On Sunday, there was a Rally Against Gay Marriage. I aaplaud the Protesters for their Efforts! I'm not trying to offend the Yays,the Nays, or the Gays,but GOD Created Man & Woman to PROCREATE!!! What part of This GOD Given Equation does the DC City Council not GRASP? Marriage in DC should Remain RESTRICTED to A Man & A Woman!!!

Sure, but if D.C. is anything like California is then the African American community will come out strongly against it like they did in California and it will not pass. Both D.C. and CA are strongly Liberal and I do not see that it would pass here. Even President Obama is against gay marriage.

Sure, let the people decide. It is better than letting the courts decide.

I don't get this whole thing on voting to deny someone their civil rights. What bigotry and so hypocritical on the principles of this Country.

No, we should decide what is good for the people.

I find it sad that many of the same people who have fought so long for civil rights fail to see the issue of gay marriage for what it is - a civil right that should be afforded to all of our citizens.

In America the people should be able to vote on issues that affect their quality of life as long as it does not harm people that cannot defend themselves, which is not the gay community. Obviously, the gay lobby has enough political and financial support to persuade even a cockroach to believe them. These wealthy special interest groups have swayed our political leaders from representing the common people.

I still do not understand why gays want to marry. Marriage is an institution set up by God and the Good Book (whichever one you go by) does not approve homosexuality.

Common Kevin@6:15: Obama WAS for gay marriage until he was against it...AFTER the election. And aren't liberals typically FOR gay marriage, a la California?

I'm sorry, but it's just not the American Way to hold a vote on whether we should give people civil rights.

What would the vote have been in Virginia decades ago if the voters could have held a referendum on interracial marriage?

You can say these protesters have "courage" all you want, and you can quote your scriptures all you want, but I just call it trying to be the loudest voice to drown out the voices of those without rights, and that puts you in the same league as slaveholders, and other historic anti-human apologists.

The question is a bit skewed. Who can say "no" to allowing people to vote? However, how can an oppressed minority be protected by putting a vote to the majority society that is oppressing them?

Just requesting help on this issue.
Regarding the last part of the article on page 15 of today's Express that caught my attention, and inform me about whether this pending vote would violate DC law. I looked at the Human Rights Act of 1977 at http://ohr.dc.gov/ohr/cwp/view,a,3,q,491858,ohrNav,%7C30953%7C.asp , and couldn't find any language that would prohibit a vote. I understand a law prohibiting such a public vote would prevent a law criminalizing such a marriage. Non-partisan replies are appreciated. Thanks, John D

Sure, why not? That vote, if it passes, will confirm to the rest of the world that not only are we greedy, but we are also morally corrupt and sexually deviant.

I find it interesting that 30 years ago it was uncommon to find a homosexual. Now they are everywhere. They couldn't have just been repressing their feelings for that many years. America's values and morals have just sunk so low that it is alright to have sex with whomeever and whatever you want. I do not think that is a good thing for our country. There is appreciating the human body and then there is just animal lust that sometimes turns to depravity (which now turns to a group screaming civil rights). Whose next in line, the pedophiles?

It depends on how the bill is worded. I would propose the following: "Do you agree with the narrow-minded bigots who wish to deny the civil right of marriage to gay couples, not because their lives are affected one iota by those individuals, but rather because their sanctimonious, self-righteous belief structure tells them to do so? YES NO"

@ B-Trixx Basehardt

If God created man and woman exclusively to procreate, are priests and nuns unworthy of God's love? And what about couples who cannot or choose not to have children? Are their marriages any less valid than those of couples who do have children? Please clarify.

Will gay marriage slow the rate of HIV/AIDS in DC or will they still have gay sex with anyone who will touch them?

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10012505#

The HIV/AIDS rate in Washington, DC is higher than the rate in West Africa. That's according to the district's HIV/AIDS administration.

A startling report will come out this week and it'll shed new light on a problem that does not seem to be getting better in DC.

