Kasim Reed Endorses Marriage Equality

Hizzoner signed last week’s resolution passed by the council.

From a press release:

“It is well known that I have gone through a good bit of reflection on this issue, but listening to the stories of so many people that I know and care about has strengthened my belief that marriage is a fundamental right for everyone. Loving couples, regardless of their sexual orientation, should have the right to marry whomever they want. By signing this resolution, I pledge my support to marriage equality for same-sex couples, consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

What say you, Harry?


  1. saltycracker says:

    We could end all this stress of defining cultural inclusions in “marriage” and recognize everyone as individuals under the law, grandfathering in current situations.

    Marriage could be a legal contract between certain individuals filed at the court house with specific clauses like asset distribution, but cannot bind a third party like an employer, insurance company or governmental agency.

  2. Joshua Morris says:

    I’m so sick of hearing this issue misrepresented. Marriage has not changed. Government did not invent it, does not own it, and does not have the right to change its definition. Government only decided to recognize a sacred institution and tie a contract and some privacy benefits to it. ‘Equality’ in this area is a misnomer. Where are the secularists crying about ‘separation of church and state’?

    Nobody thinks anymore.

    • Joshua Morris says:

      Explain what you don’t understand about the fact that marriage existed as a sacred institution before it was recognized by government and fused to a social contract. My point here is that we could easily develop a social contract with another name that could be shared by any two people, return marriage to a completely sacred institution, and keep moving without all the fuss. But alas, our elected class refuses to.

      • John Konop says:

        I agree. The point is all people should have the same legal rights under the law. That also means if a church recognizes gay marriage or judge performs the ceremony, gay people should be protected under the constitution.

        • Joshua Morris says:

          Do I have the legal right to change in a women’s locker room or use the women’s bathroom in Walmart? Is that the kind of legal protection you speak of? Equality doesn’t always mean that everyone can do anything he or she wants.

        • Andre says:

          I believe Joshua is saying the same thing I’ve been saying for quite a while.

          Marriage is a religious institution, and government erred by granting public benefits to a religious institution.

          State Representative Bobby Franklin (R – Marietta) once asked, “What business does the government have saying who should wed who?”

          Government has no business saying who should wed who, and government should not be in the marriage business.

          If a couple, gay or straight, wants to be married, let them go to church. Let each and every religious denomination decide for themselves who is allowed to enter into the religious sacrament of matrimony.

          If a couple, gay or straight, wants one or all 1,138 of the benefits granted to couples from the government, then let them go down to the courthouse and get a civil union.

          Plain and simple, government should not be in the marriage business.

            • Andre says:

              As I said, each religious denomination should decide for themselves who is allowed to enter into the sacrament of matrimony. If the Baptists want to allow same-sex couples to stand before the altar and take sacred marriage vows, then that is their prerogative. If Catholics want to prohibit same-sex couples from entering into the sacrament of matrimony, they are certainly within their rights to do so as well.

              But as I said, when it comes to government, government should not play favorites. Government should not recognize or grant any benefits to a couple who were married in a church, mosque, or temple. If a couple, gay or straight, wants their union to be recognized by the government; If a couple, gay or straight, wants one or all 1,138 of the benefits granted to couples from the government, then let them go down to the courthouse and get a civil union.

              This argument about same-sex marriage is not about love. No one is stopping a male and a female, a male and a male, or a female and a female from expressing affection towards one another. This ongoing debate is about money, and it’s about legal rights.

        • saltycracker says:


          Doesn’t the Constitution protect them as individuals ?
          Doesn’t the law protect contracts ?

          Our culture driven by religious influence grew a heck of a tree of family law surrounding male/female relationships. The culture has now expanded into accepting aberrant sexual lifestyles and they demand some of the public fruits.

          This is causing a great unrest in the tribe and in the interest of diversity, the government should get out of the way, return to Constitutional individual protection and contractual law, grandfathering in those on the public fruit.

