Time to repeal Bob Barr’s defense of marriage
While President Obama campaigned on a pledge to repeal a noxious and divisive law called the Defense of Marriage Act, his Justice Department submitted a pro forma defense of the law earlier this summer. That upset many gay-rights activists, since DOMA, as it’s called, is nothing but a bit of homophobic nonsense.
Just last week, though, the Obama administration made clear that it’s still committed to getting rid of DOMA. (By longstanding tradition, Justice is obligated to defend laws when they draw legal challenge, a spokesman said.) Repealing it probably won’t be as controversial as some Democrats may fear.
The culture has changed considerably since 1996, when a few state legislatures were beginning to seriously debate the concept of extending full marriage equality to gays and lesbians. That’s when the GOP rushed to stoke its base of religious conservatives with a law that blocked that full equality. Where tradition (and law) had dictated that a marriage in New York or Hawaii must be recognized in Alabama or Wyoming, the Defense of Marriage Act allowed any state to deny the legitimacy of a same-sex marriage that had taken place elsewhere.
The bill’s sweeping prohibitions also deny to same-sex couples who work for the federal government shared insurance and other work-related benefits, all so that Congress could pose as the moral defender of traditional marriage. It was a strange pose, given that some of DOMA’s staunchest supporters were divorcees and adulterers.
The act was authored by then-Republican Congressman Bob Barr, who was doing a star turn representing the fringe. He was already on his third marriage. It was supported by such dutiful husbands as then- U.S. Rep. Mark Sanford, now governor of South Carolina, whose marriage is in tatters because his “soulmate” is not his wife.
Democrats jumped on board the hypocrisy train, too, for fear they might encounter a backlash from conservative Christians. The womanizing Bill Clinton signed the legislation, telling The Advocate, a gay-interest newspaper, that “I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman.”
Thirteen years later, Barr, now a Libertarian, has renounced his infamous legislation, saying it violates the principles of federalism. Clinton says he has no problems with same sex marriage, which six states either permit or will soon. (That period of homophobia did its damage, though. Twenty-eight states adopted amendments to their constitutions forbidding homosexual marriage.)
More pronounced still is the sweeping transformation in attitudes that has occured just in the last few years. While a slight majority (about 53 percent) of Americans still oppose gay marriage, a similar majority, about 54 percent, supports civil unions, according to the Pew Forum for Religion and Public Life. Civil unions would permit same-sex couples to enjoy many of the legal benefits of marriage.
And the resistance to allowing gays and lesbians traditional marriage will have all-but-disappeared in a generation or two if current trends continue. Roughly half of adults under the age of 30 support gay marriage.
That said, Republicans can be expected to grandstand, exaggerate and incite fear and loathing when Obama puts the repeal of DOMA at the top of his agenda. One thing they’re likely to say — since some conservatives have already made this claim — is that laws permitting gay marriage will intrude on religious freedom, forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages. That’s sheer and utter nonsense.
Marriage as a religious rite is quite separate from marriage as a civil institution. Every day, hundreds of couples show up at courthouses around the country and are married in civil ceremonies without any religious trappings. Gay couples ought to be permitted the same privilege, without restrictions imposed by federal law.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
84 comments Add your comment
mike
August 22nd, 2009
7:04 am
” Republicans can be expected to grandstand, exaggerate and incite fear and loathing ”
Right, because liberals never do that, right Cynthia?
Do you utterly lack any sense of self-awareness or are you just a mindless hypocrite? It is one or the other,
skeeter
August 22nd, 2009
7:40 am
you mean a man marrying another man? I know I’m not real bright, but that just don’t sound right.
Jack
August 22nd, 2009
7:55 am
There’s no other opinion that Tucker could have other than that of Obama’s. She has to stand by her man.
Michael H. Smith
August 22nd, 2009
8:10 am
Hurry up Obumer, America is truly waiting for your next divisive and derisive debacle.
Carter is a Fool
August 22nd, 2009
8:20 am
Marriage is between a man and woman not between two women or two men. There is no compromise on this on the radical gay/lesbian lobby that wants their civil unions to be a marriage. There should be civil unions. These should have rights of inheritance, healthcare decisions, etc. The term marriage should be for religious unions and those are by the tenets of most faiths ONLY between a man and a woman.
Civil Unions should be for either and are sanctioned by the state. Neither side will seek this easy compromise without some hard negotiating. Personally, I am opposed to gay/lesbian marriage as it violates my definition of marriage. I am NOT opposed to full civil unions. I am opposed to gay/lesbian weddings since these are not marriages. I am NOT opposed to church blessings of their partnerships or unions. Marriage in my church is a rite. It is one of the few rites laid out in the Bible and as such is not for same sex partners. However, in my church we have other ceremonies where we bless a new house, bless the animals on St. Frances of Assai day and we bless other important days in the lives of our members. There is no reason not to bless a civil union, but it is NOT a marriage as per the definition.
However, the Evangelical Radicals will never agree to a full civil union or a ceremony to bless a civil union. The Gay/Lesbian Radicals will never stop until these unions are called Marriage. There seems no room on either radical side to find a compromise. The legislation as adopted is correct, but does not equitably allow for civil unions to give these couples the rights and recognition they should have.
Michael H. Smith
August 22nd, 2009
8:47 am
However, the Evangelical heterosexual Radicals will
likelynever agree to a full civil union equal to marriage or a ceremony to bless a civil union.Take out the word “union” and replace it with partnership as in civil partners or domestic partnership, awarding only the “legal benefits” granted by the States not to be imposed on any private sector entity where benefits are offered as options by entity discretion and you might get that type of law passed in most States.
