Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Same-Sex Marriage Battle Heads to Court

A group of seven opponents of a movement to legalize same-sex marriage in the District filed a lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court today to overturn a ruling by D.C. election officials that voters could not decide whether the District can recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

The opponents are led by Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville. The group also includes Rev. Walter E. Fauntroy, the District's first congressional delegate.

The D.C. Council approved a bill last month that would make same-sex couples married in other states and countries legally married in the city as well. Unless a court intervenes, the legislation will become law in early July. The council also is expected to take up a bill to allow same-sex marriage in the city.

The election board ruled that a referendum on the council's bill would violate a law that prohibits ballot questions on an issue covered by the city's Human Rights Act, which protects gays and lesbians and other minority groups from discrimination.

In a statement, Fauntroy called the election board's decision, ''an insult to every voter in the District of Columbia and must be legally challenged as we are doing today.''

-- Keith L. Alexander

By Vanessa Williams  |  June 17, 2009; 11:41 AM ET
Categories:  Church and State , City Life , D.C. Council  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: D.C. Teachers Shown the Door
Next: Deal Near on Convention Center Hotel

Comments

Last time I checked, Beltsville, where the "Bishop"'s church is located, is in Maryland, not the District. Butt out, bigot.

Posted by: Seth27 | June 17, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I wish these so called pastors would go out and actually do God's work rather then intervening in others private business. Losers

Posted by: lamontbrocking | June 17, 2009 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Proof "Bishop" Jackson doesn't even live in D.C.: http://www.washblade.com/2009/6-12/news/localnews/14674.cfm

Posted by: Seth27 | June 17, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Jack**son should stick his nose up his own parishioners' b*tts. What a self-righteous scumbag.

Posted by: daweeni | June 17, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Wow! Look at the hateful and intolerant commenters calling someone else hateful and intolerant. Hmmm, there a word that we call people who do that...

Posted by: musicman65000 | June 17, 2009 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Can someone with any legal knowlege or expertise answer the question that's been raised repeatedly about this story, i.e. why does a resident of Maryland (Bishop Harry Jackson is from Beltsville, MD) have any legal standing to be a party to such a case? Or is it that Jackson is just being reported as the "leader" of this group, but in fact the legal suits are being filed by District residents?

Surely not just anyone can file such a suit in a DC court, right??

Posted by: TimInDC | June 17, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

And they call themselves Christians ...

Charlatans is more like it.

Posted by: cranberry | June 17, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

It's time that the DCBOEE and AG initiated a voter fraud investigation into this matter. Last I checked, registering to vote in the District by falsely claiming residency is a crime subject to 5 years in prison and a $10k fine. Bishop Jackson, a Maryland resident, registered here purely to overturn a District law. Allowing that type of abuse, whatever the issue, is unconscionable.

There's some info here: http://lifein.mvsna.org/index.cfm/2009/6/10/Mount-Vernon-at-Center-of-Gay-Marriage-Controversy

Posted by: michellesperling | June 17, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Isn't registering to vote in a jurisdiction under false pretenses considered fraud, or potentially perjury? I would think if he's an upstanding married man, he should be living with his wife, not with another man in a 1br condo in what could be dubbed Washington's "gay ghetto".

It appears on the surface that the good Bishop is sticking his nose somewhere that it doesn't belong. If he is against it, he is free to scream from his pulpit and encourage members of his church that LEGITIMATELY live in DC to take these actions. However, his active leadership and aggressive participation in this referendum and lawsuit smell like something that, if it's not illegal, certainly goes against the spirit of the law. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's...

Posted by: clwaldmann | June 17, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse


Good grief. Leave gay people alone. They just want the same treatment under the law as everybody else.

That's it. That's what a free country is all about. Oppressing groups because you don't like them is not righteous.

Posted by: sequoiaqueneaux | June 17, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

I had no idea pointing out someone was from Maryland and not DC was "hateful and intolerant" now...if the Bishop's parishioners are DC residents, let them file instead. He needs to stay in Beltsville and stop meddling in DC's affairs.

Posted by: dkp01 | June 17, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

I just don't understand how if you don't live here you have the right to litigate...not to mention the whole debate of separation of church and state. I'm sorry, but if you are a religious organization and you don't pay taxes then you don't have the right to bog down the court with lawsuits. Now if you want to loose your tax exempt status, and litigate, but all means - this of course means you have to park your cars in legal parking spots just like any other tax paying resident of DC too. I've paid my taxes in this city for years and it's about time I am getting my voice heard!

Posted by: whawhawhat | June 17, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Is Bishop Jackson a DC voter? If not, what is his standing for waging this immoral campaign?

Posted by: 2rutlands | June 17, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

It's time that the DCBOEE and AG initiated a voter fraud investigation into this matter. Last I checked, registering to vote in the District by falsely claiming residency is a crime subject to 5 years in prison and a $10k fine. Bishop Jackson, a Maryland resident, registered here purely to overturn a District law. Allowing that type of abuse, whatever the issue, is unconscionable.

There's some info here: http://lifein.mvsna.org/index.cfm/2009/6/10/Mount-Vernon-at-Center-of-Gay-Marriage-Controversy

Posted by: michellesperling | June 17, 2009 12:32 PM


This is a CHURCH or a group of churches (Not an individual) so if they have a church in DC then they can file the suite. This is America and every city state and county are covered under the Constitution and subject to Fed. regulations. This is not the USSR where you need papers to travel from MD to VA or any other state. So there's no voter fraud and no violation of the law. You are simply an idi0t that cannot take 10 min. to look up the info for you're self. Pathetic considering it’s the information age. And just an FYI for the fascist. Purchase a copy of the Constitution then read it. Only a complete and utter simplet0n would say “Allowing that type of abuse, whatever the issue, is unconscionable” considering this RIGHT is GAURENTTED under the CONSTUTITION.
Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Posted by: askgees | June 17, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

I think I saw Bishop Harry Jackson coming out of the Fireplace last week! Can anyone say DL? Closet cases can be so hateful. . .

