.
June 16th, 2008
08:43 PM ET

The California Supreme Court's attack on marriage

[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/06/16/art.gaymarriagecake.jpg caption="Same-sex wedding cake topper figurines are seen at Cake and Art in West Hollywood, California"]
Tony Perkins
President of Family Research Council

When the clock chimed 5:01 p.m. PST, the California ruling that threatens to undo thousands of years of natural marriage officially took effect, triggering five months of social chaos that could wreak havoc on every state in America.

Homosexual couples hoping to make history will race down the aisle as early as tonight in at least two counties where clerks of court offices have agreed to stay open late and "marry" homosexuals.

Kern and Butte Counties won't be among them–not even tomorrow, when the homosexual wedding march will begin across California in earnest. Thanks to the courage of County Clerks Ann Barnett and Candace Grubbs, the local offices will stop performing wedding ceremonies altogether.

To comply with the law, Kern and Butte Counties will still issue marriage licenses, but they refuse to subject their staff to the Supreme Court's blatant disregard for traditional morality and individual religious rights.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Ann Barnett says that the decision to stand up to the liberal establishment has not been an easy one for her or her family. Kern's County Clerk has been a target of hate mail, received so many threats at home that she's disconnected her telephone, and been labeled a "religious terrorist" by hostile critics.

While same-sex crusaders trumpet tolerance for their behavior, where is their tolerance for Barnett's beliefs? You won't find it. Even the Kern County Supervisor, Don Maben, is insensitive to her rights as a government employee. "[S]he made a unilateral decision and just shut everyone off."

Sound familiar? It should, since that's exactly what the California Supreme Court did by disenfranchising more than four million voters who defined marriage as the union of a man and woman in 2000. In the end it is not about tolerance at all, it about forced acceptance.

We applaud the brave men and women in California who are risking their jobs and safety to rebuff this coordinated attack on marriage.

The Republican leadership and presidential candidates could stand to learn a thing or two from these local statesmen. We urge them to take this opportunity to weigh in publicly on the importance of marriage and pledge their support for the marriage protection amendment this fall.

Meanwhile, FRC will continue to bring its educational message to the state, where our ads in Sacramento and Orange County are reminding voters what the California court has now done to injure families and undermine the well being of children.

Editor's note: This from the Family Research Council ran over the weekend in the Sacramento Bee and the Orange County Register.

See Campbell Brown's live interview with Tony Perkins tonight at 10p.
The Family Research Council is a Washington think-tank. Tony Perkins is also the author of  Personal Faith, Public Policy.


Filed under: 360° Radar • Gay & Lesbian Issues • Tony Perkins
soundoff (189 Responses)
  1. Fay, CA

    Let these so-called Christians disagree with gay marriage if they must, but they DON'T have the right to prevent same sex couples from marrying. Not everyone is a Christian, or follows that line of thinking.

    Tony Perkins post is one of the most ridiculous things I've have ever read here, not to mention completely disgusting.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:54 pm |
  2. Don H

    Re: Tony Perkins question: "Where do you draw the line?" (three people, underage people? animals?, incest?)

    Answer: homosexuals are natural citizens belonging to a numerical minority with a different in-born sexual orientation, unequal in number, but equal in rights just as are blacks and other minorities. You draw the line at the same age limits (eighteen) and number of people that can marry (two) and current martial status required (single or divorced) that you do with heterosexuals. End of discussion. That question is obfuscating, and purposely so.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:53 pm |
  3. Thomas

    This country is going to hell in a hand basket. Cry out all you sinners. Civil rights. This is a choice alright. Its a choice to live in sin and disobey the commandments of God. You that write your comments wouldn't be around if if weren't for Mom and Dad. There are no Mom's and Dad's in gay marriage. Don't you get it? How will this destroy things? Example for one. Gays are no more "special" in their sin than a person who has some kind of addiction. And you all cry out for rights. Freedom of speech comes with responsible and gay marriage is so illresponsible. I love you, its your sin that makes me so sick. God said to love the sinner, but to hate the sin. Gays need to repent and forsake their sin and come unto Christ. Its as simple as that.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:53 pm |
  4. Beverly

    Mr. Perkins,
    I completely agree with you and commend your standing up for what is right and ultimately what is right for America. God Bless You.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:51 pm |
  5. Mike A.

