D.C. city council approves gay marriage
posted at 9:06 pm on December 15, 2009 by Allahpundit
An 11-2 vote, with Marion Barry one of the two no’s. Next stop: Congress.
Overturning the measure during 30-day congressional review period would require majority votes from both houses of Congress, plus the signature of President Barack Obama. That outcome is unlikely. A congressional challenge to the District’s vote is more likely through other avenues: First off, lawmakers could place a restriction on the city’s spending that would effectively nullify the law, but the earliest that would happen is approximately a year from now. Alternately, a gay-marriage rider could be added to any other congressional provision—much as restrictions on city gun laws were added to the bill that would have granted the District a vote in the House of Representatives.
More immediately threatening may be the prospect of judicial intervention. Lawyers financed by national conservative organizations have vowed to challenge the gay marriage measure on a variety of grounds, including whether the District’s home rule charter requires elections officials to allow a public vote on the issue and also whether the federal Defense of Marriage Act applied to local laws in the District of Columbia.
A referendum in D.C. would be fascinating given the city’s racial demographics and the CW that blacks are, by and large, against gay marriage. A poll taken earlier this year in three D.C. wards showed overwhelming support for it, but those wards skewed heavily white and liberal and ended up dividing sharply along racial lines — 92 percent of whites in favor versus just 41 percent of blacks. Why not put it to a citywide vote and settle the issue? Because, you see, that would be a human rights violation:
Citizen groups can seek a referendum on the bill, but the District’s convoluted procedure for such efforts requires the two-member D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics to approve a referendum and gives the Board the authority to reject it if they believe it conflicts with the D.C. Human Rights Act. Since the D.C. Court of Appeals has held that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman does not violate the Act, a referendum ought to be allowed. The Board and the D.C. Superior Court have shown little interest, however, in applying the law, and instead seem bent on preventing any popular input on the Council’s experiment in social engineering. That leaves Congress’s oversight authority, which, given current political alignments, is a thin reed to lean on.
In practice, Washingtonians end up in the same place as New Yorkers, i.e. without any recourse to a popular vote. Exit question: If, as many suspect, a majority of the population really is against gay marriage, how’d they end up with such a lopsided council vote?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
When a convicted crackhead is on the side of reason, the Apocalypse is nigh!
omnipotent on December 15, 2009 at 9:11 PM
The school ‘fisting’ experience stayed with them longer than thought…
Seven Percent Solution on December 15, 2009 at 9:11 PM
The “down low” culture among black males goes all the way to the pulpit.
SouthernGent on December 15, 2009 at 9:17 PM
I’m sure this will help quell the violent crime in D.C. committed by all the gays frustrated that they can’t get married.
/snark
Nethicus on December 15, 2009 at 9:19 PM
Does the word “sodomy” strike a familiar note? Really, think about the physical acts not the politics. Does this constitute your notion of the “marital embrace” and it’s natural result? Is this “marriage”? Sound good to you? Skip the rights dodge and think of the underlying reality. Marriage=kids=society=our future.
Mason on December 15, 2009 at 9:22 PM
No. It would be a violation of the DC Human Rights Act, and they’re right to reject the referendum, because it does conflict with that law, which says that you can’t deny anyone access to any DC public service due to discrimination based on sexual orientation (along with all the other standard boilerplate stuff).
Proud Rino on December 15, 2009 at 9:22 PM
Come on dude, don’t be stupid. Married people don’t have sex.
Proud Rino on December 15, 2009 at 9:22 PM
Gee, I’ll go out on a limb here, but do you think it could be because DC has a lopsided council???
American Elephant on December 15, 2009 at 9:25 PM
They have Taxation Without Representation on their license plates. A reasonable request, certainly.
You have to look past it as a ruse to create two more constantly Democrat Senate seats. These people should have rights.
The prospect of a new democrat run state is not as horrible as the other results that would come. What are they?
Well, just have the DC government run things for a few years as a state. We would be asking George III to bring back the Redcoats.