Posted by: mg315 | June 17, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

@musicman-

"Treat others the way you want to be treated." We are, apparently.

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | June 17, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

These gay bigots commenting here, regurgitate the very same racist hatred the old southern racist called fowl names to honorable Freedom Riders; Students for Nonviolence; Dr. Martin L. King Jr.; John and Bobby Kennedy, including the personal attack and assault which Cong. Rep. John Lewis experienced obtaining voting rights.

The D.C. gays through the gay only D.C. City Council have again demonstrated their anti voter gov, and again DCBOEE reflects the same judgment it made when it first approved Mayor Anthony Williams forgeries and voter Petition Frauds - until challenged under law.

Voters have voting rights, the D.C. Mayor and City Council cannot prevail when challenged under American Constitutional rights to representation.

To D.C. gays, please cease the incessant demeaning of honorable people that disagree with you. Stop the hate rhetoric, stop the name-calling.

Posted by: eglobegus | June 17, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Who made this guy a 'bishop'? Just like 'bishop' Alfred Owens of that bigot church here in Ward 5. And how does a 'bishop' own and live in a 1.1 million dollar house. I think the IRS should investigate. The lawsuit should be tossed out because this religious zealot bigot doesn't live in DC.

Posted by: Aimhigh2000 | June 17, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Wait, so if you call someone hateful and intolerant that makes you hateful and intolerant? Doesn't that mean you're hateful and intolerant? Oops, now I'M hateful and intolerant! Shoot, maybe we need better definitions here.

Glad the Blade is doing some real investigative journalism on this, because the Post clearly isn't. Why does Jackson feel the need to hide his real residency, if he has such a moral high ground with so many people in DC on his side?

Posted by: mbh42 | June 17, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

@eglobegus: You wrote "Voters have voting rights, the D.C. Mayor and City Council cannot prevail when challenged under American Constitutional rights to representation."

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahaha! DC voters have zero Constitutional rights to representation! None! Zilch! Nada! We have limited local representation, but that is based on an act of Congress, who, per the Constitution, most certainly do NOT have to grant us one iota of representation.

All we have is a constitutional right to vote for the presidency. That's it. Otherwise, we have no constitutional voting rights. A fact of which we are all too often reminded.

Posted by: EdTheRed | June 17, 2009 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Rev. Walter E. Fauntroy?!~?!?!? that guy is still alive???

This is the last stand of the "reverends" in DC. They are fading fast, thank the flying spaghetti monster.

Posted by: johng1 | June 17, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

If you post on the WaPo board and they DON'T like what you say they prevent you from posting or remove your comment. This is a clear violation of the Constitutions 1st amendment. The ironic part is people like WaPo have hid behind the 1st amendment for years but now FEEL THEY HAVE THE RIGHT to VIOLATE OUR RIGHTS. I have raised this issue with the paper several times. Now it's clear they will continue violating my and others civil rights. As of this morning a law suite has been filed against the Washington Post for civil rights violations. Since you failed to respond and continue your illegal activities you will now be shut down.

Posted by: askgees | June 17, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

We are so fortunate to have out-of-district guidance from the likes of Bishop Jackson. Kind of like Senator John Ensign thwarting our voting rights while having an affair.

Posted by: pcstorandt | June 17, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

The first amendment of the Constitution prevents laws respecting an establishment of religion. So, I disagree with those who claim that Bishop Jackson has a right to exort his parishioners from the church pulpit to overturn the Council's decisions regarding the civil rights of gay and lesbian residents. If those parishioners are acting based on their religious views, and I believe they are, based on what Bishop Jackson and other protesters have been saying, they do not have a right to make policy based on those views.

Posted by: mightysparrow | June 17, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me, Fauntroy, but don't you dare speak for all DC voters. A large number of bigots in DC and Maryland have no right to decide what my civil rights are going be.

Posted by: dcbny | June 17, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

@askgees:
The First Amendment does not apply to reader comments on internet message boards, even newspapers. You don't have a constitutional right to post whatever you want on a privately-owned site.

But hey, good luck with law "suite." If it's half as well-written as your post, I'm sure it will go really well.

Posted by: EdTheRed | June 17, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Also, yeah, I appreciate the sweetness inherent in my correction of a spelling error in the same sentence where I don't bother with a little word like "your." Woo-hoo! Fail for the win!

Posted by: EdTheRed | June 17, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

askgees: the 1st amendment's free speech clause does not apply to the Washington Post. The Post isn't a public forum under the law.

Posted by: mightysparrow | June 17, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"This is a CHURCH or a group of churches (Not an individual) so if they have a church in DC then they can file the suite....So there's no voter fraud and no violation of the law. You are simply an idi0t that cannot take 10 min. to look up the info for you're self. Pathetic considering it’s the information age. And just an FYI for the fascist. Purchase a copy of the Constitution then read it. Only a complete and utter simplet0n would say “Allowing that type of abuse, whatever the issue, is unconscionable” considering this RIGHT is GAURENTTED under the CONSTUTITION.
Talk about the blind leading the blind."

Posted by: askgees | June 17, 2009 12:46 PM

Dear Mr. Askgees,

Here's some material straight from the information age to correct your inaccuracies:

1. You can download the referendum petition here: http://www.dcboee.org/pdf_files/nr_201.PDF.It was filed by individuals, not churches. At the very top it reads: I, Harry R. Jackson, Jr., swear or affirm that I am a registered qualified elector in the District of Columbia and that the information below is true: Address: 910 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20001...." Rev. Jackson again swears the same on p.3 of the application in an affidavit.

2. DC Code Section 1-1001.02: A person may not register to vote in DC unless he or she is a District resident. Residency is determined based on business pursuits, employment, income sources, residence of family, site of personal and real property, motor vehicle registration. The law is available here: http://www.michie.com/dc/lpext.dll/dccode/7d4/7e0/34c5/34cc/34e7?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0# With respect to Rev. Jackson, that's MD, MD, MD, MD, and MD.

