home
RSS
August 8th, 2010
03:22 PM ET

Opinion: Same-sex marriage will hurt families, society

Editor's note: Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. is senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Maryland, and founder and Chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition (HILC). He shares his thoughts on traditional marriage in "The Black Pulpit," a weekly series of opinion pieces that explores faith in the black community. CNN's "Black in America: Churched" premieres October 14.

By Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr., Special to CNN

The institution of marriage is unique. It is the one institution that binds women and men together to form a family, and this serves broad societal purposes.

In California, a U.S. District Court Judge last week overturned Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Act. It was passed in November 2008 by California voters to recognize "only marriage between a man and a woman."

The majority of Californians, including two-thirds of the state's black voters, have just had their core civil right - the right to vote - stripped from them by an openly gay federal judge who has misread history and the Constitution to impose his views on the state's people.

Read the full story

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christian Science • Culture wars • Gay marriage • Gay rights • Opinion • Politics

soundoff (233 Responses)
  1. hannaritofu

    I just want to point out that, as a lesbian in a Christian church, one can be Christian and still be whomever they choose to be. God asks us to take up His cross, but by the same token, He does not ask us to be perfect. He cave us free choice and... that's what I'm exercising, is it not? Call me a naive teenager if you must, but understand that, if nothing else – the church is there to be 'fishers of men' – if you must insist on saying that we are utterly incapable of what other humans can do [in this case, being decent parents] then think of it this way; God's the one that has the right to 'clean' us. Let us be parents, let us be PEOPLE.

    God never gave any one man [or for that matter, any group] the right to judge any other like that.

    August 8, 2010 at 11:28 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      Hannaritofu,
      What do you mean by 'Christian' church? Most Christian ecclesial communities are Bible believing communities. Here are a few Bible verses found in the Bible:

      Mt. 19
      4
      He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'
      5
      and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
      6
      So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

      Mark 10
      6
      But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.
      7
      For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife),
      8
      and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
      9
      Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate."
      10
      In the house the disciples again questioned him about this.
      11
      He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her;
      12
      and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
      Ephesians 5
      25
      Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her…..

      31
      "For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

      Hebrew 13
      4
      Let marriage be honored among all and the marriage bed be kept undefiled, for God will judge the immoral and adulterers.

      Yes, Hanna, God asks us to take up OUR cross and follow Him. To follow Him would be to listen to every Word of the Bible, wouldn’t you say?

      This verse states that we ARE to be perfect. Matthew 5:48
      48
      So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

      Hanna, no one is judging your soul; that is only for God to do. But people do have to judge actions to decide right/wrong decisions all the time.

      We all have our crosses to bear.

      God loves all His children and I think, especially you; but I don’t think by His Words spoken in the Bible that He wants you to marry if you want to marry a woman.

      You mentioned ‘choosing’, did you mean you chose to be lesbian?

      Yes, He gave you a freewill but that does not mean that whatever you chose is right no matter what! You have to make right choices with your freewill otherwise it is called sin. We all have to deal with right/wrong decisions every day of our lives. Your life is just beginning……let your conscience be your guide and use the Bible if you want to be Christian. Every time you make the right decision, it will be easier the next time.

      God is the only one who can ‘clean you’, as you say, but you have to ask for this cleansing and have a true commitment to stay away from whatever it was that made you unclean. If you know something is making you unclean, don’t let yourself get in those situations.

      August 9, 2010 at 12:17 am |
    • Nonimus

      CatholicMom,
      Based on those quotes, is it also a sin to not marry at all? Seems to me the options, for men only, are 1) stay with parents or 2) 'cleave' to a wife.
      So all monks and priests are sinning, by leaving home and not getting married, right?

      August 9, 2010 at 11:03 am |
    • CatholicMom

      Nonimus,

      No, those verses do not pertain to single persons who wish to remain single; they are just for those who wish to get married or are married. Here are some for those with single life vocations:

      Matthew 19:12
      12
      Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

      ‘Incapable of marriage’, that is, literally eunuchs….people can be eunuchs from birth, by castration, and those who have voluntarily renounced marriage and have thus made themselves “eunuchs” for the sake of the kingdom…to devote themselves entirely to its service. Those who have chosen never to marry…are suited to this verse because it says….'whoever can….ought to accept it'.

      1Corinthians 7:32-35
      those using the world as not using it fully. For the world in its present form is passing away.
      32
      I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.
      33
      But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
      34
      and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
      35
      I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction.

      So, you see, Nonimus, it is not a sin to not marry for certain persons; it is a special charism of their lives, bestowed upon them by the Holy Spirit, and helps them in their service to the kingdom of God. As you can see then, marriage is not for everyone, and single life is not for everyone but whatever state we live in, we should live in such a way that it is to the service of the kingdom of God.

      August 9, 2010 at 3:34 pm |
    • David Johnson

      You go girl! I would be a lot prouder sitting beside you, in your church than in CatholicMom's.

      Cheers!

      August 9, 2010 at 3:46 pm |
    • Nonimus

      CatholicMom,
      For a Christian point of view, this is about the best I've heard, "... whatever state we live in, we should live in such a way that it is to the service of the kingdom of God."
      And it seems to me that this applies equally well to both traditional and same-sex marriage, although I'm sure that is not what you intended.

      Matthew 19. Seems to me Jesus was saying, these are the rules, so unless you're a eunuch or married to the church, "accept it" and get married – oh, and (almost) no divorces.

      But I'm not a theologian, so I don't expect that I have the "right" interpretation and won't belabor the point.

      August 9, 2010 at 4:46 pm |
    • Nonimus

      CatholicMom,
      For a Christian point of view, this is about the best I've heard, "... whatever state we live in, we should live in such a way that it is to the service of the kingdom of God."
      And it seems to me that this applies equally well to both traditional and same-sex marriage, although I'm sure that is not what you intended.

      Matthew 19. Seems to me Jesus was saying, these are the rules, so unless you're a eunuch or married to the church, "accept it" and get married – oh, and (almost) no divorces.

      But I'm not a theologian, so I don't expect that I have the "right" interpretation and won't belabor the point.

      August 9, 2010 at 5:15 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Nonimus

      You said, "So all monks and priests are sinning, by leaving home and not getting married, right?"

