home
RSS
Navy reverses itself on gay marriages on military bases
The Navy is changing course on guidance that would have allowed gay marriage on military bases.
May 11th, 2011
02:27 PM ET

Navy reverses itself on gay marriages on military bases

By Charley Keyes, CNN

Washington (CNN) - The Navy did an abrupt about-face late Tuesday, suspending earlier guidance that could have allowed same-sex marriages on military bases once the Pentagon scraps its present Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

A memorandum from the Chief of Chaplains, Rear Admiral M.L. Tidd, suspended one he issued about a month ago.

"My memorandum of 13 April 2011 is hereby suspended until further notice pending additional legal and policy review and inter-Departmental coordination," Tidd wrote on Tuesday to all Navy chaplains and "religious program specialists."

Read the full story
- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Culture wars • Homosexuality • Military • Same-sex marriage

soundoff (102 Responses)
  1. david

    I'll be waiting to see if the Navy does the right thing.

    http://sightlikeaconstructionworker.blogspot.com/2011/05/presbyterian-church-is-so-gay.html

    May 15, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
  2. Frogist

    The Navy is for providing same se-x marriages in their chapels. DADT is going away. It's slow but it's progress. We just have to keep vigilant because it's only a matter of time.

    May 13, 2011 at 10:02 am |
    • Adelina

      And go ahead, lose every war.

      May 15, 2011 at 7:33 am |
  3. Adelina

    @Q: You atheists only strengthen the faithfuls' faith in God by your futile pretence of knowing better. You don't. You may be able to handle some vocabs but the overall logic is entirely for a fact of the Creator. I appreciate you(Q) though; you are more educational than others and at least you use clean language. Please do something so your fellow atheists will keep some basic manners with religious people. Atheists are horrible in language usage, as you know well.

    May 13, 2011 at 7:04 am |
    • Evolved DNA

      Adelina.. I disagree with your stance that atheists only strengthen your belief. We are asking you to provide proof of your as-sertions, and in doing that it may make you look at the reasons you believe. It will become obvious as time moves on that there will never be a second coming, but that will be for future generations to discover. I , and other atheists do not expect that you will change your mind based on what we say..we understand that. What I think happens is that after looking at the evidence it makes you a little uneasy that it could be true, but that feeling quickly passes as you retreat to your faith. It does not make your position true, just comfortable. Atheists do not necessarily use any worse language than christian people, but you have a tendency to generalize more than most ( either atheists or Christians) and I am sure than many Christians do not agree with you on some points. We are all the same Adelina.. good and bad on all "sides" ..i hate to use the word "side" really as it implies perhaps a fixed, unmovable position.. which is not healthy for society.

      May 13, 2011 at 9:34 am |
    • Q

      @Adelina – When it comes to biology and evolution, I don't hesitate to claim that I "know better". Furthermore, I don't hesitate to call a post ignorant if it betrays a foundational lack of understanding in area I've spent considerable time studying. That said, I'm certain there are topics where your knowledge is far superior to mine, in which case, I wouldn't hesitate to concede that you "know better". And if I were to post on something I didn't really understand, drawing false conclusions in the process, I would deserve a response indicating I was ignorant of the topic. The difference here is that I try not to post on topics which my humility informs me I lack the requisite background knowledge. I believe the negative responses you often receive reflect the lack of humility on your part, first, in posting on topics in which you as-sert a degree of knowledge (e.g. evolution) which you do not possess and demonstrable in their basic factual inaccuarcy and second, in confusing your subjective interpretations of religious faith with a form of empirical knowledge. You are ent-itled to your opinions, but you are not ent-itled to your own facts. If you truly wish to receive less negative responses, I would suggest you begin simply by infusing some humility into your posts...

      May 14, 2011 at 2:39 am |
    • Adelina

      @EvolvedDNA, but you don't take any proofs as a proof. Atheists are as religious as any pagan religious regarding your own beliefs therefore you must stop bashing religions the way you do now since you are religious about the meaninglessness of life. Most of atheists are foul-languaged I found since you don't even have any noble dogma on living. You seem to be okay for now because you still carry some Christian heritage with you. If you really believe the way you do as stated above, please do not try to drag anyone into the abyss of your meaninglessness. Christians keep preaching because of the existence of the sure Hope and the realistic salvation in the Divine Savior who came to earth. We don't promote meaninglessness or immorality like atheists do.

      May 15, 2011 at 7:07 am |
    • Adelina

      @Q: Thank you very much for your letter. But you need to know that I'm not talking about the amount of knowledge. You have more amount of knowledge than I do in some fields, of course, but your starting premise and your conclusion are morally wrong even in the field of your concet ration. One does not need to be aca demic top to know the basic fallacies of your premise and conclusion; only basic logic is necessary. If any premise or conclusion betrays the basic logic, we know it needs re-examination, but you atheists refuse it.

