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. Anon E Muss

    Its hysterical how when the court rules 5-4 against them then the court is "full of unelected, activist judges", but when the court rules 5-4 in their favor (as in Bush v Gore) then it is held up as all that is right about american democracy.

    June 27, 2013 at 12:44 am |
    • lol??

      You can't have bimbos sitting. Make em stand.

      June 27, 2013 at 1:31 am |
  2. Phill

    Jesus lived with his mother until he was 30 when people were getting married at 13 – 16, he then left home to live with 12 guys.
    Most likely he was gay too.

    June 27, 2013 at 12:40 am |
    • Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

      Jesus did not have any wive ... isn't that against the law of God ,,, you know the go forth and multiply thing .....

      June 27, 2013 at 12:41 am |
    • JP

      FYI,

      Brides would often be in the age-range you mentioned. However, the men would often be in their 30's. Torah states that a man should first learn a trade and gain his business success before he takes a wife.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:58 am |
  3. Steve

    God wept.... LMFAO – God made Gays and Lesbians...

    June 27, 2013 at 12:35 am |
    • lol??

      Laughing at yer own silly jokes you made??

      BBbbwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahhahha

      June 27, 2013 at 1:32 am |
  4. skarphace

    Those supporting DOMA lost long ago, long before America was even founded, in fact. Long, long ago, marriage became a civil contract. Once it became a civil contract, the laws concerning marriage (and by extension separations and divorces) became the responsibility of the state. The Church lost control over the laws governing marriage and marriage became available to everyone. Even those people who were not religious at all were given the right to marry. Because marriage is a civil contract, it is our government, not our Churches, who decides the laws concerning marriage.

    Back in 1996, our Congress made a mistake. They allowed the term "marriage" to be defined by the Church, but didn't establish that the contract was now to be a religious contract instead of a civil contract. Hence, they not only allowed those who weren't religious to continue to marry, but they left the tax benefits of marriage in place. Therefore, even though DOMA was based on marriage as a religious contract, it was still, by law, a civil contract.

    As marriage was still a civil contract, regardless of the redefinition of the term "marriage" established by DOMA, the contract had to be fair and equal (especially for tax purposes) to all citizens of the US. Therefore, DOMA was fundamentally flawed, as it let marriage be a civil contract but also allowed for discrimination to creep into the law based on religious views.

    DOMA was, therefore, doomed from the start. DOMA should have never been passed, and we are better off now that it is gone for good.

    Do you want a union that is not a civil contract, but a religious contract? Then come up with another term than "marriage", as that term is already established in law as a civil contract.

    June 27, 2013 at 12:34 am |
    • oOo

      How about BS? (Bonding of Souls)

      June 27, 2013 at 12:40 am |
    • Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

      Abraham, Jacob, David had many wives. DOMA did not protect those kind of plural marriages. Jesus did not have any wive ... isn't that against the law of God ,,, you know the go forth and multiply thing .....

      June 27, 2013 at 12:41 am |
    • Javi

      Most triumphant post.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:43 am |
    • oOo

      And thanks for the clear explanation.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:46 am |
  5. JP

    How many years until the enlightened and supposedly tolerant proponents of "progress" will start throwing the Bible believers unto the lions or into concentration camps? The vitriol that has been directed towards Faith Communities is most alarming. The reaction by many, which support today's SCOTUS decision, does not reflect a worldview of tolerance and libertine existence.

    Will we soon relive the days of Rabbi Akiva, who was sentenced to die by the Romans with the declaration of God's kingship upon his lips?

    There is nothing new under the sun.

    June 27, 2013 at 12:24 am |
    • Observer

      JP,

      So if we go back to the days of stong religion in America, we will return to the horrors of the Salem witch hunts, right?