      Well, that might not be all...I'll tell you later when the kids are in bed. LOL

      August 9, 2010 at 7:15 pm |
    • TammyB

      @ CatholicMom...I always wondered where the Catholics got that notion you cannot divorce. You see, I was raised Baptist, and we too, follow the bible and are Christian, just like the Catholics. Except that we weren't allowed to smoke (like Catholics), drink (like Catholics) and dance (like everyone else!). Every religion puts a spin on things to go their own way. Baptists can divorce, but smoking, drinking, and dancing definite no-nos! However, the basic beliefs between Catholics and Baptists are clear...the 10 Commandments, the love thy neighbor thing, etc. etc. Just because hannaritofu goes to a Christian church that welcomes gay people does not mean they don't follow the Bible. They follow the loving God, the loving Jesus. That's what we are supposed to do. It sounds like you were saying that if her church welcomes her that they aren't following the Bible. That's not what you were saying, right?

      August 10, 2010 at 3:04 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      TammyB,

      No, I was not inferring in any way that because hannaritofu went to a Christian church that welcomed gays, that it wasn’t following the Bible. Gays are very welcome in the Catholic Church, too. The Church has never said that if you are gay or straight that you are not welcome; all people are welcome; all are children of God. The Catholic Church was founded for sinners by Jesus Christ!

      For instance, these verses from the Bible are very important to the Catholic Church: 1 Corinthians 11………..
      26
      For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
      27
      Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and bl….d of the Lord.
      28
      A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.

      If someone receives the Body and Bl….d of Jesus without grasping and internalizing the meaning of Jesus’ death for them, will have to answer for the body and bl…d and will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself. One needs to examine one’s self and if you believe that it truly is the Body and Bl…d of Jesus and have no grave sins upon your soul, you may receive the Holy Eucharist.

      The problem that can arise in the Catholic Church is that there could be people who commit adultery, as an example... confess their sin because they want to receive Holy Communion but have no intention of not committing the sin again. That in itself is a grave sin. So they pile sin upon sin and do as they please. If they lie about it and have no intention of amending their life it is to their detriment and most grievous.

      Another example: Couples may confess they are fornicating before they are married; if the priest hears their confession but they say to the priest they have no intentions of cleaning up their act before bringing themselves before God and are asking for the covenant of marriage, they are not worthy to receive the Sacrament of Matrimony. It is clear they don’t care if they make a mockery of Jesus Christ’s Sacraments which He instituted for His people to live by as a means to keep them in the grace of God on their journey to their final and ever-lasting eternity. A priest who allows them to still receive Holy Matrimony and Holy Eucharist will have to answer for this decision. It is a mockery and a grave sin because he is supposed to shepherd them onto the right path and by letting them ‘go ahead anyway’ he is allowing them to remain in their sin and perpetuate it. He is allowing sacrilege and participating in it himself.

      Likewise, if other persons are committing sins of a like nature they should not receive Holy Communion until making a good confession with heartfelt intentions of sinning no more.

      I do not know how committed hannaritofu’s Christian church is to the Bible, but if the church allows gay marriages it is not Christian. There is no way any Christian church can claim to be a Bible church and marry gays…. they can tear out the pages of their Bible with those verses that are on the post to hannaritofu….but it won’t make them Christian just because they no longer have those Words of God in their Bible. Maybe they can live with that and since the protestants were able to do that in the 1500’s; I guess they could continue down that path.

      I don't know hannaritofu's church's intentions….

      August 10, 2010 at 5:45 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @TammyB

      You said, "I always wondered where the Catholics got that notion you cannot divorce. You see, I was raised Baptist, and we too, follow the bible and are Christian, just like the Catholics. Except that we weren't allowed to smoke (like Catholics), drink (like Catholics) and dance (like everyone else!). Every religion puts a spin on things to go their own way."

      You have hit upon, what I think is a big flaw in the Christian faith. There are over a thousand different Christian denominations. Each denomination can show you bible verses that "prove" their faith is the one true faith. Why, if there is one God, One Son, One evil doer (Satan), One Queen of Heaven etc. (Monotheism? Really?) aren't all Christian religions the same? Why isn't there just one religion? Why is it okay to dance and drink and go to movies in one religion but not in another? Seperate gods?

      If there is one true faith, why doesn't the Holy Spirit guide everyone to it? Instead, the members of the different denominations will tell you, the spirit tells them they are the ones most loved by Jesus. I bet a Baptist never gets the message to embrace Catholocism.

      If there was no god, how would the world look different? If there was no god to guide people to the truth, I would expect there to be many different religions and denominations. Just like it looks now.

      Cheers!

      August 11, 2010 at 12:31 am |
    • TammyB

      @ David Johnson...Yes, that's why I quit organized religion...when there became a quota on how many Mormons, Catholics, Jews, etc. to witness and convert to Baptist, I was out of there. I argued that wasn't very Christian like, when I was 17, and was not invited to come back, which was fine with me. I do believe in what I believe, I can live a good life without the church, I treat people with respect and I am honest, without the church telling me that I have to be, and I do drink and smoke without guilt, but no in excess (of course), and I DO dance!! I too have thought why the religions spend so much time on who are the chosen ones with the most choice religion and what a freakin' waste of time that is. Someday they will be proven wrong, if there is one God!

      August 11, 2010 at 8:58 pm |
  2. Smith in Oregon

    Marriage is a bread and butter money machine for Christian Churches, this directly hits them in the wallet for CASH and potential CASH COW's enlistment of those that attend. Of course they are going to yell and scream bloody murder, oh how dare they take away their potential earnings? A strict following of laws would result in the forfeiture of their tax exemption status thru their direct political actions on this and several other issues. America should demand Christianity be banned from tax exemption due to its crass and utterly callous politicization in America's politics, laws and the Republican Potty.

    August 8, 2010 at 9:29 pm |
  3. Rferello

    The bible is the greatest piece of fiction ever written. It has been rewritten 7 times, at 2 councils of Nicea and 5 councils of Constantinople where 300 or so bishops/cardinals and others decided what they were going to alter, what they were going to remove, and what names to change. You might as well quote green eggs and ham to me.

    And as far as homosexuality is concerned, it is PROVEN to be a trait in other mammals , therefore it is not a choice. And as the bible states, is not a human's ability to choose the difference between man and beast? Well if an animal partakes of homosexual behavior, then it is obviously not a choice, either way christianity's claims are flawed. Either its not a choice and therefore it is as your god intended, or your god was wrong about free will being the difference between man and beast.

