Marriage was not defined as a union between a man and a woman. Marriagewas originally defined as two people creating a union between them. It never specified man or woman unlit the early 1900's when bigots changed it to that.

Love is unconditional and for everyone. If you do not like gay men or women, then maybe you should think about all the gay women that have died in wars to protect your sorry azzes, gay doctors that save the lives of people.

People are born gay just as people can be born heterosexual or stupid.

Grow up people, gay people have been here way before anyone of us were even born.

Gay people have just as much rights to happiness, marriage and all the other baggage that comes along with it.

Seriously, does anyone think this decision has a hope in Hades of surviving a SCOTUS review? No way will this survive since the SCOTUS has already said such laws pass Constitutional muster. This is a temporary decison made to make a personal statement. I could care less if gays marry but to think this decision means anything is foolish.

Californians strike down same sex marriage but support sanctuary cities.

What is wrong with this picture?

Way to go Judge Walker.

Let the ranting and raving of this judge's decision based on your own personal biases begin! I am so sick of people calling a judge a villain or a hero just because of their ruling. They are almost all doing the best they can to interpret the constitution. Just because an issue is clear to you doesn't mean it's legally clear.

A judge once against going against the will of the people. I have no problem with homosexuals. I have a problem with a judge over ruling a majority vote by the people.

Judges are not supposed to do what is 'popular' they are supposed to do what is legally correct. In this case, the people were wrong.

We are a constitutional republic, the rights of the minority should never be voted upon by the majority!

So Jersey, do you think it should be legal for a majority of the population to vote to make it illegal for a white person to marry a black person? How about interfaith marriages? If a majority of the population says it's not OK, then you think it should be illegal?

Because there are places in this country where you would find a majority to back either of the two senarios I proposed.

JERSYGIRL! writes: A judge once against going against the will of the people. I have no problem with homosexuals. I have a problem with a judge over ruling a majority vote by the people.

Why bother with having a Bill of Rights then? Why not let majority rule settle everything?

I have a problem with the fact that the State Constitution in California can be changed with just 50%+1 of the vote. There should be a higher bar for changing the State Constitution just as there is with the US Constitution.

If the majority isn't ruled against sometimes the civil rights act would of never passed, women wouldn't have the right to vote and property owners would be the only ones who could vote.

@Jersy Girl

That is the point of the Judiciary branch of our government and the balance of powers. The majority may rule, but they cannot take away the rights of citizens in the minority.

The system works!

As happy as I am about this ruling, I'm still unbelievably sad about the 17-month-old boy who was brutally murdered over the weekend by his mother's boyfriend for "acting like a little girl," as well as the fact that, had it been a white baby, it'd've made national headlines, but since it was a) a black boy and b) was an anti-gay crime (as if a 17-month-old could have any concept of such things), none of the mainstream news outlets give a @!$%# about him and what happened to him. :(

So I if the public votes to execute politicians who lie to them? Thats OK?

That kind of logic is what supported things like slavery. Just because majority of people think something is right, does not make it so.

Jersy Girl 1, you do understand the concept of the tyranny of the majority right? Part of a judge's power and responsibility is in preventing that from happening. Majority rulings are not always right. Just remember that at one point a majority of people were for slavery.

LookinPurdyDarnGood

Please read and find out the truth. If not go back to the 1980's when people believed your garbage.

Typical bureaucracy, the voice of one trumps the legitimized voice of many. Where is my country?!

No judges aren't suppose to go against a vote by a democracy to a legislature, they are only suppose to interpret law. This judge did the opposite. I have no issue with same sex marriages but the issue really is about a proposition that was brought forth and voted on. If homosexuals didn't believe it to be right in the first place then they and their support should not have even voted and start their legals matters then. Once they vote on an issue then that validates it as a democratic process. Again, for me same sex marriage isn't the issue, a judge becoming the legislature and making not interpreting law is the issue. And yes states have approved things that would contradict or make no sense, that is what humans do.

For the record I have no problem with same sex marriage. I find a judge overturning a law voted on by HIS constituents to be appalling. WOW.

Is democracy a sham?! DOUBLE WOW.

One of the purposes of our constitution is to do exactly that: protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority.

There's this thing called The Bill of Rights. You might want to check it out.

Take *that* "Karen in Los Angeles"!!!!!!!

Bluelake, yes it is. as facecious as you put it. laws can be ammended and changed at any time and something as absurd as you brought forth can be passed

Lookin,

The DOMA WAS and IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Oh, if they are married, then he isn't his 'boyfriend', he is his legal partner.

Really? You honestly believe that homosexuals infected with HIV "use the extra time to infect other people"?! Wow, you sir/madam scare me.

Seriously, does anyone think this decision has a hope in Hades of surviving a SCOTUS review?

It will almost certainly survive both an appeal to the full 9th circuit and to SCOTUS, as Judge Walker found not only no rational basis for Prop 8 (the lowest standard of judicial review) but both due process and equal protection violations, and the case has an extensive evidentiary record and findings of fact (which constrain the appeals court). From the ruling:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.....

Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as "the right to same-sex marriage" would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages......

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.

Woo-Hoo!

@Chris: In Romer v. Evans the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an amendment (approved by the voters) to the Colorado Constitution that would have prevented cities from enacting laws to make homosexuals a protected class.

Judge Walker is Openly Gay!!! I wonder if there was any Biased Constitutional Interpretation!??!??!

Laws that limit the right's of individuals should come under the auspices of a constitutional amendment and a simple majority does not qualify that act.

As an independent, the collapsing of my comments above only proves the problem with the left. I state i have no problem with same sex marriage (their agenda) but because I disagree with the judges verdict my comments are collapsed. Supress the voice of your opposition. Typical.

And you wonder why this country's moving rightward...

Chunky-Monkey, the whole "gays are born that way" thing is more political than it is factual.

Mixman.....I guess you don't pay attention to the collapsed left comments that are only opinion as well. Typical.

@mikedesi0804: Part of a 'interpreting the law' includes deciding whether or not a law runs afoul of a state or federal constitution. We do not live in a pure democracy, mikedesi0804, therefore the judicial branch of government has the power to overrule laws, both those passed by legislatures and those passed by citizens. This judge ruled that Prop 8 violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

There are 2 rules which, IF everyone would follow, there would be a hell of lot less madness in this world.

Rule #1. If it doesn't belong to you, leave it the hell alone! In short, keep your hands to yourself!

Rule #2. Live and LET Live!

the non_thinker:

I guess you have never had any gay friends. Everyone I know had early childhood awareness of their attraction to their same sex.

dirty harriet

lookin's lookin purty darn good as far as having a grasp on the facts. Perhaps you should educate yourself. Here's a place to start:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/msmpressrelease.html

unless of course you think those bigots at the CDC just make sh!t up.

I think that marriage is another one of those things the federal govt has no business in. My short list also includes health care, private enterprise, and deciding which food I should eat.

Let the gays marry. Maybe then they'll STFU.

@Mixman -

I find a judge overturning a law voted on by HIS constituents to be appalling. WOW.

I suggest you get a refresher on high-school civics. That's one thing our court system does - protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority. Thank god we have a tripartite representative system and not mob rule, otherwise blacks would still be affordable.

I am appalled by your obvious ignorance. I personally am heterosexual, but i have some very dear friends who would do anything for me they possibly could, and not for anything in return. And i know more promiscuous heterosexuals then homosexuals. If you would check your facts, they tend to be more monogamous.

Mixman, Not on this question, but the bulk of right dominated threads have opinions by the left collapsed, all of the time. Believe me.

I hate the practice no matter who is shut out.

I don't care what two people do together or how the laws of the land defines it. However I am going to argue the person's comment about marriage not being defined between a man and a woman until the early 1900's. Marriage has been defined as being only between a man and a woman since the conception of the term. It is only in recent developments that people wanting to marry those of the same sex that the marriage term has become obscure.

Chunky-Monkey - I support gay marriage, but how many gay women have died in wars to defend anything? Women are not permitted in combat arms units (I think they should be, but that's the military for you). Sorry - very few if any 'gay' women have died in wars. It's financially and socially poor men that get thrown out into the combat zone (the vast majority of which are minorities). If you want to champion gay women, I think their greatest contribution has been to defend women from social and economic bias and fight for a more even civil legal system, but don't try to credit them with something they haven't taken a part in.

Just because people vote in a law doesn't mean its constitutional.

"What is popular isn't always right; what is right isn't always popular." - Einstein

Oh, I'm LOVIN' this! I have to go pick out something to wear for all the weddings I'm going to be invited to!!!!

@thethinker594: You might want to think a little more on your opinion that 'born gay' is more political than fact. Researchers believe sexuality is a complex process involving the combination of genetics and the environment within the womb. Check out the video for more information from National Geographic regarding homosexuality and the science of epigenetics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saO_RFWWVVA

Chunky- Monkey-- Better pick up a book and read every once in awhile. I do believe that the Bible which was written something like 2000+ years ago outlined marriage between a man and a woman. Also the same book outlined that homosexuality was wrong, so your comment on the 1900's is way off base. As for the being born gay there has been NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support that claim. In fact the dominate research in the subject is done at the social science level and not the medical or DNA research level because the subject is a dead issue to scientists. And one last thing, the down fall of ALL previous societies as been the desire to be independent in every way including sexual independence... this is nothing new!! The family breaks down and then society crumbles... pick up a history book and stop looking through your rose colored glasses!! That being said if the government wants to make civil unions let them, just don't call this a God Fearing Country and take the statement, "In God We Trust" off of everything, because you no longer trust in him or what he stands for!

You sound like you can't wait for them!

Crane...You gave us the best quote of the day!! "it will never be acceptable to counter supernatural laws with human laws" I love that. Unfortunately, our constitution is based on human laws and not 'supernatural' laws. Sorry brother. I like you prefer the rule of ghosts as well.

beyonddisgust,

Would you have asked that about a straight judge ruling to uphold Prop 8?

Nah. Didn't think so.

What is wrong with a Union - it provides the same priviledges & rights a marriage does, but does not twist and destroy the sanctity of Marriage - which is a Christian union between a Man & Woman - Very cleary & black & white in the bible does it say this.

Nothing bigoted about you , huh Mac-01? You probably use the "N" word a lot also, right?

I think it's pretty ridiculous that all of the people that are supporting the ban that was overruled today have had their comments collapsed by the community. If they were being belligerent or profane or just idiotic like the very first series of messages on this topic that would be one thing, but I think you people are now just collapsing comments you disagree with.

Honestly, from an "internet news story comment etiquette" stance I have no issue with

"For the record I have no problem with same sex marriage. I find a judge overturning a law voted on by HIS constituents to be appalling."

Whether you agree with this or not... I think it's an concept that should be addressed, and probably could be refuted. Hiding the comment just makes it look like you actually don't have anything constructive to say as a rebuttal.

A mass of people hiding comments expressing one point of view is the internet comments version of the majority not respecting the existance of the minority. Sound familiar?

If the comments are vulgar or outright inflammatory, that's one thing, but just because you "don't like it" is no excuse to have it collapsed. You should be better than this.

Sweet! Maybe the gays that live here will move to California! There's always hope.

Seriously. I do not agree with gay marriage, believe it's sin, but that's on a personal conviction level based on my relationship with Jesus Christ. HOWEVER, in a secular, civil society, I may even found to be voting in the minority, according to my conscience, but I would never think of imposing my personal views as a means of limiting the secular freedoms of a people group. Christians must be true to who they are, just as gays declare that they must be true to who they are. Okay. But what is it that Christians know brings change into a person's life? Isn't it God's love, and the moving of the Holy Spirit? If that's true, and it is, then Christians may vote their conscience, may encourage others in voting their conscience, and gays may do the same, but it doesn't have to be done with hatred and enmity.

I do not agree with gay marriage, and would vote against it. But I do say to the gay community, congratulations on your victory. I hope it won't last, but congratulations. And if there's any wrath to come, it must come from God, and not from any man or woman claiming to know God. Our part is to love you, even if we can't agree with you.

Will90039, JERSY GIRL 1 (#2.7, #2.5) you should be happy that our government is NOT run by the majority. It's good for the minority to have a voice too. What would you do if 97% of americans wanted to incarcerate everyone by the name of Will and congress approved? Wouldn't you want a judge to come and save you by saying that it was inconstitutional?

@ Bluelake: In my opinion, this issue transcends party lines, and claiming that 'LookinPurdydarngood' is 'right wing' is blatantly unnecessary. Sure more right-wing people supported prop 8, but as a right-wing that supports equal rights for all, I was offended by your comment.

@ LookinPurdyDarnGood: You are a bad person.

peterparker, there isn't anything unconstitutional about this, consider the other states that have banned it. it doens't fall under any of the bill of rights or any other equality act. this is a brand new fresh issue brought to ballots. And this judge has a bias lean to the issue, not saying that judges don't have bias leans to any issue but that puts in question his own agenda. Again, I don't care if they voted for or against. That isn't my issue. This judge is making law and that is not his job, at any level of the judiciary

Levi777 - Tell me that you don't sound like the Taliban! Tell me you wouldn't love something akin to Sharia law based on Christianity. Tell me and you'll sound like a complete liar.

God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Becky and Eve. God destoryed the city of Sodom and Gammorah because of men was havin sex with men and women were havin sex women, and other sins they were committin in front of the Heavenly Father.

God isn't in the Constitution -- or didn't you notice?

Mixman, I was collapsed too, haha. That is the funniest thing. I want all to know that I would never collapse you, I believe in your freedom of speech. written, typed and spoken. That is too funny

Chemrichtry- You are correct and I apologise When I get excited I tend to paint with too broad a brush. To all conservatives who believe in equal rights for all... Im sorry. To LookinPurdyDarn stupid:You are still a scumbag!!

Marriage is not a "civil institution" it is a religious one. When the supreme court was asked originally to rule on divorce they said they could not because man did not set up marriage God did, therefore they could not rule on a "Divine Institution". They went on to further say that the rules for marriage were set forth in the Bible and should be adhered to. So, as far as precedent goes, you need to study history more. Most decisions set down by the supreme court in the first years of our country actually quoted scripture as a basis for their decisions! Where have we gone wrong in this country that this has even become an issue? we all need to go back to the source of marriage to settle this, just like the supreme court used to say. (back when they knew a thing or two)

2 points:

point 1: If the majority voted to legalize slavery, would it still be OK ?

point 2: I feel that gays have as much right to be miserable in marriage as straights.