However, don’t look for widespread religious support or the government’s good house keeping stamp of approval, as in marriage. Government has a vested interest in promoting the union between a man and a woman that simply does not exist in any relationships that occur between partners of the same sex.
SouthernGal
August 22nd, 2009
8:48 am
The government should not be involved in marriage. Why should I have to get a “license” to marry?
Those that want to legalize their union can do so with a contract drawn up by their lawyer.
redneck recluse
August 22nd, 2009
9:01 am
I do not believe we should let gays marry each other. If you give them that, then the next thing is they will want to start paying taxes. They are trying to get into the Army now! We gotta draw the line somewhere.
Michael H. Smith
August 22nd, 2009
9:10 am
Why should I have to get a “license” to marry?
Because as in this State only a licensed marriage is legally recognized and that “license” is the property of the State, no different from any other license of a State.
A license for anything is not an “individual right”, it is a conditional “granted privilege” given to an individual from a government – i.e. a driver’s license.
We are born with our rights, but we must conditionally earn our privileges.
Question
August 22nd, 2009
10:05 am
“Marriage” is between a man and a women — end of discussion !!!!!
Real
August 22nd, 2009
10:09 am
Let them call it a civil union, partnership, etc.; however, as noted above it is not a “marriage”. Political correctness, the fear of offending, and the ACLU only continue to contribute to the downfall of our society and traditional family values!!!
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace
August 22nd, 2009
10:10 am
Good essay.
This summer couples are coming to CT to wed from all around the country, and many are bringing their familes and friends along to celebrate. Congrats to all.
So kudos to New England and Iowa for supporting marriage equality; and to the Episcopal Church too.
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA
Marriage is firstly a civil matter, as marriage licenses are issued by and recorded in town halls not church halls or mosques or temples in America.
And to the marriage foes and sexually phobic, please find something else to do with your time (??) because life’s too short. Find love. (??)
Some of the couples I have been officiating for have been together for 38, 45, and 46 years, and to think that some folks don’t want them to get married……. (??)
the deacon
August 22nd, 2009
11:33 am
And while we are defending marriage I would like to see every state pass a constitutional amendment that says if you get divorced you can no longer vote in state & local elections. Anyone who has helped destroy the holy act of marriage should not be able to vote. And getting a divorce is destroying the holy act of marriage. Everybody knows that!
Oops
August 22nd, 2009
12:16 pm
Cynthia, were you expecting such an imbalance of replies to your statements today?
Most of your readership today seems directly opposed to your premise. Maybe you should be a little more sensitive to those people living where your blogs are read.
Txtraveler79
August 22nd, 2009
1:02 pm
Marriage IS a social institution, not a legal one. It predates ALL LAWS (let alone those of the US) by quite a period. Socially, it is the union of a man and a woman. You obviously want to redefine that, and childishly call anyone who disagrees with you names like “homophobic” and “hypocrite”. Are you stamping your foot too?
Good luck with that!
David Granger
August 22nd, 2009
1:05 pm
You’re absolutely right, Cynthia. Bob Barr…who claims to be a libertarian now…is a damn hypocrite. Almost as much so as you and your little giggle-sissy liberal friends.
Michael H. Smith
August 22nd, 2009
1:31 pm
What is really hilarious about Cynthia’s newest writing in defense of so-called gay marriage via denouncing DOMA, is remembering how she bashed the Republicans for bringing the so-called gay marriage issue into the 2004 election. It was then called by her a “red meat” issue meant to divide and defeat the Democrats. Now she is doing exactly what she ranted against then.
Marriage, the union between a man and a woman, is an American “bedrock issue”: One that will defeat the Democrats in 2010 and again in 2012, Ms. Tucker. This time around it appears to have your blessings.
So be it.
blupnrtguy
August 22nd, 2009
3:01 pm
You know what is the real bedrock to America: The 14th ammendment to the Constitution, which says that no state shall make any laws that treat some Americans differently than other Americans. Limiting marriage to heterosexual couples does just that, and state after state has found there is simply no rational governmental purpose for the different treatment. Marriage Equality IS part of the foundation of our government and our rights as Americans. It’s about time we start treating ALL AMERICANS with the dignity and respect of equals.
Dale8
August 22nd, 2009
4:17 pm
Mike wrote:
Right, because liberals never do that, right Cynthia?
Do you utterly lack any sense of self-awareness or are you just a mindless hypocrite? It is one or the other,
———————
Oh Mike, Liberals protest real issues, not made up, pretend things like death panels, fake birth certificates, socialist-red scares and incredibly bad Nazi parallels to health reform. We do expect the right-wing fanatics to usher in more faux facts regarding DOMA. If you don’t want to have a gay marriage, then don’t get one.
Kevin
August 22nd, 2009
4:21 pm
Hey Question! —”Marriage” is between a man and a women — end of discussion !!!!!” Sorry—6 states say you are wrong. i think what most don’t realize or like is that Miss Tucker is correct—-whether popular or not, this disgrace of blatant discrimination will not, can not last. I am shocked how many conservatives, who generally dislike government interference, especially in the home, can actually support laws enacted SOLEY to deny a group of citizens it’s rights. Ronny Reagan must be rolling over in his grave. On this date last year, same sex marriage was only recognmized in one state—-now it is six. Don’t hate—–you should not be able to vote upon approving whom someone falls in love with. For shame.
