Today on CNN Newsroom

The latest news and information from around the world. Also connect with CNN through social media. We want to hear from you.
June 4th, 2009
09:34 AM ET

"These are our sisters and brothers..."

If he can't perform THEIR marriages – he won't perform ANY.

'For better, for worse', that's the stance of a California pastor opposed to Proposition 8. Reverend Art Cribbs joined Kyra live from Los Angeles.

(By the way, if you'd like to read more about Rev. Cribbs, found an interesting article here.)

soundoff (15 Responses)
  1. Obivious Jack

    California was supposed to be "ahead" of the rest of the country... not with THIS being done to oppress a group of people.

    Wake up California.

    June 4, 2009 at 9:51 am |
  2. Bishoy Saad

    I don't know why president Obama kept saying "America & Islam" . America is a country when Islam is a relegion . so America should not seek to talk to Islam , we should talk country to country and each country has many relegions. America itself has a lot of various relegion beliefs. I think our president went way far with his speech America is a free country where it accepts all relegions. so we should not care to establish a good relationship with Isla, rather estalish connection with the country regardless of what relegion it's based at. I am a christian who was born in Egypt ,

    June 4, 2009 at 11:30 am |
  3. Dave Donahue

    I thought the speech was perfect. It is the reason I voted for Obama to begin with. His desire to unite people showed in every word. I was so proud that he is our president.

    June 4, 2009 at 11:47 am |
  4. Irma Williamson

    I feel that the president speech was excllent i know some will agree as well as disagree. But it is time for a healing everywere.IT is time for all of us to reach out to one another on a common basis ,and I bevelie the world will be healed.and our young men and women can come home. God Bless Amercia!!!!!!!!!

    June 4, 2009 at 11:53 am |
  5. Sara in PA

    First of all let me say that I also voted for President Obama, and I am also proud of our president and country. Pres. Obama is an eloquent speaker, I am just concerned that we are funding these other countries when our own is falling down around our ears. I do not see any other countries that are trying to "help" with the same generosity.

    June 4, 2009 at 11:58 am |
  6. Gaia R. Varutti

    A very courageous speech that only a great stateman with a vision could make. I hope that he will get all the help, cooperation and understanding to reach his goal to create a peaceful world. He laid out his vision now it's up to men and women of good will to help him fulfill it. It's everyone, mine and yours duty to work with this great President.

    June 4, 2009 at 12:03 pm |
  7. Joelle Valente

    Hi Mr. Harris, I was very proud of President Obama's speech in Cairo. He has set the bar real high when it comes to peaceful negotiation. Wise men do wise things. Yet, we as a people, must come together to bring his vision to light....Joelle Valente – Poetic Artist (joellevalente.com)

    June 4, 2009 at 12:20 pm |
  8. lillian mcfarland

    I am a Christian. I agree with most of Pres. speech, however, let's hear you give this much time to CHRISTIAN people, something you are not likely to see on any TV show. Have you guys ever heard of equal time? Muslims aren't the only religious group with persecution problems. CHRISTIANS have always been persecuted in one way or another.
    I want my tax $'s spent on AMERICAN schools, AMERICAN roads, etc., because countries should take care of themselves. Their roads wouldn't be torn up if they didn't want war all these years. Let them take care of their own; we do. However, I do care for the children, all I can say is God Bless them. and may they all have a better future.

    June 4, 2009 at 12:40 pm |
  9. Thomas Simpson

    There can be no peace in any part of the world without the policies of economic progress to back it up. Obama's policies contradict his spoken word. Billions for bankers, austerity for the people betrays the hope of the American people and that of the world.

    June 4, 2009 at 12:53 pm |
  10. Milsaint Valcin

    I am amazed to see that "The United States of America" finally has a president who understands other people and tries to work with them to make the world a better place.

    Milsaint!

    June 4, 2009 at 12:58 pm |
  11. SYLVIA

    Maybe Islam IS a religion, but if Holy War is being levied against a country in the name of religion, then country vs religion has to take place. It does not matter whether one is a country or religion ; if a problem exists be it a religion or a country, it should be addressed. OH WHERE IS OUR THINKING CAPS??