    Maybe I'm being overly simplistic, but for decades, the traditional "attack on marriage" has been divorce. Half of all traditional marriages end that way, so where's the outrage over the proliferation of divorce lawyers? Or for that matter, where was the outrage over Giuliani, Thomson, or for that matter Reagan (first divorced President)?

    Say what you will Mr. Perkins, you don't like Gay people, and you wrap your intolerance in the narrow wording of your faith to support that intolerance.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:50 pm |
  6. Andre

    People are so hypocritical.

    Newt Gingrich divorced his wife on her death bed. Ronald Reagan and Bill Frist were both divorced. Guess they didn't hold the "institution" of marriage as all that sacred. And they want to preserve Brittney Spears' ability to marry every week.

    The Old Testament bible thumpers are so fond of waving around prohibits the eating of shellfish, cutting hair, growing flowers indoors, mixing cattle, wearing cloth made of mixed fibers, and divorce among other things. Why aren't the protectors of marriage rallying to ban divorce?

    Oh, and that same Old Testament encourages slavery.

    Read your bible, folks.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:49 pm |
  7. Edson Brazil

    Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Don't worry ROGER! Life in the planet will not be extinguished because of gay marriage. Gays always existed in this planet and we still have a concerning growth of its population. Be reasonable! Your comment is immature. Even if California or other states/countries do not allow gays to get married, gays will still be here...and many more will be born. Yes, that's true! BORN GAY! Maybe nobody can explain that yet...but that is something innate, not acquired. It's not a matter of choice!

    June 16, 2008 at 11:47 pm |
  8. Susan

    Reading this post, I was reduced to tears. Mr. Perkins, you and those like you are what drove me from the Christian religion I practiced and taught for for almost twenty years.

    Firstly, two men or two women marrying will not (or at least, should not) have any effect on your heterosexual marriage. It will not make your marriage any more or less valid in the eyes of the law.

    Which brings me to my second point: the seperation of church and state. Marriage is not just the romanticized white-dresses-and-red-roses affair Hollywood makes it out to be. Marriage is a legal union. The only thing disallowing same-sex marriage is preventing is the legal benefits a heterosexual couple shares. If a same-sex couple shares the same love and devotion as a heterosexual couple, no amount of homophobia is going to come between them. Who are you or any other religious zealot to come between a legal agreement between two consenting adults? Let the fluffy bunny marriage ceremony stay in the church; let churches decide if they will perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. But how DARE you sit on your self-righteous high-horse try to impose your particular moral beliefs on someone who may not share them.

    I am praying for you, Mr. Perkins. And while I hate your sin, I love you, the sinner.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:47 pm |
  9. Bruce

    The California constitution separated marriage from religion conclusively: Quoting from the recent decision: From the state’s inception, California law has treated the legal institution of civil marriage as distinct from religious marriage. Article XI, section 12 of the California Constitution of 1849 provided in this regard: “No contract of marriage, if otherwise duly made, shall be invalidated by want of conformity to the requirements of any religious sect.” Marriage is first a civil union and a religious ceremony is not required by law.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:47 pm |
  10. Lithande

    We do not limit marriage to Christians, nor do we deny agnostics and atheists the right to marry.

    We do not ask heterosexual couples if they are fertile. We do not ask heterosexual couples if they will be having children.

    We do not ask people to abstain from marriage and intercourse if they do not plan to have children.

    Marriage is nothing more than a contract between two individuals for inheritance and ins... We do not ask heterosexual couples if they are fertile. We do not ask heterosexual couples if they will be having children.

    We do not limit marriage to Christians, nor do we deny agnostics and atheists the right to marry.

    We do not ask people to abstain from marriage and intercourse if they do not plan to have children.

    Marriages in a church that are not recorded in a courthouse are not deemed legal. Marriages by officials who are not members of the clergy that are recorded in a courthouse, are recognized as legal.

    Marriage is nothing more than a contract between two individuals for legal, inheritance, and insurance purposes. While many people romanticize it, many do not. The reality is that people who marry don't have to have any emotional attachment whatsoever.

