30 Comments

1. Jennifer
   Posted March 4, 2010 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

   Just sent you a donation. Laws can be changed. Thanks for all of your hard work, Brian!

2. Adam
   Posted March 4, 2010 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

   I believe this will be overturned, and then we will see CA all over again. The courts aren't learning from other courts mistakes. Jumping the gun will set up the "2nd class marriages". Then another lawsuit will be ensured. Way to go courts. Way to waste all your resources instead of using an abundance of caution.

3. C Harmon
   Posted March 4, 2010 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

   If you dont like same sex marriage dont marry the same sex. Please people. Get a life!!!

4. TC Matthews
   Posted March 4, 2010 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

   Tell that to the people in D.C. who just lost their job benefits because of this law. I'm sorry you don't get medical benefits, if you don't like same sex marriage, don't marry the same sex! Or how about tell that to the kids who won't be adopted through Catholic Charities. I'm sorry your adoption has been put on hold until some bureaucratic arm of child services has time to process your claim, if you don't like same sex marriage, don't marry the same sex! Or how about telling that to the disenfranchised voters of D.C., I'm sorry you don't get a voice in your local government, we'll decide what is good for you, if you don't like same sex marriage, don't marry the same sex!

   Please people! Get a life!

5. Rob Tisinai
   Posted March 4, 2010 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

   TC, all of that was a choice by Catholic Charities, sometimes against the wishes of its board. The fault lies with Catholic Charities, not same sex marriage.

6. Ricky Leliefeld
   Posted March 4, 2010 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

   T.C. Matthews,tell those same people if Catholic charities or the bigits that want to put someone elses civil rights up to a vote, if they were not working for,or suppurting biggotry there would be no problem,Catholic chairities can still do adoptions,they just cannot recieve federal dollars if they discriminate,and the workers that have been laid off,its because of the churches worries that they may have to treat all employees equally that has caused them to lose their jobs.

7. LT
   Posted March 4, 2010 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

   TC,

   I wasn't aware that the DC Council passed a law cutting spousal benefits for Catholic Charities employees. And when did that bill slowing down adoption processes pass? Or that measure that disenfranchises DC voters...oh wait, that's already been the case for years. The only recent law I know of was in favor of marriage equality. Hm, must of had a lot of "riders" attached to simultaneously cut benefits, close down adoption centers, and disenfranchise half a million people, just so those pesky gays could get married. How selfish of them!

   But really, TC, stop misrepresenting the facts. It was the Catholic Charities that cut benefits and shut down adoption centers. Not the government, not the gays. This isn't the Reichstag. Take the scapegoating elsewhere.

8. Jennifer
   Posted March 4, 2010 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

   Catholic Charities decided not to bow down to gay identity politics (the new law) and stood by some core Christian values. There is a problem with the law if the law cannot respect religious liberties of all faiths.

9. jeri
   Posted March 4, 2010 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

   I hope the folks who lost their spousal benefits will finally consider changing their religion. Episcopal, Unitarian, Quaker, Reformed Jews are waiting with welcoming and loving arms...

10. TC Matthews
    Posted March 4, 2010 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    Jeri, and with that, perhaps you've hit on the real truth of it. State religion, courtesy of the activist gay congregation.

11. Jennifer
    Posted March 4, 2010 at 10:17 pm | Permalink

    Wow, really astonishing, Jeri. Your advice to Catholics is "change your religion"? Would you say the same kind of thing to Orthodox Jews? Devout Muslims? Hindus?
    Do you realize how many people come to this country seeking religious freedom? America really should be able to offer it, since it was one of the founding principles of this country. The point is that gay rights laws conflict with religious freedoms, again and again. The laws need to change, not people's religious beliefs.

12. Chairm
    Posted March 4, 2010 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

    It is a replay of what occured in other jurisdictions where SSM was imposed.

    Most SSMers become appalled with the radicalism, but the hardcore activists betray the moderates who were fooled by the superficial "mainstreaming" of the SSM campaign.

    As we see in the above comments, now come the open assertions that the gay activists will teach Catholics how to be better Catholics. And how the gay activists want the government to help provoke schism within the actual mainstream religions. This is not the proper role of government, but it is the unabashed demand, and expectation, of identity politics as asserted through the SSM campaign.

    As I've said in each jurisdiction that has imposed SSM, it is good that these hardcore SSMers tell us what they really think.

    We can take it as fair warning in the rest of the country.

13. don
    Posted March 5, 2010 at 1:18 am | Permalink

    Chairm

    Creation of the "other" and the assignment of negative especially value-laded labels to these selected segments is such an old strategy. It is just as insulting to imply that any group's goals should be denied because they are capable of being radicalized by hardliners.

