11 - 20 of 47 Comments

1. Patrick Lehman

   3 years ago

   As long as we live in a secular country, under a constitutional guarentee of liberty and justice for all, there should be no reason to deny gay people the social benefit of marriage. It benefits society to have married couples who are more stable and productive. If marriage were solely a religious consecration like first communion, there would be every right to deny this to what they would consider sinners. But the reason Catholicism
   is illegal in Saudi Arabia, and the reason gays should be married in the us are the same: we live in a secular society, where people are free to live how they wish, within the bounds of the law. If we were to grant Civil Unions to all americans and leave the emotional baggage of what constitutes marriage to the church this would be a lot easier. But alas, we have cast the union of two people as a state concern, and we should not deny that because of a religious objection. If they pay their taxes & obey the law, they deserve the benefits of a state sanctioned marriage.

2. John D

   3 years ago

   medlab1701, yes you're right. I don't want my son exposed to diversity - diversity of sexuality. I do not want my five year old son dealing with sexual diversity at that age. If he finds he has homosexual feelings as a teenager, we will accept and deal with it. We will still love him, probably even more so. But to drop the concept of sexual diversity on children is not right. That is a complex subject for older kids and adults. Surely you can respect other parents' wishes on this subject?
   
   I'm getting the feeling that this is where accepting and tolerating is not enough. Now we have to embrace and celebrate by showing children alternative life styles. This is where you lose the moderates.
   

3. Kevin

   3 years ago

   OK this article is absolutely absurd. Let me get this straight, Barber read in an article of the San Fran Chronicle that Walker is gay? Huh? This is the most despicable hearsay I have come across in quite sometime. I sure hope this isn't erroneous because if it's not, that is gonna one big foot in the mouth.
   
   N.B. Judicial recusal, from what I know, is more appropriate at the trial level, where the fact-finding occurs. Not so pertinent when it comes to appellate courts' reviews of matters of law.

4. Thaddeus

   3 years ago

   John, your talk of christians taking up the sword is no different than the extremists in the middle east that want to bring god's wrath down on you.
   
   All we want is to live our lives with all the rights afforded to other tax paying citizens. If you people are looking for evils of society to fight against, then go picket against murderers, not against loving, consenting adults that would like to build a life together.

5. Charles Robinson

   3 years ago

   How about the judges who "practise an active heterosexual conduct" ? Aren't they biased?
   
   And more importantly, how about all the Catholic judges in the SCOTUS - surely they should recuse themselves since their decision about gay marriage is already known even before the trial anyway...

6. John

   3 years ago

   There was once a time when Christians fought (literally) for their values, lives, and religious beliefs. Back then, the other major religion simply whined...
   
   Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Nowadays, all Christians can do is whine, while the rest of the World fights, quite literally.
   
   Jesus did not come to bring peace...he came to bring a sword. Surrendering our faith to demonic attacks and simply accepting as inevitable the moral collapse of not just the World, but Christian values as well is the same as Peter denying Christ...three times before the cock crows. Is this not the exact opposite of what we are supposed to do?
   
   Christians, you need to find your Faith, your backbone, and your sword, for what prophecy tells us is coming, pray though you may that it doesn't...it shall nevertheless come, that much is fore-ordained. How ready you are how you react are up to you...

7. Eric Ash

   3 years ago

   I watched the trial in person, in the courtroom. It was not a "circus"; it was just another trial. The judge was thoughtful, even handed, and showed a calm, dispassionate judicial temperament. The only heated exchanges occurred during David Blankenhorn's cross-examination.

8. Nola

   3 years ago

   It's not the fact that he is homosexual that he should recuse himself. It is the fact that he also already allowed his own personal biases to affect his judgment in this trial. If that were not so, then there would have been no reason for his fellow jurists to step in and fix his errors. He will continue to make judicial errors in this case, which will only make it easier to appeal the decision in this case should it go against Prop. 8.

9. medlab1701

   3 years ago

   "Do you want to introduce that concept to a 5 year old?" What concept is that, John - diversity? That there are all kinds of families in this world, and that all of them have one thing in common - love. What this "opinion" conveniently leaves out is that Judge Walker has shown over his career to be non-biased, as when he sided with the olympics over a gay sports event group that wanted to incorporate "olympics" into its title. If he was a "yes" man for gay citizens, he would have more of a record for the bigots to cite, which they don't.
   My son is adopted, bi-racial, raised by a single white gay man in Los Angeles. Becuase of the diversity around us, be it ethnicity, sexual orientation or religion, he sees himself as a member of family, no more different or unusual than any other around him. He is so well-poised for the world he will inhabit, and I'm so grateful to be raising him here.

10. John

    3 years ago

    Homer, now that you bring it up, let me ask you a question. Would you bring your 5 year old son for play days with another child where there are two gay men as parents? Do you want to intorduce that concept to a 5 year old? Do you think it might confuse him? Do you want to take a chance that your young son might think about experimenting with homosexuality at some point now that he was introduced to it at such a young age?
    
    I'm all for accepting, tolerating, and protecting the LGBT community. But I am not in favor of embracing, celebrating, and advocating it. There is a difference.

Leave a Comment