      May 15, 2011 at 7:15 am |
    • Adelina

      @Q: I don't mind getting negative responses. I don't expect kind letters from massive numbers of anti-christians here. I'm more like throwing perspectives. I don't have time to explain in details(and this is just a news forum which changes daily), but if people know some perspectives exist, it will encourage authentic learning and hopefully to the discovery of the evidential nature of the Christian faith. Q, you may never return to this page and I may be writing this letter in vain, but please know that I appreciated your manner. I hope we can talk again.

      May 15, 2011 at 7:24 am |
    • Adelina

      Q, atheistic scientists may be right in observation and giving data, but their speculations beyond those are wrong or can be wrong. But they talk as if the drawn data and their personal speculations are the same thing. That is the problem and that's why they need to be classified as fiction writers if they would mock Christianity.

      May 15, 2011 at 7:31 am |
    • Evolved DNA

      Adelina..i would like to have proof of your as-sertions, but again there are none that relate to a supernatural being. Hoping he /she exists is not the same as proof. I stand by my claim that we are all the same ,, both Christians and atheists. good and bad in both. You do not need any god to be good., but as that is central to your faith, it is hard to to admit that. Atheists do not have a religion..we have no tax free buildings to group together in, we have no manual that requires us to think the same ( which we do not) . We ask religions for evidence of what they claim is the truth, as this "truth" is sometimes attempted to be used to control society as in the "gay debates" for instance . When asked to prove the reason why gays are "sinful" it appears to come down to just a personal dislike..with in the entire religious group and has no basis from any real evidence.

      May 15, 2011 at 9:35 am |
    • Adelina

      EvolvedDNA, the complexity and functioning of everything in the universe, human mind and history, the existence of the Bible are the evidences of Creator God. We know these things don't just come to be, from scientific observations. There is no good atheist. None. They are all evil. However, there are redeemed Christians who do good though not-perfect. Don't think everything based on American legality which is meaningless in defining religion or non-religion. Gays are sinful because God says so and the nature proves it to be destructive, unhealthy and morally chaotic.

      May 15, 2011 at 10:49 pm |
    • Adelina

      EvolveDNA, I wish the universe was a lot simpler and humans a lot nicer to have some common ground with you. It's logically and in conscience impossible to agree with you. The world is just way too complex(what a simplified expression!) and all humans downright hopelessly evil and selfish. You don't see that because you cannot admit how sinful you are.

      May 15, 2011 at 10:56 pm |
    • Evolved DNA

      Adelina.. sorry, you still have no proof. What you have claimed is that god did it.. so there. Where did your creator come from.. you have no answers . Tradition , not fact, drives your dislike of Atheists, and it is of course totally misguided and distracts you from the real truth you seek. Science freely admits that abiogenisis and the universe origins are still open conjecture, but evolution is not.

      May 15, 2011 at 11:55 pm |
    • Adelina

      EvolvedDNA, God is self-existent. You must admit man cannot fathom everything as the Bible says. I don't dislike athists but I know humanity is totally depraved, from observations. Macro evolution (crossing species) never happened, never observed and is not possible. Species are designed.

      May 16, 2011 at 10:02 am |
    • Adelina

      EvolvedDNA, it's your personal choice and preference you ruled out God, not scientific conclusions based on probability from data. Christians know the end result of such God-less life AND the Way of salvation for mankind; that's why we speak to you. Attempt to rescue you and praying for you are Christians' holy duty. Jesus your God loves you. Acknowledge your God, your Creator and your Savior as a creature should.

      May 16, 2011 at 10:08 am |
    • Evolved DNA

      Adelina.. Your DNA is not the same as others.. you may have the ability to withstand a certain disease whereas others may not. Your body is the product of an evolved system.. you are not a god inspired cookie cutter person. I and others have never said that we understand every thing.. there is much to uncover... Humans had wisdom long before the bible was written, and it was this was inserted into the texts. I have asked you before to tell us what piece of knowledge in the bible was unknown to humans until told to us by "god".

      May 17, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
    • Adelina

      EvolvedDNA, humans have intelligence and ability to reason because we were created in God's image. What did you do as mankind without the Bible except for murdering the powerless, oppressing women and minorities, worshipping evil spirits and engaging in limitless immorality? Yes, tell me about it. It was universal. Without the knowledge of the true God and His ways, the behaviors of mankind deteriorates as debris expands farther worse, not holding together in order.

      May 18, 2011 at 3:00 am |
    • Q

      @Adelina – I certainly agree that isolated data is not enough to support any contention and that some scientists are guilty of extending beyond what the physical evidence can support. However, science is validated in its ability to make accurate predictions and then apply these predictions. For the case of evolution, successful predictions have been made from molecular biology (e.g. where certain genes should and shouldn't be) to the fossil record (the existence of forms bridging various levels of taxonomy) and to larger models of ecological interactions (predictions of how species will respond in new environments).