    So sick of hypocritical, bigoted christians. Your religion enslaved and eradicated indigenous peoples in the name of spreading the good word, and you continue to this day with your war on homosexuals.

    August 8, 2010 at 9:05 pm |
  4. Darwin

    Love to see a black pastor using the colonizer and slave owner's religion to keep other minorities down. They said biology was a reason for blacks and whites not to marry back in the day too... But love won out then and it will win this time too.

    August 8, 2010 at 8:50 pm |
    • Bob

      What's funny is that he's saying "They're denying the rights of the people to vote."

      I doubt he'd think the same about slavery, segregation, white only drinking fountains and the requirement of restaurants to welcome in black people. (This is all pre 50's).

      The majority voters back then wouldn't have wanted it to go in either.

      This is what we call hyprocrisy.

      August 9, 2010 at 8:44 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Darwin

      You said, "But love won out then and it will win this time too."

      It won't win out if we don't get everyone we know to register and then vote for the Dems in November. The Republicans will seek a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and woman. Game over for the love bug.

      If you care about your freedoms, vote for the Dems in November. Please!!!

      August 11, 2010 at 12:52 am |
    • dalis

      @ Darwin – Would you rather that he converted to an indigenous African religion (no, you wouldn't) or does he get some say in the matter of HIS religion?

      August 11, 2010 at 3:47 am |
  5. Nathalie

    Well what a surprise. The guy who wrote this is a christian pastor. He should be ashamed of himself for writing an entire piece based in bigotry and not reality. Canada has had gay marriage for years now, and everyone is doing just fine. I have a marriage lesbian couple living next to me, and they are some of the best neighbours I've ever had. They keep their property looking clean and perfect and are always around for a friendly chat or to help us out.

    August 8, 2010 at 7:52 pm |
    • Nathalie

      I meant to type *married* lesbian couple.

      August 8, 2010 at 7:52 pm |
    • David Johnson

      Yep, we also had a gay couple living next to us. They were good people. I never felt the urge to turn gay because of their close proximity. They even asked us to attend their church with them. That is sort of neat.

      August 8, 2010 at 8:11 pm |
    • Bob

      The real question is why do people who have the title "Reverand" get automatic opinions in places like CNN? Who cares what he believes in. Can he defend his thoughts and ideas? It's pretty obvious from the length of the "article" that he has no valid points to raise.

      August 9, 2010 at 8:45 am |
  6. Hum Bled

    @JakeInLA
    The attrition of moral absolutes has become so rapid because of the post-modern relativism. I would honor your tolerance if you held to an initial belief system. But for guys like you it really isn't tolerance it is SOMETHING filling the void. You're a lemming afraid to stand up for what is right.

    August 8, 2010 at 7:15 pm |
    • PeterM

      I will stand up for what is right in the name of humanity.
      Hum Bled, I guess you don't like seeing your religion being mocked. JakeInLA made a statement and you bit at it like the dumbfish you are.
      If you would stand up for "moral absolutes", you can't do it without actually defining what those are and why they are absolute.
      To define things using your exclusive religion and the "language" contained therein, you fail to reach any credibility outside that same religion.
      In asking that you define your terms, it does no good to wrap them within your religion, for only those who believe as you will pat themselves on the back. Everyone else will think you're a dork.

      August 8, 2010 at 7:50 pm |
    • David Johnson

      What the heck are you talking about? Like I care if you honer my tolerance or not.

      August 8, 2010 at 8:14 pm |
    • adam

      Sorry that you don't understand or like that we're a constitutional republic. Sorry you really dislike when your religion isn't favored – nor can it be – above all in policy-making. 😦

      August 8, 2010 at 11:48 pm |
    • Bob

      There are only moral absolutes for people who aren't smart enough to appreicate that there aren't moral absolutes.

      Let's try a hypothetical situation. That's to say an example that doesn't exist but demonstrates a point.

      There is a man with a knife to a little girls throat. He says he will kill her in one minute after you have discovered them. You have a gun and if you shoot the man he will die and the girl will live.

      The bible commands "Thou Shalt not Kill". If you claim that this is a moral absolute, will you let the girl die?

      I don't think anyone moral would allow the man to kill the girl.

      August 9, 2010 at 9:14 am |
    • TammyB

      Hey, how about the belief system that all people are created equal? And the belief system that all people are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I think these are basic tenents of our country and have stood up well. That IS a basic belief system. Why do you act like your belief system is better than one who doesn't believe exactly as you do?

      August 10, 2010 at 2:48 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      Bob,
      Every situation has its own moral absolute.

      August 11, 2010 at 11:47 am |
    • Chisos

      @CatholicMom
      I'm pretty sure that is the definition of moral relativism: Situtational morality.

      August 12, 2010 at 10:31 am |
  7. Stephen in Ft. Laud.

    Bishop Jackson must now understand how the white bigots felt about the courts striking down anti-miscegenation and other Jim Crow laws.

    August 8, 2010 at 6:02 pm |
    • Bob

      Exactly. Perhaps he'll also realize his own viewpoint shares many similarities with those people too. I hope he's uncomfortable with the idea.

      August 9, 2010 at 12:22 pm |
  8. pastorginny

    I do not understand why some people believe their religious group's view of marriage should control the availability of civil marriage. My church believes same-sex marriage is good; we also believe it's possible for divorced people to marry. The Roman Catholic church objects to both. No one is making them perform those marriages; no one should prevent us from officiating at the ones we find acceptable. It is religious discrimination to try to keep those who want to marry from marrying.

    August 8, 2010 at 5:59 pm |
  9. JakeInLA

    Religious fanatics need to understand that laws cannot be based on their beliefs. We cannot give away equality in this country to serve one group's religious beliefs. That wouldn't make us any different than middle ages. You cannot play to the religious beliefs and fears of the majority to take away rights from the overall population. It's sad that of all ,the most historically discriminated minorities are opposing equality in the name of religion.

    August 8, 2010 at 5:57 pm |
    • Hum Bled

      It's not a civil right when it is sin.

      August 8, 2010 at 7:16 pm |
    • Nathalie

      @ Hum Bled: "Sin" is an entirely subjective concept, and nothing more. Just because YOU think it's sin doesn't mean it is, and secondly, "sin" is a religious concept, and religion has absolutely no place whatsoever in the laws of any country. Period.