An astounding 3% of District residents, at least, are living with HIV or AIDS. That number is from a city report expected to be released by health officials this week.

District residents call the news disturbing.

One resident says "it's just tragic, it should not be happening in the richest country in the world."

Another resident says "basically, spread the word about getting tests."

The head of the District's HIV/AIDS office told the Washington Post that every mode of transmission, gay and straight sex along with drug use, are, quote, "all on the rise" and says our rates are "higher than West Africa."

After running in the St. Patrick's Day 8k, Mayor Fenty said the city's education and grant programs can't do it all.

Mayor Fenty said, "I'll bet half the people in this crowd don't know their status and you need to tell your partner your status. If you don't do those thing you're increasing your chances of getting it and that what's happened."

The study found a sharp recent increase in the number of HIV/AIDS cases up 22% since the end of 2006.

Ward 1 Council member Jim Graham said, "I hate to say this but maybe this is the wake up call we needed."

Ward 1 councilman Jim Graham used to run the Whitman-Walker clinic.

Even though these are tough financial times, he says more must be done to stop the spread of HIV and AIDS.

Mr. Graham said, "We need to come to terms with the fact we need a massive infusion dollars of prevention dollars, cause that's what it's about, that's why it's so tough."

It's important to note the figures in the report are based on people who've been tested.

Experts believe the actual number of HIV/AIDS cases in DC is higher.

Sure. The majority voting on the rights of the minority always works out so well for the minority.

Of course civil rights should NEVER be put up for popular vote. And, yes, the right to enter into a legal and validly recognized union IS a civil right when the government conveys certain benefits to those who are allowed to enter into such unions. Additionally, why should those protesting care whether other couples are allowed to marry? Allowing same-sex couples to marry in no way diminishes the legality, rights, or privelages of opposite-sex marriages.

Why not protest and demand a vote on health care which CAN and DOES affect the majority of citizens? If protecting marriage is the ultimate goal, why aren't churches protesting outside of divorce court? Surely divorce is doing far more damage to the family/marriage than Tim and Tom's nuptials every could.

Let's not use a loving God as an excuse to exercise our own bigotry. We are all entitled to believe however we want, however we should not try to use our beliefs to limit the rights and protections of others.

D.C. residents should be able to vote on anything that affects their way of life in their city.

They should get to vote on it. Hopefully it would pass and the gay citizens can finally have the same rights as everyone else.

Yes. Why not? What bothers me the most is folks telling me what GOD thinks? They don't know what GOD thinks. Some think the Bible was written by man and some think by GOD. Its called faith and not necessary the truth. Funny how most of the conflicts in the world is over religion. Our founds specifically noted the separation of Church from State. Keep religion out of the Government.

Yes. And then let's vote on whether African Americans can ride public transportation and whether Hispanics can send their children to public schools. When are we going to actually enforce the U.S. constitution and treat all Americans equally? Legislating rights for sectors of the population is discrimination. People who want to hide behind their religious beliefs to preach bigotry are the worst kind of hypocrites. It's time for tolerance of ALL people with no regard to their race, gender, nationality, skin color, religion or sexual orientation.

Yes, D.C. residents should be allowed to choose. The only reason it is a problem is because the DC Council (David Catania) realizes D.C. residents will not approve the measure so they instead choose to force it on the majority who disagree.
D -- being gay is not a civil right. Those who fought for civil rights based it on race; gays choose to be gay race is determined at birth.

DC is a modern day Soddom and Gamorra. HIV is rampant and they want to allow gay marriage. One could presume that the reason so many young men in the area wear their pants below their waist is because they are advertising they like to be soddomized. There is a reason there is a stigma against homosexual activities, it is not right.

I'm sure glad we have politicians like Senators Vitter, Ensign and Gov Sanford to stop gays from making a mockery of marriage.