    There's no legal reason to deny the contract.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:47 pm |
  11. Trasa, Texas

    The homosexual community should be allowed the freedom as everyone else. It's nobody business, but their own. True, I don't like the homosexual thing, but it's here in full force and I respect the right to choose who you want to spend your life with whether it be male or female. My brother is gay, and I love him for him. The lifestyle is not for me, but however, he's a good person and that's the life he wants and is happy with it. His life doesn't effect how I live or the rest of my immediate family lives. Hell, my best friend is as well. I just wish America would stop butting in where it doesn't need to be. Stop trying to control and tell people what to do with their life. And like so many others, it's not going to affect the sanctimony of marriage. It may be of the same sex, but the the beliefs are still the same, staying committed to one life partner and all that other stuff that goes with it. Hell, I was watching a special on the gays that were married and raising kids,so far they seem to have a better idea of family values than those that are not.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:46 pm |
  12. Dennis Pence - Texas

    Hey everyone – God does love all His creation – but he still hates sin and the scriptures – which I believe come from God, still teach that for a man to lie with a man, a woman with a woman is "pervision" and therefore sin. Passing a law by any Stupreme Court (no misspelling -the Stu comes from STUPID.) does not overided God's Word. Why don't we just let men have multiple wives, women have multiple husbands (all at the same time). Why should they be anymore abnormal than homosexuals? Come to think of it, if a child can be tried for murder at 16, why can't they have sex with whom they choose – regardless of age. We can't have it both ways – either we can all do what we want or we can't. I used to live in a country with a government "of, by and for the people". Somehow, that concept has been taken over by a Liberal establishment that thinks they know what is best for us all. Maybe if we get enough outside tolerance for everything but Christianity (the principles this country was founded on) we can all do what we want, when we want, with whom we want – and to hell with everyone else. But – I am sure the liberal establishment would make sure that never happens – unless they want it to.

    God help us all – we have lost our moral compass.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:45 pm |
  13. E. Chikeles

    Mr. Perkins I agree with you. Personal beliefs aside, same sex marriage is not natural.
    Besides that, in regards to another comment, God does love everyone including gays. He also loves murderers, but that doesn't make murder right.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:44 pm |
  14. Brad

    Wow. All these comments so far except one is "for" gay marriage.
    Well, I'm not. And let's examine just a few short points why.
    God, that's right, God said, in His immutable, unmoveable, incorruptable, undisputable, historical, and uncontradictable authored book, said that marriage started with MAN and WOMAN. How is it that a person can't think even scientifically about this issue. The fact that I am a believer in God and His historical and accurate revelation to mankind aside, vagina and vagina just doesn't go together; penis and penis just does not do it. The science of man able to pro-creat with another man is impossible. Why deny this? Is it natural? No, of course not. Don't deny the truth of science to bring into existence your un-natural view on humanity. It not only is UN-natural, but it is a slap in natural marriage's face. Just think of the result of the next 20 years if all mankind became gay? You would destroy the human race from existence. That is realty folks. That is the truth whether you like it or not, whether it fits your views or not. I'm not gay hater, just a realist. Let's be real. The lifestyle of gay people is not "better" for human existence. It may be pleasurable for a time, or right in the eyes of man for a time, but it's result and fruit is death to mankind and the end of natural evolution. Oh wait, can we examine animals for a second. Do boy deers find other boy deers do mate? Of course they don't. It's not in the DNA of animals to do so. There doesn't exist such a thing. Only humans have the propensity to sin in this un-natural way, b/c only humans have the ability to think in such ways. And such is the way of man without God, sinful. Let's take a minutes to be honest, and perhaps ask God what he thinks, rather than presume that all believers in God want to judge another for their actions. My God, if I was prohibited the right to "judge" or "assess" one's actions, then how can there even be LAW. This is what LAW does, it judges the actions of men, and impliments penalty for "wrong-doing". Is it wrong to kill off the human race for the sake of un-natural marriage. I think so. Think people. Think through this to it's conclusion. Your's in the only truth that exists......God's truth....holy scripture. ~Brad

    June 16, 2008 at 11:43 pm |
  15. Charlotte

    Today two ladies in San Francisco were married that have been in love and together for 55 years, the same as my husband and I. Our marriage was celebrated by society in the 50's, theirs was shunned. It's very past the time at our point of history to change this unbelievable travesty to American citizens who have been born GLBT. This is not a theocracy it is a democracy and a republic ,time to realize this Mr. Perkins and company. Common sense, love and tolerance has nothing to do with being liberal, moderate, or conservative, so stop with the liberal, liberal, and more liberal. These moderates are more than tired of the same broken record.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:42 pm |
  16. Phyto Guy

    RE same sex marriage.

    It bothers me that those who do not believe in equity cite polls to support their bias.