      August 8, 2010 at 7:54 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      JakeInLA,
      You are talking about equality here. How are ‘two men’ or ‘two women’ equal to ‘one man and one woman’? It is never going to be equal.
      Further, I am very curious as to these ‘marriages’ between same -–….these people evidently want their marriage to be a sacred covenant between themselves and God because that is what marriage is ….a covenant between a man and a woman and God….so what ecclesial community is willing to go against the Bible and marry persons other than a man and a woman?
      There are such ecclesial communities calling out, ‘Come, we will marry you!’ But then if that ecclesial community goes against the Bible you will know your marriage will not be one ‘made in Heaven’. Can you live with that ‘kind’ of marriage? What good will that be? You will know the Bible is profaned and your marriage will be a mockery.
      Some crucial Bible verses to contemplate when getting married and some verses for those married:
      Mt. 19
      4
      He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'
      5
      and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
      6
      So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

      Mark 10
      6
      But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.
      7
      For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife),
      8
      and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
      9
      Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate."
      10
      In the house the disciples again questioned him about this.
      11
      He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her;
      12
      and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
      Ephesians 5
      25
      Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her…..

      31
      "For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

      Hebrew 13
      4
      Let marriage be honored among all and the marriage bed be kept undefiled, for God will judge the immoral and adulterers.

      How many times does the Bible spell out the Truth on marriage? If you love the Word of God why don’t you want to follow His Word? If you don’t give a hoot about the Bible go get a legal document drawn up so you can share assets/make death decisions for each other, etc. but don’t try to use the Bible in your marriage unless you can hold to its every word; don’t try to use a Sacrament for your unsacred marriage.

      August 8, 2010 at 11:31 pm |
    • Grant

      Hum Bled clearly doesn't understand the separation of church and state...

      August 9, 2010 at 8:58 am |
    • CatholicMom

      Grant,
      Is the concept of separation of Church and State as follows:
      The Church should not make government laws (but can advocate moral positions and moral laws), and the state will not regulate religious practice?

      August 9, 2010 at 5:22 pm |
    • Grant

      CatholicMom – Yes, that is what the separation should look like. But, when HumBled says "It's not a civil right when it's a sin" that is a CLEAR attempt at overlapping the two. Civil rights have nothing to do with sinning in the eyes of those who hold a certain set of beliefs and for HumBled to make that statement clearly implies a lack of understanding of the separation of church and state, as I mentioned previously.

      August 10, 2010 at 8:45 am |
    • One Whose Name Means Beloved of God

      @CatholicMom

      Actually, my take on separation of church and state is a little different: That the government will not establish a official US religion. In other words, that my atheistic tax dollars are not given to a church for religious teaching. That no tax funds go toward the support of any one religion.

      The Church can use it's people to vote any which way it can convince them to vote. Also, there are a great number of religious lobby groups. I'm OK with them too–but they are supported by individuals. Not the State.

      August 12, 2010 at 1:03 am |
  10. shadow_man

    Arguments against interracial marriage 1947-1968. SOUND FAMILIAR?

    3.) Persons wishing to enter into interracial marriages come from the "dregs of
    society.". = similary to: "homosexuals are perverted and abominable (Source: Advocates in favor of California’s ban on interracial marriage, quoted in Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 25)

    4.) Allowing interracial marriages "necessarily involves the degradation" of
    conventional marriage, an institution that "deserves admiration rather than
    execration." = "homosexual marriage will destroy traditional marriage" (Source: A U.S. representative from Georgia quoted in Eric Zorn, Chicago
    Tribune, May 19, 1996)

    August 8, 2010 at 5:50 pm |
  11. shadow_man

    Arguments against interracial marriage 1947-1968. SOUND FAMILIAR?

    1.) Interracial marriage runs counter to God’s plan:
    "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he
    placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his
    arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he
    separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
    (Source: Virginia trial judge upholding conviction of Mildred and Richard
    Loving for interracial marriage, quoted in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 3
    (1967))

    2.) "The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always
    productive of deplorable results."

    "The purity of the public morals, the moral
    and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of
    civilization . . . all require that [the races] should be kept distinctly separate,
    and that connections and alliances so unnatural should be prohibited by
    positive law and subject to no evasion." (Source: Dissenting California Supreme Court Justice objecting to that Court’s decision striking down a state law ban on interracial marriage in
    Perez_v. Lippold, 198 P.2d 17, 41 (1948), (Shenk, J. dissenting))è%"

    August 8, 2010 at 5:50 pm |
    • Hum Bled

      OK, you have a point. But where do we stop? Shall we then allow men-boy love to be sanctioned? I do not believe race and same sex marriage are even categorically similiar.

      August 8, 2010 at 7:33 pm |
    • David Johnson

      Yep, and I guess you noticed it is always the religious folk who are bigots?

      August 8, 2010 at 8:17 pm |
    • PeterM

      @David Johnson
      Dude.
      Please avoid infinitives, i.e. "always". It makes your posts that much better.

      August 8, 2010 at 9:42 pm |
    • WTF

      Really interracial marriages are unproductive how much more unproductive are they when it's white kids that are always turning missing or dead and usually at the hands of their OWN relatives!

      August 10, 2010 at 8:04 pm |
    • dalis

      @ David Johnson – Not always.

      August 11, 2010 at 3:41 am |
    • snsb18

      shadow_man has an excellent and intelligent point. The arguments against interracial marriage back in the 60s were the same sort of fearmongering and religious conservatism one hears today about gay marriage. And one other factoid. In 1968 a Gallup poll showed that about 70% of Americans opposed interracial marriage. But civil rights are not put to a vote in this country. The fact that the good bishop does not agree with gay marriage on a personal or moral level doesnt change the constitutional imperative for equal protection any more than the personal and moral objections of bigots in the 1960s legitimately pevented interracial marriage.

      August 13, 2010 at 4:47 pm |
  12. rob_bgtp

    this is the big problem with religous folks using it as a way to make laws. We are not a christian nation and have never been as everyone seems to spout off about which is why we have seperation of church and state. making laws because they offend someone else's religion is not enough to ban something. The example I point out about voting when it comes to prop 8 is something this bishop can understand. Let's say we're in 1950's alabama or mississippi, now let's say there was a vote to repeal segregation and it depended solely on the people, how do you think the voting result's would read? just because people vote on something and it passes doesn't make it right or just. With Obama in the white house we have been told more and more to believe in tolerance. It's time we finally start acting on this and stop being all talk.