I find it interesting that 30 years ago it was uncommon to find a homosexual. Now they are everywhere. They couldn't have just been repressing their feelings for that many years.
By What happened to values and morals? , Posted October 27, 2009 8:24 AM

*********************
First of all, you say 30 years ago, it was uncommon to find a homosexual. And second you say homosexuals have no values or morals. They have been your Church listening to these hateful hypocritical sentiments for decades.You just did not notice. As Barney Frank said, on what planet do you spend most of your time?

As what transpired in many places that voted on this issue, I say no. The majority may not be given the rights to deny rights to the minority.

Anonymous @ 8:02 AM,
True, but why did ultraLiberal California not pass the Gay Mariage Act?
Anonymous @ 8:27 AM,
True, but why spend so much money on prevention? If these idiots spent a quarter or went to their local health center for a free sample and actually WORE A CONDOM then this would be a mute issue. If an idiot is too stupid to use a CONDOM and still believes in FREE LOVE then they get what they deserve. Learn to keep your pants on people or suffer the consequences. I think legalizing gay marriage will only increase gay divorce and all the lawyers on the hill would love that.
Juan,
What benefit is there for marriage over civil unions? If you are married under Obama you can make $250,000 a year before being considered rich, but as two single people you can make $400,000 a year ($200,000 each) before you are considered rich. Seems more like a marriage PENALTY than a benefit.

Sure, let's put it on the same ballot as the referendums on legalizing marijuana, prostitution, gambling, handguns in the home, and any other "civil right" the government is depriving us of.

greg,
If you do not like God in the government then don't spend the money. Leave the country since IN GOD WE TRUST is printed on ALL OF OUR MONEY. Separation of Church and State was based on the separate sects of Christianity and not on the absense of a God. Read your history.

Dishonest Abe,
You forgot Clinton and Spitzer at a minimum.

Are we also gonna get to vote on legalizing polygamy and/or incest? It's high time that we stopped denying "civil rights" to people in committed relationships, just because those relationships do not fit in with the archaic "morals" of the majority!

I know that we generally see voting as the way to "fairly" tell what the people want, but there's an inherent problem with allowing the majority to vote on the civil rights of minorities. I think we agree that settling the slavery issue by allowing whites to vote on the matter would not have been a good solution, and allowing men to vote on the issue of women's suffrage would have been equally problematic. Similarly, allowing the population of 90% straight people to vote on the civil rights of a 10% of the population that has been historically persecuted (and for whom persecution is still not only common, but socially acceptable) is just as poor of an idea.

The root of the separation on this issue is in religious ideology, which should not have a seat at the table when it comes to legislation. Let individual churches discriminate all they want, but that should not affect laws.

No need. Mr. HopeAndChange will surely legalize gay marriage! There's not way the Chose One would let such deprivation of basic civil rights continue! Wait...he's against it? That must be the fault of Fox News! After all, YES WE CAN!

@ greg at 939 AM

You say "First of all, you say 30 years ago, it was uncommon to find a homosexual. And second you say homosexuals have no values or morals. They have been your Church listening to these hateful hypocritical sentiments for decades.You just did not notice. As Barney Frank said, on what planet do you spend most of your time?"

I do not remember anyone gay bashing while I was growing up. In fact, I don't think many people spoke about homosexualtiy much at all. Perhaps it is because I was not from California.

No one is saying that you cannot continue to choose to be gay. Some are just saying they would prefer civil unions between same sex couple versus marriage because it holds the same legal rights, but is not founded in a religious sentiment. If you never noticed, married couples have to get marriage licenses to be recognized legally regardless of the religious ceremony.

Direct democracy in the capitol of the USA...yeah, probably a good idea. Lets face it, sometimes in a democracy the people can get it wrong, but that's no reason to undermine the process. Proponents of democracy, no matter the issue, need to take the "long view" and abide by the political process.

Marriage is NOT a civil right. If marriage is a civil right then we should outlaw divorce as it violates the civil rights of the party that does not want to get divorced. Or we should be able to compel heterosexuals to marry as they could be violating the rights of someone who wants to be married.

