Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Elections Board Blocks Marriage Referendum

The D.C. elections board blocked an effort today to hold a referendum on whether the District should recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, handing gay rights advocates a major victory.

The decision by Board of Elections and Ethics removes one of the last remaining hurdles to the legislation that the D.C. Council approved in May.

The bill is slated to become law in early July after the required congressional review period has ended. It does not appear as if the Democratic-controlled Congress plans to intervene.

Earlier this month, the Bishop Harry Jackson led a group of predominately African-American ministers in seeking to put the issue before voters. They accused the city Council of enacting the legislation with little input from the public.

But the elections board sided with city officials and gay rights advocates, who argued a referendum would violate the law.

Under District elections law, a referendum cannot appear on the ballot if it violates the city's Human Rights Act. The act, approved in 1977, prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians and other minority groups.

"To the extent that the proposed referendum would suspend the Council's action to recognize lawful foreign same-sex marriages on the same terms as lawful foreign heterosexual marriages, the proposed measure would run counter to the letter and spirit of the" Human Rights Act, Attorney General Peter Nickles argued to the elections board in written testimony last week.

In its ruling, the elections board also cited the Human Rights Act. "Because the referendum would authorize discrimination prohibited by the HRA, it is not a proper subject for referendum, and may not be accepted by the Board," the ruling states.

Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, had threatened to go to court if the board ruled against him.

Even if he were to succeed in court, Jackson is running out of the time to gather the 21,000 signatures that would be needed to put the issue on the ballot before the bill becomes law.

Council member David A. Catania (I-At large) said he plans to introduce a separate proposal later this that would allow same-sex marriages to be performed in the District. At the gay pride parade on Saturday, Catania was handing out "marriage equality now" signs.

That proposal could trigger another battle over whether voters should have a say. Today's ruling applies only to the bill recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The board's opinion, however, suggests that opponents will have to develop new arguments as to why same-sex marriage should not be considered as a civil right protected under the Human Rights Act.

--Tim Craig

By Tim Craig  |  June 15, 2009; 4:26 PM ET
Categories:  Tim Craig  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Rhee Says Thanks. And Thanks Again
Next: FOP President Blasts Council Before Crime Bill Vote

Comments

Good! Enough of these bigots in clerical collars!

Posted by: PepperDr | June 15, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Hooray!

Posted by: CrestwoodKat | June 15, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Disallowing civil rights to be voted on and the separation of Church and State....Jefferson would be proud. The Nations Capital has shown the World that compassion and integrity are once again alive in America

Posted by: JPB516 | June 15, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse


That's good.

A "referendum" on people's civil rights and equal treatment under the law is total bullsh1t. Discrimination is wrong.


Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | June 15, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how the hypocritical reverends will respond.

Gay marriage threatens everyone and out civilization since everyone will become gay.

Posted by: kenk3 | June 15, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Thank God for the United States Congress. As you intervened recently regarding votings rights vs gun rights for DC citizens, your services are needed now more than ever, moderate democrats and republican Members of Congress. These idiots on the Council and at the Election Board are just playing government. Show them how the game is played---checkmate.

Posted by: bill121 | June 15, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Can't have a vote or the gays would lose in a landslide.

Posted by: PowerBoater69 | June 15, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Gays trump blacks.

Posted by: bandmom22 | June 15, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Another victory for self-righteous elitists who favor democracy only when they are sure it will produce their preferred outcome. In other words, business as usual for the leftist establishment.

Posted by: arimathean | June 15, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Why my neighbor should be allowed to vote on my Civil Rights is beyond me.

Tyranny of the majority anyone?

Posted by: CrabHands | June 15, 2009 5:15 PM | Report abuse

This is the right decision. We have an indirect democracy in part to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

Posted by: Haien | June 15, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

I am very happy with this decision. This shouldn't even be an issue, everyone is guaranteed equality under the United States Constitution. Peoples civil rights and right to equality should not even be challenged. Now if the California judges only had balls to realize that, but they succumbed to threats and concern of being voted out.

Posted by: shadow_man | June 15, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

arimathean: If you don't like the "all men are created equal", you are free to move to the Middle East. Why is this even for vote, when it's an equality issue? Unless you don't support equality, one of the main principles of our great nation.

PowerBoater69: In Calfornia, 52-48 is not a landslide. Many other states are closing the gap. Ignorance will die out.

Posted by: shadow_man | June 15, 2009 5:28 PM | Report abuse

It is most interesting that 'traditional concepts' of 'marriage,' never really envisioned two EQUAL partners.

The last time that I checked, the two traditional partners in a marriage were far from equal, and only in the 20th century, did a woman advance beyond being the 'personal property' of initially her father and then later, her husband.

Which was arguably an advance from the Garden of Eden, where God never speaks to Eve directly at all, but always thru Eve's husband, Adam.

Anyone care for a Virginia Slim ??? LOL

Posted by: brucerealtor@gmail.com | June 15, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Well I live in Mississippi U.S.A. and even here in the deep south we are not as "BIGOTED" as they obviously are in D.C..
I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funersl. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. Shame on you D.C. Who are the bigots now?

Posted by: missipemudbugyahoocom | June 15, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse

A big win for basic rights and a huge loss for bigots, rightwingnuts, and other assorted clowns.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | June 15, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Yep, just like women and blacks.
___________________________________________

Can't have a vote or the gays would lose in a landslide.

Posted by: PowerBoater69 | June 15, 2009 5:11 PM

Posted by: seaduck2001 | June 15, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

At least Iran goes through the pretext of self-government. Too bad that the city which moans about Congress imposing things without the city's consent is all too happy to impose same-sex "marriage" without the consent of the people.

Washington, D.C. -- of the government, by the government, and for the government.

Another victory for authoritarianism.

Posted by: ooyah32 | June 15, 2009 5:36 PM | Report abuse

"Well I live in Mississippi U.S.A. and even here in the deep south we are not as "BIGOTED" as they obviously are in D.C..
I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funersl. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. Shame on you D.C. Who are the bigots now?"

Cletus, sorry for your loss but it looks like Mississippi is as illiterate as ever. If you knew how to read you'd understand that this development is a GOOD thing for gays (and those of us who favor equal rights for all).

So why don't you re-read the story and then apologize to DC.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | June 15, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

F A N T A S T I C !

Bishop Jackson hates Gays, so I'm sure he's telling his flock that Satan has won. Oh the irony of it all.

Posted by: Dale8 | June 15, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

ooyah32: So you're saying every time Congress makes a decision, they have to ask the people? You know how many ballots would be given out? What would be the point of a government then? Let the people rule themselves! See how absurd your argument is?