    Who we love is who we love and loving couples, like I myself am in, should have the right to marry. it's only fair. isn't that whats america's all about?

    August 8, 2010 at 5:33 pm |
    • Hum Bled

      I think you are bereft of any historical context. Where do you think the idea of LAW came from oh great thought wizard?

      August 8, 2010 at 7:19 pm |
    • David Johnson

      Dude, I love you like a brother. I loved your words.

      There is great danger to our country. The Religious Right, through their puppets the Republicans, are out to convince the American people the founding fathers never meant to have a separation of Church and State. They want a Christian Nation.

      If you love this country and love your freedom, vote for the Dems in November.

      August 8, 2010 at 8:03 pm |
    • great thought wizard

      (the wizard appears)

      @Hum Bled

      I don't know who invented LAW rockets, but I could tell you where to go to find out.
      What a great thought that was!
      Thx, self!
      u r welcom, self!
      lol

      August 8, 2010 at 8:15 pm |
    • Bob

      Humbled, I'm starting to think you're functionally retarded.

      Look at history itself. Where do you think other cultures that do not have Christianity got the idea that murder, theft and doing harm to others is bad?

      These aren't "Christian" concepts. They're founded on the concept that socieites with such rules tend to not do well.

      Perhaps you should become educated in the matters of which you speak. That way you look less of a fool.

      That's the indirect refutation of your nonsense.

      The direct refutation is "If Christianity was the basis of the founding of the country, find a link between Christianity and the first amendment. You know, the seperation of church and state."

      Owned.

      August 9, 2010 at 9:09 am |
    • CatholicMom

      rob,
      What is it about ‘marriage’ that intrigues you?

      August 9, 2010 at 11:13 am |
    • marleyman

      You already have the right to marry. But there are rules to marriage. You may marry one of the opposite sex, one who isn't a close cousin, and one who is of age. We are not going to change rules on the whim of radicals with no societal benefit. Actually, these rules are of benefit to you as they will alleviate future heartache. Newsflash: Homosexuals do not stay in monogamous relationships for any length of time.

      August 9, 2010 at 12:33 pm |
    • TammyB

      The ideas of laws came from religions and governments. Having religion run your country is dangerous, as there are many outdated items in the Bible, that we, as civilized people don't do anymore. Therefore goverments create laws with no religious bias. And, the Bible does say that one should follow the laws of the land in which he lives....remember that little passage as well? So laws WERE created by governments and people, even back in biblical times. Last...why do you resort to snide comments about someone who is simply debating the issue? If you wish to make a good argument, then lay off the snide, almost name calling you resort to. It really makes you look foolish and makes it seem that you truly cannot think of anything else to say.

      August 10, 2010 at 2:30 pm |
    • Selfish Gene

      Many Religious Right activists have attempted to rewrite history by asserting that the United States government derived from Christian foundations, that our Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian nation. This idea simply does not hold to the historical evidence.
      Of course many Americans did practice Christianity, but so also did many believe in deistic philosophy. Indeed, most of our influential Founding Fathers, although they respected the rights of other religionists, held to deism and Freemasonry tenets rather than to Christianity.
      The U.S. Constitution
      The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.
      Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:
      Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [Bold caps, mine]
      Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.
      If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church & State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of religion and non religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have more churches than Seven-Elevens.
      Although many secular and atheist groups fight for the wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems, regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.
      The Declaration of Independence
      Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)
      However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have more than thirteen states.
      Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our government.
      Of course the Declaration stands as a great political document. Its author aimed at a future government designed and upheld by people and not based on a superstitious god or religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all get born with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Please note that the Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity. It bears repeating: "Governments are instituted among men."
      The pursuit of happiness does not mean a guarantee of happiness, only that we have the freedom to pursue it. Our Law of the Land incorporates this freedom of pursuit in the Constitution. We can believe or not believe as we wish. We may succeed or fail in our pursuit, but our Constitution (and not the Declaration) protects our unalienable rights in our attempt at happiness.
      Moreover, the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, who held deist beliefs, wrote the majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy and might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs, but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.

      August 11, 2010 at 4:00 pm |
  13. nocomment

    Sometimes I wonder who's really the bigotry.

    August 8, 2010 at 5:11 pm |
    • Hum Bled

      What is that statement intended to mean?

      August 8, 2010 at 7:43 pm |
    • the bigotry

      @Hum Bled

      You've got me there.

      August 8, 2010 at 8:10 pm |
  14. Joseph Smith

    I don't understand why these christians are so up in arms over gay marriage...once gay marriage is allowed all over the world that will be a reason for the second comming of jesus christ.....jesus christ was DEFINATELY GAY along with his male sex partners Peter, Paul and most of the other "saints" mentioned in the bible.....Only then will he be able to return and marry his male sex partner and also not have to worry about getting arrested for sodomy

    August 8, 2010 at 5:05 pm |
  15. David Johnson

    No matter what is said, the reason gay marriage is opposed, is because the religious are convinced god hates gays.

    Many children are being raised by single parents. Children of gay couples, have 2 people there for them.

    Who cares what a fictitious desert war god has to say on any matter? Do you care what Zeus thinks? or Baal? or Ra? They are all the product of man's imagination.

    August 8, 2010 at 4:38 pm |
  16. SoBayGuySD

    I would like to remind Bishop Jackson that the bible also says I can have slaves: Leviticus 25:44 says, “As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.” His black skin better be grateful that the U.S. Laws were changed and he was allowed to become a Bishop and not out in the sun picking tobacco. This is not intended to be racist but bible thumpers really get me going with their bigotry and double standards.

    August 8, 2010 at 4:30 pm |
    • Hum Bled

      You just showed your own bigotry.....and your lack of biblical understanding. Don't wag around some lame out of context bible argument when it undercuts your own point. Does being a bigot mean that someone expresses a viewpoint contrary to yours. Ha, therefore you are the bigot.

      August 8, 2010 at 7:27 pm |
    • adam

      lol @ ho hum.