      What was you point? It seemed too paranoid to be sensible.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:28 am |
    • Observer

      "stong"= "strong". Ooops.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:29 am |
    • James

      Your rights will be protected by the same Consti.tution that was used to grant gay people theirs. Now stop your hysterical slippery-slope garbage. Christians aren't being persecuted. Gays are, even with this ruling.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:30 am |
    • LinCA

      @JP

      You said, "How many years until the enlightened and supposedly tolerant proponents of "progress" will start throwing the Bible believers unto the lions or into concentration camps?"
      Are you afraid that we will do the same to you what you've done to everyone who didn't agree with you? Scary thought, isn't it?

      But, you don't need to worry (too much). You are free to believe whatever nonsense you want. Ignorance and stupidity isn't illegal, and likely to remain that way.

      You said, "The vitriol that has been directed towards Faith Communities is most alarming."
      Only against the bigotry and hate. If you stop discriminating and keep your delusion to yourself, you won't hear from me.

      You said, "The reaction by many, which support today's SCOTUS decision, does not reflect a worldview of tolerance and libertine existence."
      There is no need to tolerate the intolerance. Quite trying to force your delusion on the sane part of society and you will be left in peace. Display your ignorance for the world to see, and you will get called on it.

      You said, "There is nothing new under the sun."
      Actually, there is. As soon as the religious know their place, there will be less strife.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:33 am |
    • Greg

      Tad bit melodramatic, aren't you? The worst thing that will happen to Christians who can't keep up with progress is that they will be ridiculed, like the ones who still oppose interracial marriage, women's equality and racial equality.

      Like those other things, you are on the losing side here, and history will judge you as harshly as we judge the slave owners.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:35 am |
    • Austin

      what would Jesus do?

      June 27, 2013 at 12:36 am |
    • skarphace

      JP: I am not so sure you should be speaking about tolerance, as you seem unclear on the concept.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:37 am |
    • JP

      Is one intolerant because he believes in God?

      I am not a Christian.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:39 am |
    • LinCA

      @JP

      You said, "Is one intolerant because he believes in God?"
      No, that just makes one gullible, or ignorant. Forcing that delusion on others makes one intolerant.

      You said, "I am not a Christian."
      Good for you. Are you a believer?

      June 27, 2013 at 12:41 am |
    • skarphace

      JP: no, you are not intolerant because you are a Christian (although it helps). You are unclear on the concept of tolerance. You think that this ruling will make Americans less tolerant of Christians. In fact, this ruling makes Americans more tolerant of gays.

      If you can make the argument that this ruling makes Americans less tolerant of Christians, then go ahead.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:47 am |
    • JP

      LInCa,

      I am a Jew.

      Please explain yourself concerning your statements about my intolerance and my disillusion. What have I forced upon you?

      I am appealing for tolerance for those who believe in God.

      Go live your life and be a blessing to others. All people are God's children. Life is a gift: use it well.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:49 am |
    • JP

      skarphace,

      Re-read my original post. You misinterpreted my words.

      "THE REACTION by many, which support today's SCOTUS decision, does not reflect a worldview of tolerance and libertine existence."

      June 27, 2013 at 12:54 am |
    • LinCA

      @JP

      You said, "I am a Jew."
      Nobody is perfect. Oh, well.

      You said, "Please explain yourself concerning your statements about my intolerance and my disillusion. What have I forced upon you?"
      You were implying that those that have been oppressed by christians for centuries, now would turn the tables on them. By doing so, you aligned yourself with these bigots. If you don't support their oppression of those that don't believe in their nonsense, than you should state so. Until then, I have little reason to believe you are not one of them.

      You said, "I am appealing for tolerance for those who believe in God."
      Everyone is free to believe whatever nonsense they want, including imaginary friends. They will be tolerated as soon as they return the favor. And not a moment sooner. The ball is in the believers' court.

      You said, "Go live your life and be a blessing to others."
      I try to be, but most people are deaf to reason.

      You said, "All people are God's children. Life is a gift: use it well."
      According to your fairy tale. Don;t forget that part.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:58 am |
    • Greg

      Austin
      What Jesus did was say nothing at all about what gays were doing. That would be an excellent start.