Posted by: shadow_man | June 15, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

I propose a referendum in Maryland to strip Harry Jackson of his title of Bishop and to decree him the "Bigot of Beltsville."

Posted by: ashafer_usa | June 15, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Chill out, ooyah32. Our democratically elected Council and Mayor approved the legislation.

Posted by: efs5r | June 15, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse

"Another victory for authoritarianism."

Blah, blah, blah. And HOW has this "authoritarianism" impeded YOUR personal rights or liberties in any way? Oh, that's right. It hasn't.

Posted by: nvamikeyo | June 15, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Jackson has multiple homes and only registered as a DC resident a short while ago. Interestingly, he lives in a one bedroom apartment with a man.

I'm sorry Ms. Jackson, I am for real...but I want to know what kind of collar you wear after you take off the clerical one?

Posted by: ajc4 | June 15, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

ooyah32,
I'm curious as to what you mean by "impose same-sex "marriage"." How exactly, or what exactly, is being imposed on you? Are you going to have to marry someone of the same sex? Are you going to have to attend same-sex weddings against your will? I really don't know what is being imposed on you so please tell me.

Posted by: nmoses | June 15, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

It's good to see that the Elections Board recognizes that human right can not be put to a popular vote.

I am a little confused by bandmom22's statement that "Gays trump Blacks" though. First, you are assuming (wrongfully might I add) that those are mutually exclusive groupsand that greater civil rights for one is a blow against the other. Second, despite claims on both sides of this issue, the DC Black community is not as opposed to marriage equality and lgbt right as people keep assuming. Finally, even if the Black community (which doesn't think in unison on any issue to begin with) does have a higher relative rate of opposition to marriage equality, we are not going to win any allies by trying to set up false dichotomies between these communities which are more intricately interconnected than they appear. So, please people, stop trying to setup barriers and start creating dialogue.

Rant done.

Posted by: mercutio3 | June 15, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Dear Koolkat_1960-
I am so sorry for your loss.
I hope a day will come when no one else suffers this double loss because their partner is of the same sex.
I hope we are now a bit closer to that future in DC.

Posted by: Judy9 | June 15, 2009 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I believe same sex unions threaten my own marriage, and I can barely stand my wife now as it is.

Posted by: thingsthatshine | June 15, 2009 5:54 PM | Report abuse

"Dear Koolkat_1960-
I am so sorry for your loss.
I hope a day will come when no one else suffers this double loss because their partner is of the same sex.
I hope we are now a bit closer to that future in DC."

Thanks Judy -- the loss was suffered by missipemudbugyahoocom, not me. Otherwise, I fully agree with your thoughts.


Posted by: koolkat_1960 | June 15, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

everybody should have the right to become miserable.

Posted by: californicationdude | June 15, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

one step closer to the freak show

Posted by: davis_renee | June 15, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

"Powerboater wrote:

Can't have a vote or the gays would lose in a landslide."

Same would have been true for Blacks in the 20th century. Even opponents of marriage equality can't deny that. Thank God we didn't have referendums on my rights in the 1960s.

Posted by: CrestwoodKat | June 15, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Does this mean that half of the population of Arlington is moving into the District?

Posted by: PowerBoater69 | June 15, 2009 6:04 PM | Report abuse

It's good that the D.C. Elections Board declined to put forward a referendum on the very important LGBT right of same-sex marriage. Referendums are not the best approach to recognize the right of same-sex marriage because same-sex marriage is a right, thus there should be no gamble with a referendum.

Posted by: LibertyForAll | June 15, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

How would such a referendum discriminate against the perverts?

Posted by: ImpeachObama | June 15, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I still wish someone would give a coherent argument about where the natural right to to a gay marriage comes from--and I don't mean whether it's in the Bible or not.

The right to pursue happiness? OK, but what inherently natural objective is being gained by gay marriage? Don't tell me it's "love" because one can love without any kind of marriage.

Don't tell me it's any number of rights involving inheritance, visitation, and all those other things because gays can get those in other ways--and do have those rights in many places.

What then?

Posted by: Bluefish2012 | June 15, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Think there were no gay slave holders?? Yeah, right!!!!!

Posted by: davis_renee | June 15, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I don't think power boaters should have the right to marry. But that's just my opinion.

Posted by: seaduck2001 | June 15, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

I see the rightwingnuts are up in arms over this....good!

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | June 15, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

...not only right wingers disagree...

Posted by: davis_renee | June 15, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

I could care less one way or the other but it is disturbing that people are disparaging religion.

Posted by: davis_renee | June 15, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

AHmadinijad is on the DC City Council. What the voters want doesn't matter.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | June 15, 2009 6:20 PM | Report abuse

EVERYONE HAS RIGHT TO OPINIONS FOR THIS IS AMERICA.

It seems that soon anyone might be able to marry a tree,...or a rock,....or even a cloud,.....and here,.... "the sky is the limit..."
Perhaps all obeys to the obvius deterrorium of VALUES and FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, that traditionally gives our country STRENGTH and STRUCTURE.
The dyamics are profiling moves, vetorizing possible outcome of ANARCHY.

Should that is let to happen, subsecuent generations will lack of those so important and fundamental VALUES .It is our RESPONSABILITY to leave for the ones coming after us, much better scenario than the one we found. The so called "inferior spieces" keep their young at the standards indicated by the nature of things where they live - they are very faithful to that.

Should we have the audacity to call ourseleves 'the superior ones",- ( and we brag about it a lot ) - then on that alone, we should be able to surpass the standarized trends for we (suposely) have the INTELLECT.However, sadly, it looks we are gong backwards.We seems to be DEVOLVING instead of EVOLVING.

Is up to each of us , and collectively as society, to PRESERVE THE VALUES AND FUNDAMENTALS for ourselves and for the ones coming behind us. ANARCHY is not an option. To try to find 'an angle' to substanciate and / or excuse puny things that devalue our structure that kept us as strong nation for so many long time,...is AUTO-DESTRUCTIVE.

Common sense will help a lot on this.
Good day everyone,
Daniel Cabrera
Merrillville, indiana

Posted by: morcab | June 15, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

ImpeachObama wrote:

How would such a referendum discriminate against the perverts?
-----------------------
You do know IO, that one out of three gay bashers is a repressed gay themselves. Something you want to tell us? You do put up such a nelly fuss there, big guy.

Posted by: Dale8 | June 15, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

"Earlier this month, the Bishop Harry Jackson led a group of predominately African-American ministers in seeking to put the issue before voters. They accused the city Council of enacting the legislation with little input from the public."
================
Well, duh.
That's because this is an issue that should not be decided by the will of the people. This is an issue where basic civil liberties should be PROTECTED by the law. The law can't GRANT these rights, as they are rights that should never have been denied to begin with. Any law that forbids same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, and is a vestige of a long-gone era where the government used their power to limit the freedoms of large percentages of the population, as opposed to PROTECTING freedoms, which is all that government should be allowed to do.