  3. Napoleon says:

    If marriage is about “love” then all laws restricting individuals from marrying anyone one or thing in as many numbers as they want need to be repealed. The only exception may be for those who, under the law, are not allowed to consent.

    Otherwise, I have said it in other posts, there are currently now laws on the books ANYWHERE preventing a homosexual individual from getting married.

  4. Nonchalant says:

    As far as Mr. Reed, he is a competent mid-level man of affairs mainly thought capable of greater things due to his posession of a trendy nature, read black, in a state that has the potential to go blue. Otherwise, he would carry the same weight as the mayor of, say, Cleveland, whomever that may be, and he would still be considered for higher positions, just not with the same enthusiasm. I will say though that Mr. Reed does appear as if he would actually merit consideration for higher office beyond that which will be given because of his skin. This is not to mean I would vote for him.

    As far as the issue in question, I think a more accurate description would be “marriage expansion”. Regardless of whatever my own personal position on the issue may be, I do have to say never has a discussion seemingly touching upon what natural rights are, or what they should or should not be, or what the purpose of a government is in doing a social policy, been more devoid of intellectual heft as that which has bern put out by supporters. “H8Te” is not exactly an argument for the ages along the lines of “Summary View of the Rights of British North America”.

    It is in the inability of folks on the left to actually go beyond tactics designed to get what they want and talk in terms of timeless first principles that continues me in my belief that they are poor guardians of liberty, for they can be stampeded by groupthink.

  5. gcp says:

    First the city council votes to give themselves a 50% pay raise…Now they pass a resolution changing the definition of marriage…What next?….Perhaps they should do something useful like investigating city contracts that often go to friends of the mayor…

  6. Rick Day says:

    Perhaps HizHonor™ is about to make a ‘personal announcement’.

    History lesson: Church sanctified marriage was created by the Church Patriarchy (that would be ‘the guys’) to control their women and quash the Matriarchy status quo, while men continued to have ‘concubines’, or just general men mischief on the side. Before that there was something called ‘cohabitation’ with each civilization having their own special union ceremony. This is structure behind the System you defend.

    Everything else is about extracting money from the new couple’s families. As much $ as possible. Yes, it is true: weddings are like Christmas only mostly in June.

    Marriage is an excuse for control, and biological fodder for future generations of ‘believers’.

    So no, this is not about teh gays infiltrating your holy orifices with their gayness and such.

    This is about equality of government rights. If company X offers healthcare to the spouses of employees, unless they are black, they are clearly denied Equal Protection. The question begs, “where do you draw the line on acceptable segregation?”

    For too many of you, the ‘teachings of the church’ that has given you moral high ground to take this opportunity to express your personal judgments upon someone who enters into mutually consensual relationship.

    If you moralist hang wringers can tolerate non-believers like my wife and myself the opportunity for civil union and the perks therein, then you can certainly tolerate the concept of Adam and Steve living in love and peace under the Universal Creator’s total ambivalence.

    BTW: has anyone ever seen K.R. with a gal? Just sayin’….no personal knowledge etc…

  7. griftdrift says:

    Shorter version: if you think marriage was just a “sacred institution” and had nothing to do with binding contracts, you need to a history book other than the one that starts with “The” and ends in “Bible”.

    • Ed is Amazing says:

      Something that will get me into trouble… I legitimately believe that marriage is perhaps the most important institutions that governments OUGHT to regulate and promote.

    • saltycracker says:

      Shorter version – per Day: Gays want in on spousal benefits.
      When we’re done with “marriage” let’s get on to “disabled”, I’ve got a bad knee.
      Let’s start by not asking so many questions when selling the disabled speciality tag, it is an invasion of my privacy.

  8. Harry says:

    Homosexuals who also claim to be statists should be careful what they wish for. When people – not just old hetero white men but also blacks, Hispanics, Islamics, etc. – come to understand their tax money is paying for the “fruits” of the homosexual lifestyle such as HIV, STDs, and social agencies – I fear we will go to the other extreme. See Russia or Egypt.

Comments are closed.