Michael H. Smith
August 22nd, 2009
4:45 pm
Amendment XIV
What the 14th amendment actually says
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So, to blupnrtguy who likes to re-write the Constitution and to Dale8 who thinks I would want a so-called gay marriage, which I obviously don’t since I’m already married under the conditions set by this State that granted me a license to marry. Gays can get married just like I did, to any member of the opposite that will have them. That is equal rights liberals.
The 14th amendment protects “equal rights” under the law not the desire for “equal results”.
Michael H. Smith
August 22nd, 2009
4:49 pm
One slight edit to my last statement.
The 14th amendment protects “equal rights” under the law not “the demand” for “equal results”.
Michael H. Smith
August 22nd, 2009
5:00 pm
Say what?
Don’t hate—–you should not be able to vote upon approving whom someone falls in love with.
No vote has ever been held or law made to my knowledge has ever restricted who you can fall in love with, you can love whoever or whatever you choose, just don’t expect a State to issue a license for you and your love until that love meets the conditions set by the State in granting a marriage license which is solely the right and property of the State.
I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:
August 22nd, 2009
5:36 pm
And this my friends is as far as the democrats will take the repeal of the DOMA legislation, having some obscure hack write a moonbat comfort manifesto.
Don’t take it so bad, Obozo lies to everybody, hahahahaha.
arnold
August 22nd, 2009
5:44 pm
I have yet to see my marriage threatened in any way by others who wish to marry same sex partners.
I interpret the Constitution to give them “equal rights” to do so. I think we have a bunch of Yahoos here in Georgia who interpret the Constitution differently than trained jurists. But, then again, that’s what makes horse racing.
I don’t worry about it very much as changes are happening now. These same people have yet to accept the last election caused a great change in our lives, now and in the future. They can fight and scream all they want. It’s over now.
I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:
August 22nd, 2009
5:45 pm
My neighborhood queer had three of his “wives” over last night. How do I know this? Because when I drove by early this morning, it was like a fruit salad on his front yard.
Will he be allowed to marry all three of his concubines or will we one day be “discriminating” against gay orgyists too?
Reverend_Boony
August 22nd, 2009
6:02 pm
Equality is for everyone whether you bible thumpers like it or not.
Michael H. Smith
August 22nd, 2009
6:25 pm
You have a few kooks who think their interpretations of the Constitution is the law of the land.
Just like they thought voter Photo ID was unconstitutional by their liberal lunatic fringe interpretations.
Fortunately we have a sane Supreme Court that twice corrected these inane wanna-be-lawyas and their misguided liberal lunatic fringe interpretations of the Constitution.
Michael H. Smith
August 22nd, 2009
6:33 pm
Rev. gays have exactly the same right to get married that I have: To anyone of the “opposite sex” that will have them as a spouse.
Cry all you want liberals, “equal rights” under the law does not guarantee or protect “equal results”.
James
August 22nd, 2009
6:39 pm
I’m going to cancel my subscription to the AJC because of you, Cynthia. I hope you get fired.
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace
August 22nd, 2009
7:02 pm
I would guess that most of the folks who posted comments here, represent the Old South, and are men and women of a certain age.
The demographic trend is for marriage equality…..so move over folks, the next generation is taking over..
And please find another issue….
Michael H. Smith
August 22nd, 2009
7:27 pm
Yeah right, it’s just those old folks in the South getting in the way of a national trend demanding equal results.
Hooey.
Thirty states have constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage and forty one states have laws banning same-sex “marriage.”
Why don’t YOU find another issue, you’re losing on this one.
Kevin
August 22nd, 2009
8:03 pm
@ Michael H Smith—-sorry you are so obsessed with homosexulity, but there you have it. —BTW–are you an attorney, home schooled, what?
Michael H. Smith
August 22nd, 2009
8:26 pm
@Kevin – I have no obsession with homosexuality, so there you have it wrong.
Do you have a heterosexual phobia? Have anything against promoting human reproduction to assure the continuation of humanity?
BWT, forty one States is more than a sufficient number to ratify an amendment to the Constitution, counselor.
Jair Linder
August 22nd, 2009
9:15 pm
Michael H. Smith you just wrote th 14th amendment Exactly, i do hope you realize this. And after doing just that, you took it and manipulated it to make it fit what you wanted it to. If everyone were to just sit back for a second and take a look at the constitution, we’d all be able to see that it is entirely imperfect. However, when it says that we ALL as AMERICANS should be created equal, i’m sure almost 99.999999999999% would agree that EQUALITY is something that they did not just fly by when writing the constitution. ALL americans should be looked at in th same way no matter who they are, how they look, or who they love because it is a naturally born American right to be treated as EVERYone else. Now, obviously there are some cases where this would have to be looked at a bit closer. There are some individuals who, if allowed to live there lives as the rest of us, would cause a lot of harm to our society as a whole. Now, to those of you who believe that Homosexuals are causing harm…If ANY of you can list at least TEN ways that Homosexuals are harming our society i some physical way than SPEAK IT NOW and i would gladly shut down emotionally so that i can fit your criteria of “love” and “marriage.” And to those of you who believe that “marriage” is defined religiously..” wait lets stop there because last i checked this was AMERICA!!! The same place that most-a totally different discussion invoving equal rights that was already solved because ignorant people finally realized “hey, we’re ignorant”-of our ancestors came to to ESCAPE religious strain. So if you are trying to tell me that two men our two women can not get married because it destroys religious beliefs…then put the Constitution of the United States down and…………………GO BACK TO GREAT BRITIAN!!!
