Comments on: No cake for Obama at same-sex weddings

By: Spare change; My two cents « Tale of the Fishwife

Spare change; My two cents « Tale of the Fishwife — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:44:04 +0000

[...] of international telephone calls and emails. (2) Despite his lifelong fight for civil rights, he still believes that marriage is an institution meant only for a man and a woman. (3) He thinks it’s OK to fuse religion with government-sponsored programs, as he proved [...]

By: The Truth Is...

The Truth Is... — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:36:46 +0000

Like the schism that affected the US churches 100 plus years ago, when slavery and its legality was a hot issue (eventually all the churches decided slavery was against Christian doctrine! - like they were Christians?) But it tool them AGES to realise it - right?

Surely, the attitude towards homosexuality will be viewed as being anti-Christian, eventually, and the churches will drop the fascistic ideology that promulgates bigotry and persecution, ad hoc. Know what I mean?

I predict a few riots but eventual capitulation and cohesion amongs all those bible folk jumping up and down like lynch mobs.

By: LawrenceNY

LawrenceNY — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:38:47 +0000

When I see Obama, I think of Abraham Lincoln. Whom entered his presidency preaching about letting the state decide whether they wanted to allow slavery. For those of you who know, he changed his mind right at the moment when he had the power to do something about it. And he did!

Obama has said that he’s all for Civil Unions, but that he might change his mind (can’t remember where i read it but im very confident of my memory, especially of this topic). I doubt he meant that he would no longer support any such rights for same-sex couples since DEMOCRATS are the only gay friendly political group this country has.

I have lot of hope about Obama. His decisions are well backed (defininitely a GOOD thing after all the Bush-Cheney secrecy) and so I think he’ll end up sticking up for my rights which is the right thing to do when you sit down and think about it (Seperating church and state ofcourse).

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:51:36 +0000

Actually Mr Dubs has a point. Look at the Prohibition, it was a sweeping reform, and it did not stick. If states that allow Gay marriage are consistant and the idea becomes commonplace, other states will follow suit. Some holdout states may never change until a federal mandate is drafted, but that same federal mandate would have a far more likely chance of standing the test of times if they could site examples such as California.

By: Shannon

Shannon — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 06:11:56 +0000

One big YES to this entire article except for Gary Dubs. “A gradual change is likely to be more permanent than a sudden federal-level change.” Actually, Mr. Dubs, that’s historically inaccurate - Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. VA, and Roe v. Wade were all sudden federal-level changes, and all three decisions are a.) still with us and b.) would be in pretty bad shape if left to a state-by-state basis.

Obama needs to get his act together and actually stick up for my civil rights.