If the people feel they are ready to accept same sex marriage then let them decide. Better the people than judicial activism.

Personally I believe there is no legitimate reason to deny homosexuals the "priviledge" to marry. If two people love each other and want to stand before their friends and loved ones to show their commitment to each other, then more power to them.

If homosexuals marry it does not in anyway lessen the value of mine or any other persons marriage. The strength of my marriage is based on the love and value that I place upon it and my family.

How long will we continue to deny undocumented immigrants the right to marry?

greg,
If you do not like God in the government then don't spend the money. Leave the country since IN GOD WE TRUST is printed on ALL OF OUR MONEY. Separation of Church and State was based on the separate sects of Christianity and not on the absense of a God. Read your history.

Dishonest Abe,
You forgot Clinton and Spitzer at a minimum.
By Anonymous , Posted October 27, 2009 10:00 AM
**********************
Why should I leave the country? Why don't you leave the country. It was about not making laws based on one's Religious belief. Some folks don't believe in GOD or have doubts. Should they leave the country too?

Would legalized gay marriage exclude incestuous relationships, or could I marry a cousin of the same sex? If the prohibition against incest is based upon preventing in-bred children, would such a limitation be necessary in gay marriages?

Gays have the civil right to marry a person of the opposite sex, since that's what marriage is. No civil rights are being denied.

No. If residents of individual states were allowed to vote on slavery in the 1860's, the course of US history would likely have been quite different, and Obama would undoubtedly not be in the White House now. Civil rights issues and basic freedoms should not be decided by popular vote.

The judicial branch exists to protect our nation's constitutional principles and fundamental rights from the exigencies of the moment. Certain ideals can never be taken away by a vote, and it is the job of the judiciary to enforce these ideals, even when we the people become ignorant enough to want to foolishly vote them away. Every step forward in civil rights - spanning our nation's history from the end of slavery to women's suffrage to the end of Jim Crow - has been met with resistence by the entrenched majority. Yet each step was made. Those who wish to vote on gay marriage share a moral and intellectual lineage with those who wanted to keep their slaves in the fields, keep their women out of the voting box, keep African Americans out of their businesses, and keep inter-racial marriages from occurring. This lineage is a shameful and embarassing, yet persistent, stain on our country's fabric of ideals - ideals of freedom and equality for all.

Reading these comments today, I am ashamed of and frightened for our country.

Sure. Let's also vote on ending segregation in 1965 and see how that goes. I'm shocked at the comments by many here. I'm not gay and gay marriage doesn't affect me as a DC resident at all. What a ban does is deprive every gay resident of DC of a civil right that the rest of us already have. Gay marriage should be allowed whether or not the narrow-minded majority wants it or not.

Well said, soldier!
I'll go you one further:
Those who wish to vote on incestuous or polygamous marriage share a moral and intellectual lineage with those who wanted to keep their slaves in the field, keep their women out of the voting box, keep African-Americans out of their business, keep inter-racial marriages from occurring, and keep their government and tax dollars from sanctioning sexual deviancy.

Yes. If you do not believe in God then do not spend the money that IN GOD WE TRUST is on.

Are they normally allowed to vote on everything else?

Where does all this "marriage is a civil right that the rest of us already have" talk come from. Everyone does not have the right to marry the people they want, and the government does not have to sanction every deviant sexual relationship. If you want to say marriage should be between "two consenting adults" instead of "consenting man and woman", isn't it convenient that you get to choose one specific part of the definition to rewrite? Would somebody please tell me why gay marriage should be legal but polygamy not, other than the convenient rewriting of the definition of marriage to emphasize only the number of participants? Ditto with of-age incestuous marriage. Could somebody please tell me why two unrelated men should be allowed to marry but not two men who are cousins?

Why all the furor over gay marriage but not "Don't Ask Don't Tell"? I don't necessarily think of marriage as a "civil right", especially if civil unions offer the same legal/contractual rights. I do, however, think that one's willingness to serve one's country should be unrelated to the type of people you like to have sex with.