      You are misusing the word "logic". Logic isn't simply what makes sense to you personally. Long ago, it was "logical" that one type of disease was the product of breathing bad ("mal") air ("aria") and it was certainly, "illogical" that this disease might be the product of tiny animals too small to see. However, we now know that Malaria is exactly this, i.e. an infection with a microscopic protozoan. In your use of "logic" (i.e. what makes sense to you), you are engaging in a technical logical fallacy called an "argument from incredulity", meaning, at it's root your argument against evolution is essentially founded in that you chose not to accept its evidence because it doesn't make sense to you. Again, it doesn't make sense because you don't have the background to understand the science. Not a personal attack here, just a statement of fact. Just consider how many things (e.g. natural phenomena, machines, etc) didn't make sense to you until you learned how they really worked? Evolution will continue not to make sense until you learn more about the science it's based upon.

      As the example of Malaria indicates, scientific knowledge is independent of "morality". Morality comes in when humans employ specific types of investigation (e.g. human/animal subjects) or when we apply scientific knowledge (e.g. the good/evil accompanying in vitro fertilization, genetically-modified crops, weaponry, etc, etc). Knowing 2+2=4 has no moral component. It appears you're confusing the process and result of scientific investigation with the impact on a preferred literal scriptural belief. Evolution is no more immoral than gravity is immoral. They're both simply mechanisms.

      May 19, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
  4. Adelina

    @Q: "Mutation and natural selection only lead to a loss of functional systems. Therefore, antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution but rather variation within a bacterial kind."

    May 13, 2011 at 6:49 am |
    • Q

      The compensatory mechanism mutations I discussed previously are "added function" mutations. They allow for a return to normal growth rates wherein a gene's mutation allows for a new or expanded role. We can observe the evolution of new species in the lab and in the wild. Just google it and you'll find numerous examples. Knowing that species can and do evolve, claiming some barrier exists at the level of "kind" is like saying inches can add up to feet but can't add up to miles. Pick any taxonomic level to define a "kind" and I can show you a fossil which bears morphological traits bridging two different "kinds".

      May 14, 2011 at 1:43 am |
    • Adelina

      @Q Kinds means species. Crossing the boundary of species never happened. I wrote simply again because my comments got blocked.

      May 15, 2011 at 6:51 am |
    • Q

      @ Adelina – You're incorrect on both points. Go check any creation science website and they will assign "kinds" to genus or family level. The reason is because given the sheer magnitude of species (e.g. 450,000 beetle species alone), the Ark could not house them all. For this reason, "kinds" is interpreted as being a higher taxonomic level e.g. a dog "kind", a cat "kind", etc requiring far fewer animals on the Ark, but from which modern species must have hyper-evolved in the ensuing 4000 yrs.

      Regarding speciation, a more current example would be the Pod Mrcaru lizards. Again, plenty of examples so please do a little research before simply stating something which is demonstrably false.

      May 19, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
  5. naturechaplain

    Another good example of the wacky logic of "Don't Think, Just Serve" folks (serving God and Country, God's Country, God's Warriors, Americanianity, pure nationalistic religion). As a former chaplain I find this appalling. It is clearly time to end taxpayer funding for chaplains, especially those who "feel called" to evangelize and "serve" their own sheep in the mission fields of the military, prisons, hospitals and more. Poor leadership leads to letting these self-righteous preachers in the door in the first place.

    May 12, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
    • Adelina

      What America needs is Bible-literate Christian chaplains.

      May 13, 2011 at 7:08 am |
  6. Doc Vestibule

    Oh you wacky Americans.
    So far, the sky hasn't fallen in Canada since we let gays marry.

    May 12, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • Adelina

      Canada = the largest US colony

      May 12, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  7. SeanNJ

    @Ed: I gave you a perfectly valid reason for my choice: I don't want the administrative overhead of amending every marriage-related law to include the phrase "and civil unions." You can simply overturn DOMA, allow gay people to marry and there's no need to do anything else. If your church doesn't want to call it marriage, fine. I don't care what they call it, because I don't have to pay for legislators to modify anything.

    May 12, 2011 at 1:36 pm |
  8. Artist

    HeavenSent

    CW, remember Mark 13:8, for we are indeed in end of days ...
    ==============================
    The old drum of end days...it has been over 728,000 days........I supsect in another 100 or so years (72,800 ish days) there will be a HeavenSent clone saying that we are indeed in the end days. CW clone will be there YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!. Christian clones are nothing new as well as their message. The good news is in fact old stale news same as the body of their dead savior.

    May 12, 2011 at 12:49 pm |
    • Artist

      CW

      @ Artist,

      God has the ultimate authority in all matters. One day you will realize this. I just hope you realize it before its too late.

      @ Yathink,

      I'm not "closed minded". The Bible clearly I might add co-ndemn's this behavior in both the old and NEW testament. If you want to "open" my mind since its closed in your eyes...show me in the bible where this is an okay behavior. Go ahead...try to open my mind as you say.
      ----------
      Who wrote the bible? Leave out assumptions when answering please.