IlikedAUH2O on December 15, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Politicians here know that a higher concentration of gays over blacks actually vote in DC…and they also know gays were paying attention to the vote…DC government is as crooked as they come…lose your seat and lose your pay-offs…
DCJeff on December 15, 2009 at 9:29 PM
(a) See the blockquote in my post. The D.C. Court of Appeals has already ruled that same-sex marriage doesn’t fall under the Act. (b) If the Act is itself merely a statute, why on earth should it be immune from popular referendum?
Allahpundit on December 15, 2009 at 9:30 PM
I think Rasmussen divides people into the “political class” and the “populist class.” There’s your answer right there. The same people who voted on the council for gay marriage are also sitting on the elections board and will not dare to put this thing to a referendum.
If I were Marion Barry (who just jumped three points in my book) I’d gather every black pastor in the District and wage a scorched-earth campaign to get this thing on a ballot. Who knows, he might even ride this thing back to the mayor’s office.
KingGold on December 15, 2009 at 9:30 PM
Gee, I dunno. With the “Krishtuns” hounding those who vote FOR gay marriage, posting their contact information on the internet, having mass demonstrations at their residences, publishing names of their children and schools attended, blocking the streets and traffic flow into their places of work every day….
/s
Marcus on December 15, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Really? Interesting – what case?
Beats the f out of me dude.
Proud Rino on December 15, 2009 at 9:32 PM
The government has been sodomizing us for years, now the can do it with a clear conscious
thomasaur on December 15, 2009 at 9:32 PM
I’ve been asking the same thing about Dems and ObamaCare for 6 months.
battleoflepanto1571 on December 15, 2009 at 9:33 PM
All three at-large council members voted for the measure as did members representing majority-black Wards 4,5, and 6, suggesting that a) the majority of voters, if not residents, are in favor the bill b) black opposition may not be as deep as conservatives are gleeful to think and c) maybe councilmembers were interested in doing the right thing rather than pandering to prejudice. At any rate, no one is going to elected to citywide office having opposed this. Arguably, a majority in virtually all-black the “East of the River” wards oppose the measure, but an equally large majority in the majority white wards supported it.
At any rate, there aren’t any votes on that side of the river. Turnout is low.
There is no vote because the DC City charter forbids referendums on human rights-type votes. We couldn’t have a referendum on re-segregation, for example, or banning minarets.
Bleeds Blue on December 15, 2009 at 9:33 PM
Allahpundit – “Democracy”
God – Romans 1:18-32
shick on December 15, 2009 at 9:33 PM
because referenda are (state) constitutionally-mandated possibilities, and as far as I know DC has no constitution… just congressional oversight (and maybe a charter or something?)
battleoflepanto1571 on December 15, 2009 at 9:35 PM
1. Sodomy is any sex act that isn’t PIV.
2. Do you believe that heterosexual couples who are incapable of having children – or just choose not to have them – shouldn’t be allowed to marry?
Siobhan on December 15, 2009 at 9:36 PM
The same could be asked about Obamacare, Cap and Tax, Porkulous, you name it.
Liberals could care less about their electorate and its wishes. They see them as mere servants, not employers.
TXUS on December 15, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Obama is against gay marriage too …weird.
CWforFreedom on December 15, 2009 at 9:37 PM
bad examples.
segregation in public facilities (things that the city would control, and therefore be voting on in some citywide vote) is illegal in many supreme court cases… from railroad porters to brown v. topeka in ’54, you cant have separate but equal.
banning minarets would again be impossible b/c the first amendment says congress makes no law for/against a religion. since congress controls dc, that would be a congress-run rule vs. minarets
what i mean is, both those examples are unconstitutional ANYWAY.
the dc ‘human rights’ thing is bunk.
battleoflepanto1571 on December 15, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Good for them. Glad it was done this way too, rather than by court order.