      June 27, 2013 at 1:00 am |
    • oOo

      @JP

      So far I've read where you've generalized about a reaction, but I also noticed that you were careful enough to put quotes around the word "progress". Did you not find the decision a step in the right direction?

      June 27, 2013 at 1:11 am |
    • JP

      oOo,

      I placed progress within quotations marks because I do not believe that today was progress. Why? Today is another day, like the day before, and the day before, when a lessor evil was required in order to make a difference. Today is a day of division; a day that polarizes our world. A day when one party is exalted at the cost of another.

      I hope for the day when humanity will truly love his/her neighbor as him/herself.

      June 27, 2013 at 1:20 am |
    • oOo

      @JP

      So granting rights and privileges to a certain segment of the population in pursuit of equality in your mind is just exalting them at the expense of someone else? How is it at the expense of someone else?

      June 27, 2013 at 1:31 am |
    • sam stone

      "How many years until the enlightened and supposedly tolerant proponents of "progress" will start throwing the Bible believers unto the lions or into concentration camps?"

      Right....that's going to happen, sparky

      June 27, 2013 at 8:26 am |
    • sam stone

      "Is one intolerant because he believes in God?"

      No, they become intolerant when they use that believe to deny others their civil rights

      June 27, 2013 at 8:28 am |
  6. jamjamjoom

    Those comments up in the article that refer to this decision as an attack on religious liberty are pretty dumb. Nothing is preventing anyone from choosing NOT to abort, so if you dont want to abort for religious reasons...DONT. This is besides the point that I am against abortion after the fetus reached a certain age.

    June 27, 2013 at 12:18 am |
    • skarphace

      Wrong article. This article is about gay marriage, not abortion.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:39 am |
  7. Greg

    If Jesus weeps over this, it's only because it's been so long coming. It's tears of joy! πŸ˜€

    June 27, 2013 at 12:15 am |
  8. Stephen Daugherty

    If the religious right is correct about the matter, this ruling does not desecrate marriages that are done right according to their beliefs. This only means that the state allows marriages that they do not consider proper marriages. They are not obliged to respect them. And if they are wrong, which is what I believe? Then America is a more free country today than it was last week in this respect. If we all had to live like the folks who dislike us wanted us to live, none of us could be called free. Freedom does not require mutual admiration of your counterparts' choices.

    June 27, 2013 at 12:00 am |
    • Greg

      Yup! I guess they never read this one.

      Do to others as you would have them do to you. Luke 6:31

      June 27, 2013 at 12:25 am |
  9. ADifferentOpinion

    So what this really boils down to is the fact that one unelected justice can change the direction of the country. I know we're all wrapped up in our opinions about gay marriage, but that little point – which isn't being discussed – should scare the hell out of all of us regardless of which side of the gay marriage issue we are on.

    June 26, 2013 at 11:56 pm |
    • Observer

      The judge's decision is in line with the MAJORITY of Americans today.

      June 26, 2013 at 11:59 pm |
    • jboom

      doubtful

      depends how the survey questions are asked

      depends on whether a survey response accurately reflects their true thoughts

      June 27, 2013 at 12:01 am |
    • Cedar Rapids

      Well potentially 1 election voter can do the same thing.
      But the SC is designed to determine how consti tuitional a law is, that is its purpose. There is no other easy way to handle that.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:02 am |
    • ADifferentOpinion

      No observer, his or her decision was not in line with the spoken (voted) voice of the people of California. I'm pretty sure they voted on the issue twice. But again, my point isn't about the gay marriage issue, it's about the fact that an unelected justice has this much power.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:04 am |
    • Observer

      ADifferentOpinion

      "No observer, his or her decision was not in line with the spoken (voted) voice of the people of California."

      Please read more carefully in the future. My EXACT words were "majority of Americans".