      Context, biblically, does not change a thing. The Bible regulates, and at times, encourages slavery. Remember, the Christian God is the ultimate good in Christianity... and he enslaved the Jews. He also told his followers to commit genocide on several occasions (and did it himself), but Christians like to scream "CONTEXT!" as if it changes anything at all. It's one of their most self-defeating aspects.

      August 8, 2010 at 11:44 pm |
    • Bob

      HumBled, let me explain to you what "Biblical Understanding" actually is.

      It's "Oh, this looks bad, so we're not going to focus on that or mention it, or make it a metaphor."

      You have the church picking and choosing what is and isn't meant to be taken literally. Where are the rules for disregarding parts of the bible? OH wait there isn't any.

      You look at the bible through rose coloured glasses. You reject anything negative simply because it doesn't line up with your cheery happy go lucky view of the bible.

      The God of the Old Testament is evil, childish and apparently inept. The God of the New Testament is different. He's less raging and more of a casual observer.

      They say God is perfect. So which God is it HumBled. Because two radically different entities with different actions can't both be perfect. Which God is the perfect one?

      August 9, 2010 at 8:56 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Hum Bled

      In his letter to the 1st century Christian church in Ephesus, Paul writes: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5, KJV) These words are significant, for they seem to put the most influential Christian missionary and apostle of all time squarely on the side of institutionalized servitude – even perhaps chattel slavery.

      Oh, Oh! I would call this a reference to slavery in the New Testament. And Paul isn't bad mouthing the concept.

      The bible was written by men. It reflects their points of view at the time it was written. No god required.

      August 9, 2010 at 1:08 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Hum Bled

      In his letter to the 1st century Christian church in Ephesus, Paul writes: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5, KJV) These words are significant, for they seem to put the most influential Christian missionary and apostle of all time squarely on the side of institutionalized servitude – even perhaps chattel slavery.

      This is New Testament. It is not out of context. Cheers!

      August 9, 2010 at 1:20 pm |
    • Sean

      I agree. If people put up a proposition that any minority could be put back into slavery in a state and it passed...they would immedietly demand the law change. Then praise the gov't for stepping in. It's just they aren't getting what they want.

      Hum...you say context. What context is there to misunderstand? The book tells you to do certain things, you can't claim context and say it didn't mean that. What did it mean then? You can ask neighboring nations for people to do what you want and then give them back after the favor was completed? NO, it told you to buy people from neighboring nations? Can I have both a Mexican and a Canadian then?

      August 9, 2010 at 3:51 pm |
    • TammyB

      @ Hum Bled....Why shouldn't he use something to show his point from the Bible about slaves? All the people against gays use their little verse from the Bible to prove that homosexuals are "bad". Funny thing is that they don't usually cite the entire verse, which also has a little item in it that states you should kill your wife if she talks back to you, and stone your children if they disrespect you (or it could be vice-versa!). Taking the Bible out of context is a time honored tradition for religious types, who don't like it when someone else uses it to prove a point as well. Boo-hoo.

      August 10, 2010 at 2:21 pm |
  17. Butchy

    Hmmm-now–which marriage is sacred–the first? The second? third? or for Rush Limbaugh it might be his fourth. "Bishop", try to get marruiage rates up in your own community first before you stop loving responsible couples from getting married. At least gays don;t have to worry about "who's your daddy".

    August 8, 2010 at 4:26 pm |
    • Hum Bled

      Cute but vapid. Do you not respect the Lord God and His Laws and decrees?

      August 8, 2010 at 7:30 pm |
    • filthypeasant

      Lord?

      We don't have a "Lord".

      We're an autonomous collective.

      August 8, 2010 at 8:08 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Hum Bled

      You asked, "Do you not respect the Lord God and His Laws and decrees?"

      Nope, there is no god. Cheers!

      August 8, 2010 at 9:17 pm |
    • Bill

      Which law? Stone your children when they disobey you? Only buy slaves from other countries? Kill your wife if she gets raped? Or, only the laws that YOU choose to obey?

      August 8, 2010 at 10:30 pm |
    • hannaritofu

      Did you see him? Did you see him oppressing my rights? *points*

      August 8, 2010 at 11:22 pm |
    • Grant

      Now you see the violence inherent in the system!!

      August 9, 2010 at 8:53 am |
    • CatholicMom

      Butchy,
      Yeah, that is another bullying tactic children would have to deal with. But forget the children, right? People need to have children in their lives to make them whole, right?
      Children are not things.

      August 9, 2010 at 9:50 am |
    • Bob

      CatholicMom, don't you have to have kids as per God's command? Isn't that why the catholic church is against condoms which is allowing the AIDS epidemic in Africa to continue?

      August 9, 2010 at 12:26 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      Bob,
      Condoms go against the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman and God. The covenant is that ‘a man and woman be open to life so that God who is an equal partner in the marriage may bless the marriage with children if He so plans’. If the couple does not want more children there are ways that do not go against the covenant.

      Condoms have only caused chaos in Africa. There has been an increase in AIDS because of indiscriminate use of condoms.

      It is similar to what happened to people when seat belts came out in cars. People thought, ‘Wow, now we can drive even faster and the belts will save us if we get in an accident’ so they started driving faster and more people died in accidents! Now they think, ‘Wow, condoms will protect us from AIDS’ and so they started having ‘more’ with varying partners.

      People need to take responsibility for their actions and more needs to be done to help people who are suffering with AIDS.

      August 9, 2010 at 2:23 pm |
    • Grant

      CatholicMom – yes, when seat belts were made mandatory, it was found that people would drive faster. However, this was an adaptation mechanism for those who had been driving without seat belts prior to that. But with proper teaching, future generations learned to drive with seat belts being the norm, removing it as having an impact on driving speeds.

      The same can be said about condoms – yes there may be an adaptation issue right now, but in the long run in conjunction with proper teaching, they will be far more effective than abstinence teaching.

      Look at vaccines as another example. Occasionally, when vaccinated, you can get pretty sick for a short while, but once that subsides, you are protected against whatever the vaccine was designed to protect you against. Just because there's some bumpy patches off the start doesn't mean it isn't a net positive thing.

      August 9, 2010 at 2:58 pm |
    • Sean

      But Catholic Mom,

      There are tons of people who lead rich full lives who are HETEROSEXUAL and married who have no desire to have children. No one needs children...while some will WANT children. I want children but it's not a need to lead a full life.