How ironic that a group of African-Americans rallied around this referendum - what if the freedom of their ancestors had been left up to a popular vote rather than a forcible action by the administration, performed against the will of a large number of Americans?

THE PEOPLE do not get to decide what rights some people do not get to exercise, when the exercise of those rights does no harm to the civil rights of anyone else.

Sometimes the government has to be brave enough to legislate what is RIGHT as opposed to what is POPULAR. Then and only then do attitudes truly start to change.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | June 15, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

fr missipemudbugyahoocom:

>...whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funersl. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair...<

I am SO sorry for your loss. Please know that your life partner is in Heaven, safe in the arms of Christ, watching over you each day. He's still with you.

Posted by: Alex511 | June 15, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

you cannot compare the hardships suffered during slavery to the "hardship" of not being wed. Period.

Posted by: davis_renee | June 15, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

ooyah said:
"Too bad that the city which moans about
Congress imposing things without the city's consent is all too happy to impose same-sex "marriage" without the consent of the people.
Another victory for authoritarianism."
======================
You're just mad because your brand of authoritarianism is losing its grip on American society.

Government is there to protect the rights of EVERYONE, regardless of popular opinion (actually, your opinion doesn't seem to be as popular anymore, does it?)

By allowing gay marriage, no one is infringing on your rights to be a bigot.
So why should your bigotry infringe on the rights of gays who want to marry?

Pot, meet kettle. You'll like each other, you're the same color!

Posted by: JMGinPDX | June 15, 2009 6:37 PM | Report abuse

morcab: The original fundamentals used to be a women in the kitchen and being property of men. The original fundamentals used to be blacks drinking at separate fountains from whites. The original fundamentals used to be banning blacks from marrying whites. The original fundamentals for thousands of years was slavery. Your original fundamentals argument is a joke.

Gay marriage will not change heterosexual marriages or their structure in any way. They will continue being the same as always. Except now we will have true equality by allowing gays and lesbians to marry. Your argument is a blatant scare tactic that's quickly becoming obsolete.

""inferior spieces" Lol obvious troll is obvious.

We are passing better values to younger generations, the values of tolerance, love, respect, equality, and the fact that homosexuality is not a wrong or bad thing.

Posted by: shadow_man | June 15, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

davis_renee: God never said homosexuality was a sin. Those passages commonly pulled out of context are talking about idolatry, not homosexuality.

Posted by: shadow_man | June 15, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

i thought black people do not believe in gay marriages. if DC is over 75% black, then they should vote on gay marriage.

Posted by: charlietuna666 | June 15, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

davis_renee: Hardship is hardship. Discrimination is discrimination. Period.

Posted by: shadow_man | June 15, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

I do give gays credit for standing up for marriage. It's about time somebody did.

Posted by: Bluefish2012 | June 15, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

charlietuna666: Depends on their location.

Posted by: shadow_man | June 15, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Well here's a newsflash: blacks are stll suffering. Been to a public school full of underprivileged kids lately? That's REAL discrimination.

Posted by: davis_renee | June 15, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Some U.S. citizens need to get through their thick skulls that the only life they need to live is their own.

Stay out of the personal affairs and lives of others and the world will be more peaceful and happy.

People like Reverend Jacka$$ should jump into an open manhole.

Posted by: dlkimura | June 15, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

davis_renee: Indians are also suffering in India. See all the diseases and poor conditions they have to endure? That's discrimination.

Posted by: shadow_man | June 15, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Daniel said:

It seems that soon anyone might be able to marry a tree,...or a rock,....or even a cloud,.....and here,.... "the sky is the limit..."
==============
Well, if the tree is a consenting adult, then yeah, I say go for it.
What's it to you, anyway?


Perhaps all obeys to the obvius deterrorium of VALUES and FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, that traditionally gives our country STRENGTH and STRUCTURE.
==============
You make the mistake of assuming that the only values or fundamental principles that work are YOURS. Not true.
(oh, and it's 'obvious' and 'deterioration,' and I don't know what 'obeys' are)

The dyamics are profiling moves, vetorizing possible outcome of ANARCHY."
===============
I don't even know what this means.
But, extending basic freedoms to all Americans, regardless of ideology, can only be seen as "anarchy" if you yourself are coming from an extreme and psuedo-fascist mindset.
Government that protects the civil rights of every American is not anarchy, far from it - it's actually a truer democracy than we've had for 233 years.


EVERYONE HAS RIGHT TO OPINIONS FOR THIS IS AMERICA.
============
That is true, you are entitled to your opinion.
And me to mine.
But that only matters in the ballot box, on issues that should be subjected to popular vote - the next President, raising taxes, etc.
Basic civil liberties should not be subjected to a vote.
Your opinion, or mine, on the validity of gay marriage is really beside the point - America should not and cannot morally bar law-abiding citizens from doing things that do not infringe the rights of others.

Also...people who feel the need to SHOUT don't usually have much substance behind the hype.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | June 15, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Wonderful news! When will these bigoted preachers get over themselves and start standing for fairness and equality?

Posted by: jaynashvil | June 15, 2009 7:03 PM | Report abuse

The good pastor should keep in mind that if racial integration had been put to a vote, it still would be outlawed in many states.

Posted by: paris1969 | June 15, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

About time the whole ban on gay marriage fell to the wayside like the ban on miscegenation.

History, once started, rarely stops.

Posted by: WillSeattle | June 15, 2009 7:31 PM | Report abuse

What I want to know is why ministers from MARYLAND want to block same-sex marriage in DC. Guys, the border is there for a reason.

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | June 15, 2009 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Once again free speech and voter rights are taken away from the people! If the people could vote about the issue, it would never happen. That is the only reason gay right advocates have gotten so far, because they make up new laws to silence the voice of the people. We are living in very dark times.

Posted by: kaylancor | June 15, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

We got married in CA last year, we are DC residents, we a please with this decision which will allow legal recognition of our relationship, if we want it to.
Living in DC is worth it, sometimes.
Thank G-d for common sense on this issue.

Bishop Jackson, please return to your MD home, you are perpretrating Fraud with your claim to be a DC Resident.

Posted by: CapHillResII | June 15, 2009 7:45 PM | Report abuse

kaylancor: People like you said the same thing when interracial marriage got legalized. You're equivalent to the racists of the past, and soon enough, that's exactly what you will be remembered as, a bigot on the wrong side of the history. How's your voting rights taken away? You're free to elect whom you want to represent you. And you're free to say whatever you want. But you're not free to take away our rights.