      June 27, 2013 at 12:08 am |
    • Secular Humanist from Ohio

      I wonder what the majority of Americans felt about segregation.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:10 am |
    • LinCA

      @ADifferentOpinion

      You said, "No observer, his or her decision was not in line with the spoken (voted) voice of the people of California. I'm pretty sure they voted on the issue twice."
      And they were wrong twice. The equal protection clause in the US Constitution applies to everyone. Unless marriage is denied to everyone, it is simply unconstitutional to deny it to anyone. No matter how many dimwits vote for it.

      Read the Walker ruling in Prop 8. It's an easy read, and quite enlightening: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

      You said, "But again, my point isn't about the gay marriage issue, it's about the fact that an unelected justice has this much power."
      These judges are appointed by your elected officials. They are, indirectly, democratically elected.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:12 am |
    • ADifferentOpinion

      I imagine it depended on when you asked them and who was within hearing distance.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:13 am |
    • ADifferentOpinion

      They aren't remotely democratically elected. If one appointment was flipped and the majoroity of the court was conservative, this vote would have been 5-4 the other way, the emotion of everyone posting on the topic would be reversed, but the point I was making would still hold.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:16 am |
    • jamjamjoom

      Yet youd support if that one justice said voted according to what you want. The supreme court is there for a reason. Its not there to parrot what you want. You cant support it just when it supports your position.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:20 am |
    • James

      I cannot imagine the havoc that would ensue if Justices had to run for a position on the SCOTUS. These people are chosen for the expertise in Consti.tutional law, and are rigorously confirmed by our elected officials. Their one job is to uphold our consti.tution, and overturn unconsti.tutional laws. Which DOMA and Prop 8 was. The surprising thing is that it was so close. Shame on the 4 who thought denying anyone rights under the 14th was a good thing.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:24 am |
    • Roger that

      ADO,

      I'm sure you long for days of old when women couldn't vote, blacks were enslaved, and gays had no rights. Well, get used. It's a new world, gramps.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:31 am |
    • Peregrine

      DO- one reason the SC is unelected is so they cannot be subjected to the whims of the masses. It works because of the demonstrable practice of over two centuries. If California voted to reinstate indentured servitude would you support the popular vote? What if that popular vote took your freedom, would you support it then?

      June 27, 2013 at 12:36 am |
    • LinCA

      @ADifferentOpinion

      You said, "They aren't remotely democratically elected."
      Get a fucking clue, you dimwit. They are nominated by the elected President, and affirmed by the elected US Senate. Every voter, indirectly, has a vote in their selection.

      You said, "If one appointment was flipped and the majoroity of the court was conservative, this vote would have been 5-4 the other way, the emotion of everyone posting on the topic would be reversed, but the point I was making would still hold."
      Given the strong conservative leaning of this court, it is a small miracle that the rulings went as they did. Any more of the likes of Scalia, Thomas or Alito on this court, and the country goes back by a century, or two.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:38 am |
    • Greg

      ADifferentOpinion
      " one unelected justice can change the direction of the country"

      How ironic, considering that conservatives wouldn't hesitate for an instant to do the exact same thing if it meant overturning something they didn't like, like ObamaCare, for example.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:42 am |
    • skarphace

      "one unelected justice can change the direction of the country."

      Duh. This is why there are an odd number of Supreme Court Justices. You never figured that out before? I would feel quite dumb right now if I were you.

      And as a counterexample, didn't "Citizens United" change the direction of this country, and wasn't that upheld by a vote of 5-4? You can't complain now that the ruling went against your opinion.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:43 am |
    • LinCA

      @skarphace

      Don't forget Gore v. Bush. talk about a partisan ploy to change the direction of this country. Right off the cliff.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:45 am |
    • redzoa

      Frankly, I'm much more comfortable with unelected, lifetime appointed federal judges. Requiring elections places an incredible amount of power in those who would fund their campaigns and would result in judges better known for their political skills than for their legal scholarship and judicial philosophy. Consider that the congressional and presidential candidates we see are first screened by big donors, then screened by the establishment of the parties, then beholden to the more extreme and vocal wings of the parties in primaries, and only then, once in the general election, do they conveniently shift back to the center. This process would not lend itself to thoughtful judges free to consider legal arguments outside of the election cycle. Although the appointment system is not without concern, lifetime appointments allow judges to consider the longer view without risking offense to a political base.