3. DC Code Section 1-1001.14(a): "Any person who shall register, or attempt to register under the provisions of this subchapter and make any false representations as to his or her qualifications for registering . . . shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000 or be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both." The "corrupt election practices" law is available here:
http://www.michie.com/dc/lpext.dll/dccode/7d4/7e0/34c5/34cc/3709?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0#

Posted by: michellesperling | June 17, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Also to clarify -- DC law only allows an petition for a referendum to be filed by a DC resident -- so if Rev. Jackson doesn't legitimately live here, he can't legal file an referedum petition, and if the DCBOEE rejects the petition, he has no standing to go to court. And, since he swore that he was a DC resident in filing the petition, if that turns out to be false, and all indicates are that it is, he ought to be investigated for voter fraud in addition to the petition for the referendum being thrown out on that basis alone.

Posted by: michellesperling | June 17, 2009 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Bishop Bigot is not a Washingtonian and has no business telling us what to do just like representatives from Mississippi should have no right in telling us what our laws should be.

Posted by: Liebercreep | June 17, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

If ever a court should reach a finding of "no standing," this should be the time.

Posted by: carlaclaws | June 17, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

michellesperling,

Are you willing to file a complaint with the DCBOEE? There is a high burden of proof on the person filing the complaint (rightfully so), but it looks like there's a case of voter fraud here.

Posted by: DCCharles | June 17, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Who made this guy a 'bishop'? Just like 'bishop' Alfred Owens of that bigot church here in Ward 5. And how does a 'bishop' own and live in a 1.1 million dollar house. I think the IRS should investigate. The lawsuit should be tossed out because this religious zealot bigot doesn't live in DC.
Posted by: Aimhigh2000
----
No need to investigate. You too can own a million dollar home and become a 'Bishop' and you have to do is go into the second oldest profession, and very similar to the oldest profession, religion. Just make up all kinds of stupid nonsense and find enough gulible people to follow you. You'll want to make sure that the people who follow your every word are rich or well off - none of that ministering to the poor that that Jesus fella did. You'll want to make up a whole bunch of nonsense and downright crazy rules and laws that your flock has to obey but which flagrantly ignore. Make up a title for yourself and then watch the money roll in! Best of all because its a religion it can't be taxed by the IRS!

Posted by: dre7861 | June 17, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Let's assume for argument's sake that Jackson is now a legal resident of the District so is qualified to file a referendum petition. Now I think the proper thing to do is ask the city tax assessor to initiate an investigation to make sure that Jackson is paying the city income tax on his income from Maryland. While the District can not tax the salaries of commuters who work in the city but live elsewhere, we can and do collect taxes from the incomes of residents who work elsewhere.

I thank you Ms. Sperling for the relevant citations of DC code.

Posted by: mickle1 | June 17, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

This man is doing what he believes is right according to beliefs held for thousands of years by Christians, Muslims, Jews and most other religions....preaching the word of the scriptures. Those scriptures, arguably, speak against homosexuality. For all of you to use microscopic reasoning, voting boundaries, to try to run this man off are avoiding the real issue - whether or not homosexuality is acceptable. Why not show proof of your cause, that people are born homosexual, and all the "haters" will have no choice but to go away or at least come to an agreement witht the gay community.

Posted by: tmv090363 | June 17, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Not only is this a Maryland church, but a church. Start paying taxes then voice your comment. That's what taxpayers do. It's about time we tax these activist churches.

Posted by: dcmddem | June 17, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Human Rights aren't up for Vote. PERIOD.
That's why I live in DC and do so LEGALLY,
unlike "Bishop" Jackson Falsely Claims.

Posted by: DingDong69 | June 17, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

These pastors are all in support of the Human Rights Act, so long as it is for their Human Rights, and nobody elses.

Hopefully God will help them see the errors of their ways.

Posted by: trambusto | June 17, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

This is about the voters having a say? Baloney!!! This is not about the voters, this is about the bigots imposing their own personal will. I am sure DC government has made other decisions that were not received well. Where is the effort to overturn those rulings? These pastors need to just shut up. This is not about voters rights.

Posted by: vasprtsfn | June 17, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

I actually think it is fine that they are challenging the decision of the DC Elections Board. Let them exhaust all of their remedies. I have no doubt that they'll lose. But if they're not given the chance to challenge, we'll all be worse off. The best decisions are those that aren't close. I'd rather have them lose a thousand times in their efforts to promote bigotry, than to let them complain for one second that they didn't have a chance to challenge the decision.

Posted by: jeffdc1 | June 17, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

EdTHeRed wrote: @eglobegus: You wrote "Voters have voting rights, the D.C. Mayor and City Council cannot prevail when challenged under American Constitutional rights to representation."

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahaha! DC voters have zero Constitutional rights to representation! None! Zilch! Nada! We have limited local representation, but that is based on an act of Congress, who, per the Constitution, most certainly do NOT have to grant us one iota of representation. -----

Clearly, this is the reason the gays are so misleading, they continue to regurgitate fallacy of their calling for gay only legislators which more represent the old Jim Crow, which, by the way – was voted out of office, additionally, Constitutionally is why Title Eight of the Federal Rules, support voting rights where you and your gays only DC City Council are too twisted to be believed nor mature enough to an adult discussion.

Apparently you are not very honorable nor knowledgeable – nothing else, just an empty space D.C. City Council attempts to fill, another waste and ultimately another lose, by trial under the Constitutional right to representation.
No further response necessary to this "lunitic fringe"

Posted by: eglobegus | June 17, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Fauntroy called the election board's decision, ''an insult to every voter in the District of Columbia and must be legally challenged as we are doing today.''
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fauntroy - Is it not an insult to homosexuals that you’re challenging the decision? We’re talking about human-beings here, damnit! Don’t give them partial rights; don’t give them “similar” rights; give them EQUAL rights! Why don’t we take a vote on the legitimacy of your blackness? Would you be insulted by that?