Why is everyone framing this as a question of whether homosexuals are being deprived of rights? Has it never occurred to homosexuals that perhaps they are being protected? Anyone who's ever been married could tell you that not being able to wed is the best imaginable protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

@ AMCSoldier 1249PM

It is too bad you are ashamed of our country. As a vet, I have been embarrased many times by what Americans have said or done (not just in our own country), but I have never been ashamed of my country. Throughout the world there are worse issues than gay marriage. This one will get worked out one day. Have faith in your country.

One thing I have learned while living in the DC area is that DC is not a true cross section of America. This is a very opinionated city and few people are truly open to dialogue.

Democracy is not supposed to be a spectator sport. People are supposed to voice their opinions (preferably civily), have discussion, and reach a decision on the greater good. Sometimes good ideas come from a little heated discussion. Unfortunately most people in this area voice their selfish concerns and when anyone states that we all have a responsibility to look out for everyone, some scream socialism.

I would rather help a fellow human being than step on him to get where I am going. Too bad more people don't have that opinion.

I do not put much stock in this poll page either. Most respondents are unwilling to listen to other opinions, while some appear to respond just to start an argument.

By the way: Thank you for your service to your nation.

Shouldn't being allowed to vote on a Congressman be a higher priority?

Just Wonderin',
Gays can serve in the military, they just can not flaunt the fact that they are gay. I had an enlisted female that was found frenching another female while on her lap and she was still able to become an officer. The policy as it exists does not deny a gay from serving, but is there to protect the gay person as well as the rest of the military in those countries that we are fighting in who treat women like dirt and have llaws to murder those who are gay.
A Veteran who has been around the world ,
"I would rather help a fellow human being than step on him to get where I am going. Too bad more people don't have that opinion."
That is not the problem since our charities do a pretty good job of this, but I would think that most Americans do NOT want UNCLE SAM taking their money to "spread the wealth" but rather help those that are really in need and that they CHOOSE to help. America is a very giving country, but why should the government DICTATE who we are to help? Our country was not founded on that idea.

Anonymous @ 12:57 PM wrote: "If you do not believe in God then do not spend the money that IN GOD WE TRUST is on."

I just tried to pay for my lunch with euros, but no luck. Any other suggestions??? [They don't take Visa either]

Homosexuality threatens the sanctity of marriage, eh? Doesn't divorce do that as well? OUTLAW DIVORCE!!!

@ Another Vet

I was not indicating the government should make us help one another, but the fact we should do that on our own. This does not always mean monetarily. The people I see in this area are very self centered and would not piss on you if you were on fire.

The government already does a bad job of looking out for the country. they only look out for their party and special interests.

I agree with you that don't ask don't tell helps to protect gays from issues they would encounter overseas by flaunting their sexuality. There are plenty of countries that would imprison or kill homosexuals. It also serves as another wy to protect the image of our armed forces while we are in those countries.

Trick question. Rather than answer it, I'll say YES to letting the people decide - Not a bunch of homophobic bigots and others who might not be bigots but are stuck in their very narrow vision of society. YES, let the people decide - That is, let each and every person decide with whom they will commit in marriage, without the shackle of judgment by those who would impose their laws and a stifling, conservative brand of religion. That said....I must respect the right of these people to shout their bigotry in the streets......even though it slows progress for all.

@ AMCsoldier - allow some commentary on your remarks:
“The judicial branch exists to protect our nation's constitutional principles and fundamental rights from the exigencies of the moment” – umm, no. See http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article03/01.html for insight on our courts. If that is too complex, try http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-3/07-judicial-power.html
“Certain ideals can never be taken away by a vote, and it is the job of the judiciary to enforce these ideals” – umm, again, no. See http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html for what the Constitution says.
If you look at the HISTORY of how and where the country has arrived, you may find the thread that it took over 200 years to allow the vote to former slaves, to women, and to the 18-year-old. Notice that the ideal has morphed (and I would argue, has grown) with the country. Also note that the changes are NOT universal – the first mainstream woman legislators came from out west, even though the women’s vote was denied in the eastern states for decades after. Maybe the issue with gay marriage is evolving as well. Remember that DC is not a state, therefore, the administration of it is different, and evolving as well.
Your opinion and points therein are well spoken. My advice is to offer us that alone, and don’t predicate your good counsel (I figure that is what you do in the Army – take care of my troops and get the job done) with crap.
Finally, so you are ashamed of your country, yet you are unabashed to be in AMC? What is that all about?