14. J.D.
    Posted March 5, 2010 at 1:21 am | Permalink

    If the Catholic Church can (before now) offer spousal benefits the following types of people who are married to their employees:

    1) Not of the Catholic faith
    2) Been divorced prior to becoming that person's spouse, or
    3) Those who advocate for teaching evolution in the public schools

    then there should be no reason other than pure bigotry to not allow same-sex spouses of their employees access to spousal benefits, under a domestic parternship arrangement, as happened in San Francisco (basically you can add anyone you live with to your benefit plans). The Catholic Church in DC had every opportunity to abide by DC law while maintaining their belief marriage within their church is limited to one man and one woman. They chose not to. No one forced them to do this.

15. Matt
    Posted March 5, 2010 at 4:17 am | Permalink

    You all are horrible people. Love is love. How many heterosexual marriages are ended by cheating and betrayal? I know a girl who's father left the family because he was gay... after so many years of "marriage." How many people kill themselves because society says it isn't ok for them to be who they are. Is it ok to be Tiger woods because hes straight, when many gay couples have never cheated?

16. Fitz
    Posted March 5, 2010 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    don

    The hardliners control the agenda, Catholic charities being forced to remove itself from the adoption buisness because mother/father families are the ideal is about as telling and revealing a stance as is possible.

    The D.C. board had an opportunity to make an exemption. I am not aware of any same-sex "marriage" advocates who openly advocate moderation, accomodation, or diolgue with the opposition.

    The hardline is the only line in gay politics.

17. don
    Posted March 5, 2010 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

    I'm glad we have decided here to argue this on its freedom of religious merits. My religion says ssm is perfectly ok and the constitution says that you can not make laws establishing one religion. so where you christians come from in prohibiting my religious ideas, while claiming that the state is declining to enforce yours?

18. TC Matthews
    Posted March 5, 2010 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

    Matt, people have choices and make them all the time. They are free to do so, even when it causes other people heartache. That is part of allowing everyone their freedom. Public policy has to weigh things not by what some might do, but by what is best for everyone.

19. TC Matthews
    Posted March 5, 2010 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    J.D., I don't know of many companies who have such liberal benefits regulations as you have described. Is it right for D.C. law to force a religious group to go against their beliefs? Even the compromise you suggest is not much of a compromise. Giving spousal benefits to an apartment of roommates hardly seems economical. In effect, you're proposing a faith tax.

20. James R.
    Posted March 5, 2010 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

    Don, my sentiments exactly! What reason does the state have for pushing SSM on an unwilling public without a proper vote? Separation of SSM church and state! Let the people have a voice!

21. Chad
    Posted March 6, 2010 at 12:48 am | Permalink

    What reason did the state have for pushing interracial marriages on to the unwilling public without a proper vote. Your right how dare they!

22. TC Matthews
    Posted March 6, 2010 at 12:54 am | Permalink

    Chad, let's not pretend that promoting homosexuality, polygamy, polyandry and every other deviant sexuality as normal right and good has anything to do with race. People have a right to have a say in the moral code they will live by.

    Would you really have it any other way? You know there are countries that dictate morality and take away the citizens' voice, but those are usually socialistic dictatorships.

23. Kevinn
    Posted March 6, 2010 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    I think the state should promote the idea that homosexuality is normal, since it is. States should always promote the welfare of its citizens, and homosexuals are citizens.

24. marianne
    Posted March 6, 2010 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    The state can't promote the idea that homosexuality is normal. It may be good for some citizens, but not all. Kids are part of the "All". MY kids are part of the "all".

25. Kelly
    Posted March 8, 2010 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    Marianne,

    You just inferred other people's kids that are gay are not part of the "all?" You have expressed exactly the ignorant mindset we are trying to properly educate.

    People like you think everyday, "This will have nothing to do with me or my family. My kids won't be gay," when you are not showing your clairvoyant abilities but instead your hate and prejudice against homosexuals.

    Good job at getting the reality of what kind of person you really are out on the table.

26. TC Matthews
    Posted March 9, 2010 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    Kelly, You may think that crying "homophobic bigot" is your ace in the hole, the one size fits all answer to every opinion that isn't your own, but Marianne's concern for the consequences of this political shift are genuine and shared by many Americans, including gays. The sooner your side learns to actually communicate about the issues and defend the extreme positions the activist gay leadership is taking, the better for everyone.

27. Joe
    Posted March 9, 2010 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

    I'm curious as to why no one in the news has called Barack Obama a bigot or a homophobe, when he flat out said he didn't support gay marriage. I also wonder why none of them have called God or the apostle Paul a bigot either, since both of them denounce homosexuality over and over again. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

28. TC Matthews
    Posted March 9, 2010 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

    good point.

29. Joe
    Posted March 14, 2010 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    There seems to be one thing that SSM radicals seem to forget...they are not the only ones with rights. We have the right to bring our cases to the higher courts if people impose gay marriage. When the Supreme Court overturns gay marraige in DC, don't blame us. Blame the people who illegally imposed it before they should have.

30. mac
    Posted March 21, 2010 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    Fenty is closing 81 schools yet has time to work gay agendas. DC is failing.