Posted by: BasicInstinct | June 17, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

The Maryland church will lose this fight. And it will be one more nail in the coffin of idiotic church groups from Maryland dictating city policy in DC.

Look, folks. You moved to MD. You may have lived in DC once decades ago. But you chose to move to MD. So you need to leave DC to actual DC residents, for better or worse. We don't need you maintaining a huge church building in DC (at considerable taxpayer expense) while you actually all live in MD. We don't need you coming in and double parking (it's not just a minor nuisance.... it often results in DC residents being blocked in, missing flights, rescue personnel being unable to respond to emergencies, etc.).

Inexplicably, these groups have continued to hold sway in DC politics. That day is ending, and this fated-to-fail move may very well be the thing that ends their influence.

Posted by: Hillman1 | June 17, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

As a straight man in a relationship with a woman, I don't get why I should get to *vote* on whether a group of people should enjoy the same basic rights I do. That's not just a sick perversion of the US Constitution, it's a sign of people with a psychological disorder.

The anti-gay marriage obsessed have severe psychological control issues. They have a need to control what their neighbors get to do - things that effect them in no way shape or form. These people all need intense counseling to uncover why and how they got this way. It sounds like they came from severely co-dependent families where everyone got into everyone else's hair instead of respecting each other? It may run much deeper than that, I don't know. I do hope they get help.

Back to the issue at hand, I kind of have to go with the US Constitution, which says all of us are endowed with the same unalienable rights. End of story. I don't understand what's so complicated about it. Perhaps one of the American Taliban here can explain the complication to me.

Posted by: B2O2 | June 17, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Delegate Fauntroy is pretty much a hero in this city, as he should be. BUT ... how can intelligent people NOT see that this is a human rights issue? Fauntroy says "we must stand up and fight this!" Why? Look what a fiasco these anti-gays have caused throughout the country with their anti-gay amendments and basic denial of an entire class of people's equal and civil rights. I can understand religiosos feeling like someone is trying to horn in on their fantastic state known as "marriage." We don't even want marriage. We just want equal rights. But there apparently is NO OTHER WAY to protect ourselves.

Posted by: wleldred | June 17, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

@eglobegus:
I honestly can't figure out what you're talking about. Title 8 of *what* Federal Rules? Title 8 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? Title 8 of the Federal Rules of Evidence? Or do you mean Title 8 of the U.S. Code, not the Federal Rules? In which case, well, I still don't know what you're talking about, since 8 USC no longer has anything to do with the elective franchise - those portions were transferred to 42 USC, sections 1971 and 1972.

Of course, if you mean 42 USC 1971-1972, I still don't know what you're talking about, since those are portions of the USC, and not part of the Constitution.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution (the "District Clause") gives Congress the power "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States." As part of Congress' exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction over the District, it has granted limited home rule to District residents, subject, of course, to a Congressional review. District residents, such as myself, have no constitutional right to representation.

Posted by: EdTheRed | June 17, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

To tmv090363:

"microscopic reasoning"??? Your reasoning is invisible to the naked eye, but when I use a microscope...

Oh, that's good.

-------------------------------------------

Does anybody else see the irony of this whole side-show. Think about it... a black man is violating voting registration laws in order to thwart the civil rights of others.

Posted by: DCTofSE | June 17, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

I don't rightly recall the whole issue of religious institutions having special rights and not being subjected to taxation being put to the voters.

Wouldn't that be "an insult to every voter in the District of Columbia" to let your organization have special rights, Mr Fountroy?

Posted by: hohandy1 | June 17, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

The "reverends" are freaking out because they can't scare as many people as they did in the past. You see, fear to them (i.e., you're goin' to he11! etc.) equals more $$$ in their pockets. Now more and more humans have evolved away from this silliness, and they feel threatened. Good bye revs!!

Posted by: johng1 | June 17, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

So tell me libs, how is this Bush's or the GOP's fault since DC has been ruled by Democrats for decades? Oh that's right, if you get screwed over by your own party, then it's okay.

Posted by: WildBill1 | June 17, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

@ WildBill -
Not entirely sure what you mean. If you mean, how is this particular battle Bush or the GOP's fault, well, I don't think anyone is saying it is. And I don't think this has anything to do with the Democrats. It's a few stupid men who think they're doing God's will. Which, you know, is pretty much what Bush and much of the GOP are, but still. Really, I don't see how either party enters into this.

If, however, you are thinking of the voting rights fiasco, you forget that Democrats are much more inclined to give us our vote than Bush and the GOP were and are.

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | June 17, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

The anti-gay marriage obsessed have severe psychological control issues. They have a need to control what their neighbors get to do - things that effect them in no way shape or form.Posted by: B2O2 | June 17, 2009 2:21 PM

How can you say there is no effect on other peoples lives? If a person views something as objectionable and has to experience it everyday, then an effect has occured. It doesn't matter whether the effect is monetary, legal, intellectual or whatever..it still has an effect. Some people find the gay lifestyle inappropriate and don't want it to proliferate.

I think the problem here is that this issue, gay rights, has gained huge momentum in the past 20-30 years. Prior to that, the gay community was a very invisible part of society - it was primarily considered unacceptable...correct? So let's look at other forms of sexual behavior that are currently unacceptable.....sex with minors, sex with animals, sex in public places, etc. I know it seems like a huge jump but 40 years ago homosexuality was also highly unacceptable. But, given a few years, rallys and celebrity proponents and you have a currently acceptable lifestyle. In fact, the tide has turned the other way - it's not okay to disagree with the gay lifestyle.

If you rally enough people to your cause, then it doesn't matter whether or not what you're doing is appropriate.