I find it curious that the judge, very early on, declared that he would not entertain arguments that homosexuality was not immutable and thus not on a par with race and gender, in spite of there being no science to back up his position. The supporters of the ban were then left with very little to work with.

This judge signaled early and often how he would rule. There is no surprise here.

Shane-1376561 - I can find no reference to what you are talking about on the SCOTUS website of cases. Divorce is the jurisdiction of individual states generally speaking.

gopherguy... your "god fearing country" rhetoric is the same old broken record spun by all the conservatives who simply NEED to pick up a history book sometime--the US didn't take "in god we trust" as a motto, nor "one nation, under god" in our national anthem until the 1950s!! and not in order to be all preachy and say we should live in fear of an unseen judge, but to combat communism's atheism... for goodness' sake, why must others have to live under/by your set of rules, just because you happen to believe in them.

crane... who cares what the bible says? why do neocons always have to hide behind the bible, like it is supposed to mean something or in some way should be used as a template for this country? it is a book. some people choose to believe the stories and ideas in it. good for them. others do not. good for them. so why should i or anyone else have to follow it, just because you and your ilk believe it? dr seuss is pretty good, maybe you should have to eat green eggs and ham every single day.

lookinpurdy... wow. just wow.

thanks for reading. i hope i didn't interrupt your glenn beck 'news' hour.

Lee - The judge took the scientific basis of the genetics of homosexuality as fact. Damn him!!! He's so silly. Next thing you know he'll be claiming that the Earth isn't flat.

Commonsense, it is unlikely that the chicken would consent. In the case of people, they can consent or refuse. If you force yourself on a chicken, it is animal cruelty. (perv)

Exactly, Lee. He ruled in favor of proper constitutionality. What did you expect. More BuyBull hatred?

"LookinPurdyDarnGood" WHAT IS YOUR POINT???????? If gay's are so promiscuous what is wrong with them getting married? They won't get married if they are all promiscous right? Stay on topic you stupid hillbilly.

Well I think they the Gay Lesbian community could have their significant other needs met with a civil union. That way the majority of Californian voters would have their way and it would not infringe on the rights of the minority. Now what happens if the people of California legalize cannabis? Is some judge going to come along and over rule the people and make smoking a joint a crime punishable by death? Ifinstead of a civil union that gives the couple all the benefits of marriage the couple want a piece of paper from the state that says marriage right out they can go to some other state.

@mikedesi0804: Your comments indicate that you do not understand the function of the Judicial Branch of the American government. On a daily basis, decisions made by judges create what is known as "case law". Case law, which has the same power as any other law, is usually made when a judge declares unconstitutional, and thus strikes down, a law previously passed by a legislature or a ballot measure. The Judicial Branch of our government has ALWAYS had this power. Since Day 1. It's in Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

Furthermore, you clearly don't understand the issue of constitutionality. Just because similar laws have been passed elsewhere does not necessarily mean they are constitutional. More relevant to the matter at hand, just because a law passes the test of constitutionality at the state level does not mean that it passes at the federal level. That is what happened here. Proposition 8 failed the test of constitutionality at a federal level. Judge Vaughn Walker found, correctly, that it violated the equal protection and due process clauses of 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Looking pretty darn good, how many sexually transmitted diseases are there? Like 35 or so? Aren't most of them spread by straights? Maybe by your logic we should ban straight marriage. You folks who want to keep traditional marriage between straight people might do well to remember the grocery store clerks and waitresses showing up for work black and blue, or wearing long sleeves on hot humid days. Remember that? Laws actually had to be written to keep men from pummelling their wives. How many times have we seen wonderful straight couples as foster homes only to find that the children were starved, locked in closets, or made to sleep in dog kennels! Looking pretty, the taxes that gays and lesbians pay, which are more than you pay, dollar for dollar(because we cannot choose between married filing jointly or married filing separately) go, for the most part, to Human Services and the Military. If gays are excluded from participating equally in this society, then they should not be required to pay equal or greater tax rates. That would amount to nothing more than servitude, which is unconstitutional in these United States. Gays are no better than straights, and straights are no better than gays.

Gays can scream equal opportunity all they want. The truth is, that a gay man has the same rights as a straight man; he can marry a woman...just as a straight man can marry a woman. The point is, that the law is the same for gay or straight men and women. Just because the law does not fit your wants, it is not incumbent upon the rest of society to cater to your preferred choice. You have equal protection and that is all you are entitled to.

Response to #2. Using your own words, "a union between two people", it has always been a given that the two people were male and female and that "union" was a polite way of expressing reproductive sex. With morals going to hell in this country thanks to judges legislating and legislators more interested in campaign funds for re-election than in the survival of an ever shakier civilization, this judge must be giving hope to all sorts of sex deviants.

So "Popular" vote is fair? Just think of the millions of dollars the religious concerns poured into the campaign to stop the passage of the bill. What this judge did is fair.

What is happening under Obama is the elimination of the rights of state's to their own sovereignty. This was the very thing that worried Thomas Jefferson till the day he died.

Let us clarify this: A GAY judge (Judge Vaughn Walker is himself homosexual) decided the ban to gay marriage is unconstitutional. What does that tell you? It is further proof that our juducal system has gone exactly where the Bible says it will goi, which is to Satan.

You can defend your position by saying the Bible is fake, but that does not make it so. To sit in the middle of I-10 and state the oncoming cars are make believe will not prevent you from getting run over. This world is just a temporary setting; you will all find out in the end that the little bit of gay pleasure you get her thanks to corrupt judges and politicians will not equal the Hell you will deal with for eternity.

If you can reason why a state license certificate can determine marriage or civil union can only be applied to one group yet not another group without prejudice, then I can agree that Prop 8 should stand. However, every reason to uphold Prop 8 are based on grouping and belief systems, which will not withstand judicial system that should be free from political and religion influences.

The same would apply to checking for portions of AZ law that was recently held up.

The bottom line is that the state can not.

This ruling along with other recent outrageous rulings like Arizona officially mark the end of democracy in this country. The issue is not one of civil rights, that's just a ruse. The issue is do we want morality in this country which the majority in this country has signaled that they do and voted for it. The judges ruling now gives you the right to be as immoral as you please despite the objection of the majority. Is it any wonder then why the citizens of muslim countries hate the USA?

"In a pure democracy where everything is decided by vote, the majority shall always vote to oppress the minority." This quote is so true.

For those quoting the Bible, just stop. You are giving all of us true Christians a bad name. If you would like, I can list out everything YOU do that the Bible says is wrong, or an "abomination". The Bible also teaches you to love one another, and not one of you follow this . . . in fact, your hearts are so full of evil and hate that it is embarrassing to be associated in the same religion as you. Please, just stop.

For those talking about the so-called "sanctity of marriage" and claiming that the traditional family is the corner-stone of society . . . current heterosexual divorce rate is 50%. Half, HALF of all these traditional marriages fail. Traditional marriage is a FAILURE. There is no longer any "sanctity of marriage" . . . you have failed, thus your argument holds no bearing.

Finally, for those saying you are not born gay, you claim it is a choice. So when did you choose to be straight? At what point did you say, "Hmmmm . . . male or female genitalia? Which shall it be?" As a straight man, I can honestly say there was no choice. It was never up for debate for me . . . it was always women. So tell me, was it a choice for you? Did you consider being gay? I don't know a single straight man that ever considered it, EVER. So where are all the people who made the choice to be straight?

@At Liberty

Well I think they the Gay Lesbian community could have their significant other needs met with a civil union.

The CA supreme court already made a finding of fact that civil unions were not an equal institution to marriage - even if all state legal rights were theoretically the same - because of unequal treatment at the federal and international level and due to unequal treatment in reality at the state level. Separate isn't equal, and you'd think we'd have learned that by now.

Gays can scream equal opportunity all they want. The truth is, that a gay man has the same rights as a straight man; he can marry a woman...just as a straight man can marry a woman. The point is, that the law is the same for gay or straight men and women. Just because the law does not fit your wants, it is not incumbent upon the rest of society to cater to your preferred choice. You have equal protection and that is all you are entitled to.

leiasgoldbikini,

Well said.

HURRAH!!!! This is a day to CELEBRATE!!

Don't agree? Read the Judge's long list of reasons for overthrowing the hienous, prejudicial law. They are ALL based on logic, they are ALL based on facts, and they are ALL based on reason.

While the battle is not over, this ruling PROVES that in the end, right always prevails over wrong, good always prevails over evil, and the TRUTH always prevails over FALSEHOOD......

@"Leiasgoldbikini" (and "notanymore"): Your argument that gay people have the same rights as everyone else because they can marry someone of the opposite sex is an obvious red herring. The issue is that straight people can marry the person they love and with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives. Gay people do not enjoy that right. If you can't find a better, more sincere argument than the one you are using, at least find one that is clever.

LookinPurdyDarnGood, your comments only prove that gays should marry because with marriage comes commitment and less propensity to sleep around. Who's to say if straight men didn't marry would you not see a change in their promiscuity and STD rate?

In the end, thanks for making us realize that gays should marry, thanks!

"You can defend your position by saying the Bible is fake, but that does not make it so"

Gosh, I wish you could live long enough to recognize your own ignorance, but you'll be worm food, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't cotton to heretics.

Jersey girl you are absolutely right. The rights of the minority seem to want to overthrow the rights of the majority at any cost, shove it down their throats, become crude, rude and very disruptive to display their disagreement. Once you open Pandora's box it is hard as heck to get it closed.

Nothing wrong with being gay or whatever, nothing wrong with being tolerant, nothing wrong with being whatever a person wants to be. The so called "I have a right" cuts both ways. The reason there are opposites in every human/plant/animal life is to continue to procreate. Without procreation there would be no civilization of any kind and thus no life on earth. It would be like living in outer space or on another plant by ones self.

When same sex couples procreate then we can say that equality has been reached and marriage is the same for all on every level of existence.

While it may or may not have been written, it is a scientifically known fact that it takes opposites to procreate.

You are not born gay! That is just an excuse for deviants to do what they want to do. If you are gay or lesbian, I am assuming you are atheist, and therefore, evolutionist, naturalist or humanist, whatever u wanna call it. Then you should know that there isn't one single biological difference that would make you like your same gender, not ONE and since evolution is your religion then what do u say about that? It is just the twisted thoughts/mids of many.

If they are going to enable this atrocity, they should at least block gay couples from adopting, since they cant procreate one of their own the NATURAL way, as 'nature' intended. Those children should not be exposed to that atrocity and learning all those deviant lifestyles, which are not even biologically compatible with each other.

Here are some rational and reasonable points in regards to Prop 8:

Prop 8 is solely based on religious/moral beliefs. It is not based on any legal argument, so far as I can tell anyways. If there is a LEGAL argument in favor of it, please explain.

Regardless of the majority's beliefs and/or feelings on the matter, a law MUST be based on legally arguable grounds. Granted, that obviously doesn't happen a lot of the time, but that is what any law should be based on.

I have seen several posts on here in regards to this issue as it relates to "morality" in this country, but I have a question for all of you that view it in this manner:

Is it morally justifiable to pass a law based solely on your religious/moral beliefs that tramples the rights of people you disagree with? Is it acceptable to you that a law is passed that has no LEGAL foundation and discriminates against one group of people, simply because you happen to morally agree with it?

The bottom line is this. You don't have to agree with the lifestyle of homosexuals/lesbians. However, you do not have a right to pass legislation that discriminates against them based solely on your religious/moral beliefs. That is a form of tyranny and as such, it has no place in this country.

LookinPurdyDarnGood

Maybe you were collapsed for being a broken record? And your 'facts' are ludicrous, BTW. Statistics are not reliable because they depend on people making honest reports of their sexual activities, which never happens. Look around. Straight people in general, especially the younger generation (late teens-early 20s) are FAR more promiscuous than gays (and yes I am straight). I do not have children, but unfortunately I have opportunity to be around a lot of teenagers/young adults. It sickens me how many of the straight ones have the attitude that sex is no big deal because it 'isn't personal'. They have sex with someone 20 minutes after meeting them, and in some cases can't remember their name later and don't care.

There is a huge difference in promoting homosexuality and wanting gays to have equal rights... that would be like saying the struggle for women's rights was promoting sex-change operations. No one is trying to force homosexuality on straight people and guess what??? Gay people are not even INTERESTED in straight people and have no interest in 'converting' them. They are as accepting of our lifestyle as we should be of theirs. Sexual orientation is not a choice any more than the hair or eye color someone is born with. Granted, there have been people in the past who tried to force or change certain genetic characteristics, but their fate is well known.

It is not your place or anyone else's to tell a couple in love that they cannot get married unless one or both are underage or unwilling, and no one has the right to pass judgment on a consensual adult relationship.

zerobrains said:
"Marriage is an instituiton created by hetersexuals for hetersexuals. When you get married one of you is the husband and the other is the wife. What the judge did is confuse the right to marry a person of the opposit sex with the right to marry a person of the same sex."

Your post is complete crap. Even you know it's crap because you didn't post any evidence to support it. You just expect everyone to accept your ignorant assertion as fact. Such acceptance is for people with the IQ of a house plant.

You obviously have never been married and have no idea that the work involved to make it does NOT depend on the sex of the people involved.

leiasgoldbikini wrote:
Gays can scream equal opportunity all they want. The truth is, that a gay man has the same rights as a straight man; he can marry a woman...just as a straight man can marry a woman.

You, Honey, must have a vicious wedgie with that bikini.

The Supreme Court has already determined that such an argument is un-Constitutional when they ruled back in the '67 (Loving v Virginia) on interracial marriage. Before that ruling, those blacks could marry anyone they wanted, as long as it was another black.

Your argument failed then, and it will fail now.

The people that whine about gay marriage being a detriment to heterosexual marriage are the same people that are sh!tty spouses. Your sorry marriage is your own fault, not that of anyone in the gay community.