Posted by: shadow_man | June 15, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

davis_renee: "you cannot compare the hardships suffered during slavery to the 'hardship' of not being wed. Period."

I've never heard any gay-rights organization compare marriage discrimination to slavery.

And since when can no one suffer discrimination unless their ancestors were slaves? People with disabilities weren't slaves, so can they not suffer discrimination either?

This whole gays weren't slaves whining is irrelevant and silly.

Posted by: uh_huhh | June 15, 2009 7:55 PM | Report abuse

I have yet to see a black person rejected by his family, friends, neighbors and religious leaders because he was black. Gay people are rejected by their own parents - simply for being gay - and that is a hurt that cuts deeper than anything. Period.

Posted by: jgm1953 | June 15, 2009 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Geez, I didn't realize that Beltsville was in D.C. No wonder Bishop Jackson cares so much about what we allow or don't allow in the District of Columbia!

Here's a message to you, Bishop Jackson: If you don't want to marry people of the same sex in your church, then don't. But please do us all a favor and keep your bigotted opinions to yourself when you're not even a resident of the jurisdiction at issue!

Posted by: egaull | June 15, 2009 8:21 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why any of you are commenting on this.

D.C. Government has just said that it doesn't care what you think. The comments of the everyday person on this issue are irrelevant.

The rulers on high, and only the rulers on high, will decide. Your voice doesn't count. Your vote doesn't count.

The voters and the general citizenry, including the people in this comment box, can go to hell as far as D.C. Government is concerned. The rulers have spoken. Your role is merely to shut up and take it.

On the other hand, those of you in favor of SSM are, by voicing a public comment, implicitly stating that what the people actually think about this is relevant, that the people should have a say in this. And since, by your own conduct, you admit that the people should have a say -- then let's put it to a vote!

Posted by: ooyah32 | June 15, 2009 8:25 PM | Report abuse

To Bluefish2012:

Perhaps you were being sarcastic with your questions, but I doubt it. So here are a few for you:

I still wish someone would give a coherent argument about where the natural right to to a straight marriage comes from--and I don't mean whether it's in the Bible or not.

The right to pursue happiness? OK, but what inherently natural objective is being gained by straight marriage? Don't tell me it's "love" because one can love without any kind of marriage.

Don't tell me it's any number of rights involving inheritance, visitation, and all those other things because straights can get those in other ways--and do have those rights in many places.

And, Bluefish2012, don't say that it's about having kids because, obviously, straight marriage is not necessary. And besides, many straight marriages are willfully childless.

Posted by: beetsnotbeats | June 15, 2009 8:26 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe any black cleric would want to put a civil rights issue before the voters. If black civil rights had been put before the voters we'd still be fighting over de-segregation. The only thing that explains it is bigotry... its ugly and hateful.

Posted by: jpsbr2002 | June 15, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Great! We humans are getting better and better!

Posted by: johng1 | June 15, 2009 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Well, davis-renee, maybe we should be arguing about and against racism in schools rather than waste time with telling people who they can love and who they can try and be happy with in this life. Myopia and idiocy are the hallmarks of the debate against this measure. Put the energy into the real problems in the world.

Posted by: davis_renee | June 15, 2009 6:45 PM
Well here's a newsflash: blacks are stll suffering. Been to a public school full of underprivileged kids lately? That's REAL discrimination.

Posted by: pjglazer | June 15, 2009 8:34 PM | Report abuse

This delay means for the time being the distinguished Commissioners will have to wed outside the District.

Posted by: HassanAliAl-Hadoodi | June 15, 2009 8:36 PM | Report abuse

ooyah32, welcome to representative government.

Posted by: ooyah32 | June 15, 2009 8:25 PM

I don't know why any of you are commenting on this.

D.C. Government has just said that it doesn't care what you think. The comments of the everyday person on this issue are irrelevant.

The rulers on high, and only the rulers on high, will decide. Your voice doesn't count. Your vote doesn't count.

The voters and the general citizenry, including the people in this comment box, can go to hell as far as D.C. Government is concerned. The rulers have spoken. Your role is merely to shut up and take it.

On the other hand, those of you in favor of SSM are, by voicing a public comment, implicitly stating that what the people actually think about this is relevant, that the people should have a say in this. And since, by your own conduct, you admit that the people should have a say -- then let's put it to a vote!

Posted by: pjglazer | June 15, 2009 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. The law on which the elections board refused to permit a democratic vote does not grant gay persons the right to do anything. Neither does its absence therefore prevent them from doing anything.

On the contrary, the law in question forces all members of society to grant privileged status to a sort of union which a large percentage of citizens do not value, and which many believe is actually detrimental to society.

The law does not permit gay people to live together in a sexual relationship. They are doing that lawfully today. Rather the law manufactures a sense of legitimacy that would never arise in society freely, and coerces the majority into approving what they actually do not condone.

The board has done a grave disservice to the genuine cause of human rights. Furthermore, the D.C government has succeeded in entirely undermining every argument they and democracy supporters have made for decades regarding a lack of democratic representation.

The handling of this issue illustrates the manner in which arguments about democratic principle are merely a smokescreen. The governing powers are quick to sacrifice democratic principle when it threatens the liberal agenda.

Gay marriage in D.C, like abortion throughout the nation, is not something that a single private citizen is permitted to cast a vote on. Through tortured reasoning, positions opposed by the majority are parasitically attached to the legitimate cause of human rights. The democratic process is cut off at the knees, as laws that could never garner a majority vote are kept from the voters by the "Guardian Council" that enforces what amounts to the established religion.

The hypocrisy is a stench in the nostrils of those of us who care about genuine democracy, and who understand and value in its own right the concept of freedom.

Posted by: mark51 | June 15, 2009 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Debate? ..no sir. We have college educated people now to decide on moral issues. The rest can just get in line for an ivy league degree to have their voice counted.

Posted by: NoWeCant | June 15, 2009 8:48 PM | Report abuse

There is an old puzzle, "If you call a dog's tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?" And the answer is "four, because calling the tail a leg does not make it a leg." Gay relationships are different from hetero marriages (although some elements like love are common) and using the same name for both is just going to cause confusion. It is not like blacks and whites and segregation. It is more like calling a truck a car and allowing it to drive in residential neighbourhoods at night. Trucks are fine, even good, but they are not cars. That is not segregation, it is just common sense, which is swiftly departing from this country. As soon as something is called "equality" we all take leave of our senses and follow like sheep.

