News-Record.com

Icky, icky, icky -

There's a lot of truth to what you say, Mr. Johnson. It makes you wonder just how some people view the issue of rights, if such a short time after getting them after so many generations of struggle and pain, they can so happily deny rights to others. And use the same book to justify that denial as was used to deny them any sort of freedom.

Irony abounds, indeed.

Hey Allen, bad example. According to Scientology, it may have been space aliens that broke up your marriage.

Allen, the only black people living in California that ever had any of their rights denied would likely be people who migrated to California from the South during or after the Jim Crow era. This would probably, at best, represent less than two percent of the present black electorate in CA., so I think your assumption above may not be accurate.

Yeah, I expect the people who rioted in Watts in the 60's were ALL just plants put there to make Los Angeles look bad. (eyes rolling)

Although I approve of same sex unions, I do not think it is appropriate to use the word "marriage" for these unions.

Allen, I don't agree with same sex marriages. If God had intended for 2 males or 2 females to be united in marriage he would not have created a man; took one of his ribs and created woman. He made a woman to be the man's help mate. God wanted us to be fruitful and multiply. There is no way 2 men or 2 women can multiply. God does not make mistakes. Marriage union should consist of a man and woman. A lot of people think Gay people are born to be Gay; I totally disagree .because as I said God doesn't make mistakes.

Alan I watched you yesterday, November 9th on PBS..Good words, good message and strong bearing. Cash and Barry are excellent journalist and are frequently seen. But I read your work daily, so I am probably biased. I know that this is not about marrige Proposition 8 California.
.but my two cents of the matter is Civil Unions pass property rights, rights to inherit, rights of visitation health care and burial..via courthouse..Snake oil kissing preachers are a dime a dozen..Get to the courthouse first and hire a good attorney and the tax deduction for head of houshold can be won in time..Heteral Christine

NamtaC, you're right. Maybe CA. has not been as progressive and liberal as they would have us believe. I know Allen, for some reason-probably unfathomable, didn't take them to task, but there were thousands of poor white Okies that got their heads bashed and treated like crap for many years out that way. Their relatives probably aren't jumping on the gay marraige bandwagon either, but who knows?

Carol Cobb. If you by chance ever decide to hold seminars for women, let me know. I'll try my darndest to get the wife signed up!

Carol: I respect your faith.
But part of the problem, it seems to me, is mixing religious views with public policy.
Even as a lifelong Baptist, I see this as dangerous.

Religion and nature correctly identify marriage as between man and woman, and a primary
purpose was and is the procreation of the replacement of the population! Given the reality of homosexuality, I do support legal partnerships, but never at the expense of calling them marriages!

Religion and nature correctly identify marriage as between man and woman, and a primary
purpose was and is the procreation of the replacement of the population! Given the reality of homosexuality, I do support legal partnerships, but never at the expense of calling them marriages!

Hello all,
It seems that the same mentality that dominates the "sectarian" prayer issue also plagues the gay marraige issue. There is a strong tendency to either deny or ignore the validity of relgigous knowledge or render it factually benign.

Religious neutrality is impossible, even in politics. Either one religious view or another will dominate. The question isn't whether religion will be part of the political process; but which religious belief will be a part.

Even Mr. Johnson's view on gay marriage and the hypocrisy he noted in the black Californian vote has religoiuos undertones, though not Judeo-Christian ones by any means. The Secularist ideology recognizes the fact that men have faith but it sees it as non-factual and benign. That is why "sectarian" prayer is forbidden in many political circles now. Nonsectarian prayer not only assumes that objective knowledge of God is impossible but makes such a "religious" view the official position of the state; and that I might add is a "religious" view imposed upon the political process. A religious view that is, in fact, mandated by heads of "state." Again neutrality is impossible.

The same is true of other "public policy" issues among which is the Gay marriage debate.

Finally, the real danger is forsaking the moral absolutism upon which our legal system was originally founded. A moral system that had very strong religous tones, Judeo-Christian ones, in fact.