Jair Linder
August 22nd, 2009
9:21 pm
My neighborhood queer had three of his “wives” over last night. How do I know this? Because when I drove by early this morning, it was like a fruit salad on his front yard.
Will he be allowed to marry all three of his concubines or will we one day be “discriminating” against gay orgyists too?
I could pick a random street in ALL of America and find the same exat thing in a Heterosexual case. Thats an entirely different matter that has nothing to do wit this
Jair Linder
August 22nd, 2009
9:26 pm
Do you have a heterosexual phobia? Have anything against promoting human reproduction to assure the continuation of humanity?
You have got to be kidding now!!! We are not th ones saying, STOP LOVING WHO YOU RE ATTRACTED TO!!! LAst i checked, thats what your doing. If you want to love women and have children, fine. Don’t try and turn the tableshere bud. You are the one stopping our love and hating us, not the other way around
Michael H. Smith
August 22nd, 2009
10:02 pm
Nah, the manipulation of the 14th amendment is on your part Jair Linder. My statement that protecting equal rights does not mean assuring equal results or equally desired results is very accurate. As have been my statements concerning a license being the right of the States and not the individual including that gays have exactly the “same equal rights” under the law that I have: They can marry anyone of the opposite sex that is willing to have them as a spouse. You simply refuse to accept those facts Jair Linder.
I’ll keep the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as they are written not as you have described them via your errant opinions and I might further note that what other purpose beyond “personal gratification” does homosexuality serve?
Heterosexuality serves a very special purpose in nature – excluding any religions – beyond personal gratification that government has a vested interest in seeing fulfilled, which is the procreation of life. So government is right by setting apart and “reserving marriage” as the union of a man and a women to promote the creation and protection of life.
Now go find better arguments Jair.
Michael H. Smith
August 22nd, 2009
10:05 pm
@ Jair Linder 9:26
It has nothing to do with who you love Jair, I made that very clear in an earlier comment: Clear enough even you should have understood.
Michael H. Smith
August 22nd, 2009
10:15 pm
Re-posting my earlier statement.
Michael H. Smith
August 22nd, 2009
5:00 pm
Say what?
Don’t hate—–you should not be able to vote upon approving whom someone falls in love with.
No vote has ever been held or law made to my knowledge has ever restricted who you can fall in love with, you can love whoever or whatever you choose, just don’t expect a State to issue a license for you and your love until that love meets the conditions set by the State in granting a marriage license which is solely the right and property of the State.
Oh and Jair, it is me and the people of 41 others states stopping you from getting a license. Love lawfully like a mad mad or mad woman all you want , no one is stopping you or anyone else from doing so.
Iread
August 22nd, 2009
10:23 pm
This entire discussion is soon to be moot. I’ve worked with teenagers for 35 years. Gay/lesbian became normal a few years ago in the teenaged culture. When enough become voters, gay marriage will be an absolute no brainer issue. That people were opposed to men marrying men and women marrying women will seem as foreign to them as opposition of blacks marrying whites is to us. Some of you will remain bitter, but most will adjust.
Michael H. Smith
August 22nd, 2009
10:38 pm
Doubt it on all counts.
Dale8
August 22nd, 2009
10:40 pm
Oh Mike, grow up. You are rationalizing–you start with your myth-based phobic hate and build your story around it. DOMA is going away, DADT is going away, Gays will marry in all 50 states and you’re going to be that old, miserable man people talk about.
You are going to hate the future, and it’s right around the corner.
Michael H. Smith
August 22nd, 2009
10:48 pm
I’m grown, why don’t you grow up Dale8. Your opinions are myth based with nothing more than a desire as a foundation. Don’t hold your breath waiting on your hopes to come true. I’ll be happier than I am today long before you ever reach that fantasy corner of your dreams.
Logical Dude
August 23rd, 2009
12:16 am
I am in an interracial marriage. A couple of generations ago, this was viewed the EXACT same way as homosexual marriage is viewed now.
Please, review your history, such as Loving vs. Virginia to see how the current argument will end. Loving ended up defeating the State of Virginia in the Supreme Court, which recognized that each race is equal and there should be no law prohibiting the marriage to one who you love.
Today, the same thing is happening. It makes no sense to tell someone that they cannot marry who they want to. For those of you who are against someone marrying someone of the same sex, how does this affect you AT ALL? You are telling your neighbors, friends, and for some of you, family members that they are not able to marry the one they love. THIS MAKES NO SENSE.
DOMA will be repealed, more states will legalize gay marriage. In time, all states will legalize gay marriage, and marriage in one state will be recognized in all states. This is right, this is just, and more and more of the population realize it every day.
It is sad to see so many trying to argue against gay marriage. They/You will end up like the ones who argued against interracial marriage, on the losing side.
Brian San Diego
August 23rd, 2009
2:31 am
I promise you that same-sex marriage will be legal thorughout the entire United States by 2025. I would say by about 2020, those who openly oppose same-sex marriage will be treated the same way open racists are. You can fight it and be on the wrong side of history or you can have compassion for others and let it happen and that way when your son or daughter discovers that they are gay, they will not be afraid to tell you. We are fighting so hard for the gay youth who kill themselves over being gay. We are fighting so that eventually sometime in the near future, gay kids can grow up in a world where they are fully accepted for who they are. They will NEVER have to live in fear again. We will NEVER stop untill homophobia is driven underground just as racism has been.
