Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Readers Disagree On Gay Marriage

An extended emotional and angry debate has erupted among our Readers Who Comment today about the D. C. Council's unanimous vote to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere.

Their comments about Nikita Stewart's and Tim Craig's report demonstrate again that both sides of the gay rights debate hold their positions strongly. It is a debate that has riven church and state alike and one where little middle ground has been found and neither side hears the other.

The comment string contains the usual arguments.
-- Marriage is between a man and a woman. Not necessarily.
--Homosexuality is a choice, not a predisposition. Who says?
--Homosexuality is a sin. Don't impose your religious beliefs on me.

And, since it's a D.C. Council action, there's always the possibility Congress will intervene.

We'll start with a statement from each side:
zag4life wrote, "This is very promising! Thank you D.C. for taking the needed steps in this battle for equal recognition of homosexuals in society! Very exciting indeed!"

And zjr78xva said, "Marriage is the union of husband and wife. That's what the word means... It's not up for a vote. It's beyond the power of politicians to change. Politicians who think they have that kind of power are deluded. This whole debate is an absurdity wrapped in preposterousness inside a nullity."

thetan wrote, "Good news. I am not gay, but I do not see any reason why government should tell two people who love each other that they can't tie the knot. If you don't support same sex marriage, than the solution is simple...don't marry someone of the same sex! But don't try to impose your will on others."

ahs78graduate generated an extended conversation involving several posters in writing, "What about sending a clear unequivocal message to those of us who do not believe that valuing a lifestyle choice (gay rights) deserves the same stature or weight as a condition of birth (race/gender). To date as far as I can see, orientation is still a matter of choice..."

To which lgaide responded, "Then you can see no farther than your nose."

And jsabol said, "If what you say is true, then we, who wish society to move beyond voodoo & superstition, choose NOT to make YOU and your brethren a "partner" in a progessive, inclusive society...... Perhaps the Taliban will welcome you in the mountians of Pakistan......"

carlaclaws added, "so you chose your sexual orientation? Harken back, if you would, and guide us through this process (no need to be graphic, now): the deliberations you made, and how you weighed pro and con, and finally decided that you would be a heterosexual..."

KathyWi, apparently referring to the D.C. Council's action, asked, "What could possibly be the motivation for this?"

To which ermiwe replied, "Perhaps equity sprinkled with a little legality is the motivation for this. Legal rulings or legislative action favoring same-sex marriage shouldn't be mysterious. They happen because courts and legislatures increasingly discover that it is legally wrong to deny gay and lesbian people rights. It's not a question of "motivation." It's a question applying the law equitably."

tjhall1 wrote, "Homosexuality is a filthy, disease-ridden practice explicitly condemned by God."

To which jsabol replied, "GOD never condemned it....men who PROPORT to SPEAK for God, said that....and based on the actions of many of those men, I doubt it was GOD speaking to them...."

cliftonswinney wrote, "This is one of the most deplorable thing I have ever seen. Marriage is only between a Man and Woman Period. How gross it would be to sleep in the bed with a person like your self"

wapo22003 said, "...reading some of the nasty and bigoted comments, I can understand why gay marriage laws are needed in every state. Treat people equally and eventually most people will understand that everyone is equal."

Drew95 wrote, "...Can't y'all see that it's the gay lobby that is the enemy of freedom of conscience? This can't be about civil rights; they can already get those rights (inheretence, insurance, etc.) in civil unions. No, they want to restrict my freedom to disapprove and force me (as a private citizen) to treat their union as "marriage."..."

dbarnes1 said, "This is an abomnation against God."

To which DCProgressive replied, "...Then live in a church. Not all of us believe in god and therefore don't have to follow your judeo-christian morals."

kkrpsyd wrote, "It would seem that if any jurisdiction recognizes a divorce from another jurisdiction then it must also recognize a marriage no matter what kind of marriage it is, gay or straight..."

We'll close with this exchange:
BlackGumTree wrote, "The District of Columbia is a Federal District. Any gay marriages recognized in the District will have to conform to the Federal definition of marriage: one man and one woman."

And alewis4 responded, "That is not true. The Defense of Marriage Act does two things: 1) It allows states to not recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. and 2) It defines marriage for the purposes of the Federal government. The law says nothing about the District government, which while supervised by Congress, is not an agency of the Federal government."

All comments on this article are here.

By Doug Feaver  |  April 8, 2009; 9:11 AM ET
Categories:  District of Columbia  | Tags: District of Columbia, Gay Rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: African-American Debate on Obama
Next: A Muzzle on Internet Freedom

Comments

Quote:
"The issue is whether the 5-10 thousand year meaning of marriage should be changed to satisfy the narcisisstic needs of gay people."

1. I've heard this about several thousand years ad nauseum. Marriage has been redefined over and over in the past and as you well know, the fact is already there - gay couples do already live in what are truly marriages.