      While the DOMA ruling fell on expected liberal/conservative lines, by contrast, the Prop 8 case majority included Roberts and Scalia, while the dissent included Sotomayor. The Prop 8 case suggests that, at least for certain legal arguments (here, "standing"), the conservative/liberal views of the justices gave way to their underlying judicial philosophies. There are plenty of other examples of justices voting with majorities/dissents where their votes might be viewed as contrary to their general liberal/conservative political views, e.g. Scalia's recently joining the dissent against DNA swabbing of arrestees in Maryland v. King.

      June 27, 2013 at 1:10 am |
    • Science

      Hey jboom.....................or is it chadvic...............Rachel or....................idiot ?

      June 27, 2013 at 1:56 am |
    • Science

      Hey jboom should be easy no ?................ It is multiple choice ?

      June 27, 2013 at 2:25 am |
    • Science

      Or jboom = L4H or Russ maybe ?

      June 27, 2013 at 7:36 am |
    • pete

      there should have never been a vote in the first place, and the const.itution is there to help protect the rights of the minority from the whims of the majority. The Supreme Court was right to overturn both of these laws.

      June 27, 2013 at 3:09 pm |
  10. Shirley

    Shame on anyone who puts words in the mouth of Jesus unless they heard them directly from Him. Nothing said affirms that for me and I love Him. Too many "religious" people think they speak for Him. They will find out what he is really weeping about when they face Him. Once people figure out all of this is a control thing they are much wiser and know what He really thinks and what God thinks too!

    June 26, 2013 at 11:49 pm |
    • ADifferentOpinion

      Jesus' words aren't a secret. They are right there for all of us to read.

      June 26, 2013 at 11:52 pm |
    • Observer

      ADifferentOpinion

      "Jesus' words aren't a secret. They are right there for all of us to read."

      Yes. And he NEVER trashed gays like so many Christian HYPOCRITES do.

      June 26, 2013 at 11:57 pm |
    • ADifferentOpinion

      Observer... Jesus didn't "trash" anybody. He reminded us all of our fallen nature and then told us because of His love for us He came to save us. But he also didn't condone behavior that is not consistent with God's righeousness. Yes, there are hypocritical christians just like there are hypocritical non-christians, but that doesn't change who God is or what He expects.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:01 am |
    • Cedar Rapids

      All right there for all to read and yet there are hundreds of Christian denominations because none can agree on the meaning.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:03 am |
    • Observer

      ADifferentOpinion,

      You don't agree with all of God's warped view of marriage, so why not skip all the hypocrisy?

      When picking-and-choosing from the Bible, why not PICK the Golden Rule?

      June 27, 2013 at 12:05 am |
    • Secular Humanist from Ohio

      Jesus explains that he spoke in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell.

      Mark
      4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
      4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
      4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:06 am |
    • ADifferentOpinion

      Cedar Rapids, the study of the origin of the various protestant demoninations is a long one, but most denominations have more in common that they do in difference. And many of the differences don't really have to do with the words of Jesus. We are easily distracted by the enemy.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:07 am |
    • Cedar Rapids

      I think the hate between Catholics and Protestants begs to differ.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:11 am |
    • ADifferentOpinion

      Observer, I don't know where you get that I don't agree with God's blueprint for marriage. I try not to be hypcocritical. I try to apply the golden rule as I do the two great commandments of Christ – to love God and to love others as myself.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:11 am |
    • Observer

      ADifferentOpinion

      "Observer, I don't know where you get that I don't agree with God's blueprint for marriage"

      Do you actually believe that marriage should be FORCED onto slaves?
      Do you actually believe that marriage should be FORCED onto virginal r@pe victims?
      Do you actually believe that marriage should be FORCED onto men whose brothers died leaving a widow?
      Do you actually believe that marriage should be FORCED onto virgins who were captured in battles?