Greg in Virginia Highlands
August 23rd, 2009
3:53 am
Those ranting are the bible thumpers that will bring this country down. They support murder (Deuteronomy 17:2-7) and terrorism (Deuteronomy 13:12-15). Yet, they believe themselves to be rightous. Once religon is put in check, this country will regain its strength and grow.
SouthernGal
August 23rd, 2009
6:59 am
Mr. Smith…the only reason the states require a license to marry is for revenue.
elliot
August 23rd, 2009
7:48 am
the state issues a marriage license, not a church.
all citizens should have equal access to state services.
through the years, societies have defined marriage in many different ways: one man, one woman; one man, several women; one woman, several men; several men, several women; etc.
even biblical characters show a different definition of marriage than the “one man, one woman” that some claim to be the “holy” version.
Rightwing Troll
August 23rd, 2009
8:00 am
I see some of Bookman’s trolls are over here fighting the good fight… Why don’t I ever see you trolls on wooten’s blog???
Anyway Marriage is a quaint and antiquated concept that really has no meaning as witnessed by the actions of all the righteous defenders who tell us out of one side of thier face that marriage is sacred, then go toe tappin or hiking on the appalachian the next …
Why not allow gays to join this sanctimonius club and be miserable like the rest of us??? Then they can deplete thier life savings and destroy thier financial futures when they get divorced.
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Road Scholar
August 23rd, 2009
8:22 am
SouthernGal: Have you ever thought that people should get a license to have children? Interesting thought!
Rightwing Troll
August 23rd, 2009
8:35 am
Yeah, children that’s why we need government mandated marriage, so that 75% percent of all children born from a married couple can experience the divorcing of thier parents, and all of those children living under “conservative” court jurisdiction can experience thier fathers being forcibly removed from thier lives. Yeah it’s for the children we need to protect the “sanctity” of marriage…
Funny how Wooty rails on and on about fatherless children being born out of wedlock (black folks), but has nary a peep to say about the fatherless children due to divorce.
Rightwing Troll
August 23rd, 2009
8:37 am
Marriage should be deregulated and privatized so the free markets can do a better job of it…
Michael H. Smith
August 23rd, 2009
8:49 am
SouthernGal… I disagree with your reasoning behind States requiring a license to marry. In civil societies things must be done in an orderly manner to advert chaos, to protect the innocent i.e. children involved(the State’s vested interest) and hold all parties of the contract accountable under law, all of which are easier to achieve via licensing.
Greg… True some object purely on religious reasoning which is not in or used as part of my argument against creating a so-called gay marriage. Furthermore by way of reiterations, things like domestic partnerships that remove very obvious discrimination in current law such as: Don’t ask don’t tell, other government benefits, prohibiting gays from hospital rooms of dying loved ones etc. I have no problems allowing domestic partners receiving a State issued license to serve that purpose. See my August 22nd, 2009 8:47 am entry. (By the way SouthrenGal the State can collect revenue from a domestic partner license too)
A marriage license is not a right or a civil right it is State granted privilege. As for these race mongers interjecting their race arguments: Find a better “social crutch” to lean on than the one the “mentally crippled” separatists use. Race is a meaningless category where we are all so nearly genetically the same as not to require a race and all geographically-ancestrally linked to Africa. National Geographic will air a documentary Aug. 30th that will hopefully open more than a few closed minds that hold on to the ignorance of bigotry and the denial science fact as presented in The Human Family Tree, which can be found on the National Geographic Website. Check it out, Ms. Tucker.
Sampling: Some 90 percent of the genetic variation occurs within populations, not among them.
“That turns out to be very profound, because it’s not like we’ve got these 51 populations that are different species,” he said. “We’re really, really close to each other.”
In fact, there’s no single genetic marker that identifies a person as French or Japanese or Papuan. Rather, patterns of thousands of these little markers within the group distinguish one population from the next.
“Those genes which we classically use like skin color and eye color and hair structure to differentiate what we commonly call races is a tiny fraction of all the variation there is,” Feldman, the evolutionary biologist, noted.
Loving vs. Virginia has no relevance to the issue. Sexuality or one’s sexual preference is only a desire found in the human soul, it is not an ethnicity found in the human family.
With 41 States currently against creating a so-called gay marriage and the granting a State marriage license the prophecies ring hollow, prophets.
Scott Groves
August 23rd, 2009
11:42 am
My HUSBAND and I are legally married in Canada, our marriage license means nothing here because we we two men. Bottom line, I dont care WHAT you call it here, I just want the same rights as every other American. Someone on the blog said that marriage is a holy union…then they need to change the name of what people do in the Courthouse! I dont want a church to sanction my marriage to my husband, I could CARE LESS what they think…I just want the ability to have the same rights as anyone else who is married! Right now, they could even keep me out of the room if my husband was dying in the hospital! Last month, he was in the emergency room and I had to tell the staff I was his BROTHER inorder to be allowed in..It is funny that so many of the “save marriage” people are divorced, secretly gay, or cheating on their wives…Not all, but alot! Give me a civil union with all the rights of marriage, I dont care what its called.
Mrs. Norris
August 23rd, 2009
12:04 pm
You just had to put Bob Barr’s name in the headline, as if he acted alone on this and despite the fact he has since renounced that legislation. That was unnecessary and ugly. Very umbecoming.
Michael H. Smith
August 23rd, 2009
1:12 pm
Some people have a mental block going on that does not allow them to distinguish the difference between what are rights and what are privileges.