Posted by: rohitcuny | June 15, 2009 8:51 PM | Report abuse

mark51, your psuedo-intellectual bloviating is that smell in your nostrils.

Posted by: pjglazer | June 15, 2009 9:04 PM | Report abuse

mark51 wrote, "Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue."

I believe it is.

When good people are denied equal protection under the law, that is the very definition of a "civil rights issue."

The Equal Protection Clause wasn't written for those already treated equally under the law. It was designed rather explicitly to protect minorities -- especially those whom the majority discount, disfavor and see as not NEEDING the same "civil rights" that the majority takes for granted.

My partner and I were married. By a rabbi. In a very mainstream Jewish temple. The ceremony was witnessed before our friends, family, and, we believe, before God. We've lived our lives as one for decades.

Now we seek to protect that relationship civilly, making our relationship legally binding, and subject to the same rights and responsibilities that other couples take for granted when they sign a marriage contract. We aren't allowed to.

We remain legal strangers to one another. This, despite the reality of our lives: a shared house, shared mortgage, shared bank accounts, shared bills, shared medical and legal and financial decisions. Legal strangers, while an opposite-sex couple that just met can get legal protections galore with a simply and cheap visit to a Justice of the Peace.

My partner and I can't go to the Justice of the Peace for those legal protections.

You and your spouse get protection under the law that my partner and I cannot. That is about as clear a civil rights issue as one can picture.

Posted by: ricklinguist | June 15, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Before somebody tries to compare pedophilia to homosexuality...

I'm sure you've met homosexuals. Have you met a child molester? I met one a little too closely at the age of eight, and I've known homosexuals as adults, and frankly I know the difference. Do you?

God has made me wait for a woman some 16 years since I was baptized. It is one thing for God to ask a Christian to wait for the hope of a marriage. It is another thing for God to ask someone else to be celibate for life. I figure some people can't do it. He does seem cruel. Yes, that's right, all the individual tragedies and major acts of God.

God must sure be nice to all those Christians on the non-gay side. He serves them their spouses on a silver platter right on schedule. Ding ding. Just like my old high school friend (groom) who married right after graduation at 22, or the my best friend's wife who waited a while but still married at 23? The other ladies marrying pretty much at 24?

If you married your college sweetheart you don't know what it's like to be lonely.

If you knew what it is like to be lonely maybe you'd have an ounce of compassion, esp. as Christians, for gay people who are frustrated by people who want them to have a miserable life.
]
I'm not recommending the practice. I'm merely calling for legal freedom and hope the other people are frustrated for a change.

Posted by: cmarshdtihqcom | June 15, 2009 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Jackson is a pawn for Focus in the Family which is bankrolling his campaign from their headquarters in VA. Jackson claims to live in the District with a roommate in a one bedroom condominium. However, no resident or employee of the building has any recollection of ever seeing him there. In actuality, Mr. Jackson lives in Silver Spring with his wife and children. His neighbors in Silver Spring were not aware he had “moved,” to DC - so much for thou shall not lie.

Posted by: rgmwdc | June 15, 2009 9:08 PM | Report abuse

We got married in CA last year, we are DC residents, we a please with this decision which will allow legal recognition of our relationship, if we want it to.
Posted by: CapHillResII | June 15, 2009 7:45 PM

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

Actually, you will now be legally married in DC whether you want it to be recognized or not. There is no opt out. Either you are married or you're not.

Posted by: dwaldman | June 15, 2009 9:08 PM | Report abuse

rohitcuny wrote, "Gay relationships are different from hetero marriages (although some elements like love are common)."

All relationships have some characteristics in common, and differ in other ways.

The question is whether same-sex couples who share their lives should be disallowed from signing legally-binding contracts that protect their relationships in the same way as opposite-sex couples.

Is there some fundamental reason that, for example, my 74-year old aunt --the one who had a complete hysterectomy some years before-- was able to marry her gentleman friend, while my partner and I, together for decades, cannot?

One can make arguments that our relationships "differ" (all relationships differ) but I don't see how those differences matter in ways to confer special status on my aunt and her partner but not on me and mine.

Can you explain?

Thanks.

Posted by: ricklinguist | June 15, 2009 9:11 PM | Report abuse

I am 39 years old. I was saved and baptized at 23. Anything anyone does for God without free will and without being saved is worthless. Coerced good behavior is not doing that person a favor. Satan gratefully accepts good people who die, too, who aren't forgiven. All that coerced good behavior is to make some insecure Christians feel good, and that is all it accomplishes.

Posted by: cmarshdtihqcom | June 15, 2009 9:16 PM | Report abuse

For someone who complained about loneliness, Why would you be lonely if you were in a long term, legally recognized civil relationship with someone of your gender (or different gender)? Many of us are not anti-gay, recognize the right of gay people to happiness and understand that it might be important for them to be in committed long term loving relationships. But the question still remains, Why INSIST on calling these relationships marriage? Look, some people have dogs as pets and some have cats as pets. It is fine either way, but why insist that a cat is a dog and if we do not call it a dog then we are violating equality? Is it going to bring the KKK back if we use different names for cats and dogs? I just do not get it why equality means we must use the same word for everything. A pencil is not a pen, a cat is not a dog, and a gay relationship is not marriage. That does not mean that a cat is inferior to a dog, it is just different.

Posted by: rohitcuny | June 15, 2009 9:19 PM | Report abuse

How's it feel, "Bishop," to know that you are on the wrong side of history just like George Wallace, Bull Connor, Jerry Falwell?

Posted by: medogsbstfrnd | June 15, 2009 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Great! Yet another so-called group of representatives failing to actually represent the people who placed them in that position of responsibility! How DARE they try to silence the voters on this issue?

There is only one reason they think it's okay to refuse to actually let the voters make this decision for themselves. That's because they know that in every state where the people have been asked to express their opinion on gay 'marriage' at the ballot box, they have said No. In not a single state has gay marriage ever actually been approved by the voters. That's 30 states with constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and 15 others with laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. They KNOW this is simply not something the people of this country want, so they're trying to force it on the people of some states and now the District that have no referendum or initiative process!

The problem is that, like California and soon in Maine, and soon thereafter in Iowa and New Hampshire, these laws will be reversed. It's what the people want, and for good reason! But why should the people have to be put through having to reverse something they never approved in the first place? Let them make this decision before you try to force it on them. One way or another, they will make this decision, and not by approving it with their silence, but by actively reversing it if it is forced on them.