      August 9, 2010 at 3:48 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @CatholicMom

      It isn't the fault of the condom. The problem is that the condoms aren't being used as they should be. Men don't like condoms. If condoms are used correctly they are highly effective at preventing both HIV and pregnancy.

      August 10, 2010 at 9:28 am |
    • David Johnson

      @CatholicMom

      As Grant mentioned, the real HIV weapon resides in a Vaccine. Once inoculated, nothing more is required from people. Science appears to be close to developing one. Just think, an HIV vaccine could one day be part of our childhood immunizations!

      Another gift from god? No, just science.

      August 10, 2010 at 9:39 am |
    • TammyB

      @Hum Bled....If you believe in God, then you believe that he created men and women. If you believe that he created men and women, then you believe that he also created gay men and women. If you believe in God, you believe that he loves everyone. Therefore, God loves gay men and women, so should you, if you follow God. I'm just sayin'....

      August 10, 2010 at 2:13 pm |
  18. PeteM

    "The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Harry R. Jackson, Jr."
    No kidding. What a clueless, bigoted, and racist point of view.
    But I will defend the guy's right to say it.
    What a clueless git. I would walk out of his church pretty quickly once I heard what sort of trash he was talkin'.

    August 8, 2010 at 4:22 pm |
    • Hum Bled

      Why walk out? Are you against historical-biblical Christianity. Or shall we follow the path of least resistance and say to whomever – go ahead sin your hearts out. God has no standards.

      August 8, 2010 at 7:23 pm |
    • PeterM

      @Hum Bled I am against indoctrination of children who have no defense against it. I am against any religion that uses a book of BS to justify what cannot BE justified.
      And I would never have walked INTO some sleazy "church" where people are lied to as if it were okay.
      If you want to play the gullible fool, go right ahead. This is a free country, more or less.
      But the indoctrination of children should stop. Do you think your children are so mentally retarded that they must be told what to think? But they have no recourse to justice, no defense against what you would do to them. You abuse children at your peril.
      Real justice deals with real facts verified in a court of law. Your religion is not based upon real facts, therefore you have no defense for indoctrinating children with falsehoods.
      As for "god" having standards: How could you ever prove it? We have extreme fundamentalists from each religion who are violently opposed to what the other states is the "true way to god".
      Standards? How could you ever say such a thing?

      August 8, 2010 at 7:38 pm |
    • Bob

      How is it racist? Last time I checked, homosexuality affected all races.

      It is prejudicial, stereotypical, uninformed and deceptive article. But it's not racist.

      August 9, 2010 at 8:47 am |
    • Bob

      HumBled, you're right, God does indeed have standards.

      Like how he shows us it's absolutely correct to kill 70,000 people because David took a census. You know, those things that help govern and help people.

      Like how it was absolutely correct to torture physically and mentally Joeb on a bet with Satan.

      Like how it's completely acceptable to "harden the pharoh's heart" after he was going to let the jews go. The reason? Apparently God wanted to inflict more plagues on the Egyptians and kill children.\

      Like how if someone rapes your daughter, the only just way to handle the situation is to have the rapist pay the value of your daughter as a slave.

      Perhaps you should read your bible.

      August 9, 2010 at 8:51 am |
    • CatholicMom

      PeteM,
      You are right, children are pretty defenselss in this world. They have very little to say about their lives, so adults need to think of them first instead of 'ME, ME, ME'. It is clear, many people think of children as things to have or to discard as their life is satisfied to the fullest.

      August 9, 2010 at 9:58 am |
    • Bob

      PeterM, I agree.

      The worst part about it is that they cherry pick the good stuff and spoon feed it while hiding the bad stuff. Most Christians today don't know about Joeb. Most don't know about how God sent bears down to kill 42 children because they called a man bald. Even less know about how God killed 70,000 people because David DARED to take a census. Oh the horror.

      August 9, 2010 at 10:34 am |
    • David Johnson

      @PeterM

      Sing it out, preacher! Like what you said! Cheers!

      August 9, 2010 at 12:10 pm |
    • marleyman

      Not at all. What he is saying is what the majority believe and for good reason. Homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle that is extremely unhealthy and detrimental to those that practice it. Any research on the subject will reveal 20-30 yrs of LOWER life expectancy, astronomical mental health problems to include addiction, and a complete absence of monogamous relationships demonstrated over time. Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear people relate truth rather than political correctness.

      August 9, 2010 at 12:22 pm |
    • Sean

      SING IT ON PETE! I'm not against religion, but if you are going to say you can't sin...tell me you follow the rest of leviticus and tell me how many men you have killed for shaving. I won't tell the police.

      August 9, 2010 at 3:46 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Hum Bled

      You said, "Why walk out? Are you against historical-biblical Christianity. Or shall we follow the path of least resistance and say to whomever – go ahead sin your hearts out. God has no standards."

      The standards have no god. We should decide what we will allow or disallow, by the effect on society. Murder is bad for society, as is stealing. We should and do have laws against them. We should not care what a non-existent god thinks on the subject. Gay marriage has no negative effect on society. In fact it has a positive effect in that the gay population will be happier.
      Therefore, we should allow gay marriage. Would taxing the churches be good for society? Why yes, it would. So we should tax the churches. See how it works? We don't need a god to decide what is moral.

      August 9, 2010 at 6:44 pm |
    • PeterM

      @David Johnon & Sean

      Cheers!

      August 10, 2010 at 1:04 am |
  19. JO

    But hasn't their been pychological proof that a child being raised with the absense of a mother or father figure can grow up with relationship issues when they get older? I think it is important to have the balance of a mother's love and a father figure. Is their not a fundemental balance to this formula?

    August 8, 2010 at 4:19 pm |
    • SoBayGuySD

      What fairytale are you living in? Do you know how many single parents there are out there? The children are lucky to see the one that has custody of them let alone the other one.

      August 8, 2010 at 4:32 pm |
    • sneeze

      Since when does a risk of raising children with "relationship issues" justify denying people equal rights? The divorce of my hetero parents certainly left me with issues, but that doesn't mean that divorced people should be designated as second-class citizens with fewer rights than everyone else.

      August 8, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
    • adam

      yes and no. they've done studies that say children don't *usually* do as well without both and a mother and father – but really only in studies that compare it to raising children in a single-parent household. when studies have compared households headed by opposite-sex couples, as opposed to same-sex, the differences have been negligible, though studies on the latter haven't been done much.

