 months.

Posted by: coxe2004 | May 5, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

I am very disappointed by the race baiting, which can only help the extreme right wing that despises both gays and African-Americans.

It is shameful for African-Americans to support discrimination. Many of the same arguments used to deny rights to gay men and lesbians were also used to deny rights to African-Americans. Opponents of gay rights argued that gay men were incapable of true love and stability and thus less than fully human. Racists argued for centuries that darker skinned people were not as human as their white counterparts. Gay men have been portrayed as sexually impulsive and unable to control their sexual desires. For more than a century the false image of the "sex crazed Negro" was used to instill fear in white populations. Both gays and African-Americans have been demonized from the pulpit.

I am saddened to see African-Americans giving in to the same arguments that were used to deny them rights. The majority does not have the right to oppress the minority.

Posted by: dcheretic | May 5, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

JR Lowell: "Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side; Some great cause, God`s new Messiah, offering each the bloom or blight, Parts the goats upon the left hand, and the sheep upon the right, And the choice goes by forever `twixt that darkness and that light." So Marion picks the goats.

Posted by: skie | May 5, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

As often happens at these kinds of speeches, it appeared that nearly all of the homosexual activists had never heard these arguments before. They were clearly affected by them. You could see the confusion (and a little anger) in their eyes as their ideological world was being taken apart. Plus, they were so used to dealing with this issue in an emotional and illogical way that they are rhetorically crippled when forced to deal on a logical and factual basis.

Posted by: coxe2004 | May 5, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Does this mean that Ward 8 will secede from the country along with Texas and Georgia! wow!

Posted by: DouginMountVernon | May 5, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

I don't give a hoot what some religion says about marriage. We are talking about civil marriage. As long as the state grants civil marriages, it should be equally available to straights and gays.

Posted by: jake14 | May 5, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Sorba also discussed the large amount of evidence against the “gay gene” or “born that way” theory, including writings and observations from prominent homosexual activists. The more overwhelming cause of homosexuality, as he points out, involves severe issues with parents and sexual abuse at a young age. For example, in the famous lesbian couple of Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche, both of them were sexually molested by their fathers (or step-fathers) when they were teenagers.

Ryan Sorba’s book “The Gay Gene Hoax” is expected to be published within 6-9 months.

Posted by: coxe2004 | May 5, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

david souter is right..D.C. is a terrible place..and barry is the poster child for this terrible place..

Posted by: rmcgolden | May 5, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Homosexuals do have equal rights and liberty. They have the EXACT SAME rights and obligations under marriage laws to marry as everyone else does. As such there is no unequal treatment. Choosing to form a relationship with a member of the same sex is a LIBERTY EXERCISED, not a liberty denied. Since marriage, by definition, is a sexually integrated union and not a sex segregated union, their Liberty to form sex segregated relationships is not infringed. Barry is right. Everyone elses freedoms are threatened here by the homosexual supremecist's strident power grab to redefine marriage and institute one moral sexual standard in a pluralistic society. No one is bothering homosexuals-it is they who are manipulating the courts and the legelese of the nation to force their worldview on everyone else.

Posted by: IsaacCrocket | May 5, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

The "Good Book" (The Bible) is one big metaphor.

Posted by: yeayea911 | May 5, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

coxe2004 - Thanks for enlightening me. I never knew I was abused and has SEVERE ISSUES with mom and pop. I am clearly a damaged, pathetic person who should be locked up. I will commit myself to the nearest mental hospital.

Posted by: jake14 | May 5, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

It appeared that at least three-quarters of the nearly 60 people in attendance were homosexual activists. Many have been active at the State House. At least one had testified at the recent public hearing for the “transgender rights” bill. It was expected that there would be some kind of disruption or demonstration during the speech. At the beginning, you could feel the tension in the air.

Ryan Sorba

But Sorba’s speech and his demeanor was quite powerful, and the crowd was silent, even polite. In the hour-long question and answer period the questions seemed weakly academic, and Sorba handled them all with ease. Interestingly, not one conservative student asked a question, although a few conservative older adults did (less than a half-dozen people seemed to be over 30).

Sorba, who himself recently graduated from college, was clearly comfortable and unintimidated among the college and post-college crowd. He was very well prepared, told the unvarnished truth without “moderation” or compromise, and gave no ideological ground.

As often happens at these kinds of speeches, it appeared that nearly all of the homosexual activists had never heard these arguments before. They were clearly affected by them. You could see the confusion (and a little anger) in their eyes as their ideological world was being taken apart. Plus, they were so used to dealing with this issue in an emotional and illogical way that they are rhetorically crippled when forced to deal on a logical and factual basis.
The speech

Posted by: coxe2004 | May 5, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

The Gay Hoax argument is used to play toward a fear of recruitment, and is a falsehood propagated by the right to instill fear.

The fear of recruitment is baseless because it is based on a false premise - that gay people recruit straight people to become gay. We don't. We don't recruit because we know from our own experience that sexual orientation is inborn, and can't be changed. Indeed, the attempts by psychologists, counselors and religious therapy and support groups to change sexual orientation have all uniformly met with failure - the studies that have been done of these attempts at "therapeutic" intervention have never been shown to have any statistically significant results in the manner intended, and most have been shown to have emotionally damaging consequences. So the notion that someone can be changed from straight to gay is just as unlikely. Yet there remains that deep, dark fear that somehow, someone might get "recruited." And that baseless fear is often used by bigots to scare people into opposing gay rights in general, as well as gay marriage.

The core cause of this fear is the result of the fact that many homophobes, including most virulent, violent homophobes are themselves repressed sexually, often with same sex attractions. One of the recent studies done at the University of Georgia among convicted killers of gay men has shown that the overwhelmingly large percentage of them (more than 70%) exhibit sexual arousal when shown scenes of gay sex. The core fear, then, for the homophobe is that he himself might be gay, and might be forced to face that fact. The homophobia can be as internalized as it is externalized - bash the queer and you don't have to worry about being aroused by him.

Posted by: giusalamone | May 5, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

@mmcandrew | May 5, 2009 2:54 PM: "Was Marion Barry on the side of God when he smoked crack?"

To compare these particular two things seems like fallacy to me, as if to say "he smokes crack so OF COURSE hes going to come down on the wrong side of every other issue, too."

Posted by: jmbehrens | May 5, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse


The opposition to gay marriage stems ultimately from a deep-seated homophobia in American culture, borne out of religious prejudice. While many Americans do not realize that that homophobia exists to the extent that it does, it is a very real part of every gay person's life, just like racism is a very real part of every black person's life.

You are propagating this homophobia and bigotry by supporting the Gay Hoax argument. It is baseless, unfounded, and unaccepted by the American Psychological Association.

Posted by: giusalamone | May 5, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

I agree on your point as to seperation of church and state, but are we not asking a specific church to modify it's belief because of a law if the marriage definition passed? In a brief time when same sex marriage was legal in CA churches that openly were against same sex unions were challenged to comply or be sued as discriminating. To me that goes beyond the intent of equality when like your church which accepts same sex unions would gladly perform the ceremony.
Do not be fooled to think that majority of supporters for same sex unions are going to get married. To me it seems a cause to eliminate marriage as defined by a church by a few groups that have taken this as a personal challenge.
If you do not like the movie then walk out......seems simple to me. Do not like the church then do that as well.
No surprise that churches that believe in marriage between a man and women will be against this. However what happens to their rights when we say they have too. I do not recall churches rallying and going to the courts to eliminate civil unions between same sex couples.
Again this is a fight that is being guided for all the wrong reasons. Being married in the eyes of your God in your specific church whatever that may be is a privilage and not a court ordered equality right.

Posted by: paulmaxwell46 | May 5, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

coxe2004, one of the cruelst tactics of the radical Christian right is to blame parents for the homosexuality of their offspring. There is no evidence that parental relationships alter the sexual orientation of the child. I love both my mother and father and would not change a thing about my life. This hateful, anti-family tactic is again, like Christianity itself, rooted in false science and superstition. Fundamentalist Christianity's narrow-definition of the family is illogical, contrary to history, and in opposition to the reality of modern America. The Talibanization of Christianity is a threat to the vast majority of people in this country.

Posted by: dcheretic | May 5, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Barry,
Next time you're in church look around you. I promise you there will be gay men deeply in the closet and isolated because of the bigoted African-American ministers you chose to support today. Because of people like you, gay Black men will continue to suffer alone and in silence. Where is the brave SNCC activist who fought for the right thing when the rest of country was against him? You have turned your back on all gay Black men in the closet today.

Posted by: oldmh | May 5, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

ibertarians have every reason to respect marriage as a social institution. Marriage is an organic institution that emerges spontaneously from society. People of the opposite sex are naturally attracted to one another, couple with each other, co-create children, and raise those children. The little society of the family replenishes and sustains itself. Humanity’s natural sociability expresses itself most vibrantly within the family. A minimum-government libertarian can view this self-sustaining system with unadulterated awe.

Government does not create marriage any more than government creates jobs. Just as people have a natural “propensity to truck, barter and exchange one thing for another,” in Adam Smith’s famous words from the second chapter of The Wealth of Nations, we likewise have a natural propensity to couple, procreate, and rear children. People instinctively create marriage, both as couples and as a culture, without any support from the government whatsoever.

The sexual urge is an engine of human sociability. Our desire for sexual satisfaction draws us out of our natural self-centeredness and into connection with other people. Just as the desire to make money induces business owners to try to please their customers, so too, the desire to copulate induces men to try to please women, and women to try to attract men. The attachment of mothers to their babies and women to their sex partners tends to keep this little society together. The man’s possessiveness of his sexual turf and of his offspring offsets his natural tendency toward promiscuity. These desires and attachments emerge naturally from the very biology of sexual complementarity with no assistance from the state.

But this is not the only sense in which the institution of marriage arises spontaneously. In every known society, communities around the couple develop customs and norms that define the parameters of socially acceptable sexual, spousal and parental behavior. This culture around marriage may have some governmental elements. But that cultural machinery is more informal than legal by far and is based more on kinship than on law. We do things this way because our parents did things this way. Our friends and neighbors look at us funny if we go too far outside the norm.

Posted by: IsaacCrocket | May 5, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse


Fortunately I was married at a time when the ceremony performed at my church was legally recognized by the state of CA. I do believe that the latest New Hampshire Marriage Bill has language that stipulates the division between Religious and Civil Marriage.

That protects the religious freedoms of all Churches to choose whether or not to sanctify Gay unions. It should be written as such in all Gay Marriage legislation to protect the religious freedom of my church as well as others that do not accept or support my union.

Posted by: giusalamone | May 5, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Coxe2004: Re Sorba -- take a look at “Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity” by Bruce Bagemihl. Guess all those barnyard critters must be molesting their offspring, huh?

Posted by: skie | May 5, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Alright I'm just looking over some of the other comments here... yes people, the former mayor does drugs. Get over it; its in no way germane to this conversation and by talking about it so much you all drawing from the same vein of moral supremacy as the people looking for a "civil war"

Posted by: jmbehrens | May 5, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Dear Marion:

I've supported you all your life, from the time you opened up Pride Inc. down the street from us.