    GEEZ!!
    SYLVIA

    June 4, 2009 at 1:19 pm |
  12. David

    I think the underlying problem in our society with gay marriage is the fact that no one can agree what marriage actually means in society other than a vehicle for getting certain legal rights. Although I admire this pastors concern for his fellow humans, he has clearly got his head screwed up. Christianity is quite clear about condemning homosexual acts as immoral and it is equally clear that the underlying meaning behind marriage is to elevae and sanctify the act of procreation, namely it provides a much higher and spiritual value and dignity to the act of bringing new life into the world. Living in harmony with your spouse is not the underlying point of Christian Marriage even if it is a highly desirable consequence of marriage. Now unless my parents did not educate me well enough, homosexual marriage violates both of these Xtian values, so this pastor is smoking something if he doesn't see this.
    The real social issue however, is that the the US cannot use religious principles as the basis of its laws or constitution due to separation of church and State due to the fact that it must cater equally for atheists and other religious denominations.
    Hence the real argument here has to center round whether denial of the right of homosexuals to marry is implementation of a religious principle. However, it is never that easy. The US people have the right to choose what meaning different institutions have and if the Californians say that they want to define marriage as between a man and a woman then they have the right to do so, but I think they should then be prepared to accept the concept of a civil union to protect the rights and happiness of people who have homosexual tendencies and reject the religious idea that acting on these tendencies is morally wrong.
    I would point out however, that there are a lot of people waiting in the wings to see the outcome of this. If gays manage to establish legal precedent that people have the right to engage in their sexual inclinations not just privately but to have them "officially" sanctioned as the basis of legal rights, you will find a whole slew of other people with somewhat more exotic and perhaps dangerous sexual inclinations will appear and demand equality under the law.

    June 4, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
  13. Adam from Virginia

    This guy needs to shut his mouth because his opinion is irrelavant. Marriage is clearly defined in the bible. God's word doesnt change because a group of people got their feelings hurt.

    June 4, 2009 at 10:05 pm |
  14. ft

    Thank you, Kyra & team, for affording viewers and bloggers the opportunity to weigh in on this engaging discussion and debate through the vehicle of Twitter. i have a couple of points, maybe really just thinking questions and wondering out loud : don't many proponents of gay marriage claim that they want to be respected for the civil side of this legally-binding institution? they don't want to impose or influence any Church group with respect to their faith-based concept of marriage as a sacament or spiritual union etc. Yet here you have a pastor, wearing a collar, with all due respect to your allowing for open and free speech ( & thinking outside the box ) claiming that opposing gay marriage is against a God of love revealed in the bible. So is it really true that proponents of gay marriage don't really want a spirirual dimension to come into play here? That would seem natural to me. A believing Christian who believes God meant for them to be gay is not going to be content with having simply a civil gay marriage. Ulitmately they are going to try to 'convert' their fellow Christians also? Didn't this indeed happen in the Anglican/Episcopalian Church?
    My second thinking out loud question is just wondering about whether this has to do with social acceptance, i mean using the law as a big stick to intimidate and pressure others who do not in good conscience believe in whatever issue to be so to submit and conform? Like union workers used to do when they were striking and kept in line those who were dissenting voices. One has to wonder whether it is not a mob then that manipulates public opinion and perhaps to some degree, unwittingly, the media , to accede to their demands. I mean Prop 8 was democratically voted upon, wasn't it? Are some of these activists, whatever their cause, not hiding behind the so-called legitimacy of the law to bully others? Doesn't the civil law presuppose the moral law, which has its roots in religious belief and spiritual precepts not the other way around?
    Finally, I don't understand why, if some Protestant denominations don't feel they are under the authority of a structure of bishops & other hierarchy as an article of faith, as the good Reverend you interviewed, Kyra, why they & he don't make up their own ceremony, call it something else besides 'marriage' to get around the thorny legal matter ( lawyers do ultimate have to work with words – and there's a reason for that ) and call it a 'spiritual covenant' or something like that! They coiuld be supported by a congregation of like-minded believers & 'open-minded' loved ones and live happily ever after. But of course the bread & butter issue – what really makes the world go round – would still have to be addressed, I mean of course protection under the law, usually having having to do with money, power & rights! But the langauge presented on the screen is not about money, power & rights. It's always about being 'lifted up' and 'love' and 'compassion'. I have to tell you. I find this a little insincere.
    St. Paul. at least in my version of the New Testament, has a pretty good list of the virtues associated with true love! Anyway my two cents worth.

    June 7, 2009 at 11:35 am |
  15. ft

    Needless to say, from a journalistic perspective, it was a fabulous & provocative interview and a great story by the lovely Ms. Phillips! As I wrote above, i was just wondering out loud.

    June 8, 2009 at 7:23 am |

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.