      Get serious.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:16 am |
    • Greg

      ADifferentOpinion
      How does denying others the same rights you enjoy const.itute "love"?

      June 27, 2013 at 12:55 am |
    • HotAirAce

      It would be nice if Babble Humpers could prove that jesus actually said anything that they claim he did.

      June 27, 2013 at 2:32 am |
  11. Shirley

    Shame on anyone who puts words in the mouth of Jesus unless they heard them directly from Him. Nothing said affirms that for me and I love Him. Too many "religious" people think they speak for Him. They will find out what he is really weeping about when they face Him.

    June 26, 2013 at 11:45 pm |
    • Athy

      How can you love a myth that's been dead for 2000 years? You need to wake up to reality.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:54 am |
  12. Pete

    If we going to change the meaning of the word marriage, we'll have to reprint all the Bible, Toras, and Korans, but the few gay men and women will be happier. Doesn't seem rational to me. Creating a new word would be the least offensive solution. But, it seems to me, that offense was the goal.

    June 26, 2013 at 11:44 pm |
    • Damia Savon

      Which version of the Bible do you want to edit?

      June 26, 2013 at 11:52 pm |
    • Marci

      Oh, the Bible is Webster's, also? Huh. How many women who have been r.aped have been married to their r.apist? That's in your book also. Dash any babies against rocks, lately? Beat your slaves? Grow up.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:00 am |
    • Cedar Rapids

      Why do you think religions hold the copyright on the word?

      June 27, 2013 at 12:05 am |
    • Javi

      They THINK they have the coptright on the word. They don't. Oh well.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:38 am |
    • Greg

      Marriage existed long before the Bible, so why consider the Bible some kind of authority over marriage?

      June 27, 2013 at 12:52 am |
  13. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Mike Huck and his ilks made Jesus wept ... way before these SCOTUS decisions.

    June 26, 2013 at 11:30 pm |
    • Bostontola

      We agree on something, that's awesome.

      June 27, 2013 at 12:07 am |
  14. The Deist

    Don't be a bunch of babies, for the love of Pete. Gender only matters if you plan on procreating the traditional way. Get over it.

    June 26, 2013 at 11:29 pm |
  15. Reality

    Some items SCOTUS forgot to included in their judgement:

    Why should we care what two cons-ens-ual adults do in privacy??

    For both heterose-xuals and ho-mo-se-xuals:

    The reality of se-x, abortion, contraception and STD/HIV control: – from an agnostic guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-

    Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...

    The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:

    : The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% actual failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% actual failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.

    Added information before making your next move:

    "Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."
    See also: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/26/opinion/bolan-se-xual-health/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

    And from:
    "Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about (even though is becoming a major cause of throat cancer)," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (Maybe it should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)

    Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    June 26, 2013 at 11:02 pm |
    • Joe Rogan

      Since we are talking about rights of consenting adults, why do we have laws barring polygamy? Can I assume the same people calling for freedom of choice for consenting adults to support the right of consenting adults to form a polygamous marriage?

      June 26, 2013 at 11:08 pm |
    • LinCA

      @Joe Rogan

      You said, "Since we are talking about rights of consenting adults, why do we have laws barring polygamy? Can I assume the same people calling for freedom of choice for consenting adults to support the right of consenting adults to form a polygamous marriage?"
      Yup. If it can be done without abuse, it should be legal.

      June 26, 2013 at 11:11 pm |
    • Cedar Rapids

      What does this have to with gay marriage exactly?

      June 27, 2013 at 12:08 am |
    • Reality

      Oops, it should read "include" in their rulings.