      May 12, 2011 at 12:52 pm |
  9. Adelina

    America still alive, sound and well... My America keeps the military strong and rescue the defenseless.

    May 12, 2011 at 3:15 am |
    • burns

      Does Your America check your spelling?

      May 12, 2011 at 11:09 am |
    • Adelina

      @Burns: Yes, but Christian America does not mock anyone like the secular America does.

      May 12, 2011 at 6:28 pm |
  10. T-party

    As usual "heavensent" is incorrect and too cowardly to argue his false point.

    May 11, 2011 at 8:34 pm |
  11. T-party

    its is not a choice ...if people choose it then each of us would be attracted to both genders and choose one or the other.

    May 11, 2011 at 8:33 pm |
    • Adelina

      I choose not to recognize any same-s e x marriage as marriage. Yes, value other people's values; agnostics are intolerant.

      May 12, 2011 at 3:20 am |
    • EvolvedDNA

      Adelina.. Luckily your views are that of your leader, and I do not think you understand why you dislike gays or even why your book tells you to..Therefore you still have some hope of rejoining the human race at some time.

      May 12, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
    • Adelina

      @EvolvedDNA, I love gays with the love of Christ. You supporters of gays are destroying them by telling them immoral lies. Only Christians can truly help gays. By the way, DNA does not evolve. The possibility is grand 0.

      May 12, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
    • Q

      "By the way, DNA does not evolve. The possibility is grand 0." Try telling that to someone with a vancomycin-resistant MRSA infection...

      May 13, 2011 at 2:35 am |
    • Adelina

      Q, existence of DNA and functions within cells are just a few of massive proofs that enti-ties are distinctly designed. You believe in sci-fi fantasies because your favorite fiction writers say so.

      May 13, 2011 at 2:51 am |
    • Q

      Typical non-response. You are too ignorant to even begin to understand your own ignorance of science...

      May 13, 2011 at 2:52 am |
    • Adelina

      Q, admit it. The starting premise is a personal choice, nothing to do with science. Existence of Creator is 100% more probable than atheism if everything is honestly taken into account.

      May 13, 2011 at 2:57 am |
    • Q

      What? I thought we were talking about how antibiotic resistance in bacteria is sci-fi? Aren't you going to provide some evidence showing God reached in and changed those genes allowing bacteria previously susceptible to an antibiotic to magically become resistant?

      May 13, 2011 at 3:01 am |
    • Adelina

      Q, some scientists deny God because His existence is only not-interesting to them. Their scientific observations are right for a time; it's their premise of atheism and atheistic conclusions that are wrong. Honest scientific observations alone draw logical conclusions of existence of a Creator, Programmer and Sustainer.

      May 13, 2011 at 3:06 am |
    • Q

      You're attempting to change the subject again. Do bacteria develop antibiotic resistance or don't they?

      May 13, 2011 at 3:13 am |
    • Q

      I'll save you the trouble of admitting you were incorrect. Antibiotic resistance evolves in bacterial populations. The resistance is the manifestation of changes in the genes of bacteria when compared to the original susceptible strains. Now, were you the curious creationist, you would have identified any number of ICR/AIG creationist articles directly describing what I've just stated, i.e. resistance results from changes in bacterial DNA sequences (directly contradicting your previous statement regarding DNA and it's capacity to change). Were you actually conversant in the relevant science, you might have latched onto their arguments that resistant bacteria exhibit a "fitness cost" (i.e. they reproduce less effectively) when compared to the original susceptible bacteria. However, this is also incorrect as resistant bacteria have been repeatedly shown to be capable of further compensatory mutations which return their reproductive efficiency to that near to, equal to or greater than the original susceptible bacterial strains. You may have also argued the ICR/AIG point that "...it doesn't led to a new bacterium.", but again, as Lenski's E. coli experiments have demonstrated, evolution of bacterial DNA can produce a completely new biochemical pathway which, by definition, would classify them as "non-E. coli" were the original strain not known to be an E. coli strain. I know. Way too technical for you and this is why you most certainly cannot claim you have "honestly" taken "everything" into account...

      May 13, 2011 at 3:44 am |
    • Adelina

      Q, thank you for the explanations. But the mutation process itself is orderly and carries predictable-ness. Antibiotic resistance is no way proof of evolution of DNA but rather the opposite.

      May 13, 2011 at 6:39 am |
    • Evolved DNA

      Q..Excellent post. thanks for the explanation. I guess your job may become easier now that we have been told that a bacteria "mutation process itself is orderly and carries predictable-ness". We will know be able to predict what it will turn into and make antibiotics in order to fight infections for the future.... thank Thor for the creationists. It is a shame that many of our fellow human beings have such a way to do to understand the real world.. i feel really sad for them..if only they would use their intellect and see the true beauty of evolution..oh well

      May 13, 2011 at 9:05 am |
    • Unev0lvedApe

      @EvolvedDNA

      It's amazing....how you bashed Adelina for presuming that you are (of) human but commended Q for contemplating you as a bacteria.