Gays have been married in several states for years now, yet my hetero-marriage is doing just fine.

If you people don't like gay marriage, then don't have one. And if seeing gay people that are married bothers you so much, then stay home or stick your heads further up your collective asses. You don't have a "right" to not be offended, because if there was such a "right" I would invoke it against idiots: small minded, bigoted dumbasses offend me.

Y'all have a nice day.

peterparker,

How sad for you that the law isn't based on how clever I am. And legally it has no basis on whom one loves or wants to spend the rest of their life with. It's based on the law being applied equally to all, which it does. Gays have the same rights, whether they enjoy them or not.

Dennis,

I am SO glad we have a Bible expert among us. I actually had a few other questions from the Bible I was hoping you could help me out with.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

The man down the street who carries his belongings in a grocery cart says that he spoke to Jesus. While I understand that Jesus is dead, St. Paul said he spoke to Jesus after his death, so should I give up all of my possessions and follow the man with the grocery cart? They have had the exact same encounter with our Lord.

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging

let's be clear about "gay marriage"; the oxymoron to end all oxymorons. Civil unions would cover the gay agenda (liberal agenda). Gays want the govt to force the law on the church and on heterosexuals. Otherwise why wouldn't civil union appease. Fact of the matter this is an attack on Christianity and the church. DON"T be fooled and don't be in denial. The liberals want to destroy the culture, heritage, history, morres (sp) and values. So much for the supposed seperation of church and state; another misnomer in the rhetoric of the progressives.

lookinPurdydarngood... I'm pretty sure what got you collapsed was the Caps, the boldface, and fact that you posted the same damn thing 5ish times already.... If I read some idiots post 5 times where they capped and boldface half the message, I'm going to start collapsing them. It's really annoying having to filter through the same screaming 5 year-old that wants attention. Boldface and caps are considered yelling and screaming on a forum or discussion.

Something tells me Tyler is going to be spending a lot of his time on this particular seed for the next few days.

Let 'em be miserable like the rest of us "Walking Dead". The Horrrorrrr!!

Fred,

Sorry, you are wrong. The Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles (2006) rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage..."Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation."

And I'm not offended by you, merely amazed that you would quote legal matters when you clearly have only a feeble understanding of the law. Do your research next time.

What do you expect from a Federal Judge system who would try to decimate the AZ immigration law? The Judges out there are flaming Liberals who have been very creative in their interpretation of clear cut law. (Both Judges have said things about the laws that simply were not there.) Sad for the people of AZ, sad for the people of CA and sad for the Constitution.

@leiasgoldbikini

The truth is, that a gay man has the same rights as a straight man; he can marry a woman...just as a straight man can marry a woman.

So it would be fair in your view if the situation were reversed, and you were permitted only to marry someone of the same sex as yourself? Sounds fair to me.

They are primarily based on his personal bias! This Judge has overstepped his authority by instigating the legality of gay marriage years ago, and now by soley overturning the majority vote. Someone mentioned maybe this will shut them up... come on, this empowers them to demand more. Maybe they can have priority on A+ babies to adopt to pay them back for their years of mistreatment!

@leiasgoldbikini

Sorry, you are wrong. The Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles

Ummmm.....how exactly is a state case in NY relevant to a federal case in CA? It's certainly not precedent much less controlling.

And I'm not offended by you, merely amazed that you would quote legal matters when you clearly have only a feeble understanding of the law. Do your research next time.

I have not read, nor will I, all of the 2000+ comments. Probably they are being added faster than I can read them. The several hundred that I have read so far have much in common: 1) Few state whether they are gay or straight, but one can usually tell from the tone; 2) many who don't like the judge's ruling feel that it is just. For the record, I am straight, twice married (to females), and 79.

I think much of the problem is semantic. Those who believe in opposite sex marriages only feel that the term "marriage" is so defined. They frequently also feel that same-sex unions should be given all the rights of opposite-sex unions. In fact, that does not appear to happen. Perhaps what is needed is an adjective to define whether marriage is between same or opposite sexes.

Gay and lesbian people would like to have us think that their condition is "normal." However, no biologist, straight or gay, could argue that it is evolutionarily adaptive. Nevertheless, same sex couplings are not unusual in birds and mammals, and even in amphibians. Watrch a breeding swaarm of frogs and see how many males are clasping other males. Females, however, do not clasp.

As many of you probably know, Argentina has just passed a law permitting same-sex marriages. Chile announced immediately that it would not recognize such unions. Although Chile does not penalize people for living together without marriage (as do Islamic countries, for instance) its refusal could affect the ability of some couples to collect benefits

" I don't know a single straight man that ever considered it, EVER"

i highly doubt that....im pretty sure that not only do homosexuals consider heterosexual sex...but heterosexuals consider homosexual sex...if we look at the fact that very many homosexuls actual get married to opposite sex partners and have children the traditional way....that pretty much means they considered it,..more than once,....it maybe that they decide they are not aroused by opposite sex partners...but not wanting sex with an opposite partner doesnt mean youve never considered it....lol.

and another point.....bonobo chimps, our closest genetic reletives do not have exclusive sexual orientations...they actually are primarily heterosexual but routinely engage in some homosexual activity...its very likely that exclusive attractions in humans are completely sociologically driven...and that most people are innately bisexual and that social views, homophobia (and the fear of being labled gay for even having the slightest level of attraction to the same sex) religious views and social pressure to "identify" as either gay or srt8 even if you are unsure how attracted you really are to one gender or another, are why people "seem" to be exclusively attracted.

its also interesting that in ancient greece homosexuality was practiced by most males regardless of thier primary attractions which was heterosexual....very similar to the bonobos in many regards, where heterosexuality was for procreation,..and homosexual sex was mostly for enjoyment(and up untill recent history...almost all homosexual activety between males in virtually every known culture took the form of pedophlilia /ephebophlia adult males and adolescent or teenage boys,.. something many homosexual men still favor)

so i wouldnt discount the ability of humans to self direct thier affections....because it really happens more offen than anyone wants to admit....because we are judged for those choices people deny they ever make them...in childhood we can make these choices (which is proven by the number of "supposed self identified heterosexuals" that engage in homosexual sex as adolescent boys)....but are not completely aware of the broader social conflicts that exist....but once we become more aware of these conflicts we are forced to have to decide what side we will fall...so children learn to model thier behavior to fit the side they feel they "most" identify with....which is why so few people actually identify as bisexual, when they should represent a very large majority.

As a heterosexual male, I could only wish that the world was comprised of 90% homosexual males instead of the two percent of the population they think is actually homosexual/bisexual. That way there would be way less competition out there for the remaining heterosexual men seeking heterosexual/bisexual women.

Seriously though, I just wish the world would live by the golden rule which is to treat everyone the way you wish to be treated......unless your a masochist!

@Thoughts from Cali .... BRILLIANT !!!!!

@LYNN ....Then according to you infertile couples must also be barred from adopting as they cannot reproduce "naturally". Correct ?? Who says gay couples can't reproduce. I know of thousands of gay couples who have children that are biological to one parent. I call that REPRODUCING. Did any of you ignoramuses ever consider that nature also creates members within each species who can't reproduce in order to "naturally" CONTROL overpopulation ? Of course not...because you'd have to have an IQ larger than 2 digits to be able to come to that conclusion.

@notanymore....you need to move your ass to the middle east along w/the rest of the Taliban or find yourself a country that's a true democracy because the USA is NOT the place for you. Apparently you flunked US History and Civics in school and don't know even know what kind of legal structure governs the country you live in for chrissake.

And for whoever the dipstick is that claims that marriage is a Christian-created institution...marriage was around THOUSANDS of years before christianity ever existed. Marriage was a PROPERTY CONTRACT and nothing more. Are you claiming that none of the other THOUSANDS of religions that have existed on this planet have ever had the institution of marriage ? What about those societies that don't even believe in supernatural beings ?

I have never understood how laws like these exist today. The Founding Fathers and writers of the constitution were fairly clear on the idea that the majority should not be able to take away rights from the minority.

How in the year 2010 are we still trying to take away individual liberties because of something as trivial as sexual orientation. Why would any sane person worry about who an adult marrying another adult.

Just remember folks the right shouted the same BS about individuals of separate races getting married only 50 years ago! They will go for the wedge issue every time!

Mixman34Restored

For the record I have no problem with same sex marriage. I find a judge overturning a law voted on by HIS constituents to be appalling. WOW.

Is democracy a sham?! DOUBLE WOW.

Sometimes it takes a judge or judges to make a final ruling for the minorities. Otherwise, any group of bullies or thugs would take over and make all the rules for the rest of society. Just because one group of people feel it's wrong and voted against gay people from being able to marry, it doesn't make it right. That is why we have a court system to intervene and make the wrongs right for those that have been discriminated against for far to many years.

If it weren't for the people, the laws, and judges, black people would still be enslaved today. Gay people are just as much oppressed and it's time to stop it as well. We gave blacks their freedom, women their right to vote, to own property, and now we are giving gay people equal rights under the laws of the land.

@skrekk,

"So it would be fair in your view if the situation were reversed, and you were permitted only to marry someone of the same sex as yourself? Sounds fair to me."

It wouldn't be what I preferred, but if the situation were reversed it would be entirely legal and something I'd have to live with. And it wouldn't be something I could legally challenge because it would be fair.

"Ummmm.....how exactly is a state case in NY relevant to a federal case in CA? It's certainly not precedent much less controlling."

I didn't state that it was controlling, only that the case being referenced, Loving v. Virginia, wasn't a legal basis for overturning a ban on same sex marriage. Try to keep up.

Mr Garrison: Kyle , what do you think about gay marriage?

Kyle: Uh, its gay...

----------------------------

Some one has to get f'ed over in the divorce or this isnt fair.

Seriously, more power to you. I dont think gay people should be restricted from getting married. Life , liberty and the persuit of happiness...

Angel Sotomayor

3. We know that God hates this kind of sin. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their sin. And sin that more in the scenario of those two cities was homosexuality. We know that this sin was so dominant that when the angels of God came to Lot's house, the men of Sodom wanted to get home to "own" sexually to visitors of God. But they did not succeed because the angels were wounded blindness. And this city was wiped off the map (Genesis 19:4-11).

This is what is troubling in our world. People making false statements and claims such as this. Sodom and Gomorrah were two cites that were destroyed by natural disasters. God didn't do a thing. Just like all the people that drowned and perished in Pakistan last week. What did they do to have their villages destroyed and all their family members killed?

skrekk: I'm not against gay marriage, the majority of the voters of California are. I don't think your separate but equal argument applies here. If I wanted to marry another guy the same law would apply to me if I was white black or green, a Hebrew or Wicca. The majority of the vote should mean something. I can see their point against gay marriage because if it is totally legal then if some pastor does not want to perform a gay marriage they can sue him or her saying they are prejudice. If they gay couple can have rights to claim one another for insurance, cohabitation, inheritance, visitation, death benefits and every other benefit they would receive as if being married; there is no prejudice or injustice. Also the religious fundamentalists who think god made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve will be happy that the State does not call a gay civil union a marriage and they will shut up. But instead of being happy with the same rights as marriage the gays want to force their way on the fundamentalists. They will then be wrong and they will loose more than one heterosexual person that supported their cause.

I am a conservative with certain libertarian tendencies, and I do not believe that Gay people should not be allowed to live with one another, or even consider themselves married. There are still some logical issues that I have with arguments I have seen on the message board, and I want to hear some reasonable feedback on them.

A: Is there a difference between two same sex individuals getting "married" (I don't believe in the LEGAL institution of marriage, regardless of sexual orientation, see below), and a brother and a sister getting married? A man and multiple women? A woman and multiple men? (Please, answer the question honestly, and don't point to fringe stories about Mormon families with multiple spouses resulting in troubled children, or incestuous relationships resulting in multi-headed children. These are not guaranteed norms).

B: Why should the government even have a legal definiton of marriage? There is one obvious reason of Tax benefit, which I don't believe should apply because there is no reason a married couple, gay straight or other, should pay less taxes (In my political ideal, they should be paying such small taxes alltogether that filing jointly would hardly be a benefit). Why should the benefits of a married couple be granted to anyone, however? I happen to be married, but if I lived with my straight male roommate, completely plutonic lifestyle, I shouldn't have a different burden than anyone else. Any legal rights granted to a spouse should be freely given to any significant other, regardless of sexual activities, marital status, or any other popular norm. Basically, please explain real reasons why government should legally define marriage at all? Keep it as a private, non-legal agreement in churches, synagauges, chapels, Mosques (lol) and Vegas casinos. Marriage was never a legal issue, and ALWAYS will be a religious institution. We should just stop recoginzing it. Period.

C: The constitution does NOT guarantee the right to any form of marriage. People have been saying that the judge is ruling the law is unconstitutional and I have seen many people here ask why the judge has ruled this way. Regardless of my rights as an American citizen the right to marry who I want and when I went it is not granted to me expressly in the constitution. Of course, it is stated that rights not discussed should not be regulated by the government, either.

As for the religious BS! Our CONSTITUTION requires a separation of Church and State so nut bags cannot force their beliefs on other people!

Angel, if you want to take some things from Genesis and make them laws because"THEY ARE THE WORD OF GOD", shouldn't everything in the Bible be Law then. How about stoning children that show disrespect to their parents.(Deuteronomy 21:18-21)(Exodus 21:17) Or how about the priest forcing a potion on a woman because her husband suspects her of cheating. A potion that causes her to abort and become sterile!(Numbers 5: 13-29) Again we have a separation of church and State in this country. We do not live in a Theocracy.

Religious texts are books that need human interpretation. All we need to do is look at places like Afghanistan and Iran to see what happens when a government is based on these text and a fundamentalist is doing the interpreting!

This is hardly surprising, since this judge is openly homosexual. The 9th Circuit is also extremely liberal, so the US Supreme Court will have the final say.

Another tough case for Obama to have to deal with just before the Mid-term elections.

bh-455602

Gays cannot reproduce so unless they adopt children will be spared.