When domestic partnership are “exactly equal” to the union between a man and a woman they probably will receive exactly all the same “privileges of marriage”, including the privilege of a State issued marriage license in all fifty states, even all the privileges often given by private sector employers to the married. There is no such thing as a right to marry or rights of marriage; there are only privileges obtain by meeting required conditions.
When homosexuals start having children like heterosexuals have children government will then have exactly the same equal vested interests to promote and protect and domestic partnerships will be marriages in full with the government good house keeping stamp of approval attached.
Original truth
August 23rd, 2009
1:59 pm
I am amazed at the comments that I have read both for and against traditional marriage. Getting back to basics God established marriage before man even knew how to spell it. Does anyone think that they in their infinite wisdom and are up to an argument with God on what the definition is? Beyond that, the constitution was an attempt by man to establish laws which were based on the biblical principals set down in the Bible. (Check out the historian David Barten’s web site for the history of the US.) Some things like thou shall not kill, steal, or bear false witness are covered in our laws and no one objects to that. No matter how many laws we make though, unless we are committed to loving God and each other (the first two commandments) this foolish debating is going to go on. Here once again you have God providing a means of blessing mankind through marriage and we in all our unsurpassed knowledge rebel because we think we know better. Granted marriage is not for the faint of heart it takes work. People keep bringing up the future in this country and we have a multitude of people rushing down this road of self indulgence at brake neck speed.The truth is the bridge is out. It does not matter if it became a national law to accept Gay marriage. It is a heart issue and God has written his law on every human beings heart. Don’t be deceived there is no legislation by man that will ever remove the conviction of wrong doing from a persons heart. So the heated debate goes on, but only Christ will reveal the truth to anyone who honestly asks him. Please ask, I know he is waiting to hear from you!
By the way “love” unlike “lust” you don’t just fall into as if it were a mud puddle. For the responsible person it is a choice. A long term commitment of adoration and caring.
Just because
August 23rd, 2009
2:03 pm
The only thing Cynthia has going for her is a job and AJC wonders why it is going down drain!
elliot
August 23rd, 2009
2:26 pm
“Getting back to basics God established marriage before man even knew how to spell it.”
and where is that defined? care to provide your proof of that statement?
Kevin
August 23rd, 2009
2:49 pm
Hey Michael, not heterophobic at all….some are my best freinds—really. Ok, you know I am kidding right? Of course I am not heterophobic. Funny though, I mentioned you were obsessed with homosexualtity and then you accuse me of being heterophobic. whatever. I think that since most people are heterosexual, that procreation would not be an issue—i mean, the current population of the planet has increased significantly in the last 50 years. The 41 states who now have those amendments may find them to be unconstitutional (Loving vs Loving, Brown v Texas, etc.). I just find it odd that you are seem to simplify a rather complicated legal/political system by suggesting the will of the poeple is paramount. Clearly constitutional provisions are designed to ensure this does not happen. bu really, it will go one way or the other, If you are right, i am in the same postion I have always been in. If you are wrong, well—-good luck with that
Kevin
August 23rd, 2009
3:06 pm
PS to Michael H Smith—You need to realize that YOU are the one with the mental block. Marriage is NOT a privledge, but, as defined by the the Sopreme Court 9-0 decision of Loving v Virginia states Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival….” Again, home schooling did not serve you well.
Original truth
August 23rd, 2009
3:12 pm
The topic is spoken about numerous time in the scriptures but here are a couple that are the most pertinent to this discussion. The first is in Genesis 18 – 25, where God created Eve to be a help mate suitable for man for it was not good for him to be alone. The second is in Romans II: 22-32, be warned with this one though. God does not pull any punches here as he talks about relations between men with men and women and women and ultimately how destructive it is. It begins with :
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like unto an image of the corruptible man….Wherefore God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor there own bodies between them selves. Verse 25-32 goes into more detail however God does not unfairly abandon anyone in this dilemma. He promises deliverance from this captivity to freedom and fellowship with him. Because he after-all is the definition of Love!!!
elliot
August 23rd, 2009
3:14 pm
the word “marriage” is not mentioned nor is it defined.
try again.
jconservative
August 23rd, 2009
3:20 pm
We may get a Supreme Court decision within the next 2 to 3 years that will settle the matter. The Ted Olsen & David Boies case is starting in Jan 2010 in California. See the A/P news copy below.
You will recall Ted Olsen was the lead atty for Bush in the 2000 SCOTUS case on the Fla returns. David Boies was the lead atty for Gore on the same case. Olsen is a Republican type serving Reagan as Asst Atty Gen & Bush 43 as US Solicitor General. Boies is a Democratic type & was the lead Special Counsel in the successful Microsoft anti-trust case.
They joined hands several months ago to file this case. If memory serves, at my age a big if, the legal base of the case is the equal protection clause of the 14th AM – “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (You might want to check me on that).
It will take time to work its way through the Federal Court system.
But it appears Boies & Olsen won the 1st skirmish.
“SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – A judge has set a Jan. 11 trial date for a federal lawsuit challenging California’s gay marriage ban. At a status hearing Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker also barred advocacy groups from joining the lawsuit, filed on behalf of two gay couples seeking to marry in California…. Plaintiff attorneys David Boies and Theodore Olson had requested that all those parties be excluded, saying it would needlessly delay the case’s resolution.”
Michael H. Smith
August 23rd, 2009
3:39 pm
Kevin – You need to realize YOU and YOUR Loving v Virginia that states Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival could not possibly apply to homosexuality, because as I have said and nature bear witness homosexuality cannot procreate. Which means homosexuality is not fundamental to our very human existence and survival, whereas heterosexuality is. Furthermore this issue has nothing to do with different ethnicities marrying where the subject pertains solely to sexuality.