      Amazing intelligence, wow! I mean WOW!

      May 13, 2011 at 9:45 am |
    • Frogist

      @Adelina:
      It is your absolute prerogative whether you recognize same se-x marriage as marriage. In your personal life you may be as prejudiced as you like. Our country's legal system however works differently. It may not discriminate against any part of our populace by witholding rights from them. That is illegal and unconst!tutional. Sorry.
      BTW Agnostics are intolerant... of prejudiced people.

      May 13, 2011 at 11:08 am |
    • Evolved DNA

      unevolvedape..i am not at all insulted by Q.. at some point in our very distant past we had bacteria relatives..so no problem there. In fact bacteria are essential for our very heath and life.. with out them you would not be able to digest food. I take it from your handle and comments you are a creationist.. which of course comes with its own set of problems , least among them of course who made god? There is no current consensus as to abiogenesis or how the universe came into being..those questions are still unanswered. it would be easy to insert supernatural powers but it may not be correct. You are connected to the universe in many ways.. the iron in your blood was forged in the death throes of stars eons ago..how fantastic is that.. and the atoms in your body are as old as the universe, and may have been part of a tree, or dinosaur, or bacteria over their the course of their existence.

      May 13, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
  12. CW

    @ Artist,

    God has the ultimate authority in all matters. One day you will realize this. I just hope you realize it before its too late.

    @ Yathink,

    I'm not "closed minded". The Bible clearly I might add co-ndemn's this behavior in both the old and NEW testament. If you want to "open" my mind since its closed in your eyes...show me in the bible where this is an okay behavior. Go ahead...try to open my mind as you say.

    May 11, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
    • EvolvedDNA

      CW God does not have the ultimate authority.. humans have ultimate authority and always have had. What in the bible was revealed to man that he did not know already? Why do you claim that HO-MO s-ex is a disease, is that told to you in the bible or just a guess ,.whereas believing in an unseen, unknown supernatural being that runs your real life is not considered a mental illness?

      May 11, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
    • Lindsay

      So, CW when you get to heaven and God looks at you and says you were shown numerous time about my creation of gays and lesbians but yet you still continued to condemn them. Then what? The truth is now out, that these people are this way because of things that happen in the womb that changes their brain chemistry. Plus it's been well proven that what people who wrote on this subject in the past did so with bias and prejudice in their hearts. People fear and condemn what they don't understand, this is a great example of it. Good luck with God when it's revealed you have a prejudice heart.

      May 11, 2011 at 6:00 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Lindsay, God did not create g-ay people. G-ay people choose to be g-ay believing reprobate is natural. The sins of pride and lust are blinding said people (aka the person's ego is alive and kicking). Therefore, we have the sins of pride and lust along with evil spirits at work here for which the person(s) is not taking responsibility to rid themselves of. Of course, we have the media ensuring everyone stays in reprobate mode.

      Amen.

      May 11, 2011 at 7:01 pm |
    • Ed

      @HeavenSent. "G-ay people choose to be g-ay"

      No they didn't many of them struggled with the realization for some time after realizing they were g-a-y some have even killed themselves because they did not want to be g-a-y. They choose whether or not to act on their desires but they don't choose their se-xu-ality anymore then you or I do.

      I am a man I am attracted to women I have been all my life therfore I am he-terose-xual. My friend is a man, he is g-a-y, he is attracted to men, he as been his whole life. He did not choose it, it just happened. He doesn't know why and he can't change it. He could deny it. He could marry have kids but his marrage would be a li-e because he can not feel that way about a woman. He could not act on it, that would be a best practice, but that would also mean he would spend his life alone and to some extent unfulfilled. He has a partner they have been together for over 12 years they own a house together pay bills together all the things my wife and I do. He struggled for years with being g-a-y even dating women to deny it. Now he is happy. His partner is a great guy. I would not rob him of that to satisfy you or any religous bigots. I know he will face God one day that is between him and God. God will judge him fairly and justly. Why can't you leave him to God?

      May 11, 2011 at 7:17 pm |
    • EvolvedDNA

      Heavensent .. how do you know that god did not make gay people? one minute god created everything, then god did not.. god must have created "gayness ". What a mess you live in, its no wonder that religions are causing such havoc across the world. How come you do not think that believing in spirits and supernatural beings is not a mental illness? you" choose" to be mental..sad.

      May 11, 2011 at 11:52 pm |
    • myklds

      @EvolvedDNA..Nope, it's called faith.

      May 12, 2011 at 8:05 am |
    • drealstorybehind

      When God made man and woman, The devil also experimented and made his own. There came the g-ays and l-esbian.