Sorry to break the news to you, but there are millions of heterosexuals that cannot reproduce either and have children through artificial insemination. This is how gay people are now having their own children. They are paying people to carry their child for them. Ricky Martin did this just a couple of years back, and gay people adopting children is a blessed event. At least they will have people to care for them that want children, unlike those heterosexuals that are alcoholics and junkies giving birth and unfit to raise a child.

Think about the 20 year old man that killed his 17 mth old son all because he was trying to beat the girlyness out of him.

My gay friends are always welcome in my home and I love them just as much as they love me and respect me as a heterosexual. They have more class and decency than most of my heterosexual friends on the weekends out partying and trying to sleep with whatever they can, then worry later about if they got their one night stand pregnant.

Equal rights for all, and remember, a lot of gay men and women die for our country, save the lives of our family members in hospitals. They are people just like you and me, and they deserve to be treated with equal respect and justice.

Fred,

Sorry, you are wrong. The Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles (2006) rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage..."Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation."

And I'm not offended by you, merely amazed that you would quote legal matters when you clearly have only a feeble understanding of the law. Do your research next time.

It's remarkable that you probably wrote that with a straight face. I'm surprised that you took the time to run out in front of the F.T.E. freight train.

First, you're comparing a New York State court with the precedence-defining US Supreme Court and putting them at the same level? Really?

Second, rather than providing your selective quote, you may want to spend some time reading the entire court decision you are quoting:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/Reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_05239.htm

The whole thing reeks of nothing but the talking points of shallow, small minded imps. Also not that their decision was 4-to-2. That means 1/3 of the judges disagreed with the pedantic nonsense of "For the Children."

Third, based on #2, just because they said it doesn't make them factually correct. Jim Crow laws enjoyed the same level of ignorance. Additionally, the Loving decision makes no mention of "procreation":

http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp

Nowhere in the Loving decision is procreation mentioned, therefore the New York judges' assertions are patently FALSE. I've highlighted your quote to show where the link between procreation and Loving was attempted.

Fourth, Read Lawrence v Texas to see how bigotry and ignorance holds up, even in front of a conservative Supreme Court. You'll notice that the Texas Court upheld the law before it was summarily smacked down -the very same notion you're clinging to.

Fifth, any argument that marriage is for procreation is utter crap. Gay couples can still procreate with outside assistance, just like heterosexual couples where there is a medical problem with either person...or have you people conveniently forgotten such things as "fertility clinics." The fact that fertility clinics exist, and remain legal, renders moot the "procreation" argument.

Not to mention couples that get married without a single thought of having children. I don't see any calls to ban them from marriage, therefore your "procreation argument" is nothing but a lie to cover up the ignorant bigotry.

Sixth, in the context of what I wrote and how it applies in this case, here is another summary of Loving v. Virginia. Note the similarities (if you're capable) of what was addressed in Loving as compared to the case in question:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395

"Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment."

The argument from you people drops like a wet dishrag. You have displayed the very ignorance that should be banished from this planet like a bad virus.

You wanna try again, L'il Sugar? It's so cute when y'all try to play grownup.

@leiasgoldbikini

I didn't state that it was controlling, only that the case being referenced, Loving v. Virginia, wasn't a legal basis for overturning a ban on same sex marriage. Try to keep up.

Clearly you don't understand the relationship between the state and federal courts (or that not all cases are decided correctly, as is evidenced by the NY case). You also seem unaware that Loving made no mention of procreation.

Coming back to reality from Delusional Wingnuttia, here's Judge Walker's view on the relevance of Loving to same sex marriage from pg 112 of the ruling:

When the Supreme Court invalidated race restrictions in Loving, the definition of the right to marry did not change. 388 US at 12. Instead, the Court recognized that race restrictions, despite their historical prevalence, stood in stark contrast to the concepts of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry.

Chris: As Justice Anthony Kennedy elegantly wrote when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned state laws prohibiting consensual homosexual conduct, history is no justification for continued discrimination and, 'Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.'

Angel Sotomayer, this is for you.

First off, homosexuality is not a sin. When taken in context every passage in the Bible that deals with homosexuality does so within the context of male rape and group sex in pagan temples--not within consensual, monogamous relationships. The sins are rape and promiscuity. However, even if homosexuality is a sin, according to the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, grace is a gift given freely by God. God already sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for our sins and only our faith in Jesus as our lord and savior is required to get into heaven (Ephesians 2:8-9). That's true for homosexuals, too. See, only God is perfect, and John 1:3 tells us that God created us and Psalm 18:30 tells us that He does not make mistakes. God understands human frailty and realizes that sometimes we may not get things right. However, not getting something right does not mean that anyone is going to hell. Now none of that means we have a blank check. What it does mean is that we are to live our lives with respect for ourselves and others and with integrity, while realizing that no human being is perfect. For one thing, we don't know what shape perfection takes. It is only defined by God's grace.

Religions have never been able to reconcile free will with God being omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. There seems to be a contradiction. Being gay is analogous to being left-handed, something for which scientists have also not found a gene, although most of us would probably admit it is biologically based. Apparently, it is something that develops via a biochemical process in utero; that is, within the environment of the womb, which would make it environmental as well as biological, but not necessarily genetic. (The theory is: Maternal stress can also play a role in hormone release.) Left-handed people were once considered evil, too, and were forced to use their right hands by having their left arms tied behind their backs. (The Bible should not be allowed to usurp issues of science when it comes to public matters, such as Civil Rights.) When the time comes for homosexuals to account to God, we should do so in the same way as heterosexuals: honestly. I will stand before Him and tell Him that I believe He made me this way. And, you know, I believe He'll love me even if I'm wrong (John 3:17). But see, I think God is really only going to want to know a few things: Did I love deeply? Not all about who I loved. And did I have fun in life? Because God has the most incredible sense of humor. (Why else would He put up with any of us?) If God can forgive, Why must you be so exacting? Why must you throw your misunderstanding of Sodom and Gomorrah in our faces? Sodom and Gomorrah's sins were republican ideals; failure to take care of the elderly and poor, as well as the rape of strangers. For those of you who like to throw Leviticus 18:22 at us, feast on this, Leviticus 11:9-12: God hates crab cakes and shrimp cocktails, too. No particular sin is any greater than any other sin. Leviticus 18:22, when taken in context of the surrounding passages, forbids ritual sex within pagan temples. "Don't lie with a man the way you lie with a woman" just means don't have sex in the temple at all--not don't do it with one sex the way you would with the other. It means don't do it in the temple with either sex. Romans 3:23 says, "All have sinned and fall short of God's glory." So where do some of you get off thinking you can treat other human beings like crap and God will just look the other way? Also, many of you take your religion cafeteria-style, paying attention to only those things that you can use to further your agenda. Why can't we deal with ambiguity and diversity in this world? All of this diversity and God made one sexual orientation? That's absurd! Further, many of you talk like God's a fool. Don't you really think God knows sex is pleasurable and that He gave us a natural form of birth control that we refer to as homosexuality?

Whatever happened to our government being for the people and by the people? Now it only seems to be for special interests. If a community wants to ban something within their limits, they should have the right to even if it offends a few.

So I must ask all of the right wingers screaming about the rights of the majority over ruling the rights of the minority.

Do you think slavery should still be legal? The overwhelming majority of legal voting men in the slave states felt it was their right to own slaves, shouldn't the same logic apply.

How about the right to marry inter-racially? The majority of voting Southern Americans thought inter-racial marriage should be illegal shouldn't the same logic apply!

How about women voting? The majority of American men felt women shouldn't have the right to vote! Shouldn't the same logic apply!

The Supreme Courts were given the CONSTITUTIONAL Authority to override laws, established by the Majority, when they conflict with the rights of the minority. This is the backbone of our society. This is why we never became a one party State or a Theocracy!

Didn't you bigots go to high school? Didn't someone each you that we have a tricameral form of government? Our government has checks and balances. Further, the Federalist Papers should be required reading in high schools across the country. They lay-out the foundation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There really is a doctrine called, Tyranny of the Majority.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Let those among you who have never been divorced; cast the first stone, and speak about the sanctity of marriage.

@At Liberty

The majority of the vote should mean something.

If it didn't unconstitutionally violate the rights of a minority, it would have meant something. All it means now is that at least 52% of California voters are bigots and homophobes.

I can see their point against gay marriage because if it is totally legal then if some pastor does not want to perform a gay marriage they can sue him or her saying they are prejudice.

Ummm.....ever heard of the separation of church & state? No religious sect can be forced by the government to perform any ritual. Ever.

You also don't seem to understand what a religious wedding is. You're free to have one, but it doesn't mean that you're married as a result. You still have to sign a legal contract and have your signature witnessed, and then file the contract with the state. Then you're married. Simply put, your completely optional religious ritual was completely irrelevant to your legal status as a married couple. Religion is irrelevant to marriage in the US.

But instead of being happy with the same rights as marriage the gays want to force their way on the fundamentalists.

Wrong. As a matter of law in CA, civil unions are not equal to marriages. All gays want is equal treatment under the law, and I suspect they don't care what some bigoted religious fundamentalist thinks.

One leftest liberal judge overturns the will of 7 million Californians to the benefit of a handful of gays wanting to degrade the institution of marriage. This is not the end of the story. This is not just a issue related to gays but it is a matter of States Rights. States Rights is what brought about the Civil War (or more properly The War of Northern Aggression.) It could happen again.

leiasgoldbikini said:

Gays can scream equal opportunity all they want. The truth is, that a gay man has the same rights as a straight man; he can marry a woman...just as a straight man can marry a woman. The point is, that the law is the same for gay or straight men and women. Just because the law does not fit your wants, it is not incumbent upon the rest of society to cater to your preferred choice. You have equal protection and that is all you are entitled to.

Yeah, but he doesn't have the same rights as a straight woman. That's gender discrimination. The law is not the same for gay or straight men and women.

@Chunky-Monkey Although I admire your conviction, the beginning of your argument is false, and obviously unresearched. To say that a marriage was not defined as a union between a man and a woman can be disproved by many early texts, and I'm not only referring to the Bible. Further stating that it wasn't until the 1900's that it was defined as between a man and a woman is also a sadly embarrassing statement.

Although it's horrible, gay people have been hanged, stoned, or otherwise abused or killed since the beginning of time. That behavior is never right, in any case, and I'm a Christian man. I don't condone hurting people. Sure, you can read about homosexual sex, and relations throughout the greek, and roman eras, but for someone to declare themself as united with a same sex person was scorned.

I just recommend that you don't make statements like that as fact. It makes you look as bigoted, as you claim others are.

Angel Sotomayor: I hate to have to go through this again but: Moses had at least two wives so there goes adultery, Moses killed the Egyptian slave Driver, oops there goes murder, he took at the people's gold from them so him and his invisible buddy god could do what ever they wanted with it, so he stole their gold, then he lied to them and told them of a promised land, but when they got their they had to kill a whole tribe of people every man woman and child to get the land. God is ananthropomorphic myth made up by some men to control other men and women to their own very human benefit. God is an unholy sadistic inhumane justification of hierarchy; that is all it ever was and ever will be. I think it is fine for gays to get married but the majority of the voters of California don't. This has nothing to do with Mose's invisible buddy or the will of Zio-Nazis claiming the will of god to justify their evil deeds or any other boogie men. One gay judge should not be able to overrule the majority of the people of a state. The GLBS community should be happy with civil unions or move to another state if they want to have an official marriage license rather than a civil union. Voter majority and State rights should mean something, that is the only reason I disagree with the judge.

What is wrong with a Union - it provides the same priviledges & rights a marriage does, but does not twist and destroy the sanctity of Marriage - which is a Christian union between a Man & Woman - Very cleary & black & white in the bible does it say this.

No, it doesn't. There are thousands of legal benefits that are provided by marriage that are not provided by a civil union. And marriage is NOT a "Christian" union (which by the way is highly offensive to the millions of NON-Christians that are married) - it's not even a religious union. No marriage in this country is valid unless there is a marriage license issued by the GOVERNMENT and filed with the GOVERNMENT. You can have any religious ceremony you want, but your marriage won't be valid without GOVERNMENTAL approval.

For many years and years people got married had children and their children had children. NOW!!! its not enough of people!!!!!!!!! they want MORE!! The want to have sex with a same sex!!! man with a man and women with a women! So before you get pissed off at me... Tell me, where will the kids come from??? huh... adoption??? hormones mixing??? Do you see anything wrong with this picture??? People dont have guilt!!! they want to do anything for pleasure!! Whats next???? animals???? How can some people say "oh well gays and lesbians were born that way and its not their fault" REALLY??? How can Christian children are not born like that?? When your 2years old, 5, 8, 10, 12 you think you think much about who to have sex with??? I dont think so... I think its how you teach a person.... Of Course if you tell people that you can sleep with anyone you want, than soon people will think that gays and lesbians is normal and maybe animals will soon will be the next step of this WORLD!!!!! GOOD LUCK TO YOU ALL!!!! Its sad that we dont think ahead about our children and how far we can get with this non sense!

If they are going to enable this atrocity, they should at least block gay couples from adopting, since they cant procreate one of their own the NATURAL way, as 'nature' intended.

Then by your logic, infertile couples also should not be allowed to adopt, or even to undergo fertility treatments - since they also "can't procreate one of their own the NATURAL way". When will people realize how stupid this argument is?

I can see their point against gay marriage because if it is totally legal then if some pastor does not want to perform a gay marriage they can sue him or her saying they are prejudice.

Don't be ridiculous. Churches have ALWAYS had the right to refuse to perform marriages. For example, most Catholic churches will not perform a marriage ceremony when one of the participants has been divorced. Many churches will not marry people unless they go through premarital counselling with their pastor. Besides, why would any couple - gay or straight - WANT to be married in a church whose pastor doesn't want to conduct the ceremony? There are plenty of churches that WILL, very happily, conduct these ceremonies. If you can show me ONE case where a church has been sued for not being willing to conduct a gay marriage ceremony, your argument might have an iota of credibility - but I guarantee you won't find any such cases.

Wow. The entire world is rapidly wasting away, but msnbc has devoted more time and resources to this story than any that I can remember. WTF does that say? It will be shot down by SCOTUS. Sorry.