Let's be clear about this. The people of Washington DC have not approved gay marriage or even the recognition of out of state gay marriages. This was forced on them by their City Council, their Mayor, and now the Elections Board. How dumb is that? I'm sorry, but you just can't silence the voters like that! It's just not right and trust me, they will not have this forced on them against their will. Any attempt to do so will result in whatever body or person that made this decision being replaced as soon as possible, followed by the reversal of any decisions they made. It may take the 2010 election to do it, but it will be done. Marriage Protection amendments are already being written for Iowa and New Hampshire to be voted on right after the 2010 elections.

The definition of marriage is simply such an important issue that it needs to be left to the collective wisdom of the voters to decide, and not to a handful of so-called representatives who refuse to listen to the voters and who have been influenced by organizations like the Human Rights Campaign into voting their way and silencing the voters. I find such actions beneath contempt! Reprehensible!

Let the voters of DC make this decision for themselves! I hope the next step in this process, the lawsuit mentioned the article, gets before some people with a little common sense and common decency.

Posted by: klgrube | June 15, 2009 9:24 PM | Report abuse

@ricklinguist

I appreciate your reasoned response. It's the way we should talk about issues like this, and unfortunately it rarely happens in our society.

Although I believe that humans exist in two modalities by created design and not by chance, I understand that not everyone is convinced of this, and I fully embrace the implications of living in a pluralistic society. I have no wish to force my views on you, or any other gay person, and your plea for equal protection is legitimate and important.

But I honestly don't think that "protection" is the salient issue wrt gay marriage. I rather think that society has levied a special status on heterosexual couples living in what we know as the marriage relationship. Is my relationship with my wife being protected in a way that yours with your partner is not? I don't think so. I think it is being approved by society, and invested with a sense of value to society.

I don't deny that's a valuable thing, and I don't fault you for desiring it for the relationship that you have. But I think it's reasonable for any society to define what is deemed to be in its best interest. And so long as no one is prevented from living the life they choose to live, I don't think it's right to make the argument on the grounds of "protection", as if you're not being permitted to live in the relation in which you want to live.

For all my opposition to gay marriage, I would be willing to support the concept of civil unions for gay couples, if I could be assured it were not a stepping stone to gay marriage. I see this as a concession, so if anyone points out that it contradicts my stated principle, yes it probably does. But I say it primarily to raise the following point.

The fact that it's referred to as Gay *Marriage* is hugely significant. It attempts to re-define the relationship that I have with my spouse, in a way that is hostile to its fundamental nature. Why can't we say that gay people have a union and heterosexual people have a union, and we don't try to act as if they're the same thing?

I'm morally bound to grant your right to live as you choose in this matter, and I'm perhaps willing to support societal protections (as you see them) on your relationship. But I don't think it's right that I'm coerced by law, in the name of human rights, to re-define what my relationship with my wife means in the process.

Posted by: mark51 | June 15, 2009 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Mark51: Your lengthy posts prove nothing other than the fact that you are sadly misguided.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | June 15, 2009 10:04 PM | Report abuse

@pjglazer

Why the hostility to someone stating their opinion? I'm not aspiring to any intellectual image, pseudo or otherwise. Is it because I try to write in complete sentences and state my thoughts clearly that I offend you? Pardon me for not wanting to be misunderstood, which happens often on this forum.

If there's something substantive from my post that you object to, you would do yourself and me some good by saying what it is.

Posted by: mark51 | June 15, 2009 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Congress will overturn this law, I can assure you. There are a lot of Democrats and Republicans who don't support gay marriage. D.C. is the Nations Capital and it's every U.S. citizens/taxpayers Capital city and all U.S. citizens have a say about their federal city. Home Rule was just a gift from Congress, but it can be taken away at a heart beat.

Posted by: Ward4DC | June 15, 2009 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Bluefish2012 wrote:

I still wish someone would give a coherent argument about where the natural right to to a gay marriage comes from--and I don't mean whether it's in the Bible or not.
--------------------------------------------
The Bible is many different 'authorities' [prophets] addressing many different issues in different eras of time and circumstance.

Until the 1800's, 'belief in the Bible' was not a tenant of Christianity. It begins with what was then called the 'Niagara Conference,' where strangely the outcome is not principally a belief in God, or even a belief in Jesus Christ, but a belief in 'the Bible,' as a PRIMARY TENANT of Christianity.

Now there are over 5,000 individual codices that have now been found, where a codices is defined as a portion of scripture of what is today generally referred to as 'The Holy Bible.' Some of these codices are identical and some [many] are not.

So out of these over 5,000 codices, learned men and women have attempted to assemble a 'modern Bible,' and for scholarly purposes, the best rendition is called 'The New Jerusalem Bible.' The Jerusalem Bible in English is a translation from the French into English, whereas the 'New Jerusalem Bible' nis a DIRECT translation of the ancient languages into English.

One of the best explanations in Plain English of WHO changed the Bible and WHY can be had in Bart D. Ehrman's MISQUOTING JESUS -- he Story of Who Changed the Bible and Why,(2005), Harper SanFranscisco.

Contrary to some popular myths, THE BIBLE was not recorded by God's 'Court Reporter,' taken down all at one time for the Old Testament and at another time for the New Testament. There are Books known as The Apocrypha that occur between the two periods and there are many other Books that are not included at all -- why? Because they don't neatly fit into the overall message the AUTHORITIES want to offer to humanity.

The issue of 'gay unions' is such a matter. IF such a purpose in the Book of Genesis is to populate the Earth, why would gay unions be mentioned at all?

It is important to DISTINGUISH the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah from 'gay unions.' There the issue is inhospitably to strangers, not gay unions.

The Constitution of the United States of America ALSO DOES NOT STATE that representatives in Philadelphia were ALL CARRYING DERRINGERS while voting on the US Constitution --- why ??? It would be like Members of Congress today carrying condoms --- WHO CARES.

NOT EVERYTHING IS RECORDED !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: brucerealtor@gmail.com | June 15, 2009 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Stopping comparing skin color with being gay and interracial marrigage between white Hispanics/asians have always been accepted by whites, not blacks marrying whites. White gays are still priviledged in this country, because of their race and they can hide their gayness in the closet. Blacks or colored folks can't go into the closet and hide their blackness. White gays are bitter angry sick queens.

Posted by: Ward4DC | June 15, 2009 10:10 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960 said:

Mark51: Your lengthy posts prove nothing other than the fact that you are sadly misguided.

__________

I appreciate you saying that politely; but you've merely asserted your point and not argued it. If I'm misguided, and you know this to be true, then surely you can say in what sense and on what grounds. Otherwise, you're just throwing words at me.