I'm black, and I don't believe government should be in the marriage business. Period. They sure shouldn't be DISCRIMINATING. You have benefited from tolerance all your career -- from gays and Georgetown residents who gave you a chance when you first ran for mayor to the voters who have overlooked your drug use, whoring, and refusal to pay your taxes. Show some tolerance yourself.

You do not speak for the black community, sir. If you make this a political issue, you will find that this city is a lot whiter, a lot gayer, and a lot more tolerant. The old heads who oppose gay marriage will discover they are even more marginalized than they know. White folks have been looking for a reason on you for years. You are about to give them one.

PS Pay your d@mn taxes before you meddle around in grown folks' affairs.

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 5, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

IsaacCrocket: You’ve been reading something from the Hoover Institution? Yow, Dawg, you might as well smoke crack!

jmbehrens: Don't worry, ridiculing Barry for being a crack user is just a shorthand way of pointing out how addled his brain is. He does the same thing for us, whenever he opens his mouth. Hoover does it whenever it appoints a fellow.

Posted by: Hans1924 | May 5, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

A Civil War over tolerance and equal rights?

Bring it on.

Posted by: legendarypunk | May 5, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

fr savedgirl:

>While I do not often agree with negroes, Barry is correct in this point. The struggle for civil rights for negroes cannot be compared with homosexuals demanding rights which are clearly prohibited by the Bible.<

Number one, the term "negroes" is usually not used anymore. A more current term is African-American.

Number two, why are MY rights as a gay Christian woman who is married to my lovely WIFE "prohibited by the Bible"? Would you say this to YOUR sibling, YOUR parent, YOUR bff or YOUR relative? I hope NOT, because it shows homophobia.

Posted by: Alex511 | May 5, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Over 70% of blacks are still born outside of marriage. Yet, ministers are against gay marriage? They ought to be happy, if anyone gets married in the black community. Fix the heteros, before trying to fix gays. Long live civil rights and gay marriage.

Posted by: rcvinson64 | May 5, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

How ironic that Barry raises the prospect of civil war - one side fighting for equal treatment under the law and the other opposed to it. And Barry is going to lead the charge while singing Dixie from the top of his lungs. (After all, old times there are not forgotten...)

Posted by: kennethk | May 5, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Just be honest about the debate. It is about gay rights not equal rights. Nobody can offer a reason to differiate between gays and relatives and polygamists. Give a reasoned answer with logic. For all gay propenents it should be an easy task, but so far nobody seems able to give a reasoned response. It seems like your saying gay is not the same, BUT WHY?

Posted by: niceday971 | May 5, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse


The legalization of same-sex marriage will have no impact on plural-marriage or incest laws because same-sex marriage legally has nothing to do with incest or polygamy. The status of those laws hasn't changed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Canada, Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, etc. as a result of the legalization of marriage for gay people. The issue at stake here is same-sex marriage for gay couples, not any of the other parade of horribles you've thrown out there.

Additionally, the slippery slope argument you're relying on was trotted out as against inter-racial marriage. See the arguments against the supreme court case, Loving V. Virginia. It was wrong then, it's wrong now.

Posted by: RJ24 | May 5, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse


I have already made MANY arguments as to why it is ludicrous to make those comparisons. Gay Rights are the SAME as Equal Rights, and there is no differentiation.

Posted by: giusalamone | May 5, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: coxe2004 | May 5, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: coxe2004 | May 5, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse


Did you even read my postings? I was making the same argument that you are stating now. I am a Gay man, and married to my HUSBAND. So unless I am crazy, why would I be arguing against myself?

Posted by: giusalamone | May 5, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

God does not force Himself on anyone and neither should Christians. It's God's law that they'll ultimately face with condemnation for their abomination. That's what Christians try explaining to them. We are no longer a Christian nation here. The laws of man have removed God and God's laws are no longer enforced in man's court anymore. The punishment will be dealt with, for all people, not just homosexuals, in God's court on that Day of Judgment.

Posted by: coxe2004 | May 5, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

If being gay is not biological (and every conceivable piece of scientific evidence points to a biological basis for hetero-, homo-, and bisexuality), then it is exactly the same as religion. You choose your religious lifestyle, and can change it at will.

And guess what, churches have ALWAYS been able to determine who gets married in them. There were ZERO attempts in California, not to mention Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, to force churches to marry non-members. Any assertion to the contrary is a lie, pure and simple.

Just as Roman Catholic churches refuse to recognize adulterers like John McCain and Rudy Guiliani as being married, because Christianity does not recognize divorce, they will also be able to bar gay or lesbian couples from having marriages in their churches. Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Community Church, which believes that gays and lesbians are actually human beings, is barred from marrying its communicants, simply because of the religious bigotry inherent in our laws.

Posted by: CPT_Doom | May 5, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

the point I am trying to make is this. To have this issue be about equality and rights is as far from the agenda as you can get. Equality goes to fundamental rights that are established as being offered to all without regard to their race, sex, age and so on in regards to laws established by individual states and or the federal government.
Marriage and I mean the definition of marriage was created well before any government stepped in an wrapped laws around that definition. Why did this occur, it was all centered on money and courts. Supporters of marriage between a man and a women are trying to protect the definition of marriage and not the legal junk that has been attached to it.
That is all
Same sex union supporters fight should be with their states government to modify how "wills" are viewed, how hospital visits are viewed, how "power of attorney" rights are viewed and so on. Not taking the marriage definition, created by churches to bind their flock in the eyes of their God and try to change it.
This fight is an attack on the definition of marriage and nothing more. It is an attack on churches to legally change or modify their standards and their belief (which they will not) to conform to a groups will.
To compare this as the same discrimination of African Americans, or Asian Americans and say it is the same is an insult to their plight for equality.
You have every right to walk into a church and do so with a gay lifestyle with absolutly no fear. If you try to impose that lifestyle you may be asked to leave. However there was a time when an African American would walk into a church and without a moments notice would be asked to leave. This being done without their lifestyle even being known.
That is discrimination. That is having your rights taken away.
Your fight is with the sytem that does not recognize your civil unions the same as the rest. Not try to modify a definition created by churches.
Thanks for your viewpoints

Posted by: paulmaxwell46 | May 5, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

As for polygamy or incest (and remember, first cousins can get married in nearly any state in this country), what exactly is stopping them from being legal now? It certainly isn't the gender requirements of marriage - incestuous relationships can certainly be of two people of the opposite gender, and polygamy is defined as one man with many wives. Thus the gender requirements of legal marriage would be satisfied, and in fact in the polygamous world the men are typically legally married to one of the women they sleep with.

The reality is that the slippery slope argument does not make any sense in this context. All we are trying to do is eliminate the gender requirements in current laws, because gender should not dictate our lives any more than religion, ethnicity or socioeconomic status.

Posted by: CPT_Doom | May 5, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse


Marriage has ALWAYS been about money and property. In past centuries, women were sold from their fathers to their husbands (or typically the husbands got both the wife and a dowry). Marriages were designed to advance the political and economic power of families, and often did not even require the couple to know or like each other.

Currently there are over 1,000 rights and responsiblities that instantaneously convey to breeder couples when they marry. Nearly all of those rights are not available to gay or lesbian couples without the legal contract of marriage. Whatever else it may be, marriage is recognized as a legal contract by the state, which is why you do not need to go to a church to get married.

Posted by: CPT_Doom | May 5, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

CPT_Doom says:
"And guess what, churches have ALWAYS been able to determine who gets married in them. There were ZERO attempts in California, not to mention Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, to force churches to marry non-members. Any assertion to the contrary is a lie, pure and simple."

Case Number S14799 Filed in the California Supreme Court seems to indicate your last sentance as totally wrong.

Again do not be fooled that their is a small minority of same sex supporters that are using this to attack the wrong agenda.

Posted by: paulmaxwell46 | May 5, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

SCRIPTURE: Genesis 19:1–24; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Mark 10:17–23; John 8:3–11; Romans 1:18–32; 3:23; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11; Galatians 6:1–5; 1 Timothy 1:9–10; 2 Timothy 3:16–17; James 3:2; 5:17

Read this yourself and decide for yourself.
We all have to decide individually.Not only on the above matters but in other matters as well.

Posted by: coxe2004 | May 5, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Knowing that Barry has been on balance pro-gay in his career, does anyone think that he's aware of his reputation and realizes that supporting the anti-gay people will really help to detract from their political position?

Posted by: DCCharles | May 5, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

So, now this is a black folks vs gay white men civil war? I hope not, the outcome will not be nice. Maybe if both sides talk and stop calling people names, things would get done. I'm not for Gay Marriage, but it if it happens, its not the end of the world. Its funny, the city council can vote on acknowledging gay marriages from other states, but won't accept other gun laws from other states, that allow me to be able to have a legal pistol in my house.

Posted by: | May 5, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

You people who are quoting Leviticus are just dumb. Why don't you allow us to stone you for wearing clothes composed of two different fabrics?

Posted by: FairfaxIsBlue | May 5, 2009 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I agree fairfaxisblue, these people are just dumb. Leviticus also says that you can sell your daughter into slavery and stone your wife. Give me a break!

Posted by: giusalamone | May 5, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

How short are peoples memories. Proposition 8 passed in California because the African American community voted for it by 70%. The DC Council might get a big surprise if this is put on a ballot, where it rightly belongs. There is an old saying: "even a stopped clock is right twice a day." I guess for Marion Barry this is one of his times.

Posted by: lostein | May 5, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

To All,
been interesting to see the it be known I am a full supporter of protecting the rights of everyone. I am also very understanding of people and groups who feel they have been wronged in life.
I again will try to get out the simple viewpoint that same sex supporters need to get laws that say if they join in a civil union as a same sex couple they should be granted the same opportunity to hospital visits, power of attorney, will status and so on. To pursue a change in the definition of marriage and mask it as not getting equality is the wrong approach.
Getting the definition of marriage changed has absolutly nothing to do with equality. Ask yourself why this has not been done in the past? Ask yourself why approach it from this angle? Why have a church that believes it is wrong be bound by a law because it will be. A church will not change its doctrine to say same sex marriage is ok, yet if they preach it from the pulpit they will be accused of discrimination. Now are all same sex supporters 100% sure your groups intentions are pure and just about equality. How many think there will be a group just waiting to hear a sermon and then find a lawsuit to file.
Have a good day group

Posted by: paulmaxwell46 | May 5, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Good idea lostein, while were at it lets go ahead and put the rights of all minorities on the ballot.

Posted by: giusalamone | May 5, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

coxe2004, et al, fine, your offer is accepted. You keep your religious customs and personal bigotry out of our laws, and we'll agree to be reprimanded by your Bronze Age deity if we should chance to meet this fabulous being after death. Fair enough?

Of course, by ignoring those aspects of your claimed faith that don't seem to agree with your bigotry (the Golden Rule, Jesus' remarks to the mob that was about to stone Mary Magdalene, etc, and I won't even mention that the few mentions of prohibition of male homosexuality are buried amongst prohibitions on eating shellfish and wearing polyester which should give some idea of the amount of cherry picking you must engage in in order to pretend you actually care about what "God" said) you yourself would seem to be just another hipocryte, and such people Jesus condemned more than anyone.

Posted by: benjaminanderson | May 5, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

"Ever read what happened to Sodomites in the Bible?"