Angel Sotomayor

Leviticus, Chapter 20:10:

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Unless her name is Mary; then it's ok? I'm sorry, but your pitiful excuse for a god has no right to be defining anything for anyone else.

Here is a perverted thought... If gay is a choice, then one must accept that straight is a choice. Hence giving a "marriage" certificate vs "civil union" is even more of a bias based upon ruling majority. If it is about ruling majority, then what we have is not a democracy, but simply ruling of the current fashion.

Our system of governing is based upon Republics and knowledge base. It is designed so that the Senate (more wise - older) and Representatives (more about now - younger) can work coherently in conjuntion with the other 2 branches of government. That is why USA never move greatly in particular political direction. It literally has a self adjustment in comparison to other nations. We should be thankful that our founding fathers had the wisdom to not have allowed the religions and corporations to have gotten hold of our government (until recent years).

Religions and Corporations out lived many nations. They have had a much greater life span, so please spare me the sobbing story of how our morality is being corrupted or how our country's businesses are being destroyed. They will out live USA if USA falters. You only need to worry about how you have failed our government because you have failed to keep our government being containminated with RELIGION and CAPITALISM.

Brenda-251440 "Angel Sotomayer, this is for you. First off, homosexuality is not a sin. When taken in context every passage in the Bible that deals with homosexuality does so within the context of male rape and group sex in pagan temples"

You must have your own personally written Bible, because mine condemns homosexuality in pretty strong terms - Romans 1: 27, 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10.

chis335678, in resonse to your comment, "does anyone think this decision has a hope in hades of surving scotus?" well if it's duns scotus the medieval philosopher you're referring to, the answer is yes. historical catholic chronicles suggest scotus was gay.

No action of any court is going to make homosexuals claiming they are married either actually married or socially acceptable. They will forever be merely whatever it is they are. They will never be what they purportedly say they are, spouses of one another. At least not in the eyes of the ones they are attempting to get in the face of. Legally, whatever secular courts chose to let them claim to be is what they will be. Legally.

Morally, they will only be pretenders, outlaws, public sinners, people to be shunned. This is a point of view completely consistent with Judaism and Christianity. If point of views consistent with these value systems have no place on the vine, then the vine should look to itself when it says it's an open forum.

to all those who state they want to go back to traditional marriage, not marriage defined by the federal laws enacted by Congress (marriage = 1 man and 1 woman) and not decided by the Supreme court (inter racial marriages), then I suppose you wish to go back to a time when women are 2nd class citizens to be bartered for between 2 families (the fathers of each) for political and financial alliances and the birde has a pricetag on her head with NO decision (excpet for the mercy of her father) on whom she will be married to and bred with for the rest of her life.

I addition, per the bible, Abraham had many wives, and prior to becoming Pope, Constantine had 4 wives and a galley of concubines!!!! It wasnt until the Vatican decided it was more economically advantageous for it to be the sole "heir" to a priest's worldly good instead of legal offspring and spouses that the vow of chastity was added to a priest"s vows and marriage was probibited. BTW, at that time in europe, you were either roman catholic or a heretic and died a torturous death; in the eastern block of Europe, greek orthodox or a heretic; in the middle east, muslim or an infidel needing death by the sword of a true believer: and in the land of Jesus, a jew decended from the right house of God's chosen one or a pagan deserving of death. The Roman Catholic Church and the countries in Europe, the middle east and Asia never bothered keeping "marriage" records until a few hundred years ago - it was a private matter within the populace verified and legitimized with the local communites by the locals. That is where "big" weddings came from - they were witnesses to the community recognized union and breeding rights of 2 families in producing legitimate male heirs to a family's weath. If any other woman claimed to have produced a child with a man, she and the child had no claim to the man's family weath. This type of dogma can be seen in the southern laws that were NOT erradicated in the south US states until a couple decades ago stating anything a woman owns or inherits belongs to her husband in the event she is married.

Traditional marriage, going back milleniums until a few couple centuries = 1 man with as many wives who can give him legitimate heirs as he can "afford" while retaining the right to keep concubines (or in America, England, France etc - slaves) which may produce offspring, but have no legitimate claim on his estate.

The ONLY reason we currently have federal laws imposing marriage to be 1 man and 1 woman is because of the rise of the Mormon religion in Utah and the spread of their religious doctrine that a man must marry as many women as he can afford to to "replenish" the earth to gain entry into heaven. If you dont believe this, look it up. Utah's statehood acceptance into the USA was dependent upon them eliminating the doctrine of many wives. The Fundamentalist Church of Latterday Saints are decendents of those mormons who REFUSED to accept the change in religious doctrine regarding the many wives requiredment to get into heaven. Until then, nowhere in the world legally defined marriage as the union of just 1 man and 1 woman.

The real threat to marriage is divorce which is rampant in the USA. The real threat to marriage is infidelity, which, according to adultery laws nowadays, is not a crime except in New Hampshire (although never enforced). The real threat to marriage is all the hetersexual households that exist without the marriage license in all 50 states and totally accepted by all even though ONLY 11 US states and the District of Columbia allow "common law" marriage (which requires a legal divorce in divorce court to get out of and basic requirements to be recognized as legally binding between husband and wife http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/common_law_marriage/index.shtml )

Gay marriages are not a threat to marriage, but a substantiation that the current American view that a valid commitment between 2 people to be faithful, loving and supportive to each other for the rest of their lives is an important element in ANY society. Given the trends of hetersexual marriages today, this does not exist since at our current moment in time, for any reason, a divorce and marital infidelity is acceptable in today's society!

The children will come from artificial insemination for lesbian couples. For homosexual male couples, until society stops judging, children will come from private adoptions or artificial insemination with a surrogate mother.

There are plenty of hetero parents that had children 'naturally' who should have been sterilized and never allowed contact with any child; a child raised by a same-sex couple turns out just fine, although they do tend to be much more tolerant than children raised by most hetero parents... how AWFUL!

This from STMiller:

Tell me that you don't sound like the Taliban! Tell me you wouldn't love something akin to Sharia law based on Christianity. Tell me and you'll sound like a complete liar.

This, from me (post 1.61):

Sweet! Maybe the gays that live here will move to California! There's always hope.

Seriously. I do not agree with gay marriage, believe it's sin, but that's on a personal conviction level based on my relationship with Jesus Christ. HOWEVER, in a secular, civil society, I may even found to be voting in the minority, according to my conscience, but I would never think of imposing my personal views as a means of limiting the secular freedoms of a people group. Christians must be true to who they are, just as gays declare that they must be true to who they are. Okay. But what is it that Christians know brings change into a person's life? Isn't it God's love, and the moving of the Holy Spirit? If that's true, and it is, then Christians may vote their conscience, may encourage others in voting their conscience, and gays may do the same, but it doesn't have to be done with hatred and enmity.

I do not agree with gay marriage, and would vote against it. But I do say to the gay community, congratulations on your victory. I hope it won't last, but congratulations. And if there's any wrath to come, it must come from God, and not from any man or woman claiming to know God. Our part is to love you, even if we can't agree with you.

Can anyone else see the problem? No-one will ever have 100 percent agreement. The best we could probably hope for is about 50%, give or take a few. Yet where in this does anyone see me as advocating Shariah Law, or a Christian type Taliban? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Neither side smells all nice and pretty, because we've been throwing darts at each other for so long....darts like this one from STMiller...for the sake of..what...controversy? To have something to say? To try to appear relevant, since the news media feeds off of our conflict with each other? I may not like something, and I may oppose it with the legal and moral means of opposition. I don't like President Obama, and think he's doing a poor job as a President, but I will tolerate no manufactured reasons, or lies. Evil men allow lying to achieve an end, not knowing that the father of lies stands judged and condemened forever.

Christians! We can win the argument and lose the soul. What does that gain us? Do you remember how James and John wanted to call down fire on Samaria because of their unbelief? Jesus rebuked them, and gave them the name "Boanerges", which means "sons of Thunder" because of the tumultuous way they conducted themselves.

Gays, you have enough support and legal maneuvering, that you won the battle this day. Can you not wage war in truth? Do you feel the need to twist words and accuse, bring venom, upon those who in truth hold out a branch of peace to you? You are very sorely mistaken if you think that you do not need all of us, including Christians. Those who know God do not hate you, and we do not condemn you. This Reverend Phelps character is not doing God's work. Those standing at picket lines screaming at you holding signs that say "God hates the gays" and worse, that's not God. It is not Christians who have the power to condemn, and if we go about condemning gays and filling our hearts with hatred towards you, we had better be careful and look to our own salvation, because hatred for someone never won them to faith in Christ! It never helped them to see that God is love and light and life and the author of it all, and there is healing in His name and He knows each of you, your innermost thoughts, and loves you still! Believe it, or don't believe it. It's your choice. But where is the hatred and animosity in those things? How is it some read "I hate you" when I tell you "God loves you"? It makes no sense.

And to all of us, not of both camps, but to every camp, words create. Think about it. True, we don't have the benefit of body language, facial expression, flashing eyes, but these words on here still create. What is it we are creating? Are we creating support for our cause? Or are we creating a stiffer resistance? For the Christian, a stiffer resistance is a sign of failure, at least as far as this issue goes. I know there are some that enjoy the outrageous, and they enjoy offending, and that is their goal. That is why we get postings from folks like ST Miller, attacking when no attack is warranted. We don't need to affirm them, since all they do is muddy the waters, and confuse the issues.

If gays and Christians ever hope to bridge the gap, they need to stop this biting and devouring the other side. If Christians do indeed believe homosexuality to be an abomination, what is murder? What is alchoholism? Do we not with love and compassion reach out to these? There are gays living on the streets, having been kicked out of their homes because they are gay. There are gays dying from aids. There are gays committing suicide because they are in such conflict. The means of ministering to gays is very different from ministering to the alchoholic, or to the murderer. Yet I'll just bet if Christians ask God to show them how to love them, He is faithful and will do it. We don't have to agree with homosexuality and can think it's a sin. But the means of bridging this gap so we can show them God's love and power is not through hateful, condemning words and actions. I mean, seriously, what has He done for us?

As a Politically Conservative person, Believing in minimal Government interference in my life and the least taxation as possible. I still Hold to the absolute belief that a free market system is so far Superior to a Entitlement laden Nanny State. And the THOUGHT of trading our Wonderful Republic for a Socialist Democracy makes me vomit Obama chunks.

I have only a few thoughts about this subject of Homo's getting married and here they are...

Its none of my damn business... Hear that "loony tune" liberals? NONE! OF MY BUSINESS!

Not one thing in another persons sex life matters a single bit to me. I feel it is the PINNACLE of hypocrisy for me to desire MY freedom from the harassment of Governmental and State agencies and their constant interference with MY life... while holding prejudice about what another would like to do with their. That thinking is full of Hypocrisy.

But, while I may realize this Hypocrisy. Do you Progressive/Liberals realize the Hypocrisy of fighting for all this freedom concerning matters that are rather...uuhhhh, Controversial? How can it be you don't want the State or Fed to control your Marriage partners who DO have a financial link to the system in several ways, while still wanting Government Interaction in everything from the size of my car to the sort of food I eat to who I am allowed to do business with and if my company is too big to fail?? I'm Confused about this "Contradiction". I mean, Come on Progressives, YOU are the BRILLIANT people...right? (ha!), How can YOU of all people want "Civil Rights" for these poor Homo's who disparately wish to engage in "Marriage" and yet not want to allow ME myfriggin Double Whopper with a Vanilla shake? Why can "Ron & Randy" walk the "Isle of Love"... While I cannot screw a 75Watt incandescent bulb in my reading lamp with one of the "Whale Wars" Idiots committing ritualistic Suicide on my front lawn?

I also look at this issue concerning same sex (yuk) marriage a bit like a "Wet Paint" matter... if you want to GUARANTEE that certain sort will touch a wall or an object. Attach a sign that reads...

"Wet Paint, Do Not Touch"

As soon as you take the shock value away things change.

As soon as you say to the "I'm gonna do it just because they say I can't" folks... "Have at it", a very funny thing will happen. Those who REALLY do feel they are Homosexual will go about their business not bothering a soul, and enjoying what ever it is they see in waking up next to another hairy mans ass (yuk).... but then there will be another group that just gets frustrated stops torturing Mom and Dad with this issue and gets married to their high school sweetheart and starts takingXanax like chicklets to REALLY get dad back for being a real prick and not letting her pierce her eyeballs and septum and paint her face black with vampire teeth.

Now, Progressives, are you still going to cuddle up with these sweet people and be their best friends? OR... will you just go find your next meal ticket for MORE of your so called "Civil Rights Legislation. I don't think you give a @!$%# about ANY RIGHTS other then what your own agenda needs to progress to a whole new process of proactive @!$%# talking? But at this point it is irrelevant.

WHY...? you say.....

I can tell you this with 100% certainty...

If you think a 50 - 60% disapproval rating along with a Job loss and General discontent by 80% of this population because they are being IGNORED by this Administration will go away between now and November 2010, and then again in 2012... You have truly lost your contact with Reality. Your day's are Numbered. And it will be a DELIGHT to see you go.

Enjoy you love fest Homo's... I am truly happy for ya!!!!

Next, dog owners will want to marry their dogs so the dogs can get health insurance and all other benefits too. I am for that, after all, this is America, the land of choice.

Does anyone here think its a little funny that these religious dumb@!$%#s actually think that by spamming their message 20x ad nauseam people are more likely to read it?

Seriously get a @!$%#ing brain and think for yourselves instead of being a garbage reciter.

mybestfriend: Marriage requires consenting adult. I agree that America is the land of choice. So please tell me how is that you are so presumtuous that you think that your dog will want to marry you. Because you and I both know that they do fornicate with other opposite sex dogs and other same sex dogs...

be careful of your symbolism and examples... ask Larry Craig.

In a week that's been horribly depressing and agonizing to me, it actually makes me MORE depressed and distraught to know that this is the best news I'm going to hear in probably a long time. I'm not gay, and I don't really have any gay friends, I only know a few gay people... I have nothing to gain from this... But it's a ridiculous travesty that these people have been treated as inferiors and outcasts for a simple deviance from sexual normality. Something that everyone experiences in some way or another, but for some reason, people care about this kind because it's dudes having sex with dudes, or girls having sex with girls.