I think Gay people should have the right get marry.they have filling just like we do and they fall in LOVE as we do,so why not.

In the end like all civil rights issues, gays will get the right to marry, so it is pointless to waste time trying to stop it.

I think it is always a good idea to allow the people to vote -- on anything. But it needs to be fairly described. For example, it shouldn’t be called “the defense of marriage” or something like that – people will be predisposed to vote for something like that – who isn’t for marriage? I tell you, I think this really caused many people to vote for it in California just by how it was described on the ballot. It needs to state simply what it is – that is, “legalize marriage for gay people”. Years from now people will wonder why this was even an issue -- of course they should be allowed to get married.

Seems several commenters have a problem with God in the equation so what about basic nature--two men or two women are not even designed to be in a sexual relationship. Gays can be in a relationship all they want, that is their choice just as it is their choice to live a gay lifestyle--because they are not born that way. But it should not be labled a marriage and the D.C. voters should have the right to decide.

@AMCgeneral , 1:07 PM

Gay marriage is viewed as a civil right because the institution of marriage affords consenting adults a certain "basket of rights" - which include, but are not limited to, tax breaks, power of attorney, custody rights, and estate control. All Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, should have equal access to this framework. Perhaps this concept falls more in line with "civil unions" than it does "gay marraige" - so be it. I don't care what the church does - my only concern is the distribution of rights and privileges by the government.

@ A Veteran who has been around the world ,1:36 PM

Forgive my imprecise use of words. When I say "America" I colloquially refer to "Americans", but the distinction is meaningful and you are right to point it out. I do have faith that, one day, this issue will go the way of the slavery / suffrage / Jim Crow debates - I am simply impatient. I expect more enlightenment in this day and age. I like to think that America(ns) has evolved over the last 200 years.

@ Retired Marine , 3:10 PM
One reason why we have a detached judiciary is to protect the rule of law from democracy. In other words, certain ideals, rules, laws, principles, etc. are not subject to a vote, and the judiciary ensures that. For example, the Supreme Court would stop us from voting to re-institute slavery, even if such a measure had overwhelming popular support [this is only a hypothetical - don't lose your head]. Judges are appointed - not elected - for this reason. They are quarantined (at least in theory) from the "exigencies of the moment" by being detached from the political process - making them therefore accountable only to the principles and rules of our Constitution. This is an elementary concept of our tripartite system of government. You seem to think that no ideals exist that can't be voted away. You're mistaken.

The words legal, gay and marriage should never be used in the same sentence. Marriage exists outside the written law as a sacred union between a man and a woman. The government has no authority to regulate it and no legitimate reason to recognize or define it. Likewise, government has no authority to regulate sexual orientation or any social contract between consenting adults. The popular vote cannot justify the infringement on either individuals' rights to form social contracts nor religious groups' rights to define marriage within their respective faiths.

Marriage is NOT a civil right.

No. If we put human rights up to public votes, there are parts of the south where slavery would STILL be legal.

No. If you don't like gay marriages, don't have one.

I'm just appalled by the Black Reverends and their follower in DC. If it weren't for Black Gay men and women Black Churches in DC and throughout of Black America are and have in the past and presently been the "backbone" of keeping Black Churches alive! There as never been a Black Church in DC, MD, VA, NC, SC, and all of Black America, that all of the congregation wasn't aware that they had a group of Black Gay folks in there church! But, DC and Black America Churches out of pure ignorance choose to turn there heads or gossip. These Black Churches don't have a problem asking for that 10% offering on a monthly basis from their Black Gay Men and Women who are part of their congregation.