Yes. God smites people for being "inhospitable," i.e. intolerant. Good thing for you the bible is allegory. Unless of course you mean the whole "gay thing" interpretation. In that one, when a randy mob of Sodomites wants to bugger a couple of Lot's house guests, as an alternative he suggests they gang rape his two virgin daughters. God smites them for declining. Nice guy, that Lot. Nice God. Force yourself on some young virgins and ye shall be spared. So, let's see, that makes women cattle it's OK to have sex with.

"God's wrath is upon us...Mankind will suffer for allowing this."

The church doesn't marry people. People get married in church. The state grants members of the clergy the authority to act its agent, in this one fairly limited capacity. They don't, however, give them the legal authority to grant a divorce. That requires a judge.

Posted by: iceaxe | May 5, 2009 5:54 PM | Report abuse

There are tons and tons of black gay men in DC. Now I have a far better understanding of why so many are closeted.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | May 5, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

The gay community claims that Proposition 8 supporters lied to the California electorate to pass a ban on homosexual marriage last November. They say that, while changing the definition of marriage to a union of "two persons" would give gay educators the right to teach children about their lifestyle, it is not something they would do.

Fortunately, most of us in the Black community recognized this "we could, but we won't" argument as a clear misrepresentation of human nature. Once people obtain certain rights, they generally use them. (Does the widely reported account of the lesbian teacher in San Francisco taking her second graders to witness her gay “marriage” ring any bells?)

So please don’t expect us to help any group gain the right to confuse our children about relationships during a vulnerable stage of their development. What would be next? Teaching them that it’s okay for a man to marry his brother, or his father, as long as they really love each other? If love is the only requirement for two consenting adults to marry, then what would be a logical argument against same-sex family member marriages?

And what about the biggest lie of all used by “No on 8” supporters to brainwash nearly half the residents of California? Did anyone actually believe that the majority of African Americans would co-sign the assertion that choosing to live a lifestyle condemned by 99% of the world's human population is no different than being born Black?

It is truly amazing that apparently three out of ten African American voters in California were not insulted by such an outrageous comparison and that they were willing to help keep this lie alive.

If the game plan of gay activists, in attempting to force their will on the people of California and the nation, includes intensifying the level of homosexual propaganda in the Black community, they should be forewarned that only the misguided among us would ever support a movement that would trivialize centuries of Black oppression to further the selfish agenda of a group of people who are obviously obsessed with normalizing abnormal behavior.

Thank you, Barry, for not drinking the Kool Aid.

Paul Howard Nicholas
"Extinguishing the Flames of Hell"

Posted by: Nicholas | May 5, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Marion and Willy Wilson are destined to be icons of hatred much like Bull Connor and George Wallace. You've lost already, bigots. History will never forget your hypocrisy.

Posted by: medogsbstfrnd | May 5, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

As someone who is for extending the legal protections and benefits of marriage to gays, I am a bit put off by the strongly negative tone of some of the posts that have chosen to frame this discussion as a gays vs. blacks issue. It seems that no matter how much discrimination minority groups face, individuals alway resort to tearing each other down in the interest of their own groups advancement.

That said, there have been several posts that seem to mix up the distinction between genetic trait and biological basis. Because there is a biological explanation for a characteristic or behavior (e.g., homosexuality, musical talent, heterosexuality, aggression, or mathematical genius) does not indicate that the basis for said behavior is genetic (i.e., they were born with it). Very little of what we know about behavior suggests that anything can be explained by either nature or nurture. As it stands, that argument is irrelevant to a discussion of gay rights.

Posted by: wilsonmg_2000 | May 5, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Marion Barry is a pandering, over-the-hill idiot who is incompetent and needs to be unseated. Mr. Barry says that there aren't many openly gay blacks in his ward. Well, know why? They FEAR FOR THEIR LIVES! And, what has Mr. Barry done to prevent that? NOTHING! So, in supporting the anti gay marriage movement, Mr. Barry is supporting further violence against black gays and lesbians in his ward.

Posted by: linroy62 | May 5, 2009 6:35 PM | Report abuse

I stand by Marion Barry 100%. He is representing the wishes of his constituency something that too few politicians do these days, locally or nationally. He represents Black folks, the downtrodden, and disenfranchised. So what he smoked cracked, didn't pay taxes, and on and on. I guess everyone is perfect and have been complete saints all your lives. This man has served the public almost his entire adult life, wether you like him, agree with him or not. How many of you have done anything for anybody other than yourselves and your immediate family? This man continues to serve the public even after everything he has gone through both negative and positive. Most people would have said f#@%& it a long time ago. For someone to say he should just die and not receives a kidney? God help that you should ever be in the same position. Also, any white person still refering to Black folks as "negroes", well what can you say? The pathetic soul is obviously caught in a timewarp. Keep on keeping on Marion Barry, and marriage should be between a man and a woman, other than that I don't care about someone being gay if that's their sexual persuasion as long as it doesn't infringe on my personal life. Black leaders like Marion Barry are rare these days, most so called Black leaders are full of crap!!

Posted by: 72Redskins | May 5, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Mr Nicholas,
I respect the right of Americans to differ in their opinions based on their own religious beliefs. What I don't respect is the idea that you have a right to impose religious dogmatic tradition on the governmental principles of these United States. If your concern were simply to protect your children from what you feel is threatening to them then you have several choices that do not include perverting the American Constitution. (1)Move to some country where it is legal to offer protections and rights to some minority groups while withholding them from others, (2)Send your kids to private religious schools and clubs that share your beliefs, or (3) Advocate the elimination of marriage rights and protections for all citizens. (Incidentally, this last option would be the most genuine choice if your interest is not in disenfranchising gays but only protecting children). I suggest you choose one and move on, cuz history suggests that equality of rights will prevail in this one.

Posted by: wilsonmg_2000 | May 5, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

"Civil war?" Let's face facts. Marion Barry will say anything to keep his name on the front page of the news. Extreme case of narcissism. How sad that someone who was long ago such a respected leader in civil rights can turn against his own principles (back when he had them).

Posted by: seaduck2001 | May 5, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Aside from the Bible, it is illogical think that same sex couples and opposite sex couples are equal. Homosexuals can never become one and produce an offspring-- biological child based on each.... Noone needs the Bible to prove that!!! Homosexuals will never experience the rewards of coming together to help create a new life (the greatest gift and experience!!!).

So whatever it is called, these two groups will never be the same/ EQUAL, or reap the same benefits....GOD made sure of that!

The world and it's existence relies on a man and a woman to perpetuate life. Let us try to be more logical and less emotional, as emotion drives selfishness while logic drives objectivity.

Posted by: Stand4Truth | May 5, 2009 7:08 PM | Report abuse

America has a new Super Hero...MARION...way to go brother!

Posted by: TyroneB1 | May 5, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Barry might not be the greatest guy ever, and I strongly disagree with his position on this issue. But, if his job really is to represent the people that voted him into office and most of his constituents are opposed to the measure, is it really him causing the problem or is he doing his job right to the detriment of a worthy cause?

Side note, I know that the 'God's wrath' argument makes you feel really self-righteous and holier than thou, and if the residents of DC actually are turned into pillars of salt, paprika or some other type of spice you can say "I told you so", but in the mean time it really makes you look delusional.

Second of all, they're black people. When you say "negroes" we know you were hoping for a word that started with the letters "NI" and it comes across looking really trashy.

Posted by: Djo206 | May 5, 2009 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Stand4Truth, I find it remarkable that you chose to include a call for logic in a post that is laden with value judgments and talk of God. Neither of these has anything to do with the 'philosophical' sense.

Let's take your stance on equality. According to your argument - to be equal is to be able to be bestowed from God the anatomical ability to biologically create new life based on shared DNA - further, the perpetuation of human life depends on this...

Leaving aside your injection of God into this supposedly logical proposition, you have thus deemed that all individuals who for reasons of disease, accidental injury, rape, age, etc. are unequal (in the eyes of who???God?). Further, we know that unions between man and woman are needed to perpetuate life (until cloning) and the inclusion of that statement offers no useful information, unless we are experiencing an unreported population decline.

In the end, the entire proposition as well as my discussion of its senselessness are moot. The equality that we are speaking of is equality in terms of legal protections and rights granted by government. That is bar (pun intended) that we are attempting to reach and that is the one that matters in this case.

Posted by: wilsonmg_2000 | May 5, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

barry has never been a civil rights leader..always been a joke..the blacks can have him and D.C.

Posted by: rmcgolden | May 5, 2009 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Marion Barry not only initially voted for the measure, he was a sponsor of the measure he voted against. Apparently he has a hard time telling which way the wind is blowing when his head is up his...

Posted by: danolgb | May 5, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

rmcgolden said:

"the blacks can have him and D.C."

What good does this sort of divisive posture due for anyone or the advancement of discussion between any groups. Couldn't you just keep that sort of thing to yourself?

Posted by: wilsonmg_2000 | May 5, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Stand4Truth, I am married and my wife and I have no intention of having children. That is not the only reason people marry. Believe it or not, some people actually marry simply because they want to spend their lives together--not just to procreate.

Would you also be against women (or widows) over child-bearing age ever getting married? Sterile people?

That's got to be one of the lamest arguments ever against gay marriage. Stop trying to justify inequality.

Posted by: Alan4 | May 5, 2009 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Wilsonmg, to know true logic is to know GOD! Without him, it is all emotion and without foundation. And when I speak of being able to to produce an offspring, I speak at a high-level (man and woman in a biological sense), not case by case.

If you know the importance of a relationship between a man and a woman (and the benefits of it), why want to put your self on the same level.... We have a VERY important role-- PURPOSE! Cloning will never take place. This is a debate all in it self! Man does not have the ability to create a SOUL-- maybe a robot!

If it is all about legislation and government then take on a different name, and leave the Biblical and logical version alone .

Posted by: Stand4Truth | May 5, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Stand4Truth, we clearly have starkly different concepts of the terms logic and logical argument. Therefore, I will just agree to disagree.

Posted by: wilsonmg_2000 | May 5, 2009 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Alan4, you and your wife have the potential to have children. It is your choice to do so or not. Howevever, same sex couples, have neither the choice nor the potential. You all may change your mind.

I am not sure of your understanding of my post, but I am against homosexual marriage. It has no foundation or justification to occur. As far as the other cases you mentioned (i.e., widow, etc.), they each can be debated too! Again, even these have the potential (HOPE) to procreate.

In terms of a lame argument, that is an emotional statement in conflict with logic. You know the TRUTH--- whatever it is!!!

Posted by: Stand4Truth | May 5, 2009 8:40 PM | Report abuse

The respective strength of argument from the two sides really tells the tale here. Those in favor can marshall all sorts of unimpeachably solid principles from morality and law; equality, fairness, justice; those opposed have to stoop to ridiculous hyperbole, defensiveness ("I happen to be a Christian"), and marry-your-dog-gerel. Anyone with a finger on the pulse can see where history is leading, and the opposition to equality under the law is aging fast.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 5, 2009 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Hey Stand4Truth, please explain what is so bloody great about procreation. Judging from the greasy, obese, and neglected kids I see all around me I don't think it's all that great.

Is the human race in danger of extinction from insufficient reproduction? On the contrary, the human race is in serious peril from excessive people. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever, based as it is on shady predicates.