SDnocoen on December 15, 2009 at 9:39 PM
+1. I’ll do you one better:
Gays – “It’s not about attacking religion, it’s about equality”
Court-ordered EHarmony, arrested christian wedding photographers in new mexico, jailed ministers in western europe, churches not exempt under the new hampshire law – “Suuuuuuuuuurrrrrrreeeee”
battleoflepanto1571 on December 15, 2009 at 9:41 PM
This shows how sleazy you are. You’ll shack up with a racist, corrupt old hack who almost killed this city because you both share a loathing of tens of thousands of tax-paying citizens. Maybe you and he can go hunting for
crackblow together, talking about how gays are destroying the moral fabric of America.Bleeds Blue on December 15, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Haha, WHOOPS, reading fail.
Proud Rino on December 15, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Because the DC city council is made up of Leftist Lib politicos, that’s why.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 9:43 PM
O/T but did anyone just see Col. West on Hannity?
OUTSTANDING…. we need guys like this in the GOP.
Best part was when he said the President has failed, and he thinks job creation is giving his wife 22 staffers.
BPD on December 15, 2009 at 9:44 PM
did they start with a lopsided council?
cue Homer simpson…
ted c on December 15, 2009 at 9:44 PM
We don’t loathe homosexuals, we just know that 2 of them of the same sex cannot biologically, physically or even spiritually or emotionally ever be truly married.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 9:45 PM
I wonder how that anti-gay bigot, President Ogabe, feels about this?
Bishop on December 15, 2009 at 9:46 PM
what? the citizens didnt get to vote here.
once again, gay marriage is WINLESS in popular votes.
It’s 0-31.
That’s worse than the detroit lions, the tampa bay team from the 70s, and the ’62 mets thrown together.
battleoflepanto1571 on December 15, 2009 at 9:47 PM
Not even close. A referendum is the only fair way to decide this. As it is, an openly gay councilmember pushed this through 13 liberals without any interest in public opposition. The Archdiocese of DC is questioning how many of its current contracts can be honored after passing legislation that is hostile to Christian denominations who rightfully view homosexuality as a lifestyle choice and disease (like substance abuse).
Again, this should have been up to a referendum from the beginning.
highhopes on December 15, 2009 at 9:48 PM
ANYWAY, AP, my point still stands, I think although I skimmed that doggie wicked fast. I’m guessing the HRA is the thing you can’t violate in terms of having a referendum, but that doesn’t mean that other laws can’t be violative of the HRA, it just means that, if they’re passed after HRA ratification, then those laws (or the referenda held on those laws) can’t violate the HRA. But it doesn’t undo any past laws.
So since marriage had “always” been known as between a man and a woman, then there wasn’t much for Dean to do. But since this law now says, “marriage is between the straights AND between the gays,” then any referenda would overturn it and say, “No, it’s not,” which seems inherently violative of the HRA.
Proud Rino on December 15, 2009 at 9:49 PM
I had the details wrong but it does derive from the DC Human Rights Act.
I’m assuming all you federalists will be just as happy to let our gay friends get married and focus your fear and loathing on your own home states.
Really? You’ve tried it?
Bleeds Blue on December 15, 2009 at 9:50 PM
Here’s a thought. First, maybe I think that allowing same-sex couples to be married degrades the fabric of society and loosens moral values. Secondly, maybe I think that every single self-righteous grandstanding specious argument applied in support of gay marriage (prejudice, social acceptance, economic factors) could also be applied to polygamy and pederasty and thus don’t hold much water.
Finally, Marion Barry seems to have gotten a new view of moral issues since he left office, and a reformed politician is a good politician, even a moderate Dem like Barry.
So maybe I’m sleazy. And maybe you need to stop pretending like the absence of gay marriage is akin to slavery.
KingGold on December 15, 2009 at 9:51 PM
The “biologically” I can almost see the rationale for (but what about sterile straights? Are they not truly married?) You’ll have to explain the “emotionally” bit though. Are you really saying that gay/lesbian couples don’t love each other as much as straight couples do?