Posted by: tmv090363 | June 17, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

ALLOW THE VOTE-- this is NOT about sexuality & preference. Marriage is a contract. What society is finally defining is the legal limitations of what constitutes a DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP. It makes no sense to allow non-legally married couples of any sex to cohabitate and after x number of years you can call yourself wife or husband, but if you try to do it the legal way with a paper authorizing it all of a sudden we have moral qualms? Wake up, America--it is a logical argument you can't win with your head in the sand....DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP is not something you as an individual would allow anyone else to determine for yourself so why impeded others who define it for themselves? just food for thought

Posted by: prejeanm1 | June 17, 2009 3:04 PM | Report abuse

. I know black gay and lesbian men and women, and they have told myself and other black heterosexuals, the white gay community in D.C. and in the Unites States is very racist and prejudice and not inclusive of black gays and lesbians. I have a low tolerance level for white gay men like David Catania. D.C. Councilmember David Catania is a racist mean spirited monster. It took former ANC Commissioner Leroy Thorpe to put Miss Catania in her place, when Catania was making negative statements about parking near embassy row where mostly Muslims park during their services in a D.C. Council hearing. Leroy called David the F word. lol

Posted by: Ward4DC | June 17, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

How has it been determined in the past what the restrictions on marriage were ?

How have we determined that first cousins can't marry and that a man can't have more than one wife?

It would seem that whatever process was used in those cases to define marriage should be used now if society were to allow two people of the same sex to "marry", whatever that word means?

Right now I'd say nobody knows what "marriage" means. Apparently the proposed new definition has something to do exclusively with the sexual and romantic attraction between any two adult consenting humans.

We do know that if you can use the word for your relationship you are entitled to some benefits. Initially that appeared to be what the fight was over, but in CA it went beyond the benefits.

Let's see now:

Marriage is not about procreation.

Marriage is not about life time commitment.

Marriage is proposed now to be not about establishing a stable mother father family.

Marriage is not about binding men to their biological progeny.

Hmm, in 2009 it is proposed to be mainly about sex, romance, and and benefits for as long as we both shall decide it's worth staying together....

Wow, what a social advance!

Wait a minute I'm texting my honey on my cell phone and down loading his/her favorite tunes to my iPOD, and I'm hoping that he/she will be there tonight when I get home. Otherwise I may be in for a no fault divorce. Oh well, nothing is forever, and there are plenty of fish in the sea.....


Posted by: captn_ahab | June 17, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

In the end, the white homosexuals in D.C. will lose this fight, because many Democrats and Republicans are not going to let this legislation become law in the District of Columbia. I say to white gay men, stop acting like spoiled priviliged brats. You are still white in this country and you will always be treat or given special rights just for being of the white race. Get over yourselves, becaue many white gays are godless, don't beleive in God, and look down on black gays and lesbians as being inferior. Clean up your own act white gays in your community with other non white gays and lesbians. Until then, don't cry discrimination.

Posted by: Ward4DC | June 17, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Um, Ward4DC, there's a whole bunch of black gay men and women in DC that are fighting actively for gay marriage.

Why is it always about race with you?

Posted by: Hillman1 | June 17, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

From Ward4DC...

"LOL" about someone calling a gay man the "F" word?

Really?

First, LOL? Are you 12?

Second, is it equally funny if someone were to call you the "N" word?

No? Why not?

Posted by: Hillman1 | June 17, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

"So let's look at other forms of sexual behavior that are currently unacceptable.....sex with minors, sex with animals, sex in public places, etc. I know it seems like a huge jump but 40 years ago homosexuality was also highly unacceptable."

Same stupid argument was made in Loving v VA, when interracial marriage bans were overturned.

It was a stupid meritless argument then, and it is equally stupid now.

Posted by: Hillman1 | June 17, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if this is going to reach the Supreme Court. They might win if it gets that far.

Posted by: forgetthis | June 17, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Those of you who have a problem with "Bishop" Fat Cheeks should email him at:

prayer@thehopeconnection.org

Posted by: wjojoel | June 17, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

To captn_ahab:

I dig your point of view. It seems that our society has "evolved" to the point of "whatever is convenient" and "whatever makes me feel good". Not that there is anything wrong with those things but, for cryin' out loud, some things in life require a little commitment...maybe even a lot of commitment.

Posted by: tmv090363 | June 17, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

The residents of DC should have the right to vote for same sex marriage but the DC Council is trying to deny us the right. Talking about the residency of the Bishop (and anyone else) doesn't address what is really important. Fenty is simply trying to follow up with a promise to his big supporters. Same sex "marriage" absolutely should not be recognized here or anywhere else. Civil unions and allowing benefits to your partner is ok...but never should we recognize it as "marriage."

Posted by: whizper | June 17, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Hillman1 you seem to have some issues with black people. It's true, the white gay community in the Unites States isn't inclusive on non white gays. This is a fact. Go on Adam4Adam.com and view some of the white racist comments made. Many white guys don't want to date black men. They only want us behind closed doors for sex, beleiving in the myth of black men are enlarged. lol

Posted by: IHateBeingABlackMan | June 17, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Hillman1 appears to be a bitter old middle aged white Queen who's lonely, fat, and have to pay for sex.

Posted by: IHateBeingABlackMan | June 17, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

If you have a difference of opinion with the Bishop, I am sure he would love to have your email:

prayer@thehopeconnection.org

Posted by: wjojoel | June 17, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Proof "Bishop" Jackson doesn't even live in D.C.: http://www.washblade.com/2009/6-12/news/localnews/14674.cfm

Posted by: Seth27 | June 17, 2009 12:26 PM

-------------------------------------------
I actually read the entire article. LOL!! I actually believed him when he said he lived in DC. And I heard him say this in a semi-private setting so I thought for sure it was the truth. Two houses in Montgomery County and he sleeps in a 1-bdrm apt in downtown DC? That's funny!

Posted by: forgetthis | June 17, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

"So let's look at other forms of sexual behavior that are currently unacceptable.....sex with minors, sex with animals, sex in public places, etc. I know it seems like a huge jump but 40 years ago homosexuality was also highly unacceptable."

Same stupid argument was made in Loving v VA, when interracial marriage bans were overturned.

It was a stupid meritless argument then, and it is equally stupid now.