If anyone needs to go back to school it is YOU, Kevin. Perhaps a refresher course in basic biology on the origins of humanity and human reproduction will correct YOUR obvious intellectual inadequacies.
Michael H. Smith
August 23rd, 2009
3:50 pm
BTW Kevin – I will always discourage and speak against anything that does not promote and protect human life. Homosexuality does not promote (as in procreation) and protect human life(as in insuring humanity’s existence).
Did you get that?
Michael H. Smith
August 23rd, 2009
4:03 pm
jconservative – I’m not so sure it will settle the matter. It may give rise to a constitutional crisis.
The tenth amendment:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The powers pertaining to marriage were not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, so they are reserved to the states respectively, as has traditionally been the case.
This point could be argued against DOMA, though, I’ll not make those arguments for reasons that should be vary obvious given my broad defense of pro life.
Kevin
August 23rd, 2009
4:12 pm
michael—–apologies—thanks—-got it—-not so difficult whne you put it that way, but really, you could have saved a LOT of typing by be up front.
Michael H. Smith
August 23rd, 2009
4:40 pm
That is my only interest Kevin and it is the only interest the State has in getting involved in human sexuality and in offering the privilege of a marriage license, otherwise the State has no interests or reason to issue such a thing as a license for marriage.
No I really couldn’t have saved alot of typing up front, I’ve been down this road on this subject too many times to know better. Passion never gives any ground to reasoning that is simply not the way human nature works in reality. It should also answer why alot of fools fall in love.
Just to SHOW YOU my great HATE, IF when you and your man have your first born let me know so I can send your bundle of joy a nice present as the first child ever to be conceived and born to a homosexual couple.
I love life more than I hate any form of human sexuality. Which should also explain why I prefer homosexuals adopting children as opposed to allowing abortions – the unjust killing of the unborn.
jconservative
August 23rd, 2009
4:41 pm
Michael H. Smith August 23rd, 2009 4:03 pm
jconservative – I’m not so sure it will settle the matter. It may give rise to a constitutional crisis.
I would guess that if the case were before the court today the vote would be 4 to 4 with Justice Kennedy deciding (as usual). But that is just a guess based on 4 liberals & 4 conservatives plus the swing.
The court is not, and has never been, immune to the the noise in the marketplace. Public opinion will enter into the decision. The court will look at the law & will find some way to narrowly structure their decision. Boies & Olsen will argue this is an individual rights case. California will argue the opposite of course.
Unlike Roe v Wade I do not believe biology will enter the court’s decision. If it is OK to use biology in this case then it was OK in Roe. I do not think they want to go there.
I always enjoy the conversation with you.
My opinion & $1.00 gets a cheap coffee.
elliot
August 23rd, 2009
4:53 pm
“…fundamental to our very existence and survival could not possibly apply to homosexuality, because as I have said and nature bear witness homosexuality cannot procreate.”
how odd, i don’t see that phrase on any marriage license.
homosexuality in nature is not uncommon.
sanrose03
August 23rd, 2009
5:12 pm
Hey, Michael H. Smith – evidently my state doesn’t agree with you, thankfully. I’m gay and I’m married so marriage is NOT just between and man a woman.
Mrs. Norris
August 23rd, 2009
6:12 pm
For those who say marriage is for people who can procreate, am I to understand infertile heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry? Is that what you’re saying? Or is it just for heterosexuals who choose not to procreate? By the way, the world is overpopulated. Homosexuals may very well save our planet.
d
August 23rd, 2009
6:33 pm
Just a couple of thoughts….
Although it has no influence or standing in the law, doesn’t the Declaration of Independence say “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”? I’d argue the first should include some guarantee of health care and the last should allow people to marry as they see fit. Just saying if we don’t hold these values in the highest regard, do away with it and start singing “God Save the Queen.”
Second DOMA was and clearly is still one of the most unconstitutional laws ever written. Article IV of the constitution states that all states must accept and recognize legal documents and decisions from other states. Although I am still single, my parents were married in Florida, and are still recognized as married in Georgia based upon that. I don’t have to get an Alabama driver’s license when I go visit Birmingham because my Georgia driver’s license is recognized there. In 2004, in a get out the vote for Bush effort, we the people of Georgia also violated that by not only banning something that was already illegal but writing in a ban of recognizing any sort of recognition from other states.
If someone really wants to protect the institution of marriage, the institution of divorce needs to be eliminated.
Just curious when did the Bible replace the Constitution as the basis for law in this country? I thought the laws of this country were supposed to protect the rights of the minority from the majority. We have legislated so many moral issues that have no place in our legal system. Why can’t I legally shoot craps for money in this state if I so choose to do so? I am an adult, and if I choose to purchase an alcoholic beverage on Sunday, I should not be prohibited from doing so, and heck if I chose to visit a prostitute, why does the state try to protect me from my self? I can make these choices and know the consequences.
Finally, what place does the state have in regulating any sort of marriage, heterosexual or homosexual? It is, by tradition, a religious institution. I thought the state was supposed to stay out of church matters. If two individuals wish to enter into a contract to allow them to make power of attorney decisions for the other, deal with last requests, visitation when ill, etc, what power does the state have to say no you can’t do that because you are both of the same gender?
jconservative
August 23rd, 2009
7:19 pm
Being Socratic –
What is the States over riding interest in preventing marriage between two persons of the same sex? What does the State lose if two persons of the same sex are married?