SDnocoen on December 15, 2009 at 9:51 PM
It’s only your opinion that it’s “the right thing,” when many millions of us view it as the wrong thing.
Opposition to same sex marriage is about a whole lot more than mere prejudice and you know it.
Due to blackmail and intimidation by the Gaystapo, right?
We saw how those lovely “democratic” people worked in California with Prop 8.
Consummate straw man.
Nothing like comparing Bill’s “right” to marry Bob to (rational) fear of radical Islam or racism.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Haha, yeah, not so much.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/feb/marion-barry-corrupt-ever
Proud Rino on December 15, 2009 at 9:53 PM
Comparatively, I mean. I shudder to think what kind of money I’d find in the pockets of half those councilmen.
KingGold on December 15, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Most couples don’t realize they’re sterile when they get married and fully intend to have children.
Actually, I don’t have to explain the “emotionally” bit.
I notice you didn’t ask about the spiritual part (“And the two shall become one.”)
There is no way that the “love” relationship between 2 people of the same sex can be as fulfilling,as emotionally and spiritually full or as complementary as that between a committed man and a woman.
Traditional marriage isn’t based solely on sex.
Same sex relationships, for the most part, are.
BTW, I’ve never seen you post before tonight.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Nice morals you got there. So, based on zero knowledge of the other councilmen, you believe that Barry is a crook, but (again, possibly) not as much of a crook as the other councilmen, although, again you have no idea.
With standards like that, who needs standards?
Proud Rino on December 15, 2009 at 9:57 PM
news flash:
1. DC isn’t a state.
2. the people didn’t vote, a city council (not a state leg.) voted
DC isn’t even a part of federalism, as it is NOT a state — it’s congresses private little b&tch, and nothing more. it’d be bigger news if american samoa did this.
battleoflepanto1571 on December 15, 2009 at 9:58 PM
Ha-Ha.
It doesn’t take much imagination or that many biology classes to know that the parts of 2 people of the same sex don’t fit properly to effect sexual union and conception like they do with one man and one woman.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 9:59 PM
define couple.
statistically, a third of gay men have more than 1,000 sex partners in their life. that’s a new dude, every 2 weekends, for 40 straight years.
that’s like ‘marriage’ how?
battleoflepanto1571 on December 15, 2009 at 10:00 PM
You can’t have it both ways: praising the city council for such a “wise” vote and then condemning Marion Barry.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 10:01 PM
“Ogabe” is not a racial insult.
The Race Card on December 15, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Another blow against the Catholic Church. More concerned with the outside chance that some same-sex partner will get health care benefits through one of their employees than about the thousands of poor people whom they might help. Guess we know what their priorities are.
Really? How?
Proponents of gay marriage ask only that gay couples have the same rights as straight couples. And you show your bigotry by likening gay relationships to pederasty, polygamy and bestiality.
Did you click on the link I sent? Here it is again. That’s him on the (vaguely NSFW) cover with the mistress he put on city payroll. And there are the recent coke busts and the ongoing tax avoidance. you pick your friends well.
I never said that. I never said that miscegenation laws were the equivalent of slavery. I just said this is an important step on the way to a better nation, and that I’m pleased for those I know who may be affected by it some day.
Bleeds Blue on December 15, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Ok, so people who are knowingly sterile shouldn’t be allowed to marry?
It’s a figure of speech.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize I was debating a bigot. Have a nice night.
SDnocoen on December 15, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Support of the bill be reps from the NW Washington quad won’t hurt them in any future elections, because that’s the stronghold of the city’s white liberal Democrats. But it will be interesting to see how the reps who voted for it and have the majority of their districts either east of Rock Creek Park or south of the Anacostia fare, especially with such a high-profile pol as Barry being one of the two ‘no’ votes (i.e. — that makes sure it doesn’t go away as a political issue within the district).
jon1979 on December 15, 2009 at 10:04 PM
Wrong again.