      And se-x in any form requires intelligence especially in prevention of STD's which cost $15 billion/yr. to control and/or cure and the SCOTUS should have included this drain on our resources in their ruling.

      June 27, 2013 at 7:20 am |
  16. kamisama

    How can religious nuts pass judgement on other people so readily? It is amazing that Atheists know so much more about Christianity than Christians but it is absolutely true.
    Primitive religions HAVE to go, sooner or later, for mankind to move out of the Bronze Age.

    June 26, 2013 at 11:01 pm |
    • Pete

      So you dream of a final solution for the Jewish people. Real tolerant of ya.

      June 26, 2013 at 11:37 pm |
    • Pete

      I retract that remark.

      June 27, 2013 at 2:38 am |
  17. rob

    If these bigoted religious fanatics want to meet Jesus so bad, I say we help them out with that.

    June 26, 2013 at 10:58 pm |
    • Pete

      You shouldn't threaten to murder people in a chat room

      June 26, 2013 at 11:34 pm |
  18. rob

    Translation: Waaaaaahhhhhh, we aren't allowed to force our bigotry on the rest of America! The religious nuts in this world, especially the U.S., are getting crazier by the day. We need to rid society of this dangerous vermin.

    June 26, 2013 at 10:57 pm |
    • Pete

      Promoting the murder of American citizen? How can you be that dumb? You IP address is logged. Idiot.

      June 26, 2013 at 11:35 pm |
    • Greg

      Who said anything about murder? People can stop being bigots, you know?

      June 27, 2013 at 8:11 am |
  19. Tom

    There it is folks.... you made Jesus cry...

    June 26, 2013 at 10:52 pm |
    • Apex301

      "From hell's heart I stab at thee!" -Jesus-

      You don't know what he said, so don't speak for him.

      June 26, 2013 at 10:57 pm |
    • Apex301

      I saw toast in my Jesus picture.

      June 26, 2013 at 11:03 pm |
    • Ray

      we have a mass shooting almost every week and i wonder how many times jesus cried for background checks. We have innocent people dyying everyday, people starving, people in pain over something they have no cntrol of and i wonder how many times jesus weeps. People out there are all over the place are disobeying the bible and i wonder how much jesus weeps. But when people want to love the ones they love, all of the sudden jesus is rolling all over the place weeping....

      June 26, 2013 at 11:04 pm |
    • Greg

      Tears of joy, Tom, tears of JOY!!! πŸ˜€

      June 27, 2013 at 12:46 am |
  20. Twinmama

    In 1994, I drove with two gay male friends to D.C. to march in the national pride parade, so don't attack me. Fast forward many, many years, and now I'm perfectly happy to keep my rear end at home, puttering in my suburban home with my husband and three kids. I'm not really that person anymore, mostly because I have my life and lots of stuff to do rather than run around the country engaging in politics. I don't really care one way or the other about the ruling b/c, as I said, I'm pretty busy in my own little suburban bubble, but I will say that as the US becomes more and more accepting and liberal (of just about everything, it seems), polygamy and multiple-partner arrangements – and the subsequent marital benefits that are currently denied from those who participate in such – isn't far off from being brought to the political agenda. I can easily see where the next challenge or victory (depending on your view) for marriage is initiated by the aforementioned group(s). Thoughts?

    June 26, 2013 at 10:51 pm |
    • CECS

      "In 1994, I drove with two gay male friends to D.C. to march in the national pride parade, so don't attack me." This obviously means you're an expert.

      June 26, 2013 at 10:55 pm |
    • tallulah13

      I'm not sure what you're asking. The gist I got was that once upon a time you cared about others and now you only care about yourself.

      June 26, 2013 at 11:41 pm |
    • Austin

      yo tallulah whachu ben doin?

      June 26, 2013 at 11:47 pm |
    • Damia Savon

      So you became a selfish, self absorbed conservative. Big deal.

      June 26, 2013 at 11:54 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.