What does “…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” mean? What does ” equal protection” mean?
Does it mean all but some are equal before the law? Who decides who is not equal?
Just asking “Socratic” questions.
And I suspect these are the questions that will be before the court.
Dan
August 23rd, 2009
8:03 pm
Like the ban on interracial marriage, the ban on same-sex marriage cannot stand. Separate is not equal. 1+1 is not 3. There is no reason why the government should deny law-abiding tax-paying citizens a marriage license simply based on their sexual orientation. Discrimination is immoral and unconstitutional. Our children and the younger generation are the future and justice will prevail.
jay bookman's boyfriend
August 23rd, 2009
9:02 pm
“Those ranting are the bible thumpers that will bring this country down. They support murder (Deuteronomy 17:2-7) and terrorism (Deuteronomy 13:12-15). Yet, they believe themselves to be rightous. Once religon is put in check, this country will regain its strength and grow.”
I bet this azzclown supports abortion.
wee-weed up
August 24th, 2009
7:50 am
“Equality is for everyone whether you bible thumpers like it or not.’
Even baby killers?
Your morning jolt: On the need for a 'watermaster' to knock heads | Political Insider
August 24th, 2009
9:47 am
[...] Cynthia Tucker thinks it’s time to repeal Bob Barr’s defense of marriage. [...]
Pat Phelps
August 24th, 2009
12:58 pm
Greg in Virginia Highlands – Man, that is a great idea. Let’s just get rid of religion completely. There were so many great societies built on no religion. The Soviet Union, Communist China, Khmer Rouge, and last but not least, Nazi Germany. That is brilliant. There were only 10 or 12 million people murdered under these opressive governments, but you didn’t have religion.
As far as your bible verses go, why don’t you go back and read Jesus words in John 8:3-11. Doesn’t sound like He was preaching hate or murder to me.
Stop blaming Christians.
NetBanker
August 24th, 2009
2:33 pm
Very interesting the change in these discussion from just 4 or 5 years ago.
Kevin…the entire basis of your arugment seems to be the ability to biologically reproduce. If that is really the basis of your argument then should any heterosexuals past child-bearing age or those simply physically incapable of producing children be allowed to marry? I mean these couples can’t reproduce therefore government has no vested interest in their relationship, right? Looking at this from another angle since producing children isn’t a product or even by-product of marriage why do you link the two in terms of civil law? And have you read or research the various civil laws related to marriage? Procreation is a minor theme at best when it comes to divorce and children. The majority of marriage laws are about money and property.
Homosexual behavior occurs in hundreds of species. Why do humans think this would be different for our species? Has anyone looked at the human population explosion on the planet? Maybe gay people are God/Nature’s answer to population control…you’ve got a whole group that won’t be popping out babies that are productive members of society and that will help raise children.
Why do some of you keep quoting the Bible when it comes to marriage? We have separation of church and state which means that basing laws on the text of any religious books is tantamount to breaking the establishment clause. This would be why you never, ever, ever find laws that refer to Bible verses or verses from any other text. If you don’t want same sex marriages in YOUR religion then have at! It’s your right to practice your religion as you see fit, but why do you believe that your religion should be the basis for civil laws? This is a slippery slope to be on because if another religion (Islam comes to mind) becomes the dominant religion would you want to have set the legal precedent to allow laws to be based on the Quran?
Brian San Diego
August 24th, 2009
3:17 pm
Dear Michael K. Smith:
“As intervenor in Smelt v. United States, the ADF is promoting the argument that there is a government interest in “responsible procreation.”
In a Monday filing, the Department of Justice took a swipe at that argument, saying: “… the United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA’s constitutionality”
Russ
August 24th, 2009
8:57 pm
Those who do not believe in same-sex marriage are not required to marry a person of the same sex. If you are heterosexual, you have the freedom to marry a person of the opposite sex. You can marry that person in a church, or you can marry that person in a civil ceremony. It’s your choice. And no one is going to stop you, nor is anyone going to try to stop you. Welcome to the United States! A great place where you can practice as you believe without fear.
If you’re heterosexual, that is.
Gay people do not want to limit the rights of hetersexuals, so why is it heterosexuals want to limit the rights of gays? Heterosexuals will not be forced to marry someone of the same sex if gay marriage is legalized. Churches which do not wish to perform gay weddings will not be forced to do so. So, truly, there is no effect, positive or negative, to heterosexuals when gay marriage is legalized.
So much money and so much time is being put forth by so many heterosexual/religious people in this country to prevent the gay population from marrying the one they love. Why? Instead of throwing away tens of millions of dollars on campaigns to make gay people second class citizens and not allow tax paying gay citizens of this country to enjoy equal rights, why not take that money and donate it to worthy causes, causes God and Jesus Christ would embrace? How about helping the poor? How about helping bail our country out of the mess its in? How about using that money to fix our schools and give our students the best education possible?
Why don’t we stop fighting over who is allowed to get married in this country and just realize that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights applies to all of us, not just heterosexuals. This is the United States. Freedom and justice for all.
I challenge everyone posting comments to ask yourselves, “how am I truly affected by gay people getting married?” I think no one is truly affected by it. I think those who want to refuse equal rights to a fellow citizen of their country is unpatriotic at best, and at worst a bigot.
Let’s stop the hate. Let’s move forward with progress. Let’s quit wasting time trying to deny equal rights to each other.