Posted by: mark51 | June 15, 2009 10:10 PM | Report abuse

This gay marriage debate and push is hilarious, I don't know if those who are supporting it actually have brains,why are people getting dumber and dumber, is it additives in the food, is it global warming???? The gays would call me a bigot, I challenge them to have children WITHOUT THE AID OF A THIRD PARTY OUTSIDE THEIR RELATIONSHIP.I ALSO ASK THEM TO EXPLAIN TO ME, HOW THEY CAME INTO BEING, THROUGH SAME SEX CONCEPTION??? GAYS AND LESBIANS PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH THESE ANSWERS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, AND SUBMIT THE FINDINGS TO ALL THE SCIENCE INSTITUTIONS WORLD WIDE, I BET YOU 1 TRILLION DOLLARS YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, AND YET THEY AND THEIR SUPPORTERS PUSH FOR MARRIAGE, CALLING THEM THE SAME AS HETROSEXUAL MARRIAGES, ONLY THOSE WHO ARE BRAIN DEAD AND SUFFERING FROM TOO MANY FOOD ADDITIVES WILLE EQUATE HETROSEXUAL MARRIAGE TO GAY MARRIAGE, AND I ALSO GIVE YOU SOME ADVICE, DON'T FRY YOUR BRAIN, EAT ORGANIC, PLANT SOME HERBS IN YOUR GARDEN AND RID YOUR BODY OF THE TOXINS OF PESTICIDES.

IF GAYS AND LESBIANS, WERE THE MAJORITY ON THIS PLANET, JUST OBSERVING THAT RIGHT NOW MULTI CELLLED ORGANISMS REPRODUCE VIA A MALE AND A FEMALE, IT SEEMS THAT ALL MULTI CELLED ANIMALS WOULD BECOME EXTINCT, AM I RIGHT OR AM I WRONG??? IF I AM WRONG PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO DISPUTE MY LOGIC.

Posted by: nakiberu | June 15, 2009 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Wish Bigot Jackson and his flock would just leave the District. Oh that's right, he's not even from DC.

Posted by: dottie20 | June 15, 2009 10:16 PM | Report abuse

mark51 wrote: Gay marriage in D.C, like abortion throughout the nation, is not something that a single private citizen is permitted to cast a vote on. Through tortured reasoning, positions opposed by the majority are parasitically attached to the legitimate cause of human rights.
------
Read any polls lately? Guess not. They show that the majority of Americans support equality for Gays and abortion. But that's not the point, is it? Matters of equality should never be up for a vote. It is not up to the 'people' to decide who should be more equal than others. Civilization would cease to progress as those in power voted themselves to remain so, keeping the 'less equal' in check through servitude and slavery. Ya hear that, Rev?

Posted by: FactChecker1 | June 15, 2009 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Mark51,

And thank you for the civil tone of your reply.

I don't see how my access to marriage redefines your relationship with your wife. You are still married. You are still a man married to a woman. You are still a heterosexual man married to a heterosexual woman.

To me, it's a bit like claiming that providing Deaf people with an education, say, via sign language, "redefines" my own education, which was accomplished via English. Education should be accessible to both groups, even if it means accommodating those who are different.

Analogies are imperfect, of course. But I hope you get my point.

I recognize that men and women are not "the same." And I accept that marriage was set up as a way to control who was intimate with whom-- to impose structure on society.

That's fine. But we now know that there are, in addition to people who are heterosexual, people who, for whatever reason or reasons, turn out to be different-- and our society, one premised on the notion that we all deserve equal protection under the law, cannot just close its eyes to those people who are different when it comes to their relationships and how they live their lives.

I don't deny that there is a difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. But just as there is a difference between the hearing and the deaf, we don't (or shouldn't) construct our laws with only one of those two groups in mind. The laws should accommodate ALL.

Do there need to be restrictions on who can marry? Absolutely. My argument is that many restrictions are fully justifiable to protect people or to protect society in various ways.

Do we need to call my relationship something different from yours? I don't see why. Our rabbi claimed that he married us. The marriage contract that hangs on our wall declares us "married."

Perhaps at another time I'll tell you my concerns about "civil unions" (they include portability, and a huge amount of case law and precedent), but for now, I am wondering how my marriage is so significantly different from countless others that it needs to be treated as different.

Preventing gay couples from marrying really does nothing but hurt gay people. It helps no one, including you. At least I don't see how it helps you, but maybe I am missing something.

Peace,
Linguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | June 15, 2009 10:22 PM | Report abuse

ward4dc wrote, "...Blacks or colored folks can't go into the closet and hide their blackness."

True. And so?

Being forced to hide who you are is hardly something I think we ought to be advocating. Many Jews in Europe successfully hid the fact that they were Jewish at times when it was necessary to save their lives. The "Marranos" of Spain pretended to convert to Christianity to avoid the Inquisition. That hardly justifies the fact that they had to hide the truth just to survive. In fact, that indicates something is terribly wrong.

Gay people have often had to hide the truth in order to survive. That's not a solution. That's the problem. I have seen young gay people tremble as they told me of how they feared their own parents would disown them if they knew who they "really" were.

Suffering isn't a contest. Whether one can successfully avoid suffering by lying low and pretending simply means some people are more successful at self-preservation than others.

That's hardly a formula for who deserves to be treated fairly, because we all deserve that.

Peace,
Linguist

Posted by: ricklinguist | June 15, 2009 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Given the abject stupidity of so many of the comments posted here, it utterly amazes me that this nation somehow manages to survive.

Clearly, education and civility are no longer American hallmarks. Anymore, both seem to have been usurped by religion and replaced with ignorance and intolerance.

Posted by: hgheiss1 | June 15, 2009 10:32 PM | Report abuse

hgheiss1:
THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT, PROVIDE ME WITH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT GAYS CAN HAVE OFFSPRING WITHOUT A THIRD PARTY, AND PLEASE PROVIDE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT GAYS AND LESBIANS THEMSELVES WERE NOT PRODUCTS OF A HETROSEXUAL, MEANING MALE AND FEMALE SEXUAL UNION, THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT EDUCATION AND IGNORANCE. COME ON, ARE YOU UP TO THE CHALLENGE OR WILL YOU HIDE BEHIND THE BIGOT LABEL, AND THE INTOLERANCE TO RELIGION OR ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU. AGAIN IT IS HILARIOUS THAT GAYS, LESBIANS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS WILL SHOUT BIGOT AND YELL THAT PEOPLE ARE INTOLERANT BUT THEIR DUMBER AND DUMBER SELVES CAN'T SEE THEY ARE BEING INTOLERANT AGAINST OTHERS, TALK ABOUT THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK!

Posted by: nakiberu | June 15, 2009 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Last time I checked, there was no requirement for hetero couples to have children once married. Thus, the argument that homo couples shouldn't get married because they can't have children is specious.