If it was voted into law, so what! Black Gay men and women who choose to be married are more likely to go to another Church or just go to City Hall and get married. But, if they do decide to want their Black Pastor whose been taking their 10% monthly offering from months to years why shouldn't they be wed in their Church and to have you as the Pastor to Wed them? They have been supporting their Church faithfully.

This is where the hypocrisy comes in with some Black Churches. DC is the worse of them all. DC has the most rampant HIV/AIDS cases in all of Black America. Because they choose to turn their heads or ignore the Black Gay Community.

God created us all. We are all Gods Children. Regardless if they are Gay they are STILL GODS Children. Man nor Woman Created Nothing! Reverends of Black Churches are NOT God and most of them don't read the Bible correctly!

There is NO written word in the Bible that says "only a man and a woman should be married and that if someone of the same sex should not be married. Its not in the BIBLE!

If you asked your Pastor from your Church he/she won't find it. Because its not there. Just like when White folks were hanging Blacks folks, they came up with stupid sayings that weren't EVEN in the Bible to justify a hanging Black Individuals and Families?

I swear if you say its in "King James Bible" I will scream. Because a MAN wrote that Bible! who found many religion around the world and decided to put in his opinions on religion culture from around the world that he saw.

Black Churches are scared that they will lose some of there Gay Congregation due to the fact that they might want to marry their partner in there Church that they have supported for years?

Two people of the same sex doesn't frighten me nor does it hurt me. I'm a heterosexual. But as a Heterosexual female and many of us in the past to presently Homosexuals Taboo in our Black community have Harmed Heterosexual females! We married and had families with Black Male closet homosexuals that ends up carrying a deadly disease call HIV/AIDS.

Lets get rid of the overdue Taboo of the Black Gay Men and Women in Black America! I vote yes to Gay Marriages. I want these Black Gay Men to stop messing with me, my daughter, nieces and all of Heterosexual Black America Women. Because it has already been proven to be fatal because of the "Ancient taboo" of Black Gay Community.

Some Black Churches need to stop the
BS!!! Start embracing. The followers yall need to stop! Because we all have several if not one Gay person our families!

Diogenes,
Move to Europe with your Euros. They will work there. I promise.

I have never ever heard President Barack Obama say in all of his speeches and I got all of them on CD's, that he was against Gay Rights to be Married! Now, you lying on our President. Make your point and leave the President out of this debate.

I don't care if the councilmen/women or all of DC residents vote yes to Gay Marriage.
I'm going to tell you this much. I prefer if Black Gay Men came out of the CLOSET than wanted to be in my bed. I don't want my doctor to me that I have HIV/AIDS! I don't want my doctor to tell me that I have be on a rigid program for years in taking medicine and crazy out of my mind because I felled in Love with a Man that has sex with another man at the same time or day that he is with ME!

In California the Black Gay Community is doing fine and HIV/AIDS ain't as RAMPANT as in Washington DC among Black Mothers, sisters, daughters, and nieces!!! Black Gay men in California are slowly coming out of the closet and are not afraid to come out like they are here in WASHINGTON DC!!!

If they did a survey in Washington DC they will see that 1 out 4 households had several GAY Black men in their families!

I don't give a hoot about Gay Marriages. We need to shake this whole town up! Everyone walking around with there eyes closed.

Where does it say in the Constitution or any of the Amendments that Marriage is only a Civil between Man and Woman?? They couldn't find it when People wanted to marry a black man to a white woman and vice versa. Oh they argue this same ignoramus crap you people on this blog are saying about the GAY community and worser things.

I tell you if the councilmen/women left it up to the residents of DC. I bet you the turn out will be Black Women voters that will vote YES!!! This town needs to be shaken.

Only if we get to vote on mixed marriage, slavery, and suffrage next