And ironically and hypocritically enough, the people fighting against two people having the right to marry the people they want to are the same people who rant and rave about the government interfering with our lives, not letting us choose how we want to live our lives, etc. But no, it's against THEIR religion, so YOU can't do it. Don't touch my guns, Gummint, but tell me who I can and can't marry. We're the land of the free... unless you're gay. This is America, read the constitution... unless you want to read the line about how the government won't establish any religion and your religion decides that gay people are bad.

Conservatives, I don't mean to push and poke you, but when it comes to gays, you're wildly inconsistent, and your political and religious dogma conflict completely, and for as much as you harp on patriotism and how much you love your country and its freedoms, you sure give up on it quick when it comes down to two people having sex, and you think it's gross.

Marriage between two people of the same sex doesn't trouble me. What bothers me is how this society wants to make everything mainstream. Society is about norms. They provide the guidelines that makes the process work. There used to be nothing wrong with non-conformity. What happened?

If society were about individuality, some of us would drive on the left side of the road, while others would drive on the right. It would be a matter of what we felt most comfortable with.

So now Gays and Lesbians want to be mainstream... sexual orientation is a pitiful way of defining an individual. Marriage is a pitiful way of defining commitment.

Before we know it, we will decide who our leaders should be by watching 30 second sound bites that are crafted to influence our thoughts the way a hamburger chain induces us to buy fries.

There has to be more to us than this.

Thoughts from Cali-- I don't have time to read through all these responses so I don't know if you found the answers to you Bible questions but Romans 6:14 shows that Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law which died with Jesus so all the laws you quoted from Leviticus and Deuteronomy do not apply to Christians. What does apply is that Christians are to love everyone but do not have to love what they do... "Hate the Sin and not the Sinner". I think that just about covers it.

Judge Walker's "constituents" are the law and the Constitution. He wasn't elected to any office.

For the record I have no problem with same sex marriage. I find a judge overturning a law voted on by HIS constituents to be appalling. WOW.

Is democracy a sham?! DOUBLE WOW.

Put it to a vote of ALL citizens for an amendment to the constitution to finally answer the question. I personally am sick of so called minoritys shoving their beliefs on the rest of us. If you don't like the result, you can always move to "progressive" Europe.

I've never been interested in marriage myself (I'm a single mother in her 40's and no, not some bitter hag. I've been asked to marry three times, said no, to each proposal.). Anyway, I also, live in California. I voted in favor of gay marriage. Who cares if two ( or more ) consenting ADULTS want to marry? Misery loves company. With a 50% or better divorce rate, who are heterosexuals to whine about another loving couple (or more) wanting to enter into the marriage contract? Seriously!

The Majority of people voted for Obama, can we overturn that as well?

peterparker, the 14th ammendment has to do with racial inequality more than a complete cover for due process. again I do understand the judicial branch and when things are brought forth that do go against establish law then yes they can shoot it down. This doesn't, this is a completely different issue and if they meaning the congress wants to pass an ammendment to include this new group of people for their rights then that is different and yes since similar bans have passed in other states that does show that these bans are state and federally sound or they would have the same outcome. So with a precedence being set by other states without any overturning by the courts, this judge did make a decision off his own bias. When reading ammendments we must all remember while reading them what the true basis of it was and not bend it to our wants. Again this ammendment has nothing to do with marriage, but with no inequality for race. I want to say again, I am just pointing out that this is an issue by a group of people that is not recognized in the constitution under any ammendment yet.

or just ratify the 14th. whatever they feel neccesary

To all the ignorant people out there, here is the definition of the word, "marriage"

marriage- noun ( MAN AND WOMAN )

[C or U] a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this

______
I have no problem with common unions where a gay couple will have equal rights. JUST DON'T CALL IT A MARRIAGE. IT IS WRONG! Make up another word for it. Gayriage or something. Get a clue.

NiteOwlette, I do have friends who are gay and bisexual. Feelings are not always an accurate indication of what's going on. Just because one "feels" that way does not make it true. There are people who change their orientation. I am not saying that sexuality is something simplistic and I am not saying that gays just woke up one day and decided that they want to be gay. Each person is different so there are many things that could've shaped their sexuality.

Alan,

What's the difference? And why do you care what they 'call' it, if it means the same thing?

Alan, Alan, Alan!!!

I think it would be better to delete the word marriage altogether and call all paired relationships --- Apple Pie.

It's been a while, but I remember when we committed Apple Pie. It was very pleasant and we did everything together. We were best friends. And we had many legal rights and responsibilities. There was good, bad and everything in between.

Alan, that may be the definition in the American Dictionary, but 1) it doesnt state that all because 1 man is married to 1 woman that only 1 woman and only 1 man can be married in 1 household. In many parts of the world, men still can legally marry many women, with each marriage being legal, resulting in a household of 1 husband with 4, 5 or 10 wives and 50 children.

In addition, according to the Mirriam-Webster's online dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage it also includes 2 consenting adults of the same sex.

Main Entry: mar·riage

Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Marriage has become recognized and established as a religious sacrament to all Christians, regardless of whether Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Mormon, etc, by the miracle of Jesus changing the water to wine at the wedding he attended. All because a religion believes that marriage is between men and women doesnt mean that secular restrictions must also follow suit and with gays having the right to marry secularly doesnt mean religious people must change how they believe in the sacrament of marriage (versus the secular union of 2 individuals). In the United States of America, everyone is entitled to thier beliefs.
Alan, you are entitled to your religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is between just 1 man and woman, but you do not have the right to impose your religious beliefs upon another living soul. Now, if you do aquire feeling of homosexuality urges, please refrain and do run to confession and make amends, since you do believe it is a sin. Again, if you obtain an urge to "do" another woman other than your wife, again, please refrain and run to your confessional. But if you so choose to be called an American, please do refrain from imposing your religious beliefs by attempting to make a secular law prohibiting it.
There is NOTHING in this CA proposition 8 repeal that REQUIRES YOU to marry another man. There is also NOTHING in any law anywhere in the USA that requires you to marry ANYONE, if you so choose not to marry at all.
In the meantime, remember, this does NOT mean that you, personally, must accept gay marriage. The constitutional right to freedom of association also means you do not have to even intermingle with gays or straights - that is your personal choice. It merely means YOU DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEPRIVE ANYONE ELSE OF THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS, RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION!

The truth is, that a gay man has the same rights as a straight man; he can marry a woman...just as a straight man can marry a woman. The point is, that the law is the same for gay or straight men and women.

The logic is faulty, as no man has a right to marry just any woman, there has to be consent for both in that partnership. Good thing too, or there would be a lineup to marry the richest single woman around!

Hmm, I happen to know several gay men that married women. Some thought it would "change them", it didn't. Some just use it as a cover, sneaks around and hope the wife doesn't find out. But in any case, it didn't make for happy marriages, and it really wasn't fair to the unsuspecting spouse. Wouldn't it have been better had those gay men married a man they loved instead of getting stuck in a sham marriage?

Chunky Monkey said:

"Marriage was not defined as a union between a man and a woman. Marriage was originally defined as two people creating a union between them. It never specified man or woman unlit the early 1900's when bigots changed it to that."

Since it is God who created the institution of marriage, we must go to the source, which is His word, otherwise it it becomes "I said, he said." The word of God does definitely define marriage as only being between a man and a woman and that was defined back in the book of Genesis, which is much earlier than the 1900's Chunky. God said that it was not good for man to be alone and so he made a helpmate for him called "Woman." The proof of this is that, only a man and a woman can bring forth children into the world, where a man and a man cannot, neither can woman and woman. Jesus also echoed this when he was asked why Moses gave the Israelites the command that they could give their wives letters of divorcement and Jesus told them that, "Moses gave them that command because of the hardness of their hearts, but it wasn't that way from the beginning. For God made them "Male and Female" and for this reason a man was to leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife." And for those who are going to say, "That was old testament," here is some information from the New Testament that identifies what a natural marriage relationship is:

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abondoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Rom.126-27)

So, from the verse above, we can see that a natural relation is defined as being between a man and a woman and that man with man and woman with woman is referred to as shameful lusts, indecent acts and perversions.

It doesn't matter how anyone tries to justify marriage between same-sex partners, or even if those who practice same-sex got the entire world to be in agreement with them. The bottom line it that they will not get by God with it on the day of judgment! Why? Because God owns everything and everyone in heaven and on earth. He is the only reason that we are here and therefore, every single person from the beginning of creation until the end will be accountable to Him. As it is written regarding Jesus Christ:

"Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."

That includes all you people reading this who say that He is not your God and that He doesn't exist. Your lack of faith doesn't make you exempt from accountablity to God. You will stand before Him whether you believe in Him or not. Unfortunately, there will be those who will chose to continue to reject Him and will die in their lost state, only to find out the truth after they have taken their last breath that God does exist, that Hades exists and the lake of fire exists. This is not just about those practicing same-sex, but anyone who continues to reject Christ. For if there are many ways that lead to heaven (as some say), then Christ would have shed His blood in vain. But in fact, regarding that very subject He said:

"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father, except through Me."

This is a very serious and the most important decision that anyone can make in their lives regarding receiving Christ, because I am sure that we can all agree on one thing and that is, we are all going to die some day. So, the question is, what happens when you take your last breath? Are you willing to bet your human beliefs against what God's word has to say about it? I hope that everyone who is reading this, who hasn't received Christ will do some soul searching, because the promises of forgiveness of sins and eternal life are real, just as are the consequences for unbelief in Him and His word, which are eternal.

"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eath with him, and he with me." (Rev.3:20)

"God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Becky and Eve. God destoryed the city of Sodom and Gammorah because of men was havin sex with men and women were havin sex women, and other sins they were committin in front of the Heavenly Father. A man can not have a baby with a man and vice versa with a woman, it's immorral and a Sin. Yu are not born gay there is no such thing as a gay gene either, that's jus an excuse so people can nevermind yur sexuailty. Our Creator would not bring any of his children in this world gay. Being gay is choice jus as if someone chooses tu kill themselves or anybody else, it's as simple as that. God told Adam and Eve tu be fruitful and multiply. 2 women or 2 men can not multiply the earth as God said. God when destroy this World jus as he destroyed Sodom and Gommorah, he is not pleased at all. WE NEED TA GET IT TAGETHA OR IT'S ALL OVA!!!!!"

Horse@!$%#.

The ruling met immediate criticism from Mormon and Catholic church leaders and cheers from gay-rights advocates.

Ah, and from the perfect ones are cast the first stones. On the basis of morality one can not deny any group equal protection under the law.

Another example that elections have consequences immediately, years and decades later.

When can a person marry their sibblings, cousins, or parents? When does age not have bearing on who can get married? How about does it have to be with a human?

I don't get it, the people decided by vote. I thought democrats appreciate the popular vote. Ohh unless it isn't part of your interests huh? Isn't this country for the people by the people? A judge can rule this unconstitutional? I don't think gay marriages were allowed when the constitution was signed. There were certaintly gay people back then. Some people equate this issue to civil rights and slavery. Slavery was abolished by a constitutional amendment. The only way a judge can say that gay marriage is unconstitutional is if there is an amendment stating that it is so legal.

I understand what Alan is saying. There is a sacred meaning for marriage. Not what actors and actresses do. They think marriage is a weekend party. It should be much tougher to get married and it should be much tougher to get divorced. Maybe the wife and husband get a 1/3 of each others assets and then the government gets another 1/3. Divorce should be even harder when their are children involved. People rush into marriages and then they rush into divorces without compromise. You take your vow, death do us part... . Now it's death do us part, unless... etc etc etc.

Ok So I understand. The gay and Lebian community recived enough signatures to get put on ballot for the people of California to vote on.

The people of Californai Voted. It did not turn out the way the Gay and lesbian community wanted it to.

So they go to court and win an appeal and hopefull removal of what htey had organized and had placed on the ballot.

The court decide to over rule the people of California decision and Constitutional act by voting. So is that about the gist of it??

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it was unconstitutional why was it on the ballot?

If the people of California would have voted the other way would the judge still be hearing this case because it is unconstitutional?

Really, Im just trying to understand. If GLAD had put to a vote for all of Cali. and the people voted. Is that not fair? Really is that not surcomventing the people voice and leagal vote?

If the majority isn't ruled against sometimes the civil rights act would of never passed, women wouldn't have the right to vote and property owners would be the only ones who could vote.

This is so WRONG it is pathetic. Women got the right to vote with the 19th Amendment.

The method by which to amend the Constitution is posted below. A MINORITY passed this amendment? What a DUMB comment.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

19th Amendment

Amendment XIX

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Let Gays have Unions and all that goes with it, But leave Marraige to between a Man and a Women.

Judge Vaughn Walker is wrong. I read much of his decision yesterday and he actually called Prop 8 supporters names. My eyes rolled.

I even think the Judge is aware he is wrong. Why else would he stay gay marriages in CA? If he was so correct, why did he stay them?

The Judge ignored precedent. To me, this decision was a collusion of CA legislators and judicial officers. ONE OF THOSE JUDICIAL OFFICERS IS NOT RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION THIS YEAR.

That CA Judge does not want to be tossed out by the voters. We voters have been betrayed by our government and judicial officials.

It's not over yet. The Judge stayed gay marriages in CA so what kind of victory is that?

The only way a judge can say that gay marriage is unconstitutional is if there is an amendment stating that it is so legal.

This is so simple but it is so powerful because of its simplicity. I am just glad to hear and read all this support of the CA vote that was DASHED by the Judge.

The Judge had no right to do that as is so evident on this vine. I have no doubt this will land in the US Supreme Court and they will rule that marriage is up to the states like that last judge in MA did.

I could care less about the marriage issue but am very concerned that one person could have the authority to overturn the will of the people on any issue as it thwarts democracy to have this kind of power instilled in some activist judge.

In any event, regarding this issue, the judges ruling will probably be overturned by the SCOTUS and even there it seems rulings are mostly split down ideological lines. There is precious little objectivity left in the court system.

Will of the people or not, it has NOTHING to do with what you or I want... Going against gay marriage is RACIST. Gays may not be a race, but it's the same thing. Elitist, fascit, wahtever word you want to use.