      August 8, 2010 at 11:40 pm |
    • Petr Tomeš

      Totally nonsense!
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting

      August 9, 2010 at 4:17 am |
    • CatholicMom

      You are right; it shouldn’t take testing to know what is ideal for children.
      My experience is that children without a mother and father due to ‘any’ reason struggle to justify why their lives are the way they are. Those that have a mother and father have less family issues to justify with their friends. Believe me, their peer group will put any child who is ‘different’ in any way ‘in their place’. It takes a teacher who is vigilant to show these special children visible love so they have a cushion against bullying and such that comes from these situations

      August 9, 2010 at 9:11 am |
    • Bob

      CatholicMom, because anecdotal evidence is just as good as a scientific study.

      August 9, 2010 at 12:28 pm |
    • kyle

      If your issue is to maintain the ideal for children, then make divorce illegal! Banning gays from marrying does nothing to force children to be raised by their biological parents simultaneously and in the same household. Doesn't make one bit of sense for you to use this as an argument for denying people the right to marry the person THEY choose for themselves.

      August 9, 2010 at 12:31 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @JO

      MONDAY, June 7 (HealthDay News) – When compared to teens of the same age, adolescents raised by lesbian parents are doing just fine socially, psychologically and academically, new research finds.

      Not only that, they have fewer social problems, and less aggressive and rule-breaking behaviors than other teens.

      The nearly 20-year study has followed 78 teens since their lesbian mothers were planning their pregnancies, and concluded that these children "demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment." These findings stand in contrast to what some vocal opponents of gay or lesbian parents might have expected.

      August 9, 2010 at 9:31 pm |
    • Bob

      MONDAY, June 7 (HealthDay News) – When compared to teens...

      I'm sorry, but a newspaper article is not a reliable source. The study of which it speaks only looks at 78 individuals, which is a very small sample size (and therefore, possibly wrong). I agree with your statement, I just think your evidence isn't solid.

      August 10, 2010 at 7:55 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Bob

      You said, "I'm sorry, but a newspaper article is not a reliable source. The study of which it speaks only looks at 78 individuals, which is a very small sample size (and therefore, possibly wrong). I agree with your statement, I just think your evidence isn't solid."

      Actually a sample size of 78 would not be a problem if it was a random sample. But...

      Also: Abbie E. Goldberg, an assistant professor in the department of psychology at Clark University
      Her book, “Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children,” is an analysis of more than 100 academic studies, most looking at groups of 30 to 150 subjects, and primarily on lesbian mothers, though of late there is a spike in research about gay fathers.

      Her findings were about the same as the one with 78 samples.

      Sharron Angle is proposing a ban on gay adoptions and may even want to remove already placed children from gays. I think this is very sad. A lot of these children will grow up in foster care, if not adopted. Studies have shown foster care is not beneficial.

      August 10, 2010 at 9:08 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Bob

      You said, "anecdotal evidence is just as good as a scientific study."

      No way dude. Personal experience, as reported by CatholicMom, is normally useful in legal proceedings, but it is not the quality of a scientific study.

      In this case, CatholicMom is biased, so her testimony may be biased. She may be reporting hearsay.

      When you are considering anecdotal evidence (testimony), always consider: Does this person have an axe to grind? In this case, the answer is "Yes". Every experience she has, would be seen through the glasses of her religious bias.

      Cheers!

      August 10, 2010 at 1:38 pm |
    • Bob

      @David Johnson – A sample size of 78 on it's own is not a decent sample size for any study. The numbers are far too small to ward off the argument of "statistical anomoly". However, the summary paper you linked is valid and worth some time considering. Like I said, I don't disagree, just didn't find the evidence that you supported complelling.

      Also, the comment to CatholicMom was sarcastic. Of course anecdotal evidence is not as good as scientific.

      August 10, 2010 at 2:41 pm |
    • Mark Vondrasek

      Well by that logic, we should outlaw single parents raising children also? Seriously, if both of your parents love and care for you as parents should, there is no reason to worry about psychological effects.

      August 10, 2010 at 9:33 pm |
    • dalis

      @ sneeze That's exactly the point. Your parents had no right to put you through THEIR divorce, just the license to do so. It IS a trauma and a selfish act.

      August 11, 2010 at 3:36 am |
  20. peace2all

    No research shows that it in any way 'hurts' anyone......

    Peace.....

    August 8, 2010 at 3:31 pm |
    • Andre

      The proposition 8 Debate!

      What puzzles me on the debate over Proposition 8 is that no one has taken the time to look at how marriage as we know it today became an institution in our civilization in the first place and whether or not the emergence of same-sex marriages is simply a natural evolution. Marriage has evolved over the centuries and most particularly after the Second World War, from being economically based to being relationship based and for that reason, at present, it is fair game for any two people to sanctify their love in wedded bliss.

      An overview:

      As long as our ancestors were gatherers and hunters, we cannot find a trace of an institution linking a male, a female and the upcoming babies. Copulation happened and the babies were integrated into the tribe.

      At some point, our ancestors realized that water was more abundant at the bottom of slopes and that edible vegetables were more present there than elsewhere.

      As soon as our ancestors got the connection between water and food, they settled close to these areas. The next stage was that they planted and replanted seeds. Farming was conceived and deliberate land ownership and use was created! Now manpower becomes meaningful to secure the use of the land and by extension, ownership of land AND manpower is paramount! Women produced the children (who would later become manpower for the farm), therefore a legal bond to the woman became an economic necessity as it rendered entitlement to the labor of the offspring. Marriage was the response!

      The genesis of the family unit was driven by economic necessity. Being sanctified by a religious authority gave marriage a social structure that enabled the crude economic purpose to be hidden.

      After the Second World War, the Western society has changed. Emancipation and economic self- reliance of women have become a new standard and the gay community has burgeoned and blended into the mainstream. Marriage is no longer an economic factor and is only driven by the religious sector as a bad habit - an outdated and irrelevant way to resist change.

      As society no longer depends on marriage to produce and raise children, marriage has evolved into an institution driven by the desire to love and relate, any opposition to Proposition 8 and same sex couple marriage is blatant discrimination against a person’s right to choose.

      August 15, 2010 at 8:17 pm |
1 2 3 4
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.