I do not want homosexual marriage to be legal anywhere in this (once) great republic!
It is a stain on our nation that threatens to be as big a moral stain on our nation as slavery once was.
It is an abomination and the pinnacle of Leftist lunacy in public policy.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 10:04 PM
What’s your source? Weekend flings after a night of drinking at the Man Cave Dance Club do not count.
The Race Card on December 15, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Barry is a crook. If his conviction isn’t enough to convince you is the the neverending series of brushes with the law ever since that proves the fact.
If you can’t even admit that then the rest of your troll spume isn’t even relevant.
That being said, I seriously doubt that the gay lobby had to buy off the DC Council to get sodomy legalized through “marriage.” No decent human being lives in the city and they deserve whatever they get because DC is nothing more than Detroit with jobs or San Francisco without crappier weather.
highhopes on December 15, 2009 at 10:07 PM
really now? well why don’t you explain why they are not, instead of making some BS statement you cannot backup.
polygamy, and pedophilia, etc. are just ‘lifestyle choices’ after all…right?
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 10:07 PM
I’m no bigot!
I’m just stating things the way they are.
Your pretense to the contrary just won’t hold water.
The onus to prove that we need to change the longstanding Western tradition of traditional marriage to include same sex “marriage” is upon homosexuals.
Thus far, they haven’t made their case.
Citing tax benefits (when actually, married people are taxed more) and hospital visitation rights, which they already enjoy, is not enough.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 10:07 PM
you mean he’s a coke head like barry hussein??
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 10:08 PM
And there it is! Liberal idiot morons throwing in the anti-Christian barbs.
Stop your lies. It isn’t about homosexual employees demanding benefits, it is about an religious institution being forced to pay for lifestyle choices that go against the faith of the institution. Put in terms you might be more familiar with- It is like demanding that Alcoholic’s Anonymous pay for the booze of the sots on their staff.
highhopes on December 15, 2009 at 10:11 PM
This is the reality of a democratic republic, folks. Win some, lose some.
Dark-Star on December 15, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Gays getting married is morally equal to the entire institution of slavery? WTF?
What about homosexuality makes it so much more immoral than gambling, drinking or any moral failing? What makes it immoral at all? Did Bill Bennett contributing to the demise of our nation by gambling away millions?
What, specifically, is worse about being gay than being straight? Any moral failings you equally ostracize and denigrate when committed by heterosexuals?
Are you better than gays? Do you have more rights? Should you have more rights than gays?
The Race Card on December 15, 2009 at 10:13 PM
I never said all lifestyle choices are legitimate. You said that. Your moral lens is so clouded that you can’t tell the differences between a relationship between two loving adults with, by all accounts, a statistically unusual but perfectly natural orientation to same sex relationships, and raping a child or having sex with a dog.
Bleeds Blue on December 15, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Many same sex partners already enjoy their partner’s health care benefits.
Another straw man.
This is a guaranteed way to destroy this country by forcing the majority of us to accept these unnatural perversions as “mainstream” and “normal,” which is why the Left is so keen on getting it done.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 10:16 PM
Haven’t you heard? Gay men have thousands…no, TENS of thousands of sexual partners. And when they’re done having sex with each other they rape small children and puppies! Yeah, that’s the ticket!
SDnocoen on December 15, 2009 at 10:17 PM
It’s about a religious institution that chooses to turn its back on the people it allegedly wants to serve. The city council offered a couple of compromises but the church demanded that the city play by Catholic rules or they were going to take their ball and go home.
Bye-bye. This ain’t Vatican City, the pope doesn’t make the laws.
Bleeds Blue on December 15, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Grahamnesty must be proud of you.
I have believed throughout perhaps my entire adult life that there is nothing inherently wrong with homosexual inclination. In this I am on firm moral ground. Gay marriage, however, is another stroke of the pen entirely.
I don’t think there should be laws against private contracts and sharing of property between individuals, no matter what sex they are. But I am not nearly alone in my thinking that government ought not to endorse or give special benefits to same-sex couples. Every deficit has contract and medical laws that act as a workaround, so no crying “I can’t visit my partner in the hospital!”