Posted by: Hillman1 | June 17, 2009 3:40 PM

I'm not sure what the "stupid, meritless argument" is here. My point is that you have a given activity that is regarded by the major populace as being unacceptable. Then, small goups rally more and more people unitl the cause is accepted...the morality of the activity hasn't changed...only peoples minds. Look at Germany in the 30's. Hitler was able to rally his countrymen to his side while bent on world domination. Just because you can convince arenas full of people to follow your direction (see Christians) dosn't mean your direction is correct.

Posted by: tmv090363 | June 17, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

tmv090363 wrote:

"How can you say there is no effect on other peoples lives? If a person views something as objectionable and has to experience it everyday, then an effect has occured. It doesn't matter whether the effect is monetary, legal, intellectual or whatever..it still has an effect. Some people find the gay lifestyle inappropriate and don't want it to proliferate."

Good grief. Thank you for providing a living example for the control freak personality disorder I was discussing in my earlier post. You have provided no foundation for the assertion that these people's behavior affects you in any material way other than you want them to comport themselves in their own lives differently. THAT is the very definition of a control freak. You've got deep problems, man. You really, really need help. I'm totally serious here.

Let's turn your thinking around from another point of view. It really bugs me that here in the 21st century people still believe in a Magic Man in the Sky. It bothers me that people listen to disco or stoner music. It squicks me that some people actually *eat* beets (those slimy purple root vegetables?). I'm totally nonplussed by these 70s-retro jean styles that simply won't go away (and the silly blocky shoes some women wear). There is a long list of personal behavior I wouldn't choose, that aren't my taste. I live and let live. You seem unable to.

Should we get to vote on each one of these personal choices, whether they people should be allowed to live that way? Pretty soon none of us will be able to do ANYTHING that isn't commonly basic to being human. Perhaps different breathing styles would be legal and illegal, according to how the majority does it. I guess this would be your utopian totalitarian society, but it wouldn't be mine. And it would be about the most Unamerican world imaginable, if you accept that this country is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Whether you are religious or not, you folks in the anti-gay marriage crowd really are one and the same with the Taliban. You just simply hate freedom. You've admitted that gay people do not affect you in any way other than you just don't think they should live that way, yet you cannot let them live as themselves.

You lament that "30 years ago everyone was uncomfortable with homosexuality" and darn it if they didn't go and make the majority more comfortable with it (the sneaky scoundrels!). The same hateful argument probably could be made about white America's acceptance that blacks deserved equal rights. IT'S CALLED GROWING. I really hope you will try it sometime.

Posted by: B2O2 | June 17, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

These men are Ministers? I find it sad that men of the Church would be against people being able to make a legal commitment to one another. Love is Love. Aren't there more important issues they could be addressing? Violent Crime, Hunger, Homelessness, Child Neglect and Abuse, Domestic Violence, War ... I could go on.

Intolerance should never be taught in church, nor should it be in the make-up of a good Christian.

Posted by: eeb_dc | June 17, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Now the Post is blocking my comments, but they are letting these white racists gays say what ever they like on here. YOu see, white people are going to stick together regardless of their sexual preference.

Posted by: IHateBeingABlackMan | June 17, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if the religious men posting here actually found evidence for their wife's virginity on their wedding night. If not, "God" commands them to have the wife STONED TO DEATH.

'But if the accusation is true and no evidence of the woman's virginity is shown, the woman must be taken to the door of her fathers house and stoned to death by the men of the town.'

http://thebricktestament.com/the_law/proof_of_virginity/dt22_20.html

But watch out, men. If you are just the suspicious sort and you got it wrong - if her parents came come up with a bloody sheet - you owe her parents big time and will also have YOUR SKIN FLAYED FROM YOU.

Deuteronomy 22:18-19
'The elders will then have the man arrested and flogged, and fine him 100 silver pieces, giving this money to the girl's father.'

http://thebricktestament.com/the_law/proof_of_virginity/dt22_18-19.html

All part of the "Law of God" that our friendly local Taliban folks base their obsession with gays upon.

Happy stoning folks!

Posted by: B2O2 | June 17, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

To B2O2: You seem ignorant. That is, ignoring of the facts. You have missed the entire point of what I have said. Let me re-phrase in a simpler fashion: Just because large numbers of people are rallied to a cause (in this case, the gay lifestyle) doesn't make it right. You mention the "Magic Man in the sky" in a sarcastic manner - this leads me to believe that you either do not believe at all or are at least have doubts, which is understandable. Knowing this causes me to think that you must also LAUGH hysterically at the millions upon millions of people that followed these teachings for centuries and still do. So, again, just because all those apparent rubes were duped into beleiving in the "Magic Man" doesn't mean what they were told was true...NOW DOES IT? So now, a new sermon is being delivered. And, because it serves your purpose, then it MUST be true.

Posted by: tmv090363 | June 17, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

B202: To be clear, you know how people defend themnselves by saying, "Some of my best friends are gay or black or grapefruit" or whatever....I'm NOT saying that. I don't have any gay friends currently. But, I have had gay friends in the past. On an individual level, I can hang with gay men or women. The problem is I'm not allowed to live my life without having some stranger's sexuality shouted out to me....WHY?? I know you've heard it but I don't do that with my heterosexuality. It's totally un-neccessary.

Posted by: tmv090363 | June 17, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

"So let's look at other forms of sexual behavior that are currently unacceptable.....sex with minors, sex with animals, sex in public places, etc. I know it seems like a huge jump but 40 years ago homosexuality was also highly unacceptable."

Same stupid argument was made in Loving v VA, when interracial marriage bans were overturned.

It was a stupid meritless argument then, and it is equally stupid now.

Posted by: Hillman1 | June 17, 2009 3:40 PM

I'm not sure what the "stupid, meritless argument" is here. My point is that you have a given activity that is regarded by the major populace as being unacceptable. Then, small goups rally more and more people unitl the cause is accepted...the morality of the activity hasn't changed...only peoples minds. Look at Germany in the 30's. Hitler was able to rally his countrymen to his side while bent on world domination. Just because you can convince arenas full of people to follow your direction (see Christians) dosn't mean your direction is correct.