      May 12, 2011 at 8:11 am |
    • Ed

      @drealstorybehind
      what a load of cr-ap but since you post your bigotry show the chapter and verse

      May 12, 2011 at 8:18 am |
    • drealstorybehind

      Judas 5:21

      May 12, 2011 at 11:06 am |
    • burns

      CW..... the bible is stupid. Show me in the bible where it describes insulin production for your diabetic self/family? There's alot about slaves and beating your children. When has god done anything tangible in the last century? PAWN

      May 12, 2011 at 11:29 am |
    • Ed

      @drealstorybehind. Ok so to prove you point that g-a-ys were created by the devil you're going to quote the gospel of Judas. Questionablechoice at best. Also I can't find entry at all I look for it a can't find so along with quoting the traitor you seem to have made the quote up.

      May 12, 2011 at 12:01 pm |
    • EvolvedDNA

      Mykids. I agree it is faith that is causing havoc across the world. If only you would consider yourselves as Human beings first and have trust in your abilities you may find the world is a nicer place than you imagine. While you are fed a diet of negativity about the human race, and look forward to death, how can you embrace life and see fellow inhabitants in a positive light?

      May 12, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
    • drealstorybehind

      Read it again, thoroughly this time. You may also find that he wasn't the traitor but the fall guy.

      May 13, 2011 at 2:47 am |
  13. Ed

    While I would prefer g-a-y marriage to be called a civil union, and I don't think church should be required to perform they, not allowing civil unions is inconsistent with with US and state antidiscrimination laws. It is illegal for companies to not hire, not prompt, or terminate employment for se-xuality. Itis illegal to pay less to g-a-ys. It is illegal for real estate ventures rental or purchse to refuse some one because they are g-a-y. So why should the government be the exemption? Civil unions would give the smae tax benefits to g-a-ys and the same property rights. The should be allowed if for no other reason then to make the laws consistent.

    May 11, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
    • maggieb

      Separate isn't equal.

      May 11, 2011 at 6:38 pm |
    • Ed

      The statement woulfd fit better if the comment referenced segregation. I union performed by a justice of the peace that provides g-a-y the same tax benefits and joint property benfits would be the same as marriage form a legal stand point. The churches should not be required to perform tese ceremonies because that would deny their religious freedom. If a church choose to that would be their right but it should not be required. The problem with the current law is it allows the government to discriminate against g-a-y couples for taxes and property rights. That is wrong and inconsistent with antidiscrimination laws the government has created for every one else. This is true at the state, federal and local levels. The laws should be consistent and since being g-a-y is not illegal (it shouls not be illegal) a civil union should be allowed.

      May 11, 2011 at 7:04 pm |
    • burns

      Dark skinned people are known to be promiscuous and don't take marriage seriously (at least according to my racist, senile grandmother) how about we only give them civil unions? Same tax benefits and stuff but that way it wouldn't insult my future marriage that might fail.

      May 12, 2011 at 11:19 am |
    • SeanNJ

      @Ed: Strictly from an administrative point of view, which would you say is easier to accomplish: amend every law on the books pertaining to marriage and the rights granted under that arrangement to include the phrase "and civil unions," or just call these civil unions "marriages?"

      If you're ready to grant the exact same rights and privileges to a gay couple as you are a straight couple, then giving it a different name is just silly.

      May 12, 2011 at 11:41 am |
    • Ed

      @SeanNJ I was njot think adminastratively. My personal prefernce would be for it to be called a civil union not marraige. This goes to my faith marriage is between a man and a woman. But if the only way to accomplish treating g-a-y people with the same legal rights and protection is to call it marriage then call it marriage> I would personal prefer to be 6 feet tall but I'm not. I don't think churches should be required to perform the cermonys but I do think the government should allow it.

      May 12, 2011 at 12:07 pm |
    • Ed

      I think its interesting that I have basically sided with the g-a-y community here except for the name and yet I have be called a segergationist and a racist only because I stated I would prefer the use of a different name. So basically I have to agree in every way of I a hom-ophob. Im not allowed to have my on preference at all but need to respect every one elses's as long as they agree with everything the g-a-y community wants. Doesn't seem fair

      May 12, 2011 at 12:11 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @Ed: Personally, I don't care what a church decides to do about gay marriage. You seem to be mentioning that as if allowing gays to marry would force churches to perform the ceremonies. That's simply not true, and no one is asking for that. You can be married without a ceremony. All you need is the couple's and witnesses' signatures on the appropriate paperwork. The ceremony doesn't legally mean anything.

      As for calling it something other than marriage, as I said, that's silly. The reason why you're catching flak for it is because you, by your own admission, would "prefer" if it were called something else. Your insistence on including something to differentiate between two marriages, and the more petty the request the less sense it makes, is segregation. By definition.

      My question to you: why do you care what anyone else calls their relationship? How does that affect you in any way, shape or form? And don't call it a "preference." That's a cop-out. Why do you prefer it not be called a marriage?