2. To want to marry the love of your life like anyone else is hardly "narcissistic", that term is an insult. That term is more adequate for narrowminded hetero couples who have the nerve to claim the word marriage for only themselves.

Posted by: asoders22 | April 9, 2009 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Extend the same rights to gay & straight couples. Call them all civil unions or marriages and let all local, state, and the federal govs treat everyone equally. Civil unions do NOT confer all rights of marriage on gay couples.

Churches would RETAIN their rights to marry according to religious precepts. It is worth pointing that even as a straight person, I have NO right to be married by any religious organization I choose.

Posted by: jk_newhard | April 9, 2009 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Social issues bring out the worst in us all because they raise issues of identity and value. We should avoid them but neither side is willing. The issue is not whether gay and lesbian people should have civil rights; of course they should. The issue is whether the 5-10 thousand year meaning of marriage should be changed to satisfy the narcisisstic needs of gay people. There is no reason to do so when civil unions can be recognized. There is no reason to obscure the meaning of marriage in order to satisfy those who cannot in any case ever be satified -- not until our president is a lesbian and her husband is a transvestite, perhaps.

Posted by: ravitchn | April 9, 2009 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Good point, dem4life1. Anyone publicly condemning gay marriage should have to state their views on heterosexual divorce. Toss in their views on the death penalty, while we're at it.

Posted by: hayesap8 | April 9, 2009 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Quote:
"An easy way to settle this. Let the term "marriage" only apply to those unions that take place in a Church, Synagogue, Mosque, etc, or are officiated over by a religious official duly authorized to perform such a ceremony."

---


No. They can't hijack a word. I am not religious, but I still want my marriage to be considered a marriage, thank you very much. Marriage also came before churches, synagogues and mosques, so it would be historically inaccurate.

Posted by: asoders22 | April 9, 2009 6:23 AM | Report abuse

I didn't choose to be straight. I simply discovered that I am. Luckily for me, society supports me, lets me marry, recognizes my love.

Likewise, gay people simply discover they are gay. They don't wake up one day at fourteen and think "Hey! Being hated and ostrasized by society, not allowed to marry or adopt, maybe being shunned by schoolmates, family and friends - that sounds fun! I'll choose to be gay!"

I am deeply disturbed by so many "straight" (if that is really what they are) people's desperate need for discriminating against gays. If they are safe in they own sexuality, they don't need it. And. if they consider themselves Christian, they know Jesus would never endorse it.

Posted by: asoders22 | April 9, 2009 6:10 AM | Report abuse

It's really striking how fragile the marriages of conservatives seem to be, if they think that the actions of some other couple whom they do not even know is going to damage their relationship. I hope these right wingers can get counseling and work things out. We offer them our compassion. Perhaps they can look at some of the decades-long relationships of gay and lesbian couples for inspiration?

Posted by: B2O2 | April 9, 2009 1:38 AM | Report abuse

It's a shame that so many conservatives hate the American value of freedom so. I hope they can all find some repressive theocracy - perhaps Iran or Afghanistan - where they will feel more at home. It must be hell on them dealing with our western freedoms.

Posted by: B2O2 | April 9, 2009 1:33 AM | Report abuse

I encourage readers to peruse the comments, and to note the broad intellectual gap between the antigay posters with their "marry your dog" approach as opposed to the superior reasoning, superior education, and superior spelling of the pro-marriage group.

The antigay posters are shockingly outgunned.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | April 8, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

This easiest way to stop a Right-Winger in his tracks is to point out how ludicrous it is that they spend their time chasing after gays who want to marry instead of heterosexuals who want to divorce. Also I assume that the ultra-religious will soon be attempting to take away the rights of people who are unable to conceive - or who simple don't want children - who still want to marry.

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | April 8, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

This easiest way to stop a Right-Winger in his tracks is to point out how ludicrous it is that they spend their time chasing after gays who want to marry instead of heterosexuals who want to divorce. Also I assume that the ultra-religious will soon be attempting to take away the rights of people who are unable to conceive - or who simple don't want children - who still want to marry.

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | April 8, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

An easy way to settle this. Let the term "marriage" only apply to those unions that take place in a Church, Synagogue, Mosque, etc, or are officiated over by a religious official duly authorized to perform such a ceremony. Any Church, Synagogue, Mosque, etc. willing to marry gays may do so. However, any place of worship may also refuse on religious grounds to perform such a ceremony without fear of penalty or suit. Any ceremony uniting two individuals, whether gay or straight, not officiated over by a person of faith would not be deemed a marriage. It would be deemed a civil union. This treats everyone equally. Marriage retains its religious sanctity, and and gays and straights would be treated equally under the law via civil unions

Posted by: rjchittamssr | April 8, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

If the sanctitiy of marriage is so God D#mn important to you homophobic racists, why aren't you doing something to enact laws that would BAN STRAIGHT DIVORCE? Until such laws are championed by the religious wing-nuts railing against gay marriage, the "save the family: crap is just that, CRAP.

Posted by: dem4life1 | April 8, 2009 11:36 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company