His point is that the same arguments you made were advanced as a reason to prohibit interracial marriage. They were deemed meritless then - and they're still meritless.

Posted by: dcd1 | June 17, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Regarding politics, religion and taxes, George Carlin said it best (I'm paraphrasing) - If you care so such about what the laws are, pay your admission price like everyone else.

Posted by: dcd1 | June 17, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

His point is that the same arguments you made were advanced as a reason to prohibit interracial marriage. They were deemed meritless then - and they're still meritless.

Posted by: dcd1 | June 17, 2009 5:23 PM

Understood. Obviuosly some things are change for the better. But, keep in mind in 30-40 years when NMBLA has rallied large groups of the population to make it legal for 40 yr old men to have sex with 10 yr old boys, it'll be OK because the majority accepts it and we've evolved? I mean who's to say that in 40 yrs science won't discover that 40 yr old men have a natural, in-born need to have sex with little boys. Are we, as a society, going to deprive them of their rights? Of their, right to marriage??

Posted by: tmv090363 | June 17, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

I dig your point of view. It seems that our society has "evolved" to the point of "whatever is convenient" and "whatever makes me feel good". Not that there is anything wrong with those things but, for cryin' out loud, some things in life require a little commitment...maybe even a lot of commitment.

Posted by: tmv090363 | June 17, 2009 3:49 PM

====================
You are so right. I have been with my partner for 4 years. I am committed in every way we are legally able to - we have drawn up wills, given each other medical power of attorney...of course we had to pay about $1500 for all that, and it could all be disregarded by a bigoted judge.

I'd love to be able to commit with marriage - all the legal protection we paid for comes with marriage. That AND the ability to file taxes jointly. And so many other federal benefits: http://tinyurl.com/5wm9ql

I pay into the same system you do, but I do not qualify for the same benefits. Let me commit!

Posted by: bopgirl1 | June 17, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

To EdTHeRed: You must really be one of those very dumb people that are so disingenuous, you write in your posts complete fabrications.

Want proof how illiterate you are?

The District of New Columbia was empowered by Charter under the Congressional Act creating the Government of the District of Columbia (1972). And, representation by election by voting for Representatives of the (New Columbia) Gov of the District of Columbia. This Act (creating the Gov of New Columbia) provides voter rights to the residents of the District of Columbia to elect a local government, and that, The Congressional Committee for Overseight Over the Government of the District of Columbia is maintained under the Congress, because D.C. will always be a Federal Jurisdiction.

So, you see, RedEd, your communism shows, like that skirt under your pants. You don't even know that all D.C. resident have voting Rights - you're too gay (Nazi) to recognize (or in denial) these facts!

This creation is born out the 14th Amendment Representative Rights. I imagine you don't know this either?

I know how illiterate you are in the laws the the local and Federal jurisdictions -that can be the only reason you demonstrate your complete untruthful lies in this medium.

This issue of gay marriage is a white gay thing, and you white gays use the very Jim Crow measures of the old Confederacy which not only lost the war, many became gay like you DC white gays that rely upon the gays of DC Council to legislate gay laws for gays only, what a poor excuse for Nazi's in D.C. City Council.

Using the Jim Crow, KKK politic - you'll still loose in the Courts, just as the Cal. two married men who's Federal case had no standing in their Federal claim to homosexual rights to "call themselves equivalent to a man and woman" they are not man and woman - they are both men!

Marriage is between a man and a woman, this is where gays will always ultimately loose. Temporary gay Democratic Party gays may temporarily gerry rigg definitions of marriage, but that won't last either.

No one really cares about your being gay, it is your racist, bigotry that like a virulent disease fabricates lies and race hate, then you make your whiteness a gayness?? What dishonorable waste you EdTheRed spread.

Get a life, move to gayland, like San Farncisco, or, Holland, or Germany. Massaachutts citizens never got a vote either, it was legeslated too - by majority gay Democrats in their State House!

Oh that's right Cal. got the vote - marriage is between a man and a woman, oh again - it is the same in Holland, and Germany.

Well Mass. is your place, when are you leaving?

See Ya. Don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on your way out.

So, Play stupid all you want - that's your right.

Posted by: eglobegus | June 17, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

A referendum would violate the Human Rights Act. Period. This isn't about preventing people a right to vote. It's about preventing an issue of discrimation being put to a vote. I would love to see what these many good religious folk had to say about the Human Rights Act when it was passed in 1977. Funny how discrimnation changes definition depending on who you talk to. Even if the courts do not uphold the Act, I am not afraid. I am a resident of the district. So is my partner. We are both registered to vote. Many of our friends are residents of the district. And guess what.. they are also registered to vote.

Posted by: zaitht | June 17, 2009 7:51 PM | Report abuse

To zaitht: You say your are not afraid, but again your disingenuous comment reflects your KKK underpinning. Fear is what you propose. Fear of the community’s rejection of marriage as between a man and a woman - not a man and a man. Your homosexual black Congresswoman woman engineered "D.C. Domestic Partnership." The D.C. Domestic Partnership, is a D.C. law the provides a marriage as a man and a woman, not Steve and Marvin. Respectively, you and your gay whites apply racist theology to a homosexual D.C. City council to "jerry rig" a legislation without public debate (a vote). Therefore as a similar (Nazi) gov of creeps and convicts, you prefer a unlawful legislative agenda.
This (mark my post) is unconstitutional. You white gays are an abomination to fair Constitutional processes. You prefer a gay D.C. legislature that comprises such ineffective racists acumen that only welfare African American women (mostly prostitutes) are the only gender preferences for child rearing. The facts prove the welfare queen is more akin to abusive sex driven Democratic Party dysfunction being the same as the closed door gay only (sick) D.C. gov employment policies. What you get is thieves, embezzlers, and gays that only cheat, lie, and, write dishonorable writing as EdTheRed.