What is you people's problem? How can you actively advocate to try and PREVENT happiness from two other people, as different as they may be from you. Does gay marriage harm you and yours in any way? Absolutely not. You may not like it, aprove of it, think it moral, again, wahtever your reasoning may be. If this were a hundred years ago, the same people advocating against gay marriage would be the same people advocate for slavery. It's exactly the same thing.

Please realize that we live in 2010 and we should be evolved enough to wish equality and happiness on everybody, without giving them a condition that they must live by the norm.

I am so happy that this judge made his ruling, we should all be celebrating, this is a day in which America once again proves its love for freedom and equality amongst all.

And no, I am not gay or a lesbian, not that it has anything to do with this.

The Judge had no right to do that as is so evident on this vine.

LOL, so you base your evidence on the bigotry of some newsviners? LOL. It's clear why you are not a judge and just an entertainment paralegal, because such reasoning is just moronic and would never qualify you for such an important position. Thankfully, there are educated judges who actually do understand the constitution and don't have to listen to such moronic reasoning.

Judge Walker is openly gay so why are people surprised by his ruling?

The majority of these posts are rehashed from the original election. What I do find noteworthy is the MSN article does not mention the openly gay status of the judge. I had to confirm that at other sources. I also detect a similar theme with the newsvine comments that have been collapsed. I had read previous comments at other Newsvine threads stating this media was being politically managed to support a singular point of view.

It's good to see "Karen in LA" here - I look forward to her insightful legal reasoning.....like when she repeatedly claimed that gays cannot adopt in California, or when she claimed that gays are not a suspect class in California.

I think the phrase for Karen is "disconnected from reality". Sorry Karen - the wheels of justice are slowly grinding institutional bigotry to dust.

Judge Walker is openly gay so why are people surprised by his ruling?

Apparently you haven't read his ruling since you assume bias.

Could a straight person have ruled equitably on the civil rights of gays? Or a man on the civil rights of women? A white person on the rights of blacks?

That CA Judge does not want to be tossed out by the voters. We voters have been betrayed by our government and judicial officials.

Except the voters don't vote for his position - it's an appointment. Also, considering the majority of Californians voted *for* Prop 8, don't you think, were he afraid of being voted out, he would have gone the other way with his decision? Do people really think about their arguments on here, and how nonsensical they sound?

The Judge had no right to do that as is so evident on this vine

Since when do the personal opinions of 'Viners override Constitutional law? He had every right. It's his job.

Skrek,

Did not a group of men on the hill rule infavor od Womens rights fairly? Did not a bunch of White men rule in favor of equal rights for Blacks?

I think a straight Male would have ruled as they saw fit. They are judges and are not to have ANY impartial or conflict of interest when deciding a case. However I don't belive the judge voted with his ideaology. I belive he is just a bad judge and used poor judgment while not adhiering to the Ca. voter's will. This is a case that the government took away the voice of the citizens of Ca. and destroyed any credability and idea of fair democracy in his profession.

This may be a great day for the Gay Community however it isa sad day for California and their idea that democracy works. So I wonder if in the future say AZ for example can be sued by the US governemnt and have its border law redified so that it is now as un effective as Federal law. So now can a judge over rule the federal law because people now see a few illegal aliens who work for the drug dealers/cartels are deffinatly endangering the people right to persue life liberty and happieness

Except the voters don't vote for his position - it's an appointment.

Cases like these reveal why federal judgeships are lifetime appointments, so that they aren't subject to the whim of the people (except through impeachment).

The downside is that the torture conspirator Jay Bybee sits on the 9th circuit.

mikedesi0804: The 14th Amendment deals only with racial inequality? Since when?! Yes, the amendment arose out of post Civil War America from the need to codify that all Americans are equal regardless of race. But the language of the 14th Amendment is written in such a broad way that it provides protections for ALL American citizens, not just those of any particular race(s). In fact, the 14th Amendment never even mentions race, except to exclude the Native American population from influencing the number of legislators that a state may elect. I've cut and pasted the text of the 14th Amendment so you can see that Judge Vaughn Walker is not simply making up his decision from some personal bias. (And anyone who thinks Vaughn Walker would act out of personal bias knows nothing of the career history of this judge. In the 1980s he represented the U.S. Olympic Committee against the founder of the Gay Games who was trying to use the name "Gay Olympics". Vaughn Walker did not let the fact that the man was very publicly dying of AIDS stop him from putting a lien on his house during the trial. Clearly, Vaughn Walker is not in the pocket of the GLBT community simply because he is one of us.)

As for your argument that precedence determines that Proposition 8 should stand: Legal precedent has nothing to do with how many similar laws have been enacted in various states. Legal precedent occurs when a court case is decided in such a manner that it establishes a rule or principle that other courts can follow in future cases. Every other court case involving marriage equality has been addressed from the point of view of state constitutions. The whole significance of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is that is the first case to address an anti-marriage equality statute in regards to the United States FEDERAL Constitution. In fact, GLBT legal advocacy groups and marriage equality non-profits were very leery of this case for the very fact that it is uncharted legal territory. Prior to Judge Walker's ruling on Perry v. Schwarzenegger, there *was* NO precedent!

As promised, there is the text of the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

It's good to see "Karen in LA" here - I look forward to her insightful legal reasoning.....like when she repeatedly claimed that gays cannot adopt in California, or when she claimed that gays are not a suspect class in California.

LOL, she scurried off when we demonstrated with linked facts that she was completely full of crap in that thread of which you speak.

@1screaminEagle

Did not a group of men on the hill rule infavor od Womens rights fairly? Did not a bunch of White men rule in favor of equal rights for Blacks?

Some did, and some didn't.....ask Dred Scott about that. My point was that a presumption of bias on the part of Judge Walker is just as absurd as the assumption of bias on the part of a heterosexual judge.

I belive he is just a bad judge and used poor judgment while not adhiering to the Ca. voter's will.

You obviously haven't read Walker's ruling. Read it first, then decide whether he shows ANY bias.

Note to the majority who do not wish to have minority views to be thrust upon the majority, vise versus is true as well. The law does not define a person. It merely provide guidelines, safety and justice.

LOL, she scurried off

I was hoping Karen would stick around and put her entertainment skills to good use.

People are born gay

Chunky-Monkey,

So prove it. Prove that there is somehow a third gender. Not one homosexual or heterosexual anywhere on earth can prove that lie you just told.

In this case, the people were wrong.

ignorance is bliss,

BTW, that is the very definition of Totalitarianism. Not to mention the fact that the judge is gay. Had he any integrity at all he would have recused himself.

the_thinker594Restored

Chunky-Monkey, the whole "gays are born that way" thing is more political than it is factual.

Then prove to me that people are born heterosexual...

You have to be born heterosexual in order to be a heterosexual, just like people are born gay and are gay.

Not rocket science here, just simple biology and understanding the development of the human body and chromosomes.

Maybe if people put down their bibles and went to college and studied human sexuality, you might learn thing or two about people and how they are created, mentally and physicaly.

BTW, the bible was written by man, not a God.

:)

@notanymore- Accusing Judge Walker of bias is a strong allegation. Where is your evidence to support this? Applying your logic, any judge that hears cases where the litigants are heterosexual should recuse himself if he is also hetero.

This case is not about the Federal constitutionality of same sex marriage. It is about whether the plaintiff's rights were violated with Prop 8. Judge Walker interpreted the California constitution and ruled that rights were violated and that Prop 8 was unconstitutional under California law. Judge Walker did his job well. The judge's sexual orientation was not on trial. There was no need to recuse himself since he had no vested interest in the plaintiff or the defendants.

It is not any more fair for a majority of voters to 'out vote' the minority over civil rights of the minority than it is fair or just for a pack of wolves to attack an innocent child. It has more to do with feeding frenzy and pack mentality. Some people cannot think for themselves so they need to adopt views of others. Weak people feel they need to have a group or an individual to hate. Maturity allows us to formulate our own opinions about others without regard to other's opinions. This is how cult leaders operate. They prey on the weak minds of their followers and convince them to believe like themselves, do what they tell them to do and hate who they want them to hate. First it was women, then blacks, Jews, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, French, Muslims and now gays. Who will be next?

To hate someone you do not know anything about is prejudice. To feel superiority, intolerance and malice toward someone is bigotry. To accuse others of what you are guilty of yourself is hypocrisy and to hate someone you do not know just because they are gay is homophobia. Reading these comments I find many examples of each. Sometimes all in one person.

It makes no sense to go out of one's way to stand in the way of someone reaching out for equal treatment, especially when equal treatment will not affect you in any way. What motivates one to do this? Intolerance, malice, preaching religious beliefs, did I say intolerance? This is an odd battle for one claiming to be Christian, heterosexual, tolerant, open minded, righteous. I have not found one single noble motive to deny another's equal treatment.

Gays want marriage because our government chose to get into the business of legislating marriage and doling out benefits to married couples. Government marriage and church marriage are completely different things. Churches do not grant rights and tax breaks. Government does not glorify one's marriage in the Eyes of God. Oh yea, gays also want marriage because it legitimizes our relationships in the eyes of others world-wide and we want it because we commit to each other .... just like boy-girl couples do.

Can't use the argument no one was born gay because you can't empirically prove it, eh? Well, guess you can shut the !@#$ up about your God then, and how it disapproves of gays because you can't prove it exists empirically, in which case, you need to remove the Christian elements to the legal definition of marriage anyway, in which case you may as well legalize gay marriage.

Oh snap dEd Grimley, you did not just............. Oh yes you did.

You GO Grimley!

Ain't it a B1tch when someone has their own illogic turned against them?

the difference between male and female is very small; some people just end up in the wrong body.

People should read the Bible for themselves instead of swollowing whole what their preacher and bible school teacher teaches them.

In Sodom and Gomorrah, the towns were destroyed because the men of the town attacked visiting men or strangers sexually. This is an abomination. Please read Genesis 19 of any version of the Old Testament

Two people of the same sex having sex together breaks the command: Be fertile and fill the world. It is not an abomination. God gave us choice and he wants us to chose correctly to have everlasting life. He believes that we can do it.

If two people willingly enter such a relationship it is their business; not yours, not mine; not the governments; not the courts! They should not be denied their right to the pursuit of happiness.

The bible also says: "Do not judge others for the measure you give them will be given to you." This can be found in Matthew 7.

The second most important command is: Love thy neighbor as you would yourself." You can Find this is the New testament. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The source in this writting is my brain and taken from all versions of the Old and New Testaments.

What choices

ignorance is blissRestored

Judges are not supposed to do what is 'popular' they are supposed to do what is legally correct. In this case, the people were wrong.

Just like the courts had to make a ruling in giving the disabled, black people and women equal rights. Otherwise, we would still see the disabled being unfairly treated, blacks still in slavery and discriminated against, and women not allowed to vote and be considered as property.

Gay people deserve to have equal rights under the laws of this nation just like everyone else does.

And to piggy back on that sentiment, as I've stated elsewhere, I don't recall anyone who's complaining about the gay marriage ban complaining during the recent SCOTUS decision to limit the limitations on gun control rights. That was judicial activism... So do you actually have a problem with judicial activism, or just when it doesn't work in your own favor, anti-gay-marriage-types?

notanymore, it's not a matter of proving if someone is born gay. Apparently you haven't had that experience of being around someone that is gay. I had a neighbor the same age as me and I've known him since the 1st day of kindergarten and even in that age it was easy to see that he wasn't like most boys. We were too young to know the difference between gays and heterosexuals but he just wasn't like the rest of the boys. He didn't not have any sisters but had 2 brothers, so it's not like he had a lot of feminine influence. During middle school and onward he would dance in front of the class to madonna and paula abdul songs and by that age, the other boys knew what was up, but by then we did not care. He then came out in high school, let's just say none of us were surprised.

So you see? it's not like you wake up one morning and want to be gay, people show these tendencies when they are really young, young enough to probably have been born with those tendencies.

stmiller

that web site only gives information for cases in the court back to 1893. you have to go back farther. lack of evidence is not proof of non-exsistance

I think that in the interest of transparency it would have been more appropriate for the judge to disclose the potential for bias. However, I don't think his orientation disqualifies him, people who choose his profession do so because they have greatest respect the law and they have the ability to interpret and apply the law without emotion or prejudice. It is probably safe to say all judges believe murder is wrong, yet they can still preside over a murder case. But lets be honest, if the ruling had been the opposite by a judge was a known evangelical - these same people who don't believe Judge Walker should have reclused himself would insist that the evangelical judge should be disqualified due to bias.

SMC31569 - points out that marriage pre-dates Christianity. True, religion is really irrelevant on this issue; but historically speaking - it has always been a social contract between a man and a woman regardless of religion. We simply would not have survived or propagated as a species with a homosexual culture. It is only recently that medicine/science has enabled the nature of the family unit evolve in a way that makes homosexual partnerships viable. Yes, homosexual behavior has always been prevalant - and it is natural behavior, but so is theft, murder, and rape (and not at all comparable). Just because something is a natural human behavior isn't a legitimate argument for acceptable social practice.

Marriage is a social-cultural construct. But, I don't get why we can't just embrace civil unions as equivalent and respect those who believe marriage should remain defined as between a man and woman. You can claim civil unions would be separate - not equal; but so are mens and womens bathrooms. Why do homosexuals want to emulate a historically heterosexual practice anyway - what would it prove? People who shun homosexuals are still going to do it, regardless if it is legal. Be proud of what you are, take civil unions as a distinct and honorable right, own it and stop trying to imitate or pretend your relationship is hetero-like; why would you want to that anyway?

califgina- harvey milk once said "as long as we accept less we will never be equal". why should we "accept" civil unions? they are not the same as marriage, it does not bequeath any of the rights or privileges of marriage. why should we not deserve the right to federal recognition?

john martin - In the areas where it isn't the same; it is civil unions that can/should be changed to make them equivalent to marriage. Absolutely not saying anyone should accept less or that federal recognition is not deserved. It wouldn't be less, it doesn't have to be - but this is a smarter 1st step. It seems this is something that can happen now with little resistance from the zealots. It is a good fight, but our society just isn't ready as a whole right now. After all, look how long it took for the civil rights movement after slavery ended. And we still see discrimination today, society doesn't change over night.

that just means that we have to keep up the fight! i hear what you are saying, but civil unions are not the same, no matter what. marriage equality is worth fighting for, and i am sure the fight will go on until we succeed, and it will, i have no doubt. the united states will have to come into the 21st century with full civil rights for all.

as far as discrimination, i don't care what someone calls me or says to me, i can defend myself, as long as i have the exact same rights as the person putting me down, and right now i don't.