Marriage is not a federal issue. I am opposed to a federal marriage amendment and think that this thing should be handled in the states, by the voters, not the legislature or the courts. If you wish to call be a bigot, fine. There is a group of people in this country – a decided minority – who believe that illegals should have all rights granted to citizens, up to and including the vote. They call people who oppose them bigots too. Is their cause more valid or just because they smear their opponents as racists?
KingGold on December 15, 2009 at 10:18 PM
interesting that you left out polygamy…so if gay relationships are fine, then why not polygamy/polyandry? and why not pedophilia? after all who is to say what the age of consent is? and NAMBLA has been part of the gay movement for decades…and they even have the ACLU to defend them.
in other words..you cannot point out the differences between any of these types of relationships…yet you say there are. again, all you have is talking points.
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Basically, you are saying that all lifestyle choices are legitimate.
If 2 “loving” adults of the same sex are allowed to be called “married” and enjoy that legal state, even though they can never consummate such “marriage” or produce natural offspring (the real thing the state of marriage is designed to protect and nurture), then it only follows that you can marry a child, more than one wife or husband or your dog.
In short, anyone who claims to have a “loving relationship” with any other entity, under your rules, should be allowed to do so, regardless of the reasons or the fact that no children or organic family will result from it.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 10:21 PM
yeah people like you (fascists) are REAL TOLERANT of the gays…but REAL INTOLERANT of anything, or anyone, that disagrees with them.
yeah whats freedom of religion compared to the gays?
this is what gay marriage and their supporters are all about..ending freedom of religion, for christians, they wouldn’t say anything to the muslims…
typical liberal nazi.
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 10:22 PM
The Church is here to “serve” and save sinners.
If those sinners want to go on sinning, that’s their choice and the Church must stand against Sin.
The church door is always open to the penitent.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 10:24 PM
How foolish of me.
The Race Card on December 15, 2009 at 10:24 PM
people like you are going to make the gays more equal than others…
you sure don’t see christians, or straight white people ever being the victim of ‘hate crimes’ now do you??
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 10:24 PM
The tax issues can’t be worked around with a private contract. I agree with keeping the federal government out of the issue. DC should recognize each state’s marriage license.
dedalus on December 15, 2009 at 10:26 PM
You intentionally are mixing up various issues.
Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. The science is not conclusive on whether or not homosexuality is innate but the fact of the matter is that it is morally deviant. Just because one is homosexual does not mean they should be enouraged to act on those urges any more than one does not enourage an alcoholic to drink. Furthermore, the reality is that gays work against their own goals by their own behavior at “gay pride” events. There may be committed loving “couples” in the crowds but all the attention goes to the half-naked radicals with their anti-social signs and lewd behavior. That too is part of the gay lifestyle.
Gay “marriage” is another issue entirely. Legitimizing the relationship of practicing homosexuals frays the fabric of society- which is based on the idea of joining unions to further society by procreation. There are ways to let practicing homosexuals to have all the legal protections without calling the relationship a marriage.
highhopes on December 15, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Why don’t you tell me what’s wrong with polygamy? No fair using the bible, this isn’t a theocracy. I’d say that relationships between two people constitute a stable unit that the state has an interest in protecting.
Sex between an adult or a child is immoral and constitutes rape. We can bandy about the “age of consent” thing (18? 17? 16? — what of the partner is the same age? etc) forever, but the real issue is pre-pubescent children and adults in positions of power (teachers, etc) and on that there is no disagreement: it’s wrong. And oh, by the way, straight men have quite a long history of that sort of thing, so maybe straight marriage legitimizes pederasty.
As for the bestiality, the liberal argument is that animals can’t give consent, the moderate argument is that it’s just gross and the conservative argument is that there’s not much wrong with it if you’re alone in the barnyard.