By your addled logic no woman over 40 should be allowed to marry.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 5, 2009 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Well I am a young Black, gay, proud, happy and very successful male. I am a resident and homeowner in Ward 8. Unfortunately Barry is my council-member and I was dumb enough to vote him into office at the last election.
Well I am glad that I am better informed. I wont vote for him anymore.
Let's get a few things about Ward 8 straight:
98% of Ward 8 is not black. Maybe it was 5-10 years ago. However With the rise in home prices, gentrification, and rebuilding there are a lot more white and latino residents in Anacostia and Congress heights.
Ward 8 itself has many gays, homo thugs, thugs on the low whatever you want to call them. I can walk down alabama ave and get 10 numbers in 30 minutes. I can sit at the anacostia metro station or the congress heights metro station and get hit on by drug dealers, thugs, or other fellow gays.
Dc has a LARGE HUGE ENORMOUS black gay population. Some of us are out, some are on the Down low, and most of us support equal rights for all. Being black and gay is nothing new or unique to D.C. this is a natural part of this city. So everyone shouldn't act like the white gays are trying to rush and corrupt us.
If every black person in DC was against gay rights he'd have way more than 150 people marching. As at least 300,000 black residents live in the district.
Alot of these big churches like Metropolitan, Greater Mount Calvary have a huge black gay constiuency in their congregation. You see these black gay boys and girls out at the Delta, on saturday night and in church the next morning. And alot of our money keeps these bigoted churces afloat.
Half of the ministers and members of the clergy at these churces are as gay as they come. They will rebuke you for your homosexuality on sunday, then go home put their legs up in the air and let their boyfriend have anal sex with them after church.
Point is:
1.) The Black church is just pittiful. We need to focus on more important things in this town other than who is marrying whom. 5% of Residents have HIV, crime is high, drug use is high, teenage pregnancy is high, homelessness is high. Could the church please tackle these important issues. OR better yet maybe the church can address these self-hating closeted homosexual pastors, these pastors who cheat on their wives, the members of their congregation who drink, smoke, do drugs, go to the club. All of the corruption and money embezzeling going on. And Leave gay marraige alone.
2.) IF you live in maryland, or vigrinia and you are NOT a resident of DC then you need to shut up. This issue is an issue soley for DC residents, not for Suburbanites attempting to try and run our town. Thanks and God Bless the gays.

Posted by: rlj489 | May 5, 2009 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Stand4Truth, you're trying to thread a logical needle. My wife and I have as much potential to procrate as a gay couple. I elected to have a vasectomy 7 years ago, and have been tested to ensure to procedure was successful.

Although you pretend your argument is purely logical, the basis for it is clearly an emotional one: fear.

I, on the other hand, don't fear gay marriage. I beleive two consenting adults entering into a legally recognized relationship should have equal rights under the law. I am not afraid.

Posted by: Alan4 | May 5, 2009 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Those of you arguing faith: let's put aside for a moment the fact that your faith has no applicability in the public policy arena, and let's leave this one up to your Great Spirit, OK?

We pass the law, gays can legally marry, and we leave it up to GAWT. And if GAWT fails to "smite" someone clearly connected with the law's passage, we MUST presume that GAWT approves, right? I mean, after all, GAWT is all powerful and can turn people into pillars of salt or do all kinds of logic-defying stunts.

Hmm, maybe we already have the answer .. people in Massachusetts seem to have the usual stroichiometry of sodium.

Maybe GAWT already approves.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 5, 2009 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Marion Barry has been married FOUR times. Obviously, he is an expert on the topic.

Posted by: homer4 | May 5, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Marion Barry is a fool. I am black, hetero, married, with two kids.

I am not against gay marriage. Marion Barry, apparently, seeks to justify all the years of discrimination under which all minorities have lived.

The people who voted for Mr. Marion "Crack Junkie, tax evader homophobe" Barry are idiots.

Posted by: eternalemperor | May 5, 2009 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Stand4Truth descended into raw absurdity with "Man does not have the ability to create a SOUL"

My response: Show me a soul, please. Show me evidence of one. Show me any indication that this construct is something more than merely an artifice upon which to build a scaffold of theological blackmail. "If you don't do what Jeesus commands and vote Republican, your SOUL is going to burn for eternity in double hockey sticks."

Save it for small children.

Religious people like to look on their faith as a rock of constancy in a world aswirl with change. Well, you can't have it both ways, and from where I sit it looks like that constancy is rendering religion entirely irrelevant, as it certainly has been for me since I was twelve.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 5, 2009 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox8 and Alan4, obviously you do not understand my point at a high level. Outside of circumstances, a man and a woman can produce an offspring. This makes their coming together different from a same sex couple.

It has nothing to do with fear, it is a fact. I am not going to be hurt by whatever name homosexual couples call themselves, as I am walking in PURPOSE and just trying to share the knowledge.

How can you say the two type of couples are equal? Men and woman have a designed purpose, and it is deeper than just procreation. That is just the evidence.

P.S. The joys and benefits of extending your life thru offsprings are on a level you may never understand (they go deeper and beyond articulation!). What a joy and a privilege! Oh, tell my kids to get home Chrisfox8, lol!

Posted by: Stand4Truth | May 5, 2009 9:18 PM | Report abuse

To any of you gay people who call yourselves "married". You are not really married. Call yourselves that all you want, your "marriage" does not exist. It is just something to feel good about yourself. No matter what certain states might think, the FEDERAL government does NOT recognize any gay "marriages".

Posted by: therock2 | May 5, 2009 9:19 PM | Report abuse

You sound like you're having some sort of transport of ecstacy, Stand4. If I were you I would learn to suppress such euphoric states. People addled by drugs, infatuation, or ecstacy tend to make bad decisions.

So you love your kids. It'd be weird if you didn't. That has nothing to do with allowing people to form stable relationships, something that you wish for some peculiar reason to limit to people who squeeze out crotch cabbage.

Well, I don't like kids. Their voices bother my ears.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 5, 2009 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Again I must say be honest about this debate. It has nothing to do with equality. It has everything to do with gay rights. Why is gay marriage any better or any worse than allowing relatives to marry or polygamy? That fact is that there is no difference. NONE. If there were a difference than there would have been many responses telling everybody the difference. But there has not been one single person who can even give any responses to show the difference. I am not talking about any slippery slope either, because frankly to me they are the same. If you allow one on equality grounds I see no reason for you to exclude the others on equality grounds based on logic and fairness. I can understand why you dont want to have all three because it would not be polically popular. But your appeal is supposely based on fairness and logic not popularity. So Is anybody out there capable of making a rational and logic argument that differiates the equality of Gays being able to marry, but continued to bar polygamists and relatives to marry(that do not have the capacity to reproduce)?

Posted by: niceday971 | May 5, 2009 9:25 PM | Report abuse

therock2: you remind me of the legend of Tantalus.

If your real problem is the word, you need to get over it. In 20 years marriage will carry no overtone of heterosexuality anymore, gay marriage will be a national reality and people who recall opposition like yours will wonder what all the fuss was about, just as interracial relationships such as my own are entirely unremarkable.

Tide's coming in. Stand there and drown if it makes you feel better.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 5, 2009 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Seriously, if I wake up tomorrow and gay people can marry; how has my life changed at all?

Posted by: eor11 | May 5, 2009 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox8, to be honest and emotional, what is weird is your last point-- all together!!! LOL!

Posted by: Stand4Truth | May 5, 2009 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Well last i checked the constitution of the USA mandates separation of church and state. So if anything the issue of gay marriage should not be one of religion because this would be unconstitutional.

There is nothing holy about marriage. Heterosexuals have perverted and ruined the institution of marriage all these years, what does it hurt them to let two people of the same sex be entitled to it.

Posted by: rlj489 | May 5, 2009 9:36 PM | Report abuse

therock2, it is not the place of the federal government to recognize any marriage, gay or straight.

niceday971, when I speak of equality, I am speaking about under the in equal protection under the that sense it is about equality regarding some of the issues that gay rights activists raise. Regarding polygamists or incestuous are right, if we follow your logic there is no difference in the sense that opposition to it is based on a value judgment. Therefore gay marriage is no different than polygamist, incestuous or heterosexual marriage.

Posted by: wilsonmg_2000 | May 5, 2009 9:43 PM | Report abuse

rlj489: Actually the Bill of Rights forbids the establishment of a state religion; church state separation is clearly implied but the existence of a church is not. There need not be one at all, officially sanctioned or not. Many would argue that morality not based on religion is impossible but hey that's their conceptual limitation, and our history speaks plainly that the faithful are likelier to see inequality as "natural" while social justice tends to be led not by people of faith but by people free of faith's bonds.

But .. the cops can't be everywhere at once so we need faith's ability to inspire fear and inhibit rash action among those who would kill a neighbor for his bigger-screen TV, but who forebear because The Big Guy might be looking on.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 5, 2009 9:44 PM | Report abuse

niceday971, your post is thoughtful and provocative.

A short (and possibly unsatisfying) answer to your question is, NOBODY can marry a close relative or multiple people. Everyone is regarded as equal under the law in that regard.

On the other hand, individual adults can marry but are legally constrained by gender in some cases, which the law can't rationally justify. Hence, the inequality argument.

In fact, I would say that some form of polygamy does exist--Marion Barry has been married 4 times, as someone else pointed out. And relatives have been known to hook up.

Culture certainly influences how we look at questions like polygamy and relatives getting married; but the fact is, everyone is subject to the same laws in that regard.

When you look at it as an individual rights issue and eliminate racial and gender biases, it becomes very clear what the answer has to be under the law.

Posted by: Alan4 | May 5, 2009 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Stand4Truth: not weird at all. I have no intention of running for public office so I am free to proclaim that I don't like children. Last time my manager came to my office with his grubby some rubbing his candy-smeared fingers all over my computers and my desk I told him to take his kid back to his own office and park him there. I don't like kids; I don't dislike them either but I don't enjoy being around them. Their voices are irritating and I don't intend to goo-goo at their level.

The fact that you regard not enjoying the presence of children as "weird" just underscores how comfortable you are with projecting your own outlook onto everyone. It's common among the mealy-mouthed faithful, and you deserve to be called on it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 5, 2009 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox8, I said it that your entire point was weird, and I meant it. Now, I am not sure what you are attempting with this most recent point "calling me" on something?. As I said, I am sharing the knowledge in a debate fashion, you have the options....-- as you know!

Posted by: Stand4Truth | May 5, 2009 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Looks like "some fell on rocky ground"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 5, 2009 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Stand4Truth, I have to ask: How do you define "knowledge"? I ask because you keep talking about sharing knowledge but people have different ideas/epistemological approaches in forming knowledge. Maybe I would understand where you were coming from if I knew yours.

Posted by: wilsonmg_2000 | May 5, 2009 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, debating does not work for everyone, as some people attack and name call, instead of persuade. I am off to bed people- useless!!!!

Posted by: Stand4Truth | May 5, 2009 10:24 PM | Report abuse

"only a handful of openly gay residents"? I wonder if that has something to do with all the threatening, violent and dangerous homophobes living there?