    At one time in history, women were not allowed to vote; Asian Exclusion laws were on the books, Japanese-Americans were placed in concentration camps during WWII, and the Civil Rights Act was only signed recently in 1965. At each point in time the majority felt that it was "OK" to discriminate against the various segments of our population. Those who stand against marriage between humans of the same sex exhibit a bias similar to those of the past with regard to race. Let's not let history go unnoticed when discussing the issue of gay (human) rights.

    Thank you.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:41 pm |
  17. Bayou Vol

    Homosexuality is nothing more than a maladaptive trait of affluent society. I find it hilarious that so much effort is spent trying to legitimize and rationalize behavior that is counter productive to human life on this planet. This is so obviously wrong that those who have convinced themselves of its acceptance, have done so by warping the very threads that make us human. It's taken a lot of work and money for people to rationalize the cognitive dissonance that gay marriage creates in a person of ordinary means and sensibilities. Congratulations. The PR machine of the last decade has worked. You have actually succeeded in devolving the species. Next up, woman marries dog...or better "man's best friend gets a ring." Rediculous.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:40 pm |
  18. Jen

    Read Genesis chapter 19 to find out what happens when men have relations with other men. America is on the path.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:39 pm |
  19. james Cole

    Lets think of some of the ramifications of gay marriage in California. Are insurance companies going to be forced by the state to recognize a gay couple as a family against their will? If not, how long will it take before a same-sex couple will sue for unjust/unfair treatment? If an insurance company does cover them as a family, when they move out of state the insurance company may be able to drop them to single coverage. Will the couple then sue again the insurance agency, the State or both to force that region of the country to recognize gay marriage? Will that in some way effect other policy holders? When they want to have kids are companies (insurance and places of employment) going to have to recognize both two women’s simultaneous pregnancies, pay them both for maternity leave and medical coverage? What about when men what to adopt? Are they going to have to sue companies if they don’t treat the men with equal paternity time even though there is no recovery period from adopting as there is from giving live birth? What if the birth rate as a nation drops significantly? Will that in turn create a similar situation with Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and federal tax income that we see today? Should we even continue to pay Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare in the future? These are just a few quick thoughts that I have not heard anyone talk about yet.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:39 pm |
  20. bob

    you hit it square on the head when you said that homo's are intolerant of other peoples beliefs. just call a homo a homo and you're labled and stereotyped as some sort of monster... consenting adults can do what they want to do behind closed doors, but have NO RIGHT in telling and teaching others, such as minors, that their perverted lifestyle is "normal," when it's anything but normal.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:38 pm |
  21. David R.

    I'm suprised at how few people understand the angle from which you are writing. Most people sadly don't understand the idea of Man-Woman marriage being instituted by God. At the very least it is one of the only institutions evident in nature itself. The legality of same-sex marriage is just another step towards a steady erosion of the family unit in America. The effects of which are slowly being felt and expanded in America since the 90's.

    I'm suprised the the defenders of same sex marriage get so violently frustrated whenever people reverse the logic of tolerance, and Christians actually begin acting out their faith instead of being the welcomed "Silent Majority". Christians have a right to oppose same-sex marriage because they are a part of the democratic community in America, and have a very obvious behavioral and natural grounds for opposing it.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:38 pm |
  22. Justin

    Dee,

    I would suggest you read more on the science of why evolution can produce homosexual behaviour. Homosexuals may not reproduce directly, but their genes also exist in brothers and sisters, who may very well pass on their genes. So, whle homosexuals, in general, don't pass on their genes (except with IV fertilisation), if they care for a relative and devote resources to their well-being, then they are actually helping their own genes survive.

    Furthermore, by your reasoning, shouldn't haemophilia and other hereditary diseases been declining for millenia now, seeing as how they greatly reduce the chances for reproduction?

    All of this is very interesting, and I suggest you read, for starters, R. Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:38 pm |
  23. Michael Link

    Its obvious that you gays are going to whatever the hell you want. As a true Christian, I believe in God's gift of free will – and that applies to all people. I don't have to like it, but I cannot force anyone. You freely choose it.