Bleeds Blue on December 15, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Many homosexuals, especially men, are quite promiscuous.
And their “marriages,” in states where it’s been tried, tend to be short-lived.
As for raping small children, there is the problem of NAMBLA.
And you forgot about their spread of HIV/AIDS, which is the primary reason the AA community has been against same sex marriage.
Due to all the “down low” activity, the fastest growing group of AIDS sufferers has become black women.
And the black community is trying to get baby daddies to stay home, get married to their baby’s mother and nurture a family.
Homosexual relationships threaten to destroy the tenuous efforts to heal the welfare mother syndrome.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 10:28 PM
I eagerly await the polygraph tests that they’ll use to identify adulterers and fornicators in their midst. Good job their doing: stonewalling on abusive priests, but if receptionist at a service desk wants to marry her girlfriend, the poor kids can rot, for all they care.
Bleeds Blue on December 15, 2009 at 10:29 PM
So why does the Catholic Church have to ignore its values. DC is a city full of radical liberals. They should be tolerant of all, even Christians. There simply is no compromise when you have to pay for deviant lifestyle choices and the law that was passed doesn’t even allow the kind of compromises you suggest were put forth. You are nothing but a big fat lying troll.
highhopes on December 15, 2009 at 10:30 PM
Speaking for myself as a gay conservative here (well, libertarian actually), but the only “hate crimes” protection I need from the government is for it to respect my 2nd amendment rights. Any ‘phobes try to mess with me or my bf then they can answer to Mr.Glock
SDnocoen on December 15, 2009 at 10:31 PM
My guess is that while only two-thirds of one of the city’s four quadrants can be considered your standard urban, white liberal enclave that polling would show supports gay marriage, that same two-thirds is also made up of the types of people who are the main overall campaign contributors to D.C. Democrats’ campaigns.
The pols who don’t represent the city’s NW quadrant but who voted with the reps from that area are probably betting that by the time they run for re-election, whatever controversy comes out of their vote today among the people living in their precinct will have been forgotten. Which may be true, but as high-profile a pol as Barry is, if he decides to make repealing today’s decision an issue among black voters city-wide in the next election cycle, it’s hard to see how it doesn’t remain in the spotlight.
jon1979 on December 15, 2009 at 10:31 PM
I saw that too. He was great.
Back to the topic: Hey, DC: enjoy the Kevin Jennings fisting curriculum headed your way.
BuckeyeSam on December 15, 2009 at 10:32 PM
its terrible for the child, they need a mother and father…not multiples of each. just like gay marriage is terrible for kids, because they need a mother and a father.
you see, polygamy/polyandry is OK with people like you…anything goes in other words for people like you. and you use children as pawns…its all about the gays, and the hell with children with people like you.
why is it wrong? what are your standards? and who says your standards are right? without the Bible, or religion, then anything goes…as we see with you.
thats not much of a protest against it..again, with people like you, anything goes. its the darwinian world view…no right, no wrong.
you are wrong. and yes there is a God in heaven, and morality is built into all of us…and all your whining won’t change that.
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Civil unions are a good idea that neither side will go for. As far as procreation, there is no requirement to marry if you want to procreate nor to procreate once you are married.
dedalus on December 15, 2009 at 10:33 PM
I knew it was only a matter of minutes before you’d be throwing in the priest problem to defend your indefensible views. If a receptionist wants to enter into some sort of morally repugnant relationship with a girlfriend then she isn’t the right person to be the first person that visitors see when they enter the building. She doesn’t reflect the values of the institution, is easily replaced, and the kids wouldn’t have to suffer. What you are suggesting is that homosexuality and the immorality of homosexuality needs to be legitimized to the point that government goes out after Christians.
highhopes on December 15, 2009 at 10:34 PM
This is just rambling BS. No doubt there are gay child molesters, just as there are many more straight child molesters, but the NAMBLA thing is just a boogie man you pull out to scare people. Outside a few dangerous freaks, it exists only in your mind.