Posted by: eglobegus | June 17, 2009 11:29 PM | Report abuse

To zaitht and EdTHeRed: Not to generalize, yet, you gays are not anywhere near honorable nor compatible to honorability. Why? In a elected government, how does the electorate eliminate the voter? It is by unlawful closed door legislation which manufactures no gender differences which are fact, ergo there are two sexes: a man and a woman! You gays just refuse to accept two men are not a man and a woman! Your sexual relationships involve (penetration) to the excrement cavity only! Did I miss something? his is the same for gay women, or am I not anatomically and physiologically accurate? zaitht, is this accurate? Marriage is between a man and a woman no matter how you equate these realities. You shall not legislate a homosexual precondition to marriage without retribution of marriages that comprise a man and a woman. Don't you get it? You cannot legislate a false and unnatural condition as a law without objection from non-gay voters. To obstruct the processes of Constitutional rights to oppose improper and unfair manipulation of my legal rights is the same as the grand children of the slave masters regurgitating the same racists justifications denying my right to vote. Don't you get it? You racist white bigots now use homosexuality to justify denying my right to vote on redefining marriage being between a man and a woman - not marriage as a man and a man! You racist will not prevail, and, you had not prevailed among whites either! Racist bigotry is dead in America; it is another homosexual that uses blacks as a scapegoat to justify your racist sex-based proclivity. A good example is your Congresswoman Eleanor Norton. For decades (30 years) she, uses the DC Publics Schools (mostly closet gays) to campaign on the job whites receiving Federal wages (Hatch Act violations). Yet you gays now have a 30 year homosexual Congresswoman and the black community has devolved into chaos, children uneducable under gays only authority. Well, it is time for a change, and you gays now have gone too far. Congress rejected Norton, and we, have the right to vote... guess where this ends? This is not a religion; this is about voting rights – something you racist do not comprehend.

Posted by: eglobegus | June 17, 2009 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Walter Fauntroy is a racist bigot. He doesn't speak for this voter. Honestly!

Posted by: bf30qbl | June 18, 2009 10:20 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if the gay community would be so enthusiastic about marriage if there were no "no fault" divorce.

If once you were married you had to stay married, except for very clear and specific fault reasons, which had to be proven in court.

Posted by: captn_ahab | June 18, 2009 11:38 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if the gay community would be so enthusiastic about marriage if there were no "no fault" divorce.

If once you were married you had to stay married, except for very clear and specific fault reasons, which had to be proven in court.

Posted by: captn_ahab | June 18, 2009 11:38 AM
==============================

We would be just as eager as any other people. Why would gay people approach marriage any differently than straight people?

Posted by: bopgirl1 | June 18, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

"We would be just as eager as any other people. Why would gay people approach marriage any differently than straight people?"

Uhmmm, let me see.

Different cultures.

Different expressions of sexuality.

Potentially differing views on monogamy.

No biological children linking the partners.

Differing modes of emotional expression between two people of the same sex versus two opposite sex partners.

Posted by: captn_ahab | June 18, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"We would be just as eager as any other people. Why would gay people approach marriage any differently than straight people?"

Uhmmm, let me see.

Different cultures.

Different expressions of sexuality.

Potentially differing views on monogamy.

No biological children linking the partners.

Differing modes of emotional expression between two people of the same sex versus two opposite sex partners.
===============

I think this might just come from a lack of understanding of just how alike we all are.

What do you mean by different culture? I am raising my son with my partner. We operate the same as any other family in my son's school. We eat dinner together, we go to soccer games, work on homework, tend to the garden. Watch Disney movies. What's different about my culture?

I was married to my son's father before this. I have not noticed differing modes of emotional expression in this relationship vs. heterosexual relationships. What do you think the differences are?

Posted by: bopgirl1 | June 18, 2009 3:41 PM | Report abuse

bopgirl1:

Different culture:

There are gay book stores, gay bars, gay clubs, gay beaches, and resorts that are for gay only clients. In most cases, gay men and women and gay couples tend to frequent mainly same sex venues, and the lesbian venues are separate from those of gay men.

Different expressions of sexuality:

Well, that is rather obvious as there are separate books on the Joys of Gay Sex.

Differing Views on Moogamy:

Many studies on gay men, especially, show that their views on monogamy are different than the views of those in a man woman relationship. I know I'm opening myself up to all kinds of flack here, but there are studies that substantiate this.

Differing modes of emotional expression:

I believe it was Dr. John Gottman, the psychologist and marriage expertfrom U. Michigan, has done recent studies on the emotional patterns between str8 couples and gay couples. He found their fighting and emotional styles to be completely different. One aspect I remember specifically concerned how gay men talk about intimate issues to each other.
One guy in the relationship could say to the other that he really wasn't his physical type, without impairing their sexual relationship or precipitating a fight. If a man said that to a woman she would immediately withdraw and become physically unavailable. She would begin to feel unattractive to her husband and harbor resentment. It didn't seem to affect the male same sex couples at all.
I didn't make this up. You can research John Gottman's work.

Posted by: captn_ahab | June 18, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

You talk about different same-sex venues. Surely you understand that in many cases people choose those because when surrounded by people who won't judge them for being different, they are able to let their guard down. I would not be comfortable holding my partner's hand on a "straight" cruise because I would be aware that it very likely would make people uncomfortable or even incite violence against me.

I guess the other big issue here is one about gender and not sexual orientation. The studies you cite compare the difference between straight couples and gay male couples. Take women out of the equation, and the balance changes dramatically. If given the choice, many men - straight or gay - would not choose monogamy. It's the influence of the woman - and the expectations of society - that pressure some of those men to remain monogamous. Then again - have you seen the stats on how many people in straight relationships cheat?

And back to your original post...how many straight couples would commit to marriage if there were not no-fault divorces?

Posted by: bopgirl1 | June 18, 2009 6:10 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company