    Good luck in your lives, and enjoy the happiness you've invented for yourself. I don't feel threatened in my God-ordained marriage, i do feel sorry for you and your eternal souls.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:37 pm |
  24. swilliams

    Quite Frankly; this gay marriage allowance sucks.......! Sure our state and federal constitutions allow for numeroous rights as Americans, but where does common Christanity come into our lives? How does that old saying go? "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" and I'll go on to say " nor did God create Eva and Ava".
    Don't get it twisted; I'm no religous fanatic, but I do believe that Jesus was born, lived and died for our sins, but the United States of America; a country I am born, adore and love being apart of is becoming the "Saddam & Gomorrah". That has me in fear of the future my children face and their children and beyond.
    So to all of the same sex couples entering California to marry; I do wish you well, but as a native of California I also say "handle your business here and go back to your home state" and to the same sex couples already living in California "beware and respectful to the traditional family beliefs and values when you function in society" because the values and ethics I/we (Californians) have tried so hard to distill in our children are now threaten by you and the state of California. Sure I could exit the state myself, but not only am I a child of the United States of America, California is the womb that gave me birth.

    Sincerely; California Love....!

    June 16, 2008 at 11:37 pm |
  25. Claire in Birmingham, AL

    The only reason gay marriage should be an issue is if it is made to be MANDATORY. Which it isn't. So mind your own business and work on your own marriages instead of worrying about other's

    June 16, 2008 at 11:36 pm |
  26. Adam

    "thousands of years of natural marriage"???? give me a break Mr. Perkins. With the exception of the last 70 years or so marriage has been an instituion of female subjugation. Many societies, and some pockets in America, still practice polygamy which historcally is more prevalant than today's one-man-one-woman marriages. And despite the efforts of backward looking dogmatist like Mr. Perkins, Civil marriage in the past centruy has been transformed into on equal partnership between two consenting adults. If these two clerks want to practice thier religious beliefs in the confines of thier church and forbid same-gender marriage in thier congregations then more power to them. But the first amendmant certainly does not extend to them the right to force thier religious views on any citizen in a civil matter!

    June 16, 2008 at 11:35 pm |
  27. Luke

    May be next step is legalization of marriage with animals.
    Poor California and America. 🙁

    June 16, 2008 at 11:35 pm |
  28. Rudy

    Claire,

    There was one without sin…our Savior Lord Jesus Christ. As far as your statement “leave that up to God”…it is clear that the Bible (the Word of God) clearly identifies homosexuality as a sin.

    As a Christian I will continue to “love the person” but will also continue to “hate the sin”.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:35 pm |
  29. James Dylan

    Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Center, here's some research you can do. Find me a time when "natural" marriage required a piece of paper or notification of others? You would do more for mankind with that than along the lines of your current research.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:35 pm |
  30. Matt

    I always have to laugh at people like Mr. Perkins and just feel so bad for them. What is so hard to understand about everyone being granted equal protection under the law? THat is not judicial activism it is following the constitution. I'm glad that courts don't take religion into account when making decisions because that is exactly what they are supposed to do. What ,Mr. Perkins, do you believe Gay Marriage will lead to? How does it threaten traditional marriage? Are you now tempted to get a gay marriage instead of a straight one? If you want to preserve the sanctity of marriage then end divorce. Teach couples how to work at their relationships. Teach people what love is truly about. But No, you want to be angry that someone is trying to take away your right to hate, your right to discriminate, your right to feel superior. You are opposing love, and in a world that is so full of hatred, so full of divisions we should applaud when two people want to commit their lives and hearts to one another. We are all the same, you are not better than anyone else and the time has come for you to accept that and fight the fights that really matter.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:31 pm |
  31. Andres

    Yawn...Can we please focus on some real problems like gas prices, mortgage meltdown, crumbling economy, WAR, the poor, the hungry, Social Security, Medicare and the National Debt. Get your heads out of your behinds and start concentrating on some real problems. Leave the minutia for some other time.

    FED UP IN NEW YORK

    June 16, 2008 at 11:30 pm |
  32. Christian

    I first want to express my appreciation to Peter Beckman for his informative facts on the case. If only Mr. Perkins could have bothered to put forth objective facts. I am a native Californian born and raised in the central San Joaquin Valley. I am a Christian, I am a hetrosexual over 50 who was married for 15 years. I support the California State Supreme Courts decision to allow two adults who love each other to make a life time legally recognized commitment . Same gender marriages in no way threatens hetrosexual marriages. My marriage ended 15 years ago after my spouse left with the spouse of another couple in my church. It was not my spouse's first nor last affair. My ex-spouse's affairs led to four other couple's, with children, divorce. My spouse attends church, votes Republican, and talks about the sanctity of marriage. I suggest that if Mr. Perkins really cares about marriage he turn is research to the real issues that threaten the family, they have been around since the beginning of time.
    Leave the judging to God and support anyone willing to make a life commitment to a person they love. Blessings to all the newly weds, be faithful and love each other and you will have God's blessing.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:29 pm |
  33. Roger

    The only way that human life exists and will continue to exist on this planet is through heterosexuality, not homosexuality. Traditional marriage between a man and a woman embraces this fact and promotes procreation and continuation of life on this planet. Homosexuals cannot procreate amonst themselves – a simple inspection of the human anatomy and just a little common sense makes this pretty clear. How does allowing homosexuals to marry take away from traditional marriage? It's an attempt to legitimize a lifestyle or behavior upon which civilization cannot be exist. Even a child can understand this so why can't California?