The fact that there is “down low” activity is an excellent reason to encourage men to enter stable monogamous relationships.
The idea that gays having anything to do with welfare mothers is frankly not bright. “Down low” types are typically married or in stable relationships.
Bleeds Blue on December 15, 2009 at 10:34 PM
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/victims.htm
PWN3D
Proud Rino on December 15, 2009 at 10:35 PM
They have a thing called Confession: if one is serious in seeking God and His forgiveness, you don’t need a polygraph.
Confessing your sins to the Lord is something you want to do, as is vowing to the Lord that you will sin no more, with His help.
The “abusive priests” thing was way overblown by the Media–another attack by the Left on the integrity of the Church and Christianity.
There were a very few priests who abused young parishioners.
Mainly, it was about the Money and who got to sue the dioceses for lots of money.
BTW, not all Christians are Catholics.
The Bible states many times that homosexuality is a sin, is wrong and a perversion.
It’s certainly a perversion of God’s perfect will for Man and his happiness.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Enough with conservatives using this phrase. You sound effing ridiculous. Any other such phrase coined by blacks would be roundly disregarded…because of the source. Now, in order to support your point, you co-opt this language.
WTF do you know about being on the dl? What movie did you watch to learn it?
Next thing, you’ll be talking about hot-combs waves to refute global warming.
The Race Card on December 15, 2009 at 10:36 PM
I’m sure those ‘elite whites’ in DC don’t want any “uppty” Blacks voting on gay marriage laws. The nerve of them. What, they think they’ve got “rights”?
GarandFan on December 15, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Over blown is right.
The Race Card on December 15, 2009 at 10:36 PM
I’m sure you would consider me a ‘phobe’..you gays are a violent lot aren’t you now? but don’t worry….us ‘phobes’ are well armed too…
hate crimes are the law of the land now…and we’ve seen what it does to freedom of speech, and religious liberty in other countries…
and we’ve seen gays sue a doctor in CA, for refusing to inseminate them…the doctor lost, the CA supreme court said religious liberty is no defense against the laws…
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 10:36 PM
figures lie, and liars figure…why don’t you show me a real live case?
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 10:38 PM
How can blacks be hell bent against gays collectively but have so many men on the dl? Your facts are not jibing, but you are shucking hilarious.
The Race Card on December 15, 2009 at 10:38 PM
so the ACLU defended a myth?
right4life on December 15, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Uh, no.
The NAMBLA thing is real and you know it is.
Epic fail.
My impression is that black men that engage in “down low” activity do so “on the side” and have no intention of having a “stable monogamous relationship” with a person of their same sex.
…and you refute your own “argument.”
The AA community, especially their Christian leaders, are against same sex marriage for that reason and any other attempt to destroy black marriages and families with the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Always refreshing to see the hate come out. I was merely pointing out that the church’s moral standrds seem more in force some times than at other times.
You’re ignoring everything I say. You’re covering your ears and yelling so that you don’t have to be confronted with the frightening idea that there can be a morality not rooted in religious superstition.
Bleeds Blue on December 15, 2009 at 10:41 PM
I guess there’s no word yet on approval of gay procreation?
Kralizec on December 15, 2009 at 10:41 PM
You could ask the same question of Arab Muslims.
They publicly condemn homosexuality while engaging in it on the “down low.”
Both these groups or societies know that it’s a nasty, unnatural perversion and yet human frailty (Did I mention that we are all sinners?) being what it is, the behavior exists.
Jenfidel on December 15, 2009 at 10:42 PM
No BIOLOGICAL requirement. Traditionally, the family unit is built around the concept of joining up to “breed.” This is such a strong concept that, until very recently, not marrying was considered a social stigma (particularly for women). Likewise,not procreating once married (or at least publicly engaged at some points in history) was considered selfish since you were not adding to the tribe.
highhopes on December 15, 2009 at 10:44 PM
What evidence do you have to suggest that the FBI is lying?
Proud Rino on December 15, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »