home
RSS
June 26th, 2013
11:53 AM ET

`Jesus wept' or tears of joy? Faithful react to gay marriage rulings

By Daniel Burke, CNN

(CNN) As news broke of the big Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage, religious leaders took to Twitter to express joyous praise or strong condemnation.

http://storify.com/danielsburke/religious-reaction-to-scotus-decisions

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Belief • Church • Culture wars • Gay marriage • Gay rights • Homosexuality • Politics

soundoff (2,659 Responses)
  1. SkepticalOne

    What the hell does a Catholic bishop know about marriage?

    June 26, 2013 at 9:03 pm |
    • starrface

      Couldn't agree more.

      June 26, 2013 at 9:14 pm |
  2. Alexander means defender of man (human race)

    Read the Torah (first five books of the Word of God, written by Moses) and desire what God desires, despises what he despises, sherish what he cherishes, and call abomidable what he call abomidable (True reason for global warming, i.e. desolation); then read Jerimiah, Isaiah, Hoseah, and just about every prophetic book that has to do with judgement (God's wrath due to abominations, i.e. lifestyle sins that are in deliberate defiance towards God) and you will find that the entire earth has been desolate since before America was a nation (it is largely due to mass transit that most people do not even take a hint to notice). I agree though, that this is a terrible and horrible (abomidable) decision for this country and adds to the fury that will destroy the greatest nation in it's time.

    June 26, 2013 at 9:03 pm |
    • Dippy

      It's, not it's. Other than that, your comment is totally wrong.

      June 26, 2013 at 9:07 pm |
    • Dippy

      Its, not it's. Fucking autocorrect.

      June 26, 2013 at 9:09 pm |
    • omeany

      Here's my issue with this kind of thinking: These books albeit filled with some wisdom were written by a group of men that had a specific agenda. Their intention was to control their people who were prone to worshiping idols and to make sure a patriarchal society was maintained. Later we have a similar situation with Christianity. At the end of the day NONE of us really know what the truth is. We have our faith and our opinions but we don't REALLY know the truth.

      Now that being said. These opinions have been used to judge any part of society that does not agree with the tenants of the faith. This is the real harm being done to society.

      Like you I have an opinion about who God is and the ministry of Jesus. I believe they are trying to tell us to love one another and support each other but we have turned this beautiful idea into tribal thinking where we say God hates what we hate and that's ok because if God hates something it's ok for us to hate and be hateful. This would be a real reason for Jesus to weep.

      June 26, 2013 at 9:20 pm |
  3. Christ_Fan

    Oh,This makes God cry??

    Well in that case,I'm sure God must be curled up in a ball crying his pretty little eyes out because we are eating shellfish and wearing clothing that is made with different types of fabrics.

    Stupid people,I swear.We are surrounded by stupids

    June 26, 2013 at 8:55 pm |
  4. Canada

    Come on U.S.A, you can do it, almost there, come on, good boy you get a treat. yah goood boy aren't yah.

    June 26, 2013 at 8:54 pm |
    • Danny

      Go play with your hockey stick.

      June 26, 2013 at 9:03 pm |
  5. Prasad

    marriage is between any 2 human beings who can procreate by natural methods; otherwise, coin your own term
    for the relationship. don't call it marriage to get federal benefits. besides who gives the government the authority to redefine marriage

    June 26, 2013 at 8:54 pm |
    • Observer

      Prasad,

      You are free to MAKE UP whatever definition you want for YOURSELF for the word "marriage".

      June 26, 2013 at 8:57 pm |
    • Jesussaysgoodriddance

      By your definition you exclude barren couples, older couples who can no longer procreate – pretty much a flawed definition don't you think?

      June 26, 2013 at 8:58 pm |
    • Akira

      Marriage is between any two human beings that can consent. Period.

      June 26, 2013 at 9:01 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Do cite where in the requirements for a marriage license a couple is required to be able to procreate, promise to procreate, or intend to procreate. Thanks in advance, you fvcktard.

      June 26, 2013 at 9:01 pm |
    • Prasad

      sorry, let me re-phrase: marriage is a union between 2 human beings with a purpose to procreate using natural methods

      June 26, 2013 at 9:04 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Still wrong, stupid ass. There is NO, repeat NO, requirement that any couple claim or promise or be able to procreate. End of story.

      What the fck do you think you're talking about, you idiot?

      June 26, 2013 at 9:05 pm |
    • Prasad

      Tom – this is a universal understanding of marriage. we should have a new term for any variations to it. like americans mis-use the term 'football' when rest of the world knows football as soccer

      June 26, 2013 at 9:13 pm |
    • Observer

      Prasad

      "let me re-phrase: marriage is a union between 2 human beings with a purpose to procreate using natural methods"

      So no marriage for infertile people or the elderly. GUESS AGAIN. You've failed miserably so far.

      June 26, 2013 at 9:17 pm |
    • Prasad

      yes, that is correct. Please see my last comments. I mean "with a purpose to procreate". you'll know about the infertility only later. For older couples, it is just a convenience of living together like caring for one another

      June 26, 2013 at 9:20 pm |
    • omeany

      You don't appear to be having any difficulty redefining what marriage is.

      June 26, 2013 at 9:23 pm |
    • Observer

      Prasad

      lol. So your warped idea of marriage is that couples must take a fertility test before being allowed to marry and that elderly people who fall in love should not be allowed to marry.

      Your views are as warped as those in the Bible where marriage can be FORCED on people. lol.

      June 26, 2013 at 9:26 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Prasad, the word "marriage" has meant many, many things over the centuries of man's existence.

      We redefine words all the time. Why shouldn't the word marriage grow and change to encompass what the society that uses the word intends it to be?

      If you are going to limit "marriage" to only those who have "an intent" to procreate, what then of a couple that has no intention of having children, but want to spend their lives together? Would you deny them marriage? What about a gay couple that has every intention of raising children through adoption?

      Your thinking is very narrow.

      June 26, 2013 at 9:29 pm |
    • Prasad

      let us go back to the days when marriage was first conceptualized. there were no fertility tests, there was no Bible etc.
      there lies your answer. my definition still holds – "union of 2 human beings with a purpose to procreate naturally"

      June 26, 2013 at 9:32 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      No, Prasad, marriage as an institution began as a means to transfer property, usually including the woman.

      June 26, 2013 at 9:35 pm |
    • Prasad

      @myweightinwords – i mentioned it before : coin your own term to avoid confusion

      June 26, 2013 at 9:35 pm |
    • Observer

      Prasad

      "let us go back to the days when marriage was first conceptualized. there were no fertility tests, there was no Bible etc.
      there lies your answer. my definition still holds – "union of 2 human beings with a purpose to procreate naturally"

      That has NO REQUIREMENT whatsoever for marriage.

      Give up. You've bungled this too many time to be taken seriously.

      June 26, 2013 at 9:37 pm |
    • Prasad

      @Observer: let's do this
      marriage= my definition
      gay couples = new term

      do you have a problem with that ? you should not unless you have some other motive to reap benefits

      June 26, 2013 at 9:45 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Prasad, why should I? You seem to be doing your own job of making up a new definition, maybe you should go find a new word.

      When two adult people love each other and want to spend their life together, the most convenient legally binding method is through marriage. Marriage confers upon that couple hundreds of rights, responsibilities and benefits at the familial, societal, state and federal levels.

      June 26, 2013 at 9:48 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Also? What confusion?

      Two people get married. They get tax benefits and immigration benefits. They get visitation rights and power of attorney. They get the responsibilities of living as a family. They may bring children into that family. They may not. They may be old. They may be young (as long as their of legal age).

      The long and short of it is: You don't get to define marriage. The people do. And loudly they are speaking up and saying over and over again that marriage has nothing to do with gender or procreation or whatever other silly notion you have in your head.

      June 26, 2013 at 9:51 pm |
    • Prasad

      @myweightinwords: it is "the" definition of marriage and it is the only definition that everyone understands without regard to the laws, rights, benefits, societal structure etc. This definition is simple and unambiguous. you can't beat this definition

      June 26, 2013 at 9:57 pm |
    • The real Tom

      "Tom – this is a universal understanding of marriage. we should have a new term for any variations to it. like americans mis-use the term 'football' when rest of the world knows football as soccer"

      No, you moron, it is not "universal." THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT WHATSOEVER THAT ANYONE MARRYING WILL HAVE CHILDREN. What part of that do you fail to grasp? People who are sterile can marry. People who are over 55 can marry. People who don't want kids can marry. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OR EXPECTATION THAT MARRIAGE WILL INCLUDE REPRODUCTION. None.

      June 26, 2013 at 10:01 pm |
    • Observer

      Prasad,

      The definition of marriage in the past was that a king could have 1,000 wives and concubines (read about the "smartest man in the world" in the Bible). More recently, it still said marriage was only with the SAME race.

      The definition of marriage has changed several times. Do some research in the future so you won't have to keep dancing around.

      June 26, 2013 at 10:01 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Prasad, where the hell are you from? You can't possibly be a citizen of the US. You are beyond ignorant. Please tell me you are not able to vote here.

      June 26, 2013 at 10:03 pm |
    • Prasad

      @Observer: i'm dancing around ? i've pretty much stuck to my definition all along. you are bringing in too many variables.
      your confusion is pretty much everyone else's confusion about marriage.

      June 26, 2013 at 10:06 pm |
    • Prasad

      @Tom: please stick to the subject and try not to be abusive in your language ?

      June 26, 2013 at 10:08 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Nobody's as confused as you are, Prasad. Where do you get this "definition" of marriage? Marriage is not yours to define. When my husband and I got our marriage license, nobody asked us if we intended to or could have children. Who cares whether a couple can or intends to procreate, you moron? There's no NEED for them to do so. We aren't exactly a dying species, in case you haven't noticed.

      Really, your entire premise is absurd.

      June 26, 2013 at 10:11 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Please? Fvck you and the horse you rode in on. I'll say what I wish. You'll respond or you'll cave. Choose.

      June 26, 2013 at 10:12 pm |
    • The real Tom

      And this IS the subject, since it's the SCOTUS decision we're talking about. Are you a citizen? Because otherwise, it's none of your fvcking business.

      June 26, 2013 at 10:14 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Observer isn't "bringing in too many variables". You are failing to see that THAT is what marriage is. It's all about variables. It's about change.

      At one time the definition of marriage included marrying your 10 year old daughter to some guy who "promised" not to touch her physically until she was at least 13. At one time in included having as many wives as you could afford (and still does in some places). And, believe it or not, in many ancient cultures same-gender relationships were solemnized in the exact same was as hetero ones were.

      It's called history, Prasad. Read a little.

      June 26, 2013 at 10:14 pm |
    • Prasad

      i'm not confused at all. look at my definition. do you see anything confusing about it ? my definition holds good universally. i'm yet to see any other compelling argument that beats it

      June 26, 2013 at 10:15 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Nonsense. Your definition is not universal, nor is it relevant. You have written not a thing that supports your contention that it is.

      June 26, 2013 at 10:16 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Prasad, you aren't seeing it because you are willfully ignoring it.

      You can cling to your small minded definition all you want, as long as you understand that we, as a nation, are leaving you and your definition behind.

      June 26, 2013 at 10:18 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Absolutely correct. Prasad, your "definition" is irrelevant in this nation, as this is a nation of laws. You don't get to impose your belief on the minority; that's why we have courts who decide how to interpret law.

      You're free to express your opinion, honey, but that's all it is and it holds no water where the facts are concerned. The fact is that your definition is no longer valid. In fact, it never was.

      June 26, 2013 at 10:27 pm |
    • Joey

      My wife and I got married with no intention of having any children.

      June 27, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
    • G to the T

      Sorry Prasad – what you are asking for is exactly the same thinking behind "separate but equal" and we all know how well that worked. Equal rights means equal. If you want we can change the name for ALL marriages to "domestic partnership". Would that make you less butthurt?

      June 27, 2013 at 2:10 pm |
  6. Birdyboyz

    NEXT CASE!!!!!!!

    June 26, 2013 at 8:54 pm |
  7. Russ139

    Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes, the bear eats you. Let's move on to the next issue.

    June 26, 2013 at 8:53 pm |
  8. Where's fake Uncouth Swain?

    Is he diddling the family dog?

    June 26, 2013 at 8:51 pm |
  9. Apple Bush

    K-Town (edited for her pleasure)

    He could smell her from his position, directly downwind of the Santa Ana’s, the putrid air-born tendril of urine and body odor makes a formidable weapon. Her socks, slung over the tops of her borrowed Converse flaps. Here teeth only a reminder of public service announcements. The hair was everywhere. Not untidy exactly, just….everywhere. Like a blanket over her. She had a pleasing form though. Hard not to look twice. So hard in fact, many had made her their project. Each had failed. For her the addiction was her destiny and would lead to her death. But not today.

    Joe Skinner rarely looked up when he was walking in L.A. Nobody on these streets needed directions or knew where any stars lived. This was Korea Town, the crossroads where Heaven and Hell conduct their business. It was different now. The riots broke the peace and historians were quick to point out that Korea Town was marginalized during the Rodney King Riots of 1992 and it was happening again. Neighborly “hellos” became tense and less friendly. If you want someone to get your back, stay in your part of town. And don’t bother calling 911.

    Joe called 911. The voice on the other end of his “iMate” spoke in hushed tones. Joe laughed. He knew they would have to follow up on any call. If Ryerson shows up, He’s dead. Joe still had friends everywhere in the eight block neighborhood of K-Town. He walked without being disturbed, but only because he understood protocol. K-Town in 2033 was not only unsafe, it was anarchy and there were untouchables.

    That is when he saw it. A photograph. Hard to see in the wet gutter, but the man in the image was beautiful. Long flowing hair that wasn’t messy but practically covered his whole upper section. Skinner reached for it. It sizzled in his fingers and glowed. This was Jesus and he was come unto the Earth to save humans at long last.

    Joe on the other hand really wanted to get baked before work and needed a paper and Jesus was handy. It was wet but they had one of those electric 2025 hand dryers in the rest room of the filling station he stood next to. He blazed, and soon saw Jesus once again. This time Jesus stood before him saying, “I brought unto you a miracle and this is how you betray your lack of awe to the sight of me?

    Joe thought a moment and finally looked at Jesus and said, “You crazy old fuck, here, toke up!” The party lasted long into the night. Jesus got tore up and the moral of the story is that Marijuana should be legal in all 50 states (and mushrooms too!).

    June 26, 2013 at 8:50 pm |
    • Birdyboyz

      That was one of the funniest things I 've ever read

      June 26, 2013 at 8:58 pm |
  10. Danny

    Responses from church leaders should be ignored by the government. The only way to truly have religious freedom is to leave religious matters to the church, without government intervention. Churches still, and should, retain the right to not recognize same s3x marriage if they so choose. That is all.

    June 26, 2013 at 8:50 pm |
    • Akira

      Exactly.

      June 26, 2013 at 8:57 pm |
    • The real Tom

      No kidding. The government should have nothing whatever to do with the nut jobs who think this is a theocracy. They're idiots and should be dismissed as such.

      June 26, 2013 at 9:00 pm |
    • pentecostal

      tell me what i dont believe!

      June 26, 2013 at 9:13 pm |
  11. foxnewsasshoIes

    Greetings, Bigots!!

    June 26, 2013 at 8:50 pm |
    • pentecostal

      greatings to you sinner!

      June 26, 2013 at 8:58 pm |
    • Observer

      pentecostal

      greetings to HYPOCRITES who don't actually believe everything in the Bible.

      June 26, 2013 at 9:00 pm |
    • pentecostal

      what i don't believe?

      June 26, 2013 at 9:16 pm |
    • Observer

      Pentecostal,

      Do you support slavery like the Bible does?
      Do you support discrimination against women like the Bible does?
      Do you support discrimination against the handicapped like the Bible does?
      Do you support marriage being FORCED on people like the Bible does?

      Do you read the Bible at all?

      June 26, 2013 at 9:22 pm |
    • pentecostal

      ? is do you..

      June 26, 2013 at 9:40 pm |
    • Observer

      Pentecostal,

      FIVE QUESTIONS. Zero answers.

      Where you COMPLETELY STUMPED on all of them?

      June 26, 2013 at 9:42 pm |
    • Observer

      "were" not "where"

      June 26, 2013 at 9:46 pm |
    • pentecostal

      all those ? you ask its all man works Man did those how can i support what man do evil things.. thats none of GOD!!

      June 26, 2013 at 9:48 pm |
    • Observer

      Pentecostal,

      The Bible supports slavery and discrimination against women and the handicapped. It's the words of God. Have you read any of it?

      This has nothing to do with what men did with it.

      June 26, 2013 at 9:52 pm |
    • pentecostal

      tell me in what way give me a scriputes that you say! to back what you say

      June 26, 2013 at 10:03 pm |
    • Observer

      – Leviticus 21:16-23 “Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to Aaron, saying, 'No man of your offspring
      throughout their generations who has a defect shall approach to offer the food of his God. For no one who has a
      defect shall approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he who has a disfigured face, or any deformed limb, or a
      man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or
      eczema or scabs or crushed testicles. No man among the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a defect is to
      come near to offer the Lord’s offerings by fire; since he has a defect, he shall not come near to offer the
      food of his God. He may eat the food of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy, only he shall not go in
      to the veil or come near the altar because he has a defect, so that he will not profane My sanctuaries. For I
      am the Lord who sanctifies them.’” [God]

      June 26, 2013 at 10:05 pm |
    • pentecostal

      you know what! you nobody to judge GOD!!!! before all that read exodus matter in fact read your bible israel disobedent to GOD!! they have a curse...

      June 26, 2013 at 10:38 pm |
    • pentecostal

      GOD heel them all!

      June 26, 2013 at 10:44 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Geez. Please get a translator.

      June 26, 2013 at 10:46 pm |
  12. Vince

    In other news The Cat in the Hat says that str8 marriage is no longer valid. Keep your religion to yourselves dummies

    June 26, 2013 at 8:49 pm |
  13. McGee5123

    If gay people want to be as miserable as straight people, then let'em. Not that I'm down on marriage or anything.

    What I've never understood about the anti-gay marriage people is that they're seemingly A-Okay with the extremely high divorce rate amongst straight people. Isn't that just as big a threat?

    June 26, 2013 at 8:48 pm |
  14. Jon

    It is simple. And so the downfall of the country begins. You can laugh now, but do a little research and see what happened in other powerful countries. Rome, for instance. Oh well. At least I know where I am going because I believe and follow the almighty God. You all have been warned.. I fell sorry for you.

    June 26, 2013 at 8:46 pm |
    • Akira

      Nonsense.

      June 26, 2013 at 8:48 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Apparently, you did a "little research." Very little. Had you actually done any real research, you'd never have made the claim you did, which identifies you as a fraud.

      June 26, 2013 at 8:48 pm |
    • Observer

      Jon,

      God supports slavery and discrimination against women and the handicapped.

      Read a Bible someday.

      June 26, 2013 at 8:49 pm |
    • The real Tom

      "I fell sorry for you." No, honey, you "fell" on your face.

      June 26, 2013 at 8:49 pm |
    • M

      Actually, Rome collapse because it artificially grew on the booty is collected through it's conquests, and once that was spent, the edges of the empire began to wither. The wealth allowed them to build something that was unsustainable.

      June 26, 2013 at 8:49 pm |
    • Vince

      Please do tell Mr. History major exactly how did gay marriage cause the fall of the Roman Empire?

      June 26, 2013 at 8:53 pm |
    • Liz the First

      No straight couple's marriage is harmed by gay people being able to marry. that's as nonsensical as thinking a gay man's ownership of a Ford truck diminishes a straight man's Ford truck ownership. this is not a theocracy! your church doesn't run this country. and Rome fell because of a lot of bad behavior, mostly by straight folks banging everyone in sight. please try to recognize your hate and maybe you will be able to overcome it. God will help you if you let Him, He loves us all unconditionally and expects us to do the same.

      June 26, 2013 at 8:54 pm |
    • Scott

      Yes Rome didn't the Christians mass murder them and nearly wipe out an entire culture simply because they didn't share their beliefs

      June 26, 2013 at 9:04 pm |
    • omeany

      If you really want to do some research look up the Council of Nicaea. You'll discover that the tenants of Christianity were basically voted on by roughly 250 men. (The most important tenant being the divinity of Jesus) These were men who were not burning with a passion to spread the "good news" they had a political agenda to control the population.

      As a result this agenda called Christianity has become a tribal religion where God hates anything the church hates and is used to supress any concept that they do not agree with.

      I know this will probably make your head hurt but I suggest you take some time and really research what you believe but cut yourself some slack. I have an opinion of who God is and why the ministry of Jesus is important but at the end of the day they are my opinions. The truth is I don't know what happens when we die. But then...NIETHER DO YOU!

      June 26, 2013 at 9:33 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Rome fell because of legalized same-se.x marriage?

      June 26, 2013 at 10:10 pm |
    • Damia Savon

      Damn all those German tribes! Damn the barbarians.

      Or is that not what you meant?

      Btw, the Roman Empire continued in the East for centuries after the Western part fell. The Eastern one didn't disappear until pious Christian crusaders sacked the city in the name of Jesus... oh wait.. oops..

      June 26, 2013 at 11:29 pm |
    • Joey

      Rome converted to Christianity and was wiped off the map in less than 300 years. Not a very impressive start for the Christian god.

      June 27, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
    • Joey

      Since it was Germanic Tribes that eventually conquered Rome I suppose whatever god or gods they worshiped is/are real.

      June 27, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
    • lol??

      Liz the First sayz
      No straight couple's marriage............"

      Comedic qweirdos callin' regulars, "straights" should tell ya sumpin' about their self LUV. They are into butts and want into you're the butt of the joke.

      June 27, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
  15. erin

    Jesus is indeed weeping, Huckabee. He's weeping at the ignorant, hate-filled bigotry expressed by his "followers," which flies in the face of everything he ever said or taught.

    June 26, 2013 at 8:44 pm |
    • Liz the First

      AMEN! If Jesus were to come back today, those would be the people He'd be trying his hardest to save, and they'd crucify Him all over again!

      June 26, 2013 at 8:55 pm |
  16. Theseus

    The faster we can give rights to all the "sinners" the faster Jesus will come and rapture the Christians away. It's a win/win for everyone!

    June 26, 2013 at 8:44 pm |
    • pentecostal

      thats i true brother Jesus is coming soon to take his people and leave this sinners he on earth to burn!!

      June 26, 2013 at 8:47 pm |
    • whatever

      where you guys going? Carnival cruise?

      June 26, 2013 at 9:03 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      ...Says the christard to stupid to recognize sarcasm

      June 26, 2013 at 9:14 pm |
    • artannoys

      youre a joke

      June 26, 2013 at 9:28 pm |
    • artannoys

      sorry theseus, youre not a joke, i thought you were one of them... lol, my bad.... lets hope the rapture comes soon, getting tired of all the bigots and catholic child-molesters.....

      June 26, 2013 at 9:47 pm |
  17. ChrisA

    It's funny that you get labeled a bigot for having different views on what marriage is. I have a couple gay friends, but I still don't have to approve of everything they do. I don't need the Bible to tell me gay marriage is wrong either. It's just evident. Men and Women are different and their differences complement each other.

    Also the argument that people are born gay falls flat as well. So what. Some people are born with a chromosome abnormality that some scientists believe makes them more aggressive and prone to commit murder. Would you ever allow someone to use that excuse in a courtroom?

    Just because something seems right to you, doesn't make it right.

    June 26, 2013 at 8:43 pm |
    • Theseus

      That last sentence is perfect for Christian arguments.

      June 26, 2013 at 8:44 pm |
    • erin

      Hate to break it to you, but believing that a certain group of people are inferior and don't deserve equal rights is the definition of bigotry.

      June 26, 2013 at 8:45 pm |
    • Akira

      Being gay to a gay person is as natural to them as being hetero is to you. Discrimination because one feels it's "wrong" means just one thing: bigotry. The SCOTUS overturned that, and rightly.

      June 26, 2013 at 8:46 pm |
    • The real Tom

      And you are just plain wrong on just about every count, you moron. Gays don't choose to be gay. There is nothing inherently 'wrong' about gay marriage or gay coitus. Nobody cares how many gay friends you have, Chris. You're still a fvcktard as far as intelligence and education are concerned. You don't speak for anyone, including your gawd. And your gawd doesn't have even a pube-hair's worth of say in the laws of this country. Get over it.

      June 26, 2013 at 8:46 pm |
    • steve

      Believe what you want. But you have no right to interfere with someone else happiness.

      June 26, 2013 at 8:48 pm |
    • skarphace

      Whatever way you argue it, DOMA did nothing to prevent straight people from getting married. Therefore, to say that gays should not have the same tax benefits as straights is discriminatory. Case closed.

      June 26, 2013 at 8:48 pm |
    • ChrisA

      @erin

      "Hate to break it to you, but believing that a certain group of people are inferior and don't deserve equal rights is the definition of bigotry."

      Nowhere did I say they where inferior. This has nothing to do with inferiority. I guess I'm just one of those relatively younger people who doesn't believe in the mantra, "If it feels right, it is right". All the rules I've broken in my life, have taught me that restrictions and guardrails are good, even when they come to things as touchy as love.

      I think it's American's insatiable desire to be autonomous that's going to hurt us in the long run. At a certain point freedom, isn't really free.

      "We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!" – Abraham Lincoln

      June 26, 2013 at 9:48 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Funny that you think you are qualified to tell everyone else what is right and what is wrong. I'll bet you're all of about 22.

      June 26, 2013 at 10:08 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @ChrisA,

      'I guess I'm just one of those relatively younger people who doesn't believe in the mantra, "If it feels right, it is right". '

      Who is saying that? Really, show me one person. You don't really want to understand the position so you are making up some infantile position not held by anyone over the age of 10. People who support same se.x marriage do so because they believe that gay people are going to be happier in those marriages than forced into relationships with people they don't love. That wouldn't be too hot for the straight folks duped into those marriages. We further believe that marriage offers a number of legal protections that equally serve gat and straight couples. Many also will point out that married people are healthier and produce a more stable society. No one is arguing that anything that feels good is right. No one I've ever met.

      June 26, 2013 at 10:17 pm |
    • ChrisA

      "I'll bet you're all of about 22."

      I wish!

      June 26, 2013 at 10:48 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Ah, only 16, then. You couldn't be much older. Nobody with any life experience would be so stupid.

      June 26, 2013 at 10:49 pm |
    • ChrisA

      @Saraswati

      "People who support same se.x marriage do so because they believe that gay people are going to be happier in those marriages than forced into relationships with people they don't love."

      Nobody said anything about forcing a gay person into a heteros.exual relationship. Where did I ever say that? I don't even think it's possible? As far as their happiness, that's what I mean by "not everything that seems right is right." Just because it makes you happy doesn't make it ok.

      "We further believe that marriage offers a number of legal protections that equally serve gat and straight couples."

      This is the only part I agree with. It's kind of a grey line because on one hand I don't think this type of relationship is right, but on the other hand, I don't know if anybody should be denied the legal benefits that come with marriage. At the end of the day, it's not in the hands of me or any voter. Unfortunately, the supreme court is the sole decider.

      June 26, 2013 at 11:13 pm |
    • ChrisA

      @The real Tom

      I've avoided answering most of your comments because you don't state what exactly you disagree with, you don't provide your own arguments, and you add nothing to the conversation. I'm doing you the courtesy of telling you why you will most likely be ignored by me and other people.

      June 26, 2013 at 11:19 pm |
    • Joey

      By not allowing gays to have the same marriage rights as straights to government for all intents and purposes made gay people inferior. Now with the reversal of DOMA that has been fixed.

      June 27, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
  18. spthatcher

    As someone has pointed out, the state issues a marriage license and the state unwinds a marriage through divorce or annulment (unless a spouse dies. That's God undoing a marriage. Pretty harsh). Marriage does not have quotas: a gay couple getting married does not take it away from a straight couple (unless one of those potential parties is gay and now free to marry true love). Part of the argument about children was shot down when the justices questioned the validity of marriages were children could not be conceived (fertility problems, age). Should those parties be required to divorce?
    This country works better as a secular state. Go practice your religion, but it's a personal matter.

    June 26, 2013 at 8:41 pm |
    • skarphace

      Indeed. DOMA did not protect straight marriage in any way. All it did was discriminate against gays.

      The only thing that I am surprised about is that 4 justices voted to uphold DOMA. It seems to me to be a clear case of an unconsti tutional act.

      June 26, 2013 at 8:46 pm |
  19. Liz the First

    WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry, rethugs,turns out this really is the free country you keep saying it is but don't really want it to be. you have lost this part of the culture war. if you could recognize and admit your hate, maybe you could let go of it and start acting like the man you call your Savior. being who you were born to be isn't a sin, hating people because they're different IS!

    June 26, 2013 at 8:40 pm |
    • pentecostal

      romans 1:29 -32 9 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

      30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

      31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

      32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

      June 26, 2013 at 8:56 pm |
    • Observer

      Pentecostal

      How about quotes from God telling how badly you can hurt your female slaves without ANY punishment? Tell us you support that.

      June 26, 2013 at 9:05 pm |
    • pentecostal

      what?

      June 26, 2013 at 9:14 pm |
    • Observer

      Pentecostal,

      Why try to use the Bible as an excuse when you know so little about it?

      – Exodus 21:20-21 “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property” [God]

      June 26, 2013 at 9:33 pm |
    • artannoys

      pentecostal, you can quote from your lame bible all you want, still makes you look like a bigot, shouldnt you be playing with snakes, or drinkinking poison for the 'lord'?

      June 26, 2013 at 9:41 pm |
  20. skarphace

    Republicans: we want a smaller, less intrusive government. We do not want the Federal Government making decisions of a religious matter that should be left up to the Church. However, we support DOMA because it allows the Federal Government to make decisions of a religious matter that we support, regardless of how many others support such an act.

    Can anyone say "hypocrites"?

    June 26, 2013 at 8:38 pm |
    • Liz the First

      totally! maybe if they grasped the concept of hypocrisy, they wouldn't so totally embody it.

      June 26, 2013 at 8:41 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
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.