      May 12, 2011 at 1:08 pm |
    • Ed

      @SeanNJ, I perfer it that way because as part of my faith I believe the sacrament of marriage should be between a man and a women. I am aware the ceremony is not what creates a marriage in our socciety you just need a certificate signed by an appropriate authority, a minister or priest would count so would a justice of the peace or judge. It may be silly to prefer the differnt name but I do. With that said I'm not going to go out protesting against calling it marriage or write letters to my legislatutor to make it happen its just what I would perfer personally.

      The flak I'm getting is exactly why so many religious find it hard to be moderate. I get flak from the religious becasue I agree hom-ose-xuals should have all of the same rights as a couple as heteros. I get flak form the other side because I would perfer it to be called something different. It would be easier for me to side completely with one side ot the other but life isn't always black and white and sometime compremise can solve problems.

      I would also point that several Hom-ose-xual activist groups have stated they want the right they don't care what its called. So why is the name marriage so important to your side? If its just a name then let us have it if not why not? You're insistance that the g-a-y communnity get the word that you yourself said wasn't that important is just a silly as my prefernce that they don't

      May 12, 2011 at 1:26 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @Ed: I guess my point is it appears to me (and presumably everyone else that's arguing with you on the topic) that you're trying to play both sides of the fence: you support gay marriage as long as we don't call it marriage because then your church or your god will be angry with you. Whille this fence-sitting might be your only way of reconciling your position in your mind, you can hardly expect us to not call you on the carpet for it. It's a cowardly position to take.

      May 12, 2011 at 1:31 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      My bad. Posted without "replying"
      -------------–
      @Ed: I gave you a perfectly valid reason for my choice: I don't want the administrative overhead of amending every marriage-related law to include the phrase "and civil unions." You can simply overturn DOMA, allow gay people to marry and there's no need to do anything else. If your church doesn't want to call it marriage, fine. I don't care what they call it, because I don't have to pay for legislators to modify anything

      May 12, 2011 at 1:37 pm |
    • Ed

      @SeanNJ, So your only eason for calling it marriage is to avoid unnecessary admin. costs. fair enough. By the way you need to stop assuming every time a christian disagrees with you its because they are afraid it will make "God angry." I'm not worried about making God angry. I'm not saying I'm sinless far from it, but in the same way I trust my father to deal with me fairly and justly, I trust God to deal with me fairly and justly.

      If they need to call the relationship a marriage then so be it. But its not just one side the word matters to. If it were you would not be so bothered by my preference. I would not have been compared to a racist segregationist. The word matters to both sides. For you it may just be administrative but not for ever one.

      Finally just because some doesn't only see one side of the debate it does not make them a coward. Evry one asks for tolerance about their beliefs but no one is willing to tolerate any one else's. Except for people willing to try to see bith sides. Try it sometime, its not as easy as you think and requires the willingness to hear side out. It also requires an open mind.

      May 12, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
    • SeanNJ

      @Ed: You realize that this whole argument is just a strawman anyway. The reason why people are insisting on gay marriage is because your idea of civil unions with equal rights is not universally accepted either. if it were, I doubt anyone would be yelling all that loudly.

      Ok, so how about this as a compromise: we'll call it marriage, but we won't mean *wink**wink* "marriage." How's that?

      May 12, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
    • Ed

      @SeanNJ call it what you like the important thing s that the government stops setting different rule sfor its self then it has for everyone else and the the g-a-y community get the same legal rights everyone else has. I'm far less worried about the word used then you seem to be. I simply stated a personal preference and have recieved no end of flak for it. So call it what you want.

      May 12, 2011 at 2:46 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Ed: I think you have taken up quite a moderate position on this topic for someone who considers himself religious. That is very refreshing to see. I'd like to answer the question you asked SeanNJ. The word "marriage" is important to me beyond the simple practicality of not having to amend every law to include the term "civil unions". It is the att!tude inherent in using the same word which recognizes that gay people are as equal human beings as straights. If we call marriage something else, for no other reason than it has to do with gays, we are saying, "It doesn't matter that the thing we call marriage for straights is exactly the same thing you are doing. Just because you are gay, we will not acknowledge your relationship is the same as ours." Now in personal circ-umstances, I know certain people who will not call something a "real" marriage when they don't approve of the couple. And that's absolutely up to them in their mind and personal circle. But as a country we have decided to refuse discrimination, so we cannot "disapprove" like that in our legal system.
      I guess what I'm saying is a rose by any other name is still a rose obviously, except to those who would call it a daisy.

      May 13, 2011 at 10:54 am |
    • Frogist

      @Ed: I think you have taken up quite a moderate position on this topic for someone who considers himself religious. That is very refreshing to see. I'd like to answer the question you asked SeanNJ. The word "marriage" iss important to me beyond the simple practicality of not having to amend every law to include the term "civil unions". It is the att!tude inherent in using the same word which recognizes that gay people are as equal human beings as straights. If we call marriage something else, for no other reason than it has to do with gays, we are saying, "It doesn't matter that the thing we call marriage for straights is exactly the same thing you are doing. Just because you are gay, we will not acknowledge your relationship is the same as ours." Now in personal circ-umstances, I know certain people who will not call something a "real" marriage when they don't approve of the couple. And that's absolutely up to them in their mind and personal circle. But as a country we have decided to refuse discrimination, so we cannot "disapprove" like that in our legal system.
      I guess what I'm saying is a rose by any other name is still a rose obviously, except to those who would call it a daisy.