Agreed, fight the good fight and don't give up! I guess I'm just systematic in my approach; that's the way I like to do things. I feel like if we made civil unions equivalent and therefore equal to marriage, it would get us one step closer and make the end goal easier to achieve. Then again, I can totally understand going for the gusto - but what if in the end that actually takes longer than a more gradual approach would of? I guess we would never really know anyway. One way or another we'll get there eventually.

amen!!!! one way or the other....

I totally agree! Children's lives are usually destroyed and families are torn apart by divorce. Yes, some families and children do okay, but more often-than-not children have to suffer from their parent's mistakes.

I am not gay, and I usually vote more republican than democrat, but we heterosexuals cannot ban gay marriage until we learn how to be married ourselves. It is as bad as priests telling people not to have pre-marital sex while they are molesting the children.

Bill, I think you go too far with that. People need to be able to get divorced. I'm the product of a divorced marriage and I feel that I have a way better life with the two step parents I have. I agree with you that the traditional family values people need to acknowledge the problems with divorce, but outlawing divorce may help some, but would hurt others, horribly in some cases. It's more like they are all hypocrites and should be called such.

What in the hell does your opinion have to do with the article?? Divorce and children as compared to gay marriages? Most parents who are divorced did so for a reason...could be as simple as selfishness (cheating) or an abusive relationship. Sooo, you're point is irrelevant. Try again. Not to mention...single parents who have tragically lost a loved one or heck, even get locked in prison for whatever reason (i mean, let's face reality right)...is it not better for children to share time with parents than only to have one parent? Geesh, moron.

So Bill Trippster,

You're suggesting we make divorce harder to go through? For the kids sake?

Divorce did not do that to traditional family values. These people never had those values in the first place. You can not bring values (you name it) to your spouse or family what you don't have or learned. I think most learn that the second time around with some help. My parents stayed together and never really liked each other. Now they're still together out of fear and finances. What a great combination!

And just to be a smart a$$, are you catholic?

Well said Bill Trippster. What a waste of energy worrying about who marrys who among consenting adults. Isn't it enough of a task at hand for man/woman couples to respect and love each other til death do they part... as its always said after the happy stroll down the aisle? On that festive party day that is no reflection of reality marriage day to day for the long haul, and certainly not a demonstartion of a sucessful relationship. Too much emphasis is placed on a wedding which is the tip of the ice berg of a caring, loving, respectful lasting relationship. Many man/woman marriages have showed that divorce is like a drive thru- so so sad! Not to mention the spousal crimes that abound: assault, and even murder. Just disgusting. So how dare some people judge same sex couples when many heterosexuals can't even keep their relationship together. I say good luck to all couples starting out and all couples should be allowed to marry. If everyone focused on doing the work in their own relationships no one would have time to judge others. Do the work in your own relationship people: love, listen, be compassionate, compromise, be faithful, don't yell, don't hit, and be sure and laugh and do fun things together.....peace out....

:-)

excellent points Bill Trippster. Totally agree with you. Today is a great day for LGBT; one step closer to the full equal rights.

Gays cannot reproduce so unless they adopt children will be spared.

It doesn't matter what you do with divorce laws. People won't live together if they hate each other.

BTW, gay people are not infertile because they are gay. They can and do have children. Go back to Biology 101.

Best reply I've seen frustrated one - kudos!! Well said!!

Unfortunately, Liberals believe in freedom of speech only as long as the opinion is the same as theirs. Even among different groups of liberals there is infighting because of difference of beliefs.

At least Conservatives allow people to have their own opinion and are wiling to change based on facts and not emotions.

Show me scientific proof that someone is born homosexual and that it is not a preference and I will gladly support marriage for them. If however you cannot supply irrefutable proof that a person can be born homosexual then stop forcing your beliefs on me.

At least Conservatives allow people to have their own opinion and are wiling to change based on facts and not emotions.

Please let me finish laughing here before I reply. NO EXTREMIST, whether liberal or conservative, allows people to have their own opinion and frankly, after sitting though the senatorial primary in Kansas, I tend to think that the "conservatives" are the worst. IF you truly believe that statement, you have been under a rock -- and not paying ANY attention to the election rhetoric over the past decade or so.

Marriage is not a "civil institution" it is a religious one. When the supreme court was asked originally to rule on divorce they said they could not because man did not set up marriage God did, therefore they could not rule on a "Divine Institution". They went on to further say that the rules for marriage were set forth in the Bible and should be adhered to. So, as far as precedent goes, you need to study history more. Most decisions set down by the supreme court in the first years of our country actually quoted scripture as a basis for their decisions! Where have we gone wrong in this country that this has even become an issue? we all need to go back to the source of marriage to settle this, just like the supreme court used to say. (back when they knew a thing or two)

@lookingood......great post....facts always confuse liberals and idiots.....mainstream media never reports this either....pity, like I stated in my post.....if the average person knew the horrors of this lifestyle we wouldn't be having this conversation....

Bill Trippster is absolutely correct about the devastation that comes from divorce. The language in the Biblical book of Malachi is very interesting: "'For I hate divorce,' says the Lord God, 'For it covers the skirt with violence'". And further down, "So take care of your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth." The Christian record of divorce is equal to that of the secular world, as if we somehow are exempt from the requirements of the God we believe in. We count on His grace and forgiveness, and do the most despicable things. God understands divorce, and He is there to pick up the pieces, but it does indeed "cover the skirt with violence", and the children of divorced parents are far more likely to be divorced theirselves.

And add to this mix, this new trend of starter wives. Have you heard of this? A woman will marry a man, and try out marriage, to see what she wants in marriage, and then after about a year, file for divorce. There are no children, so they aren't affected, but it wreaks havoc on the man who is usually blindsided by this happening, in that she never let on what were her intentions, and there were no problems to speak of. This is a new kind of evil.

But in this issue of the woeful record of heterosexual marriages, in all fairness, gays have nothing to say about it because the world has yet to see if gay marriages will fare any better. Living together doesn't count, and I know hetero couples who have been together 30 years and never married. So, gay marriage being legal, let's give it 25 years and look at the stats before we start slamming the hetero marital record and make decisions for gay marriage based upon that record.

I am sick and tired of "bible pushers" critizicing every belief that does not fit their mold? You "hate" everything that does not conform to your standards. I cannot imagine Jesus Christ coming back to Earth and agreeing with the Church with their cover ups of child molestation, what happened in the Cruzades, and the overall behavior that you demonstrate day in and day out. I was raised a Catholic, but as soon as I grew older I could see the hypocresy of the people who follow blindly! I am no longer a practicing Catholic, and I bet I practice more of the beliefs that Christ lived with than any of you folks.

I am sick and tired of people calling this a "liberal agenda" to "impose their values". Well listen people, the people against this are the ones that want to impose their values on other people. Are you so ignorant that you cannot even understand how irrational you sound when you say that? This country is based on FREEDOM and the PROTECTION that the CONSTITUTION puts forth to guarantee that each individual has the same rights no matter if you agree with them or not. A majority cannot legalize discrimination. Can't you people look at this objectively?

To those who say that there is no scientific evidence that homoseuality is a genetic characteristic, well I say to you that there is no scientific evidence that God exists. But there is so much scientific evidence to counter a whole lot of the foundations of organized religion... So, do we believe in science only when it is convenient for you? Or can we do it always? Your call!

How can you critizice this and not understand that Marriage nowadays is a freakin joke! I see people that cheat all the time, people that neglect their families, families that are contributing to the loss of real values everyday on reality TV and I don't see anybody putting any laws together to deal with that!

This country is great because it allows EVERYONE to be treated with dignity. Even if you do not agree with them. I see a dangerous similarity with the right-wing extremists and Saddam Hussein's methods of oppression.... but since you did not agree with him you had him killed. Since you agree with this, you keep voting the right-wing extremists to office. Can't you see how hypocritical you look?

I guess not, the selfishness and self-centeredness of the right-wing extremists cannot fathom a free country if it does not conform with their beliefs. This country is not supposed to be this way. Wake up uneducated right-wing morons!

Bill, I would just offer this observation, based on my own experience,

"It is better to come from a broken home than it is to live in one."

I agree we have too many divorces, but perhaps it should cost a fortune and require a one year cohabitation period and relationship classes to qualify for marriage - lots of divorces are really marriages that should never have happened in the first place, based on the fairy tale fantasy we teach our kids with Barbies and the like. Marriage is hard work, and takes a lot of commitment. My partner and I have been together for 32+ years, since our mid-twenties, even though we cannot yet enjoy the benefits of marriage in our home state. Having been married to a man for a very brief period before I accepted my sexual preference, I can assure you, it is ALL about self-knowledge, realistic expectations and commitment. Some days there are a lot of reasons to leave and what seem like none or only a few to stay, so unless you are willing to really work at it and accept that a relationship has ups and downs, you will (if you are straight or live in California), end up in divorce Court. I must say, after all this time, getting past the hard parts make the good times sweeter, but you have to accept whoever you are and choose wisely in the first place!

Hey BH,

So my brother in law and his partner just adopted a 5 year old from foster care. His mother had 4 other kids along with Jayden all while addicted to crack and while prostituting. Can you honestly tell me that he would have had a better life in foster care than with two people who want to take care of him and love him?

Or we can just wait for all the hetro couples out there who are able to have their own children step up and adopt instead of letting some freaky gay couple have a child.

I can't stand ignorant people.

I can't stand ignorant people either stacy. Great response and thanks.

So Churches that won't marry people are going to be Shut-Down?

Wow, thinkbeforeyouspeak, what happened to you? I happen to agree with you about the Catholic church (I'm NOT Catholic), and I am somewhat furious about their mishandling and defensiveness over this whole priest abuse issue. I mean the Pope is supposed to be the voice of God on earth. And He says nothing????? His talking heads blame the media and everyone else...ever hear this? "You can designate authority but you can't designate responsibility". ? IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY!!! And in many cases, it's THEIR FAULT!!! And so the voice of God on earth says nothing? What does that say to the thousands, tens of thousands that had their innocence stolen at the hands of these men? It says that God doesn't care!!!! Rrrr, sorry, but that makes me so angry! Twice it was told me that the protestants will never experience the fullness of God until they come back under the umbrella of the Catholic church. If there is a God in heaven, and indeed there is, in His right hand is the cup of the wine of His wrath, and He will hurl it from heaven at these men, and they will drink of it and be filled. And let me tell you, my friend, you haven't seen wrath until you've seen God's wrath. They should know better, and that's what makes me so angry. But I suppose Jesus dealt with the Pharisees, who said, "We see! We understand!" and yet they crucified Jesus, the Righteous One. These men that abused these children...that's not God. God will help pick up the pieces, and bring healing, but be assured, there is a day coming when these men who did the crimes, and those who covered it up will share in the same judgement. And they will know what they have done.

Okay, I need to get off that subject. It just makes me so angry! Thinkbeforeyouspeak, "bible pushers" have a right to vote according to their conscience, just as gays do. I myself would not vote in favor of gay marriage, but that's my conscience, and I must be responsible with what truth I know. However there is no enmity, no hatred, indeed if there is anything, it is sorrow for the conflict and heartache gays have suffered at the hands of people who do impose their will upon them, whatever the reason. It has not always been kind. And if you were responding to my post above, what upsets you concerning my posting? If we say that divorce is a national tragedy, and injurious to the children, then perhaps we need to be about seeing what we can do to bring healing to marriages. Make adultery a crime, make abandonment of a family a crime. We live in a free society, but we are not free from the requirement to live responsibly. Do we draw no lessons from history? Look at Rome. It was a free society, and it was destroyed after 400 years in existence. The US has only been around, what, 1776 to 2010, quick math...uh...234 years. If we are going to have freedoms, maybe we need to look a little closer at what our freedoms allow. Maybe it shouldn't be okay to commit adultery..and that can apply to gays as well as heteros. Maybe it shouldn't be okay to smoke crack while you're pregnant, or after you give birth. If a free society would survive, it must limit it's freedoms, by common consensus (vote), or else sink into a morass of anything goes. I fear we are already there. Not because of gay marriage...well, maybe that too...but how about that guy in California that sued to stop his daughter from having to say the pledge of allegiance in school, because of the phrase "under God"? That this guy should have his way is unconscionable. Why? Because most of the other children's parents think it's fine, and don't disagree. How about the mosque being built near ground zero in New York? The issue of freedom came up on that one. And it may well be the cry of the citizens of the US that we need to look at our freedoms, and perhaps adjust what we allow, and that's where the conflict lies. Christians say "Yes! But use this yardstick! The Bible!" and gays, atheists, secularites, say, "No! Don't use the Bible! Don't limit our freedoms!" If we would save this nation, we must rethink this issue of freedom. Not do away with it, but perhaps not make freedom so free to do whatever.

@benramz2

Read this http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

If some animals, who rely primarily on instinct, participate in homosexual and bisexual acts then it is fair to say that some humans (we are animals afterall) instinctively participate in homosexual and bisexual acts. Will you allow the gays to get married now?

benramz and zardoz,

So when did you "choose" to be straight? At what point were you checking out a woman, and then checking out a man, and saying, "Damn, I would love to sleep with BOTH of them. Now I have to choose." Please, tell us all the story of YOUR choice to be straight. I would love to hear it.

Here the thing, buddy. I am a straight man, and it was NEVER a choice. I never once even considered another man. But you say it is a choice, so obviously YOU made the choice to be straight . . . which means you once considered being gay. See, you can't have a "choice" without considering different options. And any straight man will tell you, if you EVER considered being gay, then you ARE gay. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you were either born straight, or you made the choice when considering being gay.

So like I said, tell us all the story