    June 16, 2008 at 11:28 pm |
  34. Gladys

    I totally disagree with gay marriage. I have 2 children who are gay, but if they were to marry I would have no part of it. I love them and I can except there living arrangements, but marriage is not the answer. God choose a man and woman to marry and live their lives with any children they might have. A gay couple can not produce children, yes they can adopt, but there's not a man and a woman figure for the child to look up to and say oh, I want to be just like my mom or I want to be just like my dad. Come on people think of the here after!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    June 16, 2008 at 11:27 pm |
  35. charles, michigan

    When the people hungry and poor they need God. When they are full and rich, they turn back on Him.... IT'S TIME COMING ,, VERY VERY SOON.... PEOPLE

    June 16, 2008 at 11:26 pm |
  36. Argus

    Ann Barnett, Candace Grubbs, and those who think and behave like them need to reexamine their positions. They are supposed to follow the law and leave their personal beliefs out of their jobs. If they are so committed to those beliefs that they cannot do their jobs, they should resign. If they continue to flout the law and the rules & regulations permit it, they should be fired.

    The issue becomes more difficult when you deal with surgical procedures or other medical issues. Does a physician or nurse have the right to withhold lawful medications or treatment because of personal beliefs? I believe that such caregivers should recuse themselves early enough for the patient to obtain timely care from other health professionals. That's a compromise I'm willing to make because we are dealing with civil society. Whether physicians or nurses who hold such strong beliefs ought to be hired in the first place is also a difficult question: are those beliefs going to compromise the hospital's (or other health care institution) ability to carry out its mission?

    If we are dealing with the armed forces and enlisted personnel or officers fail to follow a lawful order, there's a different way of handling their actions or failure to act. Here they cannot opt out without serious consequences (or so we hope).

    June 16, 2008 at 11:25 pm |
  37. Saundra

    No, noone is without sin in this world. Jude 1:1-24 explains this new state of moral decline with verse 4: "....they have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord".

    Whatever excuse you want to use for immoral behavior, wrong is wrong. If you want to address me for my sin, so be it, I want to be more like Christ, not less. Let's adress each individually, not lump them up in some convenient "ism" that works for such and such community against another. Sodom and Gomorrah are just as real as Christ, Moses and Jacob. You can't pick and choose.

    Sharon Stone was not far off. Call it what you want, there is always consequence. I'm just sorry she couldn't stick to her guns. Our country and the world's story has already been written, we're just watching it play out.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:25 pm |
  38. Nancy Anderson

    Just how does gay marriage "threaten" staright marriage–come on right wingers-it's a control thing by you. don't let anyone do anything you don't approve of for some narrow minded reason.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:25 pm |
  39. Edson Brazil

    Seriously, it hurts to read columns like this. I grew up with family values...being respectful to others...there is no space for prejudice or for being judgmental. I learned that if people don't invade your limits you should be understandable and tolerant to whatever they want to do with their own lives. When I read this column I feel like someone writing this is full of hate inside. And...the worst part of it...most families have a gay member. I feel sorry for someone born gay in a family that might make him/her unhappy for a lifetime.

    Please, give someone reasons to be happy; don't make the mistake of making life miserable for something you don't understand.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:24 pm |
  40. Karen

    I am a woman happily married to a man for over 25 years.

    Our marriage is in absolutely no danger whatsoever from other committed consenting adult couples in love being able to express their love and commitment through marriage and the willingness to take on all of marriage's responsibilities.

    I'm thinking that if this were 60 years ago, you might have been among those preaching against the "imminent destruction of society" from "the evils" of interracial marriage. "Unfortunately" (for such fear-mongers), society didn't fall apart in California in 1948, nor in the United States in 1967.