      May 13, 2011 at 10:55 am |
  14. Ed

    Yep, it appears the atheist and agnostics have the same divorce rate as catholics and lutherans. 21% non-denominational is nearly double that
    I really need to proof read

    May 11, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
  15. Nonimus

    I'm curious, if you really want to defend marriage, in the Biblical sense, wouldn't it make sense to outlaw non-virgins from marrying? ...and outlaw divorces? ...and outlaw any brides over 50, due to inability to bear children?

    May 11, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
    • YaThink

      Oh Nonimus.... if that came true then a woman would have to marry her rapist, a woman who's husband dies would have to marry the brother, women would have to stay home become bare foot and pregnant obeying their husbands. I know for a fact that would be disastrous for our society....don't even encourage them... LOL!

      May 11, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      From religious tolerance.org:

       

      Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.
      George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group, commented:

      "While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing. But the research also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families. The ultimate responsibility for a marriage belongs to the husband and wife, but the high incidence of divorce within the Christian community challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages."

      May 11, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      So, just like abortion (70% of abortion in the USA are had by believers), believers can have a significant effect on the problem they perceive simply by following their own beliefs. No laws nor the imposition of their beliefs on others required.

      May 11, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
    • Ed

      Yep it appers the atheist and agnostics have the same divorce rate as chtolics and lutherans. 21% non-denominational is nearly double that

      May 11, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
    • David, CA

      @ HotAirAce- Christians eating their own? Consider me shocked, but not really.

      May 11, 2011 at 7:07 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      YaThink

      Oh Nonimus.... if that came true then a woman would have to marry her rapist, a woman who's husband dies would have to marry the brother, women would have to stay home become bare foot and pregnant obeying their husbands. I know for a fact that would be disastrous for our society....don't even encourage them... LOL!
      ------
      Just to break it to you as gently as I can, you are quoting the OLD TESTAMENT. What you are quoting DOES NOT apply to CHRISTIANS! In short, your point is invalid! Sorry!

      May 12, 2011 at 1:44 pm |
  16. OhHonestly

    Tell me again why marriage even needs defending? If my marriage is strong, it will stay strong regardless of who else gets allowed to be married. If it's weak, then keeping others from marrying is not going support mine, particularly.

    May 11, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
  17. Nonimus

    This will be interesting. How to reconcile federal DOMA laws with state and local laws that allow same-se.x marriage for the performance of a ceremony.

    May 11, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      The best way believers could defend marriage would for them to follow their own beliefs and values.

      Let's hope DOMA gets declared unconst!tutional soon.

      May 11, 2011 at 2:55 pm |
  18. CW

    I hope our lawmakers take a real look at this. This is breaking the law the Marriage act. Marriage is between a man and woman...period.

    May 11, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
    • Artist

      CW by what authority? Your god has no authority in these matters. Your god has authority in the imagination of its believers.

      May 11, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
    • YaThink

      CW it shows just how closed minded religious people like you are to the real truth when it comes to this subject. Section 3 of the law—the part that defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman—was ruled unconsti-tutional.
      It's feels like we are still back in the stone ages with people like you, it's time to move into this century.

      May 11, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      CW, remember Mark 13:8, for we are indeed in end of days ...

      Amen.

      May 11, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      For those who may not know, the Navy is a federal function and as such is subject to federal regulation, rules, and law. DOMA is FEDERAL law. The Navy had no authority to offer gay marriages. In addition, I agree with CW! Mock Him, if you will folks, you Will stand before Him, not as your savior but as your judge.

      @ Lindsay, you have a skewed perception of God! BTW it is wrong!

      May 11, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      By him I mean God and not CW!

      May 11, 2011 at 7:07 pm |
    • kleinaj18

      Adultery is against the law too, and I want you to make catchy picket signs and protest outside courts hearing divorce cases and law offices overwhelmed with divorce cases, and since you will never do that I see no reason to listen to your crap.

      May 12, 2011 at 2:09 am |
    • burns

      Marriage is between a (man + a woman + ((divorce lawyer x 2) + judge)). Therefore marriage is between 1-4 and 1-4 women, totalling up to 5 people. At least when gays get divorced they can't use the old "The judge is biased against men/women"

      May 12, 2011 at 11:16 am |
  19. CW

    Amen!!!!!!!!

    May 11, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
    • kleinaj18

      Why do people always say marriage is between a man and a woman and leave out the divorce lawyers? They are an integral part of American marriages.

      May 12, 2011 at 2:11 am |
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.