I Really enjoy the comments.
Tony

Good points, Tony.

But who chooses which religion dictates public policy. And how far should you go?
Should counties and cities re-enact blue laws?
Should wives, by religious law, submit to their husbands?
Should use of profanity entail a fine or jail time?

The Black vote against Gay marriage is indeed hypocrisy.

There is no way around it. I hope all gay people can forgive them.

Allen, you're using "right" (as many do these days) to refer to a thing you want (formerly known as a "wish"). Understood narrowly as the protections and liberties guaranteed by a state, rights are fine things, but there's no way to wrench a "right" to gay marriage out of the Constitution (as intentionalist framework) except as through a mushy appeal to "evolving standards." Your problem, however, is that standards haven't evolved fast enough. So if the Constitution doesn't support it and democracy doesn't support it, referring to gay marriage as a "right" simply has no grounding in anything (except your opinion). Calling it a right is simply your way of privileging your opinion over the opinions of others (benighted zealots and hypocrites, the lot of them).

As for your claim that the "protecting marriage" argument is "illogical," so what? Many social institutions and beliefs are "illogical." Race is "illogical," and yet its boundaries continue to be defended. Race is "real" because it has boundaries--an inside and an outside. The same is true of the Greensboro Country Club and marriage: these are social facts whose meaning depends on who is kept out, upon which, in turn, inside indentity depends. The maintenance of social institutions is, definitionally, the maintenance of boundaries.

The practical solution to gay marriage is to get the state out of the marriage business. Marriage should be left to the churches and other non-political institutions that might culturally embed it. As far as the state is concerned, civil unions should be strictly contractual (like power of attorney): a kind of relationship you choose to enter with anyone you wish.

That sounds good to me, Brian, so long as all marriages receive equal protection under the law.

Good discussion over here.

What Brian said, with airtight logic, is that all this leads, not to equal protection under the law of all marriages, but to legal recognition for no marriages. Which is, of course, equality ...

... but ultimately destructive of the institution of marriage.

Ah, Leo G., nature doesn't "declare marriage is between a man and a woman". It most definetly declares procreative sex is between a man and a woman. (although animal experiments have reproduced sheep etc. without sex)

It seems you are equating sex with marraige. Hah!
If only.

Allen Johnson said:
Good points, Tony.

But who chooses which religion dictates public policy. And how far should you go?
Should counties and cities re-enact blue laws?
Should wives, by religious law, submit to their husbands?
Should use of profanity entail a fine or jail time?

Again, Good Comments.

The particulars need not cloud the universals here. Once we establish or deny the actual and knowable existence of God, we can discuss the particulars. In fact, the "fact" of God is what is at stake here. Mr.Johnson, my original proposition that one religous view or another will dominate means that religion of some sort will dominate. It doesnt have to be the "right" religion. The incesant attempts of our culture to justify and applaude the gay lifestyle with "marraige" status confirms that reality. It is based on a view of God that renders him either nonexistent or at best, existent or unknowable - both being theological views that now dominate politics at every level.

Man, by default, becomes the measure of all things and the strongest man rules. Morality, resultingly, is relative and law follows suit. If ultimate reality is ever changing, an evolutionary perspective, then morality can logically change as well.

As to your question about certain laws, If I had my choice, shooting from the proverbial hip here, I would rather have a blue law forced upon society than gay marriage. Again, the assumption is that the gay rights issue is a religion free endeavor.

Why? Gay marriage is about discarding the divine at the most foundational level of society.

The more basic question might be, "do we want a legal system that refuses to acknowledge the actual existence of God from the legislative or judicial process?"

Conneticut here I come!

Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!

Nice front page today, guys. Perfect with eggs and coffee.

He walked up to me and asked me if I wanted to dance.
He looked kind of nice, so I thought I might take a chance
Then he took me aside
Then he asked me to be his bride.
I felt so happy I almost died...
And then he kissed me