Posted by: Manwolf | May 5, 2009 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Stand4: sounds like waking and sleep are much the same for you anyway.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 5, 2009 10:35 PM | Report abuse

What was it eight votes to pass the bill and one vote to keep the gay marriage illegal? That is pretty comprehensive.
It fills me with hope to find there are some Americans who are not preoccupied with what their neighbours do in bed.

Posted by: venisejbA | May 5, 2009 10:50 PM | Report abuse

I apologize, it was twelve in favour and one against. Very impressive.

Posted by: venisejbA | May 5, 2009 10:51 PM | Report abuse

venisejbA: not as impressive as the vote in Iowa, where the judges interpreted the law as law and not as subjectively as Stand4Truth is so comfortable in acting. They left their squeamishness at the door.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 5, 2009 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Why this man keeps getting reelected I will never understand?

As a gay black man in DC I know several heterosexual black residents who are in favor of gay marriage.

If you don't like it don't marry one.

Posted by: | May 5, 2009 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Good for the district and good for America.
Blindness to inequality under the law is not the exclusivity of one group of people. It is our collective prism.

Posted by: natirvin | May 5, 2009 11:28 PM | Report abuse

I see the freaks are out and about and just as suspected, the gay people are all over this thing. I recognize gay marriage ... I recognize it as unnatural and against the doctrine of all traditional religions. I once had a friend in high school who always talked about her gay friend. I asked once about her gay friend and she told me "Oh, he's not gay anymore." So much for the arguement that homosexuality is something people are born to be. By the way, this isn't about equal rights. It's about furthering your own political agenda. Even if you gain all the legal rights of bona fide marriages, you're still freaks and should be - uh, I'll stop here.

Posted by: johnmoran1 | May 5, 2009 11:36 PM | Report abuse

"I recognize it as unnatural"


This is meaningless. First of all, "natural" is scientifically meaningless, the word comes from a 50s ad campaign. Second of all, you're wrong, homosexual bonding is observed in hundreds of vertebrate species. Are you an invertebrate? You sound about as smart as one.


"and against the doctrine of all traditional religions."

So? Most religions were formed during backward and illiterate times by people who were afraid of lighting. What are you afraid of?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 5, 2009 11:43 PM | Report abuse

"By the way, this isn't about equal rights. It's about furthering your own political agenda."

hahahaha yeah people who love each other can't help but agitate for a Leninist world order.

Go punch a wall, stupid gooper troll

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 5, 2009 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Well its a done deal. Argue against it all you want. The Law has been passed and no amount of bible thumping and bigotry is going to change it.

Posted by: rlj489 | May 6, 2009 12:06 AM | Report abuse

Apart from the people he is hurting, it is really funny to see former Mayor-for-Life/"the bit** set me up" Barry stand anywhere near a moral compass. To watch him try to exploit racial differences in the District [again], however, is downright sad. His claim to being a long-standing supporter of gay rights [as well as his early legacy of fighting for the rights of minorities and District citizens] is greatly tarnished by his vote on this matter. In the end, regardless of what he says, it comes down to him having voted against treating gay people equally under the law.

Posted by: mikhastur | May 6, 2009 3:14 AM | Report abuse

In few years the First Lady could be a man?!?! Grazy world!

Posted by: eddietar | May 6, 2009 4:56 AM | Report abuse

The funny thing is that when most Americans wanted to discriminate against black people the Supreme Court said "Sure - why not" - Just like they do now with gay marriage. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.
You'd think they might have learned something in the last 100+ years but apparently not.

Posted by: cduwel | May 6, 2009 5:39 AM | Report abuse

"The people in the "real" America absolutely do not believe in gay "marriage". Once this stuff plays out in the very liberal northeast, you will see that nobody else will stand for this nonsense."

Then you need to stop taking our taxes. The NE by and large supports most of the southern states economically. If you really despise us so much why don't you go ahead and attempt secession again. It worked out so well for you last time around.

Posted by: HillMan | May 6, 2009 7:10 AM | Report abuse

What astounds me the most is the black 'minister' threatening to get Congress involved. Congress has treated blacks in DC horribly for a century plus now, often because they were black. And now this guy is willing to use that same instrument against gays?

This debate may end up being the death knell for black identity politics in DC. Blacks are no longer the majority in DC. They now have to compete with hispanics for identity politics power. And they are fracturing the liberal base that has traditionally fought for them. They may find that next time one of their issues comes along a good many 'good liberals' are going to be a lot less willing to fight the good fight for them.

Posted by: HillMan | May 6, 2009 7:13 AM | Report abuse

"All hell is going to break lose," Barry said while speaking to reporters. "We may have a civil war. The black community is just adamant against this."

I have to say this. Inasmuch as the greater society was wrong for discriminating against black people, black people, even if it is the majority of them, are now wrong for discriminating against gays.

Black people, particularly the black church, whether they accept it or not, are attempting to use the law to reinforce a discrimitory practice.

One thing God gave man was 'free will'. Taking in strong drink (alcohol) is in some interpretations of the bible, a sin. Where is the moral indignation over nightclubs and bars (ohhh. excuse me) those are places frequented often by church goers. It MUST then be OK.

The black chuch, once again, has latched onto an issue that polorizes and divides the black community, thereby reinforcing dangerous stigmas that have had devastating effects in the black family.

Is there a wonder that there is such a thing as a "Down-Low" brother in the black community and that the HIV infection rate among African American women is the HIGHEST IN THE NATION? The black church, would much rather rant and rave and reinforce a stigma against same sex anything, driving black men and women into the closet, where they are forced to engage in shadowy behavior that endangers the health and welfare of the entire community. They say they are not against their "existance" as if they have a choice. The Jesus I know is engaging and compassionate and never went before government of his time, seeking to use them to take away rights of others.

We have much to do in our own homes than to worry about what other's are doing in theirs. The black church needs to take the plank out of their eye before attempting to pluck the splinter out of the eye of the same sex couple.

Just because you were baptized in the NAME of Jesus does not mean that your behavior is Christ-Like. Most christian's I know raise hell Mon-Sat and posture as holy on Sunday.

The black church has to fix itself.

Pastor sell that Cadillac and live the life of the "least of those" within your congregation. Stop begging for the last few cents of a poor congregant to reinforce your lavish lifestyle.

Posted by: concernedaboutdc | May 6, 2009 7:36 AM | Report abuse

And this comes from a Black man who Divoiced 4 wives, commited corruption and drug use.

I am sure he stands on a very high moral ground and very close to his god!

Posted by: loveandpeace | May 6, 2009 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Council Member Barry might take a few hits for voting the way the People he represents wanted! Understand this "No One is Discriminating Against Gay People" how could this be so when America as a whole wanted to grant them Civil Unions? See its the word MARRIAGE is what they want to attack! It's the RIGHTS and BELIEF of America as a whole that they are attacking. When you have Gay folks like concernedaboutdc launching attacks against the Church and the Black Community, it reminds me of a child once a toy was taken away. God may have granted all of us FREEWILL, however God laid down many laws which we all should live by.

Outside of Religion this issues is one of choice and the choices of a few trying to out weight the choices of the Majority! The DC Council in writing such a bill should do the most powerful thing (Something Catania is scared of) put this measure to a VOTE! A bill like this is something a few City Officials do not have the RIGHT to demand. Cowards like Graham, Catania, and the rest of the Gay Council members know that if this was put on the ballot, this bill would be shot down just like in California! This Bill is about disenfranchising some many people so a few can get there way! By all means this is a breech in our Constitution and matter of fact DC Home Rule should be snatched away! The District is not a State nor a territory of the United States! Bad Judgment of the Council can set US precedent back more than a hundred years. Now I see why Voting Rights for the District should never HAPPEN! This is the same Council that destroyed the Second Amendment for purpose of flexing muscles against the HIGH COURT! It is time that the Supreme Court finally put a end to this matter as a whole! Define what MARRIAGE is and let it be written! This Matter will be stopped only when a FEW GOOD PATRIOTS do the job for which they are suppose too!

Posted by: CashNDC | May 6, 2009 8:12 AM | Report abuse

I will say one thing the gay movement sure is together. Most of the posts are from them. The best way for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. This issue is not about "civil rights", it is about LUST. When the government starts to dictate emotions them we have lost the race for Christains to speak their mind. I agree with the thought, that is will end in civil war. When the world startsto fail and liberals lose power. Crazy people will start witch hunts to try to prove to God they are sorry ( to late of course) But this group will be one of first attacked. God's will WILL prevail..

Posted by: Jackman4421 | May 6, 2009 8:26 AM | Report abuse

Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. So if I can summarize, smoking crack is not only OK, but even after going to jail, you can come back and get elected again, but getting hitched to someone of the same sex is cause for a civil war. Seems logical to me.

Posted by: blancadebree | May 6, 2009 8:36 AM | Report abuse

No, you are wrong. In 20 years, gay "marriage" will not be all over. Because, here in fly-over country the average man and woman would never, I repeat NEVER accept it as normal. It is an abnormality to be tolerated at times. For example, we were at a restaurant recently. A couple from out of state came in who were obviously gay. They were two women who were openly affectionate and kissed a couple of times. Yes, I know they were from out of state because we could hear their conversation. Anyway, we were there with our children and we needed to ask the waiter to have us moved away from them. He was very understanding and said he didn't blame us. Within 10 minutes, 3 other families also asked to be moved. You see, we don't hate these people, we can tolerate them. But we will NOT let our children believe that this is in any way normal behavior. In fact, it was a good teaching moment to tell them the ways things were supposed to be. It just doesn't happen away from the liberal strongholds of the northeast and California nearly as much as you would think. At least not in the open. Besides, like I said, even if you get "married" in one of those states, it is not a real marriage. Not really.

Posted by: therock2 | May 6, 2009 9:34 AM | Report abuse

What is the problem? Leave people to make their own decisions/lives as they will. I don't understand why people are so upset, it's not like anything is being taken out of their mouths or taken away from them. Leave the people alone. You don't have to associate with them if you don't want to do so. But remember, everybody is human and you never know, one day, you may need one of these people to help you!!!

Posted by: octavia1951 | May 6, 2009 9:48 AM | Report abuse

It's nice to see that the former mayor has cleaned up his act and is ably representing his constituency who clearly agrees with Pres. Barack "Dubya" Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the vast majority of American Voters that gay marriage should not be legal. I watch with eager anticipation to see if the bigoted gay fascists try to lynch Mr. Barry like they tried to lynch Ms California. My advice? Just say no to gay marriage. The gay fascists continually demonstrate they don't need or deserve it and it adds nothing of social value to this Nation.

Posted by: jujuexx | May 6, 2009 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Gay people have as much choice about being gay as black people have about being black. Any heterosexual who says otherwise needs to examine when they made the conscious decision to be straight in the face of an overwhelming attraction to the same gender. The fight for equality is 100% analogous to the black civil rights movement.

Why anyone cares about what Marion Barry has to say I don't understand. I love that he first voted for it, until he woke up and saw what he had voted for. Probably in some kind of drug stupor.

Posted by: beargulch | May 6, 2009 11:50 AM | Report abuse

It seems as if the majority of people who post on this site are for samw-sex marriage. That's great, but please show up at legislative hearings or the press (and legislators) will think more support exists against equal rights. You have to lobby in person where and when you can and not allow Bible-thumping bigots, black or any color, look like they're the majority. Show up!!! Posting a rant on a web site is pathetic and often a waste of time. We/you deserve better!!!

Posted by: ProudestLiberal | May 6, 2009 11:56 AM | Report abuse

People still listen to Marion Barry?

Posted by: Gutavo | May 6, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Isn't he in jail? Or shouldn't be be?

Posted by: mtravali | May 6, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Barry is voting against Fenty.

Posted by: robthom | May 6, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Many nigs enjoy smoking the bone.

Posted by: packaging88 | May 6, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

How sad and pathetic that the ignorant bigots of the black community can only find a four time divorced, crack lovin, DUI, prostitute using piece of trash to be their spokesperson. Well, actually, it's a pretty good representation of their congregations and their community. If Miss Marion has some bastard children in tow, then he'd be the perfect match.

Posted by: emjsea1 | May 6, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

GloriaFenwick -- since when did civil rights become contingent upon their being based on an inborn, immutable trait? By your reasoning, I suppose there should be no equality for Baptists or atheists or Muslims because religious faith is a choice. And so what if part of the push for marriage is about "money," as you say. So is the push for universal healthcare. Or for lower taxes on the middle class. Or anything else, really. Of course marriage carries with it economic (as well as pyschological, socialogical and spiritual) benefits. Gays have not claimed otherwise. We just demand our right to be treated equally before the law.

Posted by: jd2004dc | May 6, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

therock2 -- your post about moving your children away from a lesbian couple at a restaurant illustrates nicely the Christian precept about love of neighbor -- specifically, how far Christians today fall from the mark. Jesus gladly ate with sinners; you rudely asked to be moved away from those whom you perceive to be sinners. Which is why so many of us here on the coast are praying for y'all out in fly-over country. As John put it, "Whoever says, 'I love God,' but hates his brother [or sister] is a liar. The one who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love the God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20).

Posted by: jd2004dc | May 6, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Quite simply, it has been too long since black people have been slaves. Put Marion Barry and all of his constituents back in chains. Anybody protests, tie them to a post a whip them bloody. Cut off the foot of anybody who tries to run away. Tell them over and over that most people in the United States want this return to slavery, and if most people want something, that's the way it's going to be.

I imagine in a few months Mr. Barry and his constituents might be willing to consider the constitutionality of any given issue, even gay marriage.

Good Lord, but I so tire of how black people just love to beat down gays.

Posted by: mlincoln1 | May 6, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Actually, to contradict the haters in here saying that our institution of marriage originates in Bible, it's not. The modern, Christian idea of a monogamous marriage has its origins, not in the Old Testament (which advocated polygamy and the treatment of women as property) but in the pagan culture of the Greeks and Romans.

Monogamy was important in Greek culture because, unlike most of their contemporaries, the Greeks differentiated between membership in the Hellenic community (for which the requirement was only to speak Greek) and citizenship in the various city-states (which was solely jure sanguinis, by blood descent from two citizen parents). Monogamy was a way of maximizing the number of families producing new citizens to grow the population. Rome maintained a similar policy for similar reasons, with the innovation that young girls would marry men instead of marrying old men. That's essentially the practice adopted by the early church, and consequently the standard we have today.

So, to recap: pagans, not monotheists and definitely not Jews, are responsible for your "holy" institution of marriage.

Posted by: prezobama | May 6, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

@niceday971 "Why is gay marriage any better or any worse than allowing relatives to marry or polygamy? That fact is that there is no difference. NONE. If there were a difference than there would have been many responses telling everybody the difference."

Big difference. Polygomists choose to be. Incest is also a choice. Beastiality as well. Check your facts. Marriage was not for procreation. It was initially for men to aquire a woman's property. It was also very normal for a man to have more than 1 wife. But, as cultural changes came about, marriage was dramatically redefined. So please explain how less than 5% of the US population getting married is going to bring mayhem to everyone. I should also mention that gay couples have been raising children for at least a generation. This generation has a very powerful voice and showed this in November 2008. It's only a matter of time...and not as slow as you would hope. Information is too easily available and instant, in many cases. You may want to think about your "opinions". One day you will be relying on this new generation to take care of it looks, so far, they are not willing to take on the burdens from previous generations AND take care of them in old age.

Posted by: cksmith32 | May 6, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

The rock2 is an idiot and ignorant to state that gay people CHOOSE their lifestyle. That's more crap the religionists throw in people's faces. Shame on the so-called Christians for believing this kind of ignorant twaddle. Jesus lived with 12 men for 3 years. who's to say how they lived? I'm not intimating Jesus was gay, but he was about love. What about the anti-gay stance that religionist wing nuts espouse, especially the bible-thumpers, has anything to do with love? Nothing...that's what! Go to church and get on your knees and pray to be forgiven for your sins of arrogance and lack of brotherly love.

Posted by: danielmz1 | May 6, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing new under the sun. This is exactly the sentiment of my father during the civil rights era towards people that look like Barry. The civil war that Barry proposes will be comprised of the same stature of people who fight all civil wars -- people of determination and courage to secure their rights against ignorant, intolerant, and in Barry's case, hypocrites, who think that they are better than we are, and privileged to special treatment. And, Marion Barry, I pay my taxes, yet I don't receive equal benefits for my hard-worked-for tax dollars. These are sorry words from a sorry politician who continues to try and wreak havoc on the District of Columbia, a city that he bankrupted financially and his own personal life morally. During your tenure as Mayor, you instituted Paid for Being Black, now you institute Paid for Being Ignorant. What a suck-up.

Posted by: mradams | May 6, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

A question for THEROCK2: Would you have moved your family away had the couple kissing so openly and profusely been a straight couple?

IMHO, either way, the behavior would be considered disgusting (public displays of affection need to be kept to a reasonable public standard), but kissing between same-sex couples should not be the sole discriminator.

Posted by: luv2bikva | May 6, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

jd2004dc's post assumes I am a Christian and I moved my family away because they were sinning. I believe in God but am not as devout as I should be. I didn't really think of them as "sinning". What they were doing was DISGUSTING and against human nature. Not fit for my children's eyes. I certainly did not want to see two women kissing and stil want to eat my dinner, not and keep it down anyway. To the question of if I would have moved my family if a straight couple were kissing, of course not. The couple in question weren't all over each other or anything. They were merely sitting there and occassionaly kissing just like a normal couple would. I certainly would not mind seeing something so mild in public from normal people. The fact that they were open at all is what got us, and many others, to move away.
And yes, gay people do choose their lifestyle. I don't expect a gay person to believe this since they are too close to what they feel, but shuffle it up how ever you want, it isn't normal. Now, IF people were actually born this way, than it would be considered a birth defect. But that doesn't mean we need to lower society's standards to allow such filth in public. Are pedophiles born that way? If you can be born gay, you can be born a pedophile. I am not saying all gays are pedophiles. Both are perversions, though. Call me an idiot all you want, believe it or not, I do hold the majority of opinion of most people in America. Take, for instance, the states that do allow gay "marriage". Almost without exception, these laws were passed by judges and legislatures, NOT the people. Thank god California proved what the people really think. Maine will be voting on it this November. This, too, will be overturned by common sense.

Posted by: therock2 | May 6, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

jd2004dc also posts that they on the coast are praying for us in fly over country.

Do you even know who God is? We pray for you perverts so that you do not take this country the way of Sodom.

This was NEVER a religious argument. Only an argument about what is natural or not.

Posted by: therock2 | May 6, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Clearly THEROCK2 does not and is not expected to understand that being gay is not a choice. THEROCK2 and his/her ilk have simply been brainwashed with religious doctrine based on fear and prejudice.

Whether I'm gay or straight, seeing two people in the throes of PDAs (public displays of affection) in a restaurant or any other public place would probably turn my stomach. But now THEROCK2 says that s/he would move the family away only if the PDA was between gay people -- that's too much for me to handle.

A better way of putting it to your family would be to point out that while you may not agree with the fact that same-sex are kissing, this is something that occurs in nature and that they should probably not intrude on the PDA anymore than if it were a hetero-couple.

Posted by: luv2bikva | May 6, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Who let the Sons of Ham vote?

Posted by: Garak | May 6, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

When will people realize the majority does not rule in America. We are not a democracy. We are a republic that elects its representatives with democratic elections. In a republic, the rights of the few are more important than the will of the majority. Less we forget, the masses called for the crusifiction of Jesus. The majority was wrong.

Posted by: sfreitas | May 6, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

fr therock2:

>To be against gay marriage is not to hate gays, it is to hate their chosen lifestyle. It is wrong...<

One does NOT "choose" to be gay or straight. You are BORN gay or straight.

Posted by: Alex511 | May 6, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

savedgirl: "While I do not often agree with negroes, Barry is correct in this point. The struggle for civil rights for negroes cannot be compared with homosexuals demanding rights which are clearly prohibited by the Bible."

Gotta love the lower-case "negroes" (yeah, it's a real surprise that you don't agree with "negroes," unless they're laundering your pointy-headed sheets) as well as the snotty screenname - if you ARE saved, it's probably in Tupperware.

But it is worthwhile pointing out that slavery is clearly permitted by the Bible...too bad all those uppity negroes put an end to God's will, eh, girlie?

Posted by: mishi69 | May 6, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

If Gay Rights is the new Civil War, then Marion Barry is the new Jefferson Davis.

Posted by: AxelDC | May 6, 2009 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Maine's Governor John E. Baldacci, who had been on the fence, just signed marriage equality into law. That makes 5...

Posted by: cksmith32 | May 6, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

alex511: "One does NOT "choose" to be gay or straight. You are BORN gay or straight."

Anyway, an irrelevant argument when it comes to civil rights. Americans with disabilites have civil rights, whether they were born with their physical conditions or not. And nobody is BORN rightwing Christian, but religion is still protected under the Constitution. Hell, even ex-crackhead rabble-rousers have their rights, apparently.

Posted by: mishi69 | May 6, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

It is perfectly legitimate for D.C. not to discriminate against those who have been married in states that have decided that marriage includes a same sex combination. It is another thing to decide that same sex marriages should be legal in the District. That is a vote to which the representatives of the people of the District must be responsive to the mores and values of the voters of the District as much as anything else. Same sex marriage can not be a fundamental or civil right within the District, as it have never been recognized there. It is a new right that the representatives of the people must weigh in accordance with their best judgment and the judgment of the citizens of the District as to what is best for the District of Columbia as a whole.

Posted by: captn_ahab | May 6, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

"Whether I'm gay or straight, seeing two people in the throes of PDAs (public displays of affection) in a restaurant or any other public place would probably turn my stomach. "

Wow. That stopped me dead in my tracks. I don't know if you're still following the thread, luv2bikva, but can you elucidate? I mean, I appreciate your otherwise tolerant post, but...the sight of strangers kissing would actually distress you to the point of NAUSEA?? I'm gobsmacked.

Posted by: mishi69 | May 6, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Mayor-For-Life,

I will say to you what you onced said to your critics and opponents- GET OVER IT!

Posted by: overhereontheleft | May 6, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

I can't find a distinction between radicalized christians and radicalized muslims - that is to say, the radicalized religious everywhere. Give them a little power, and a lack of oversight from citizens like us, and people like "therock2" would opt to execute gays taliban-style.

Posted by: centinel | May 6, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

DC.. and now Maine

Clock is ticking, America.

Anyone who thinks that this country cannot go the way of Sodom, Rome and countless other societies may encounter a rude awakening. Thinking we are 'too enlightened' to fall into the pathetic pits these societies did before their demise is a head-in-the-sand mentality that will shock us beyond belief.

Posted by: dcwca | May 6, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

fr therock2:

>...They were two women who were openly affectionate and kissed a couple of times. Yes, I know they were from out of state because we could hear their conversation. Anyway, we were there with our children and we needed to ask the waiter to have us moved away from them....<

No, you did NOT "need to ask the waiter to have us moved away from them". All you needed to do was acknowledge that this was a same-sex couple, and tell your kids that people are either BORN gay or straight. I'd MUCH rather see a gay couple kissing than a "straight" one, HIS hands where they have no business being, HIS pants halfway off his backside, and HIS stupid baseball cap on backwards, slobbering all over each other.

Grow UP, get educated, and get a life.

Posted by: Alex511 | May 6, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

fr IsaacCrockett:

>Homosexuals do have equal rights and liberty. They have the EXACT SAME rights and obligations under marriage laws to marry as everyone else does. As such there is no unequal treatment..<

No, glbt's do NOT "have equal rights and liberty", in marrying the legal, consenting, unattached adult of our choice.

Posted by: Alex511 | May 6, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Mishi69 are you so stupid to believe that Savedgirl is anything other than a liberal just like you who wants to deceive people into thinking that Christians are racists?
C'mon, please! "while I do not often agree with negroes"? I also believe also that people are born STUPID.

Posted by: crispy4 | May 6, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Alex511

"No, you did NOT "need to ask the waiter to have us moved away from them". All you needed to do was acknowledge that this was a same-sex couple, and tell your kids that people are either BORN gay or straight."

Why would I want to lie to my children?! And you people need to quit calling me "religious". My arguments are absolutely not based on RELIGION. I realize there are people who do argue that point and that is fine, but my arguments are solely based on what is right and natural. And please do not say that I would have gay executed. What is wrong with you people (I mean, other than the obvious...). Just because somebody disagrees with your CHOSEN LIFESTYLE does not mean they HATE you. I do not hate gays. We even have one guy in our office who thinks he is gay. We also tease him that we need to get him a woman to set him straight (pun intended). But otherwise, he is a nice guy. Someday we will set him up on a proper date and he will see what he's been missing. And please don't suggest something stupid like "that's sexual harassment" or such, again, I remind you that this is flyover country. That's just the way it is around here. Even the boss gets in on the fun.
As far as the restaurant scene with the two lesbos. Yes, I needed to move our family. Hell, it was a lot more polite than getting in their faces and telling them how sick they are.

Posted by: therock2 | May 6, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

First came school vouchers now gay rights. Looks like liberals have decided that blacks aren't that important after all. HA! HA! HA!
But never mind. Come election day they will still all vote democrat. Like an abused wife they keep returning home for more punishment. HA! HA HA!

Posted by: roran_55 | May 6, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Apparently Barry is "adamant" against the use of proper grammar.

Posted by: bigbreakfast | May 6, 2009 10:16 PM | Report abuse

" Quote - The struggle for civil rights for negroes cannot be compared with homosexuals demanding rights which are clearly prohibited by the Bible."

It seems to me that slavery, and segregation were all justified per the bible.

9/11 was what another group thought "God Wants". and per their bible.

Whose God, by the way. My wife and myself belong to two different churches, both of which support and perform gay marriage religious ceremonies. The issue here is issuance of a civil marriage license for the legal benefits.

Bottom line - the old saying, which applies to the conservative churches "oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive".

And there are about 3 - 4 reasons why about 55-60% of black people are opposed to gay equality. I'll put these in another post shortly.

Posted by: SteveMD2 | May 7, 2009 12:08 AM | Report abuse

I promised in a previous post to give some examples of why black people are often homophobic, and don't see the connection between their human rights and gay folks human rights.

1. As members of a minority group who only finally, 150 years after slavery ended, are getting their rightful place in society, its easy to understand how Blacks do not want to be associated with another one of our societies denigrated minority groups. Lest they again become fodder for the same mentality people, who supported slavery and segregation. By and large the descendants of the same culturally / religiously corrupted people who denigrate and deny the humanity of gay people as well.

2. Given the grinding poverty and degredation of their humanity that black people endured due to discrimination, the only institution they had was the black churches. And so often, people who have little, fear losing what little they have, so they are very conservative on some issues.

3. Part of the terrible crimes committed against black people was to focus on denigrating the manhood of black males. The term "boy" was used to designate them as if they were not real mature human beings. And much of homophobia is also based on machoism, and the superior strength of the male and his role in society. It all fits together - the sensitivity of Black males to anything that questions their manhood, connecting with the idea old idea that gay men are sissies. BTW - don't kid yourself or I'll be glad to introduce you to a gay bouncer at a straight DC bar. He could break the average person like a pretzel.

4. Black women in our racist society were actually treated much better then the black men. They were often good enough to help bring up wealthy white people's children, and be maids, etc, while the black men were denigrated and denied jobs and their own sense of self worth. So, for many black women, finding an eligible black male who could earn a living was a problem. And black gay men became just another group of potentially eligible men who were not candidates for marriage and raising a family. And the worst kept secret within black communities is that there are a very significant number of gay black people. Often terrorized into Satan's closet of shame, for all hell breaks loose if they admit who they are.

Posted by: SteveMD2 | May 7, 2009 12:36 AM | Report abuse

One personal attack on Marion Barry. I've seen lots of news items over the years about him, most not complementary.

One sticks out like a sore thumb - that he was a real wife abuser. Obviously not a very nice man.

And re gay marriage, anytime we can get a 12 to 1 majority for something, I think we have to always accept there will be someone who is an anti-, for some of the reasons I've listed in another post.

If Mr. Barry was a leader, a good man, rather then a follower and opportunist, he would be preaching to his constituents that "God loves all, we are all made in His Image". Not just being a politician who perpetuates our societies failings, rather then helping to build a better nation. That would be real leadership on his parts, but that of course takes real strength of character.

Posted by: SteveMD2 | May 7, 2009 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Why is everyone on this thread not stating the obvious? Marion Barry is only 1 of 7 blacks on the City Council. So that means 6 blacks voted for marriage equality. I would say 6 is more reflective of the black community in DC than 1.

Try to turn that into bigoted spin. I can't wait to see what some of you come up with.

They were bribed! They were coerced! They were drunk! They were too educated to make this decision! They hate God! They know too many gay people!

Dumb is dumb. Piss on that!

Posted by: cksmith32 | May 7, 2009 7:42 AM | Report abuse

I'm actually gay myself. A big, fat, slovenly lesbian.

Posted by: therock21 | May 7, 2009 10:25 AM | Report abuse

As a libertarian, I'm rather amazed at the hatred expressed on here towards those who oppose homosexual marriages.

For those liberals who support homosexual marriage: haven't you ever thought that since there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, the government shouldn't be involved in civil marriages at all? And don't dare tell me marriage isn't a religious issue: it's one of the seven sacraments for the Roman Catholics. In fact, the first marriage laws were to prevent interracial marriages. We should get rid of the idea of government bigotry in marriage by separating government and marriage altogether. If everybody feels the absolute urge to have the government intrude into conjugal affairs, why not replace civil marriages with civil unions, while allowing churches and whatnot to perform marriage ceremonies and allowing them to deny marriage to whomever they wish? This would seem to me the best solution, but many seem to have an either/or situation, even the self-named liberals, some of who claim that many issues transcend the black-and-white scenario into the grey area. Sometimes, on a multiple-choice test, the answer may be C or D, but you only look at A or B.

Posted by: BigRedPlatypus | May 7, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

fr BigRedPlatypus

What are you talking about? Civil marriage already court houses in every state. Which means govt already plays a role in marriage. Just not "church marriage". I'm not sure if you've done any research on this, but, I would suggest you do.

Name 1 of the 5 states that have "civil marriage" that are trying to impose "church marriage" for same sex couples. so and I will re-cant.

Posted by: cksmith32 | May 7, 2009 11:34 AM | Report abuse

fr therock2:

>...Why would I want to lie to my children?! And you people need to quit calling me "religious". ......Just because somebody disagrees with your CHOSEN LIFESTYLE does not mean they HATE you. I do not hate gays......We even have one guy in our office who thinks he is gay. We also tease him that we need to get him a woman to set him straight (pun intended). But otherwise, he is a nice guy. Someday we will set him up on a proper date and he will see what he's been missing. And please don't suggest something stupid like "that's sexual harassment" or such, again......As far as the restaurant scene with the two lesbos. Yes, I needed to move our family. Hell, it was a lot more polite than getting in their faces and telling them how sick they are.<

You know, it's really sad that you're so against same-sex couples. Like I said, you did NOT have to "move" your family. It'd be better if you just left the restaurant, altogether. Problem solved. Oh, and the word is not "lesbos". Lesbians is the proper term.

What if one of YOUR kids came out to YOU? Would you call your daughter a "lesbo", or something even worse, or would you accept her for who she is? I hope it's the second option.

Posted by: Alex511 | May 7, 2009 11:58 AM | Report abuse

this kind of stuff makes me sick....let people marry who they want to marry.....i am black and i feel that black people need to support other black people this is not slavery......hopefully this bill will pass, i cant wait.

Posted by: mylyfe | May 7, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Black people. Haha. You gotta love em.

Posted by: bugaboo1 | May 7, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry. My children are normal. I don't have to worry about them being confused and thinking they are gay.

No, I am pretty sure the word I meant to say was, in fact, lesbo. How queer of you to think otherwise.

As far as my family leaving the restaurant. It was not MY family who was going against the norm in society. We were just eating our dinner. You might be used to seeing gays holding hands in public and kissing. It is NEVER seen around here. That is not me just closing my eyes to it. That is just the truth. You DO NOT see it.
Thank god.

Posted by: therock2 | May 7, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

fr therock2

"You might be used to seeing gays holding hands in public and kissing. It is NEVER seen around here. That is not me just closing my eyes to it. That is just the truth. You DO NOT see it."

It depends on where you live. May I ask where you live?

Posted by: cksmith32 | May 7, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

therock2 spews: "I do not hate gays.
As far as the restaurant scene with the two lesbos. Yes, I needed to move our family. Hell, it was a lot more polite than getting in their faces and telling them how sick they are."

Jeez, I wouldn't want to see how you treat people you DO hate.

"We even have one guy in our office who thinks he is gay. We also tease him that we need to get him a woman to set him straight (pun intended). But otherwise, he is a nice guy. Someday we will set him up on a proper date and he will see what he's been missing."

Interesting, since such a big proportion of your vociferously antigay brothers - think Ted Haggard, Larry Craig - seem intent on seeing what THEY'RE missing. Not that I'm suggesting you jump the fence; better that you stay on your own side. When I see het guys like you, makes me wonder why I'm attracted to men in the first place.

Still, I'm kinda hoping one of your kids turns out to be LGBT. Would make for interesting scenes at the Olive Garden.