The churches and their practitioners practices are, in no way, threatened by the practices of non-practitioners, and that's a freedom granted constitutionally. The cost of such freedom is the requirement to peacefully allow others the same freedom to practice their religions and practices without impediment.

Don't worry; if you're a bigot now, you'll probably still be able to remain a bigot, this all just means that some people who've been denied some rights and freedoms will finally get them. Of course, if you're opposed to that American ethic, maybe there's another country in which you'd like to live with governmental practices that would better match your ethical ideals. You'd better move quickly though as the number of countries with oppressive regimes is dwindling these days.

Posted by: ala_frosty | June 15, 2009 11:01 PM | Report abuse

ala_frosty:
DUH, HOW DID YOU GET HERE, I THINK YOU MAY BE GLAD THAT YOUR MALE FATHER AND YOUR FEMALE MOTHER HAD A SEXUAL UNION TO HAVE YOU, OTHERWISE YOU, AND OTHER GAY MARRIAGE PROPONENTS WOULDN'T HAVE PROVIDED US WITH THE LOVELY TOP TEN SINGLE CALLED BIGOT. MAN IT'S A GOOD SINGLE, YOU ARE ALL STUCK RECORDS, ALL YOU CAN SING IS BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT,BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT. MAN I NEED TO LOOK FOR THE CD ON AMAZON.COM OR SOMETHING, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIG, BIGOT GOOD LYRICS MAN, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT,BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, IGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT,BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, IGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT,BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, IGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT,BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, IGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT,BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, IGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT,BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BUT THERE IS STILL NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, BECAUSE ALL YOUR DUMBER AND DUMBER BRAIN CAN COME UP WITH ISBIGOT, BIGOT,BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, IGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT,BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, IGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT,BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, IGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT,BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, IGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT,BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, IGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT,BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT, BIGOT. TELL THAT TO THE ZYGOTE BRO!

Posted by: nakiberu | June 15, 2009 11:16 PM | Report abuse

No, I don't expect my Christian friends to wait any longer than THEY have to to get married (and have permission to, well, you know).

I asked a non-Christian friend about the time I was converted, why are they getting married all of a sudden? She stated the obvious, paraphrased the relevant commandment and so on.

I understand our religion, of course. But perhaps they would have more compassion about it if they weren't blessed as soon as they had been.


Posted by: cmarshdtihqcom | June 15, 2009 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Wow religion really makes people blind sometimes. I don't know how someone can sleep at night after challenging a "Human Rights Act." Thats pretty despicable... even for a preacher.

Posted by: ladida2 | June 16, 2009 1:19 AM | Report abuse

People who are trying to protect their relationships legally may be guilty of many things, but it hardly constitute "bigotry" when they try to do so.

Posted by: ricklinguist | June 16, 2009 5:21 AM | Report abuse

Voting for whether two consenting adults should be married on it's face feels wrong.

As a student of civil rights, for African Americans, as well as, women, I take pause at any effort to stifle rights by a public vote. If the general public were to have voted whether black and white individuals could marry, it is most likely there would be no intermarriage. There would be no Barrack Obama.

Posted by: concernedaboutdc | June 16, 2009 6:09 AM | Report abuse

I don't believe that all people have the right to be married. I don't believe marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed to anyone in any document. I DO believe that all people have the right to be free from discriminition on the basis of their inherited, congenital or otherwise immutable personal qualities to the fullest extent possible without imposing harm on the rest of society. The vast majority of the body of evidence regarding the origin of sexual orientation suggests that it falls in this category of characteristics. Struggle as I might, I can not understand why allowing any non-heterosexual to marry will harm society. Gay marriage does not "re-define" the meaning of heterosexual marriage. The only trait unique to heterosexual marriage is that it is theoretically capable of producing offspring. Of course, many valid heterosexual marriages lack this ability for any of a number of reasons. Otherwise, allowing the meaning of your heterosexual marriage to be threatened by two men or two women in another state who decide to marry only suggests that the basis of your marriage is poorly rooted in the most important purpose of any marriage--the ability of two people to share their lives and their loves, to enjoy each others' successes and to experience each others' sorrows. The institution of marriage has been dying for decades--long before gays were making a serious stab at obtaining the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. Maybe this is an opportunity to not only afford all humans the same rights, but to examine the meaning of all of our marriages, determine what it is that is holding them together and make some serious improvements in the institution of marriage. As a divorcee after eight years of marriage, I personally have little interest in re-entering the institution of marriage. With a divorce rate of >50% in the first 10 years, the insitution as we know it has little reason to be defended from the invading homosexuals. This society needs to take a hard look at this tattered institution it is so desperately trying to "defend". Heteros, get over yourselves: the gays improve every neighborhood they live in. What makes you think they won't improve the institution of marriage?

Posted by: kejeemdnd | June 16, 2009 7:43 AM | Report abuse

I think when the term "marriage" is used it is used to mean functional equivalent, very much like the term "athletic scholarship". My mom would have split hairs either way as an English major.

A scholarship, reduced to its essential definition, is intended as any source of funding to support a person through school, here extended to include abilities not limited to scholars. A strict English interpretation might have restricted it to scholars, though.

A strict English interpretation might restrict marriage as a legal and spiritual union of one man and one woman. Marriage, reduced to its essential definition, includes many mixed-gender couples who cannot or do not have children. My aunt and uncle are one such couple but nobody doubts they are married. The only thing they have left is the sharing of domestic activities and the mutual lifetime caring of each other (we're adults, we need no details). Aha. Now it can include gays and lesbians too because they are just as human as we heterosexuals are. The domestic arrangements. Looking after each other for a lifetime (we're still adults).

So what is this really about? Marriage rights for gays and lesbians or acknowledging how human they are after all? Or both equally?


Posted by: cmarshdtihqcom | June 16, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

ConcernedaboutDC are you gay? You seem to support gay marriage.

Posted by: Ward4DC | June 16, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

No, you don't have to be to support it...

"We don't expect every woman in America to join NOW, just the 100 million who are discriminated against, and men who care."

That last part is the crux of the matter.

Surely you don't think everybody who supports the rights of black people is black, either?

If you are born a hard core nerd you're probably an Aspie. I am. I don't fit in either and I didn't ask for it. Sure it gives me some gifts as a Web developer/computer programmer, but it is just like Superman II, being lonely, out of place, and gifted.

I've also been heavy for most of the last two decades although I am on the downward trend now.

Most people really are on the outs in this society and have something to gain working together.

The second World War was about a diversity of Allies against a common enemy who incidentally was against human rights.

Do you realize this too? Good.

Posted by: cmarshdtihqcom | June 16, 2009 8:18 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company