    With respect to gay marriage, society ALSO "unfortunately" did not fall apart in the Netherlands in 2001, in Canada and Belgium in 2003, in South Africa in 2006, nor in Massachusetts in 2004, and doubtless will also not fall apart in Norway effective in 2009.

    If you feel your own heterosexual marriage is in danger, look within your marriage for the cause, because the seeds of divorce come from within. There are many good marriage counselors out there, there is hope.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:24 pm |
  41. Justin

    Yet again, those that deem that "traditional morality" something of a positive force for today miss the point, and make a lot of bad arguments along the way.

    For one thing, a Supreme Court decision to grant rights to gay couples is not a Supreme Court decision to trample someone's right not to participate in a gay wedding ceremony. Conversely, someone's right to hold religious beliefs does in no way imply that gay couples ought not to have the right to marry. Yet the author of this article, in an orgy of contorted reasoning, seems to think otherwise.

    And what are these "rights as a government employee" that the author makes reference to? Is it the right to see others follow religiously-derived morality that, to be frank, is more of a way of following orders - no matter how evil - than it is the following of your own good conscience? Is it the right to quit a job? Is it a right to be able to adhere to religious tenants and have such tenants respected? The only "rights" that Ann Barnett has out of these three, legally, is the right to HOLD her own beliefs, and to quit her job if the job, in her own view, interferes with her beliefs. She has no right to have her beliefs respected as good or right beliefs, nor does she have the right to see others agree. She does, to be clear, have a right for protection against abuse on the basis of her beliefs, but this is different than having a right to demand that others adhere to what she believes is proper action. Futhermore, she has no protection from certain bona fide job requirements, one of which is to respect the legally granted rights of others no matter what her personal inclinations.

    And then there's the social goods argument - protect the children, protect families, etc. etc. Well, for one thing, one can make a very good case for why gay marriage itself will bring positive social goods, and even to children. On the other hand, we can question why gay marriage will ever hurt children and families in the first place. Given that this claim of "harm" is never fully or clearly spelled out, though, it's hard to argue against it. Perhaps the author, Mr. Perkins, can clarify it for us. However, given the arguments that he's already made, I'm betting any clarification will be just as contorted and incoherent.

    From Canada, where marriage was never ruined, with love,

    Justin

    June 16, 2008 at 11:24 pm |
  42. oracle

    Seems to me like much to do about nothing. We have tax paying citizens paying an extra tax to become joined in marriage. We've got to pay for King Bush's WAR in Irag ! We've got to pay for higher gas prices, and we've got to pay for higher food. Aren't we suppose to be a community? Aren't we suppose to be on the same side of the borders? Shouldn't we say we where there when at least a freedom (something we hold DEARLY) was given to CHOOSE !

    June 16, 2008 at 11:22 pm |
  43. Dee

    If love is the only condition for marriage we've got problems. What if I love 3 people and we all want to be married to each other? What if I want to marry my sister or brother or even my parent? A social taboo it may be in 2008 but give it a few years. Laugh at me now but mark my word it's coming. How can a court rule against these marriages in light of the setting of this same-sex marriage precedent.

    Also, for those who equate same sex marriage with interracial marriage, big difference! A person's race has nothing to do with choice. I was born a black man. I had no say in the matter. Homosexuality on the other hand is a choice. Think about it. If it were biological in nature it would be dependent in some way upon heredity. This would mean homosexuality would be on the decrease not the increase because reproduction is obviously an issue for homosexuals.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:22 pm |
  44. Alan

    I completely agree with Mr. Perkins. The decision can and will wreak havoc on every state in America.

    First, from a legal standpoint. The law in California is not like the one in Massachusetts. To have a gay marriage in Massachusetts you have to be a resident of that state and it will only be recognized there. The California law does not make that distinction. Therefore when an out-of-state gay couple gets married in California they are going to want to travel back to their home state and be recognized. And since most states do not allow that, there will be lawsuits in every state challenging the current marriage laws. That WILL wreak havoc on every state in America. And that is exactly what the pro-gay activists want.