Posted by: mishi69 | May 7, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Mishi69 "are you so stupid to believe that Savedgirl is anything other than a liberal just like you who wants to deceive people into thinking that Christians are racists?"

Oops, I stand corrected. There are no Christian racists.

Happy now?

Posted by: mishi69 | May 7, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Whoops, sorry...screwed my last post up to the point of unintelligibity, and there's no edit function.....

try again...

crispy4 asked me: "Mishi69 are you so stupid to believe that Savedgirl is anything other than a liberal just like you who wants to deceive people into thinking that Christians are racists?"

I replied :

Oops, I stand corrected. There are no Christian racists.

Happy now?

Posted by: mishi69 | May 7, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

For cksmith32:

I understand the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage; however, I find it rather odd that the states hijacked the word marriage in order to prevent interracial unions, when before that the states were in no way intruding into marriage. They label it "civil" marriage to identify its legal recognition. And did I ever say that any state was forcing religious institutions to marry people? If so, I recant that. What I'm merely saying is that in America, Marriage was a societal, religious issue long before it was a legal issue, and it should've remained that way.

Posted by: BigRedPlatypus | May 7, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Washington Citizens vote the council members out that stood for this immoral act. Block, Ban whatever you have to do to stand against this UNGODLY law. GOD will never and nor will the American people accept homosexual marriage not because of hate or fear but because its a culture of DEATH. Based On The Bible, THEY CAN'T PRODUCE anything but DEATH. So, is GOD homophobic? GOD calls this life style sinful and a disease to society. This lifestyle is from the gates of HELL. We have some people let in this nation that still know the difference between RIGHT and WRONG remember that? This is one of the reason why I didn't vote for Obama and the democracts. Look what side there on! NEED I SAY ANYTHING MORE. This opens the door to all other deviant behavior. This is not normal. Maine Citizens should Veto as well. Contact the American Center for Law and Justice. Jay Sekulow 4 more details. WaKe up Maine you have Fight left!!!

Posted by: zoe2087 | May 7, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

zoe2087: "GOD will never and nor will the American people accept homosexual marriage not because of hate or fear but because its a culture of DEATH. Based On The Bible, THEY CAN'T PRODUCE anything but DEATH. So, is GOD homophobic? "

Gee, I don't know. I do know that your god SLAUGHTERED a whole generation of innocent Egyptian boys in pursuit of political ends. I know he DESTROYED whole towns - men, women, and children - to make room for the Israelites. I know he demands DEATH for fortunetellers, adulterers, and kids who curse their parents. And I know he wouldn't forgive Adam eating that apple unless his own kid got TORTURED to DEATH. So when it comes to violent, vicious DEATH, Yahweh would seem to be an expert. As Richard Dawkins says, "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction."

Face it, sweetie, if this were about fortunetelling instead of fornication, your holy panties wouldn't be in a twist over what your deity decrees.

Posted by: mishi69 | May 7, 2009 6:05 PM | Report abuse

johmoran1: "I once had a friend in high school who always talked about her gay friend. I asked once about her gay friend and she told me "Oh, he's not gay anymore." So much for the arguement that homosexuality is something people are born to be. "

So you're basing your understanding of human sexuality on what some high school girl once told you her friend said? And you can tie your own shoes? You get to vote? You expect us not to fall to the floor in paroxysms of laughter over what has to be one of the most moronic pieces of "evidence" yet brought up in this debate?

Dude, if I were you, I'd be embarassed...though you clearly have no shame.

Posted by: mishi69 | May 7, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

therock2: "Don't worry. My children are normal. I don't have to worry about them being confused and thinking they are gay."

And you know that how, exactly? Have you been spying on them having sex, or what? I mean, I know if I were your lucky offspring, I'd have no problem telling such an understanding, open-minded, spiritually generous fellow anything. Anything at all. Yeah...sure.

Posted by: mishi69 | May 7, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Mishi: Some people might actually have a relationship with their children, such as I have with my parents. Believe it or not, parents may know their kids just as well if not better than some of the kids' friends do. Just a thought.

Posted by: BigRedPlatypus | May 7, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Big Red: Yes, children have relationships with their parents. But if I had a Dad who thought "lesbos" were "sick," who'd shuffle his family around a restaurant to avoid sitting near gays, and I was having feelings around same-sex attractions, would I choose to confide in him? Would you? Believe it or not, kids may know their parents, too. And plenty of GLBT children growing up in intolerant homes remain deeply (and unhappily) in the closet.

Just a thought.

Posted by: mishi69 | May 7, 2009 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Well, my dad's like that, actually (he moved back to West Virginia after the divorce for a reason). And btw, I personally feel that I can confide in my dad just fine. Heck, I even told him that I once smoked weed. I got a reaction that I expected out of him: understanding, yet reprimanding. No, I wasn't really punished really beyond what Andy Griffith would've done. But, I would say that when I told my mom (whom, btw, I thought would be upset about me smoking marijuana - I mean, extremely upset), she was just as understanding with me as my dad was. And yes, both of my parents are conservative (although, my dad is in some respects moreso than my mom is). So, while it may take me awhile to confide in my parents if I were homosexual, I'd eventually do it.

Posted by: BigRedPlatypus | May 7, 2009 6:59 PM | Report abuse

BigRed: Yeah, well, one family is not like all others. And one might argue that "smoking marijuana once," while illegal, does not carry the burden of psychic baggage that coming out to one's parents does. I repeat: From what I see of therock2 (I assume he's referring to The Scorpion King, and not Rock Hudson, right?), I doubt I'd feel at ease coming out to him. Not that his kids aren't all straight as a board, just that I wouldn't think they'd feel all that at ease coming out to him if they weren't. "Oh yeah, Dad, I have something to tell you. I'm confused and sick..."

Sure thing.

Posted by: mishi69 | May 7, 2009 7:08 PM | Report abuse

So, you're assuming from his political and moral beliefs that his kids wouldn't want to come out to him? That's kind of a stretch - that is, unless you knew him personally.

Posted by: BigRedPlatypus | May 7, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

BigRed: So you think that if his daughter knew (or even intuited) he thought "lesbos" were "sick" and to be shunned, that it was cool to tease gay men at work, she'd still want to come out to him? For heaven's sake, why? Overwhelming guilt? To punish herself? To punish him?

I grew up in a very liberal household (though, granted, back in the Paleolithic) and still felt overwhelming pressure to stay in the closet till I left home.

Listen, we obviously have different views of human psychology. It's been swell, but I feel like we're just talking to one another.


Posted by: mishi69 | May 7, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

BigRed: I know I kinda signed off, but I realized I was curious. Knowing full well it might upset them, just why did you choose to tell your parents you smoked grass? To explain your tie-dyed T-shirts? To account for the missing Oreos? Why?

Posted by: mishi69 | May 7, 2009 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, I guess we'll just agree to disagree. But as to why I told my parents: My dad kinda suspected something when I came home to his place, went straight to bed, and started blasting Hank Williams Junior's "Family Tradition." So I felt it best to tell him, knowing he wouldn't be too upset. I didn't know if he called my mom to tell her, so I figured that when I left West Virginia and went back home in Indiana, I just more or less told her. Turns out my dad didn't tell her, but her joy of me being truthful somewhat overshadowed her anger of me smoking weed, which explains her reaction.

Posted by: BigRedPlatypus | May 7, 2009 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Not to go there.

But a man who cheated on his wife with her best friend is extolling the virtues of marriage.


Posted by: 411Tibby | May 8, 2009 1:38 AM | Report abuse

For the first time in his life Barry is right on a particular issue. From early in it's history America has had laws on the books against the abnormal, sick and anti-social behavior that is sodomy. I must ask, who would know more about what laws are needed, the people who were around when the Constitution was born, or the idiotic, pointy-headed marxists who are mucking up America these days?

Posted by: megedagik | May 8, 2009 8:26 AM | Report abuse

I KNOW my children aren't gay because they are loving very normal children. I don't know how to explain this to you all the way you would fully understand and accept it, but you ARE NOT born gay. It is a choice that you make at some point later in life. THAT IS A FACT. You cannot prove you are born gay. Nature is man/woman. That's it. It was funny, I was watching one of those television judge shows the other day and she called one of the witnesses a GUG. She defined it as "gay until graduation." That is typical. Sometimes people get lost. They get confused on their way. They make bad choices. And sometimes people convince themselves that they are gay.
By the way, why to gays associate themselves as GLBT? I mean, I know what it stands for, but I really think you hurt your cause by associating with transexuals. There are many people who might be more accepting if you were talking gays and lesbians. But when you start talking about transexuals. Come on, those freaks really turn a lot of people's stomachs. Not that I want to help your side or anything, but your cause would go much further if you disassociated yourselves with those types of people. For instance, in Florida they want to pass a law where transsexuals can go into a male or females bathroom (whichever is the opposite of what sex they actually are). I will be DAMNED if one of those people tries to go into a bathroom with one of my little daughters. That is the kind of stuff that makes people angry.

Posted by: therock2 | May 8, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse


I'm not normal, but there is NOTHING wrong with me, so shove it!

I do not know if I was born gay, but I DID NOT CHOOSE IT. I have had sexual attraction towards men for AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER--since I was a young child! I NEVER CHOSE.

I also grew up in a conservative, Christian family that is VERY against homosexuality. It was emphasized repeatedly to me during my childhood that I had better not be gay, and that it was a sin and sick. Also, NOBODY told me it was OK. I was VERY sheltered and not exposed to liberalism until I went away for college, and I did not have pro-gay friends at school, so: why would I CHOOSE that?

I TRIED to choose to be straight--I lied about how I really felt all through my adolescence. I fabricated lies that I was attracted to certain female celebrities. I even tried dating a girl. It went nowhere and was INCREDIBLY uncomfortable for me. It felt wrong even though everything I was raised to believe said it was right. I HATED myself. I cried to myself, and I prayed to God to change me, to make it go away. NOTHING HAPPENED.

I went to college with the same attitude, but I was no longer sheltered and I had a thirst for understanding. I accepted that this was who I was. As a result, I am content with myself and I have never been more confident that what is RIGHT is to be HONEST and TRUE to myself!

Do you realize how much you HATE? What did transsexuals ever do to you or your children? They're not perverts or freaks, they're PEOPLE who were BORN that way and they're just trying to live their lives! They don't fit into your ignorant, limited view of M/F sexes, but they still need to use a frickin' restroom, so again: shove it!

Posted by: Pawper | May 9, 2009 8:26 PM | Report abuse

To Pawper:
You are obviously filled with hate and rage the way you feel about youself. If you feel you have no choice but to act on your beliefs, than you are a pervert. I am sorry you hate yourself so much that you feel this way. Perhaps a visit with a psychologist can help you on your journey. You obviously are confused and angry. I recomend a date with a woman. That should clear things right up.
As far as transexuals, yes, they are freaks...and they BETTER NOT try to go to the bathroom with MY children.
No, I am not filled with hate, as you are. I only know what is right. I do not have an ignorant nor a limited view of M/F relationships. There could be nothing simpler. It is you who seems to get it all wrong. I pity your hatred.

Posted by: therock2 | May 11, 2009 11:45 AM | Report abuse

oh, and transexuals were not born that way any more than you were born "gay". It is a choice you make. Period.

Posted by: therock2 | May 11, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company