Yet another group of his supporters lied to and thrown under the bus.
#1 | Posted by cookfish at 2009-09-19 08:04 AM

Unfortunately, I saw this fight coming.

Barry's a homophobe
#8 | Posted by wurster at 2009-09-19 03:18 PM

It would appear to be the case.

I think what we will find is DOMA is unconstitutional, at odds with the equal protection clause, and an undue assertion of Federal authority into those rights traditionally left to the States.
The other way to "fix" this is by throwing out the baby with the bathwater. As the Justice Dept. asserts, "No court has found such a right to federal benefits to be fundamental." So rather than extend these benefits to gay married couples, we can stop giving these benefits to any married couples. Problem solved.
#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-09-19 03:21 PM

Agreed. No benefits to anyone.

Marriage is marriage is marraige - whether to a man or a woman there is no difference.

It's an ancient relationship - requires NO "faith" or religious observance, no ritual or rites.

Anti-gay "Christians" (read BillJ) have no sense of egalitarianism. I loved reading your posts - they indicate a thoughtful, dedicated and accomplished man still conflicted in spirit, mind and body. So, taking that into account how could you honestly believe that gays shouldn't have the "rights" to marriage? Your a Christian and you claim to know the mind of God.. sigh, just like interracial marriage was illegal less than 40 years ago for the same reasons.

You should really consider that all of your views regarding Christianity may be wrong. The church may be wrong. The priests, pastors and pontiffs may be wrong. Human-constructed rules against equality in the guise of spiritual acknowledgment are wrong.

"Barry's a homophobe
#8 | Posted by wurster at 2009-09-19 03:18 PM
It would appear to be the case."

Based on what? What a weird assertion. ..
#18 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-09-20 07:05 AM

I'm pissed off. DOMA is evil. Those who support it are clearly unlikely to ever "capitulate" to gay equality. There is only ONE openly gay Congressperson and NO Senators. That's not just disproportionate, but obviously a situation that will never resolve in favor of gays being "allowed" marriage to each other.

"Gay marriage" to the religious is not about "love", but about "hate". How much more twisted need one get? That's Johnson country!

Red,
"You should really consider that all of your views regarding Christianity may be wrong."

I do...all the time.
I don't profess to be sure of anything. But, I believe what I believe.
Here's the problem with Gay Marriage, in my opinion.
Regarding gay related issues, what exactly IS the objective?
The objective is to be protected by and under the law against all manners of hatred and prejudice.
Gay people deserve to live without fear. America has a duty to pass such laws.
However, Gay Marriage is not a necessary component of these rights gay people are entitled.
Civil Unions (if written as such) could provide all rights and responsibilities as traditional marriage.
Personally, I support a Marriage Amendment stating that "marriage is between 1 man and 1 women" and only if it contained provisions for Civil Unions that provide the same rights as Marriage for same sex couples.
This is a compromise on everyone's part and would provide a way for gays to get what they need (not what they want), and for straights to, perhaps, be more willing to allow gay people to live in peace.
What I haven't talked about is how I believe gay men and women fit into The Church.
You see...I believe in the seperation of church and state. Churches have every "right" to believe what they want, and to teach whatever they choose. They just can't influence law.
I'll say this. It bothers me that so many churches teach being gay and a Christian are mutually exclusive.
#30 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2009-09-20 01:49 PM

First off, thank you for responding so thoughtfully (this is the lead-up to a bashing, be told).

Second, you didn't address why gay people should not be allowed marriage. You espoused a genuine desire for civil unions, but didn't explain why not marriage. What is it about marriage that gays are not eligible for specifically?

Prag,
Sorry...I sort of thought I had answered it.
It gets fairly complex for me and writing about it is difficult. I have done it from time and time and every time it takes a lot out of me.
If any gay couple chooses to have a ceremony at a church that supports it, that is their business. Who am I to say God will or won't bless their union? I just know what I believe.
The legal protection needed by gay couples could be provided via Civil Unions. The whole Gay Marriage argument is just a matter of semantics, in my opinion, and somewhat of a power play. Some people realize it's only a matter of time before laws are passed protecting homosexuals, so they insist on including Gay Marriage and if you disagree, you are called homophobic.
Ok...so why not just give in and agree to Gay Marriage, since it's just a matter of semantics, you might ask?
Because I don't think we should change existing laws. It's a matter of going forward and providing a solution that will meet the needs of gay relationships, legally speaking. No one is stopping them from having a ceremony at a church, if that's what they want.
The problem is I haven't seen any good arguments supporting Gay Marriage, that are any better than arguments against it. Sure, there was the case in the 60's where a court said, "marriage is a right", but that wasn't a gay couple.
Definitely, it has a long way to go and certainly it is destined for the Supreme Court.
#34 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2009-09-20 04:56 PM

Thank you once more for acting in good faith and responding with your honest opinion. I'm going to be honest right back.

Firstly, marriage has ZERO to do with God, churches or the Bible. It is a civil union and the fact is that Christians want to "own" the word "marriage" but it's never been theirs to begin with. I detest "compassionate Christians" telling me that I'm not eligible for something that has been occurring for THOUSANDS of years prior to Christ, Muhammad or even Zoar.

Second, I do not believe that separate is equal. I also do not believe that any religious rules should dictate whether or not I should marry. The variety of Christian faiths have a rather long and abrasive historical record in dealing with those whom they do not support, generally murdering gay people and literally equating us with "demonic" and "unnatural forces". In my opinion the church is the most unnatural and "demonic" force ever.

Are you opposed to a Muslim and a Christian marrying? What about an African American to a Brazilian? Does race or religion play any part in their "right" to marry? So, it's only sexuality that should be of consideration in your opinion? Only gays should be excluded in God's eyes, or is that really not God who excludes gays from church?

If we didn't "change existing laws" blacks would never have been permitted to marry whites. Women would never be allowed to vote. Children would still be working in factories. We'd still have a slavery. All of these "minorities" would be merely second-class and worse had the laws not changed.

Most churches do not support gay marriage ceremony, or even gays to be members, so it's not likely that we can "go where we want" as you described.

Christian families are often torn apart, their children are disowned and communities become dangerous to their gay citizens. If laws didn't change I would have been killed by raving murderous "Christians" long ago.

Your worship of God may be insignificant compared with the bigotry and self-loathing you apparently have been programmed with. Because you are able to reason I expect you to capitulate, but so long as you profess to know the mind of God that's obviously trumping all reason.