Charlie Rose

T_Grant  02/09/2012 10:51 AM Report

Loved the interview!

One correction however. Boies said that LGBTs are the last minority for us to allow their dignity. On this issue, I disagree.

With so many children living in poverty and without adequate health care, THEY are really our nation's most disadvantaged group.

When we start ensuring their rights to education (of a quality that actually levels the playing field regardless of their parent's socioeconomic status, and creates an informed and educated citizenry) and address the issues of poverty in our nation, THEN we might be able to say that we have achieved civil rights for all—and realized the American dream of equality.

Augster  06/11/2009 01:29 AM Report

Moral absolutes? Creator? Are you a total idiot, KyScot? You don't actually have any evidence to validate your unique conception of God, nor the morality you ascribe thereto.

That you should advocate for extending your untenable personal beliefs on the life of another is arrogance in the extreme. While you are sitting here picking your ass and smearing it all over this comment board, people who love each other are denied rights simply because of our country's inability to question superstition.

DavLev, I would say the same to you, but do you even know how to read?

KyScot  06/08/2009 09:37 PM Report

This interview is kind of a joke. What happens 50 years from now when we have fully legalized gay marriage, and then others want marriage between brother and sisters, fathers and daughters, polygamy, man-boy love, etc.

Mr. Boise, the self proclaimed greatest lawyer in the world, is a cultural relativist who, although highly intelligent, lacks the moral depth to appreciate that moral absolutes are given by our Creator and absolutely necessary for

bauhwa  06/05/2009 03:45 AM Report

I'm a USA immigrant. There's no dominant religion in my native country. Ironically, we don't have this issue back there. To me, the religion makes it political.

Too bad that gays are minority. They became an easy target. I'm glad that lots people like me who are not Christian in the USA. Or, US Christian will do something politically to me.

To the US Christian, this is/was their religion belief. To me, this becomes my human rights belief that I learned in the USA.

Christian leaders chose the target on gay people didn't know they chose to fight against the fundamental belief of this great nation.

Smart Christian leaders would let this go quietly. Wise Christian leaders would welcome this genuinely. Without good leaders, there will be fewer followers.

MotherLodeBeth  06/05/2009 01:30 AM Report

Living in California and being from a family who has been here for eight generations, I believe all people have a right to have a legal contract that allows them to decide who gets to visit them when ill, care for them, inherit after death, and basically be the family member they choose. Its so unfair that as a widow I have rights not afforded my lesbian and gay friends who have been in a union longer than most people I know. Good grief common law marriages, between men and women, have more legal protection than gays and lesbians. And as far as I am concerned 'marriage' is more of a religious issue. Two books I recommend are History or the Wife and Public Vows, which clearly show that laws were made to protect men. Heck, up until the 80's, marriage vows still ended with 'I now pronounce you man and wife'. Not 'husband and wife'.

DavLev  06/04/2009 05:36 PM Report

No matter what anyone thinks, G-ds law trumps state and

Federal(US) laws. Whether people live together and have

legal contracts is one thing...same sex marriage is another. Frankly, children (adopted) have rights to, the right to a loving mother and father, not father and father

or mother and mother. Haven't we all jumped into bed with

our parents when childre. I don't want to expose children

to perverted sex. Can anyone imagine the trama?

I also want both sexes to appear at "Parent-teachers day"

not two men or two women.

There are also tax implications within the state.

Why should they get the benefit of the marriage lower

tax rates..costing us all more?

This is a slippery slope. If two same sex people can marry

legally, then why not a mother and son, a father and daughter or two underage children, whether same or different

sexes.

Moses had it right when he commanded that two people of the

same sex cannot sleep side by side. G-d knew what he was doing, more than Mr. Boies, who apparently isn't looking at the morality of the issue.

BTW, a black person marrying a white or asian, is about

race, and is not comparable to same gender marriages.

This idea is a perversion of G-ds law.

I suppose, only in California, and a few other states.

Hopefully the S.C. will not hear the appeals case.

JTKempIII  06/04/2009 03:41 PM Report

I dedicate the poem to EVERYONE who seeks and finds real love:

(from "Living Lyrics" at http://www.viewniverse.net)

i want to write a song

i want to write a song

that sings itself someday,

that whispers words you want to hear

the perfect pleasing way

that wakes you with a smile each morning

even when it rains,

like flowers in the springtime,

and eases all your pain…

i want to write a song

that lives and breathes someday

to give you everything you need

when i am far away,

to softly kiss your rosy cheek

and gently touch your hair

caressing all your cares away

as i do when i’m there…

i want to write a song

that shares our love someday,

a sanctuary for the world

where everyone can stay,

if only for a little while,

that shows what love can be

when grown and given freely

the way your love showed me.

jtkiii

© 2009 JT Kemp III. All rights reserved.

REMant  06/04/2009 01:56 PM Report

Thing is that the govt should never have become involved in marriage contracts in the first place. It is a holdover from our own theocratic days. I can't see any reason for incorporation either esp as there's nearly no substance to business law anymore. If gays want to live together, let them, but it should have no govt sanction or dissanction. The only thing govt does now through its involvement in such things is to keep the free mkt from working. If they want to stay involved, then let them step up and start making rules of behavior. Out or in, one or the other. Govt does however have every right to define participation in govt institutions, albeit working through the Congress, but court-made "law" and the Bill of Rights ought have nothing to do with it. The courts are part of the apparatus of monarchy. As someone famously said this country really cannot endure half-slave and half-free. Re Sotomayor, grades certainly do not equate to intelligence, or success, nor certainly to morality. Hopefully he is not arguing at this juncture that the credit crisis is only a liquidity crisis. If so he's more of a rank "liberal" than the judge. BTW, reports are that the Chinese are laughing at Geithner over there.