    Second, it does wreak havoc on state in America morally. This effect is not overnight but takes many years to really bear to fruition. Many are calling gay marriage "progress." I guess I can agree with that statement because the progress we are having in America is decay and decay is a natural type of "progress." It's interesting, as I have been reading the responses above, many are like, "if two people love eachother what's the big deal?" I guess if keep our head in the sewer long enough we eventually forget that it stinks. Today it's gay marriage (which most of the readers above don't think is a big deal); in 10 years it will be polygamy (or before); and after that it will just continue to get worse. So buckle your seatbelts America as we slowly, day-by-day, drift out farther in a sea of moral depravity.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:22 pm |
  45. Frederick Cusick Jr

    I find many flaws in your 'logic.' First and foremost the fact that you think 'natural marriage' was an institution that straight people respect. With a divorce rate of 50%, with people like Britney Spears getting married one night in Vegas only to have it immediately annulled, with people being forced into marriage because of pregnancy or social pressures- 'natural marriage' is anything but...

    Mr. Perkins, I have spent many years fighting an up-hill battle over something that seems so simple to me. Loving someone should never be viewed as wrong. When two consenting adults come together and express that love, nothing should stand in the way of that- least of all your close minded views of what love and/or marriage is. No one else has to gain approval for the person they love, there is not reason why I should.

    I am a successful professional. I have 2 college degrees, own a home and a car, mow my lawn and pay my taxes. I have never been arrested, never used drugs, behaved like every other 20 something in my day- why should I be denied any of the rights you enjoy as an American. I have committed my life to the service of my fellow men, only to have them shun me for the man I love.

    I'm not out to make history. I want to share my life and my love with the man in my life. Neither you, nor your religious beliefs can take that away from me.

    I thank the millions of homosexuals who have paved the way for the freedoms I do have, and hope that generations of gays beyond me continue to gain more ground towards equality- because that is what we ALL deserve.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:21 pm |
  46. The Rev'd Father Raymond H. Clark

    We will win equal rights for GLBT people. Time is on our side. The leaders of the anti-gay forces are old. Younger evangelicals are making it quite plain that gay-bashing isn't high on their agenda; and it's starting to fail as a fund-raising ploy. May God grant long life and happiness to all those who will marry in the coming weeks and months.

    Father Raymond
    Superior (retired)
    Community of the Resurrection
    San Diego CA USA

    June 16, 2008 at 11:20 pm |
  47. itsreal

    Religious people are the biggest biggots in this country, beware of their hidden agenda, they are full of hate, beware of any church America, in the United States and everywhere, their agenda is not to further humanity's well being and overal success, this Mr. Perkins as I can see dedicates his life to spreading the hatred to everybody, his opinion and everybody else like his should be banned...... and they should be put in jail for their intolerance.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:19 pm |
  48. Gooch

    Marriage has been between one man and one woman for thousands of years. How dare the liberals 'redefine' what God defined and created. That is the attack on marriage.

    What's next? The liberals will say it's unfair to limit marriage to two people. It should be three. But why stop at three? How about four or five? And why not marry family members? How about animals?

    Sure that sounds ridiculous, but two men or two women marrying each other probably would have sounded ridiculous to our founding fathers as well.

    The liberals have flooded our media and schools with their plan, desensitizing us to their perverse ways. It's just plain sick.

    Thanks, liberals, for taking us one step closer to destroying this country. Everything is right in your own minds...there is no moral standard, therefore things will change at your will. The moral standard is whatever you say it is. I can't imagine what the standard will be 20 years from now.

    ...do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

    That's one standard you will never rewrite (1 Cor 6:9&10).

    June 16, 2008 at 11:19 pm |
  49. Jeanette

    Why is the excuse of religious beliefs always used to impose restrictions on people who do not hold those same beliefs? The last I checked, we had separation of church and state, and therefore Government cannot deny marriage to two consenting adults based only on religious reasons.

    Not so long ago, my own marriage would have been illegal. My husband and I are different races, and there was a time in this country we, too, would have been denied a marriage license.

    Instead of running around trying to deny rights to people who don't hold the same beliefs as you do, how about instead celebrating the fact that you live in a country that allows you to worship as you please and uphold those rights for everyone, not just the people who believe the same things you do.

    June 16, 2008 at 11:18 pm |
  50. virginiaharris

    May God have mercy on America. God made Adam and Eve to be in a marriage, not Adam and Steve. That is so unnatural, just down right nasty. Even animals know their place and we're suppose to be more intelligent. God's wrath will be shown, because it's just like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. And God didn't tolerate the homosexual activities there either. He destroyed the entire city. Anyone with any kind of sense would know that it's unnatural for two people with the same sex organs to engage in sexual relations. I just pray that God open the eyes of our justice system and not allow this. Marriage should be between a man and a woman.
    Virginia Harris
    NC

    June 16, 2008 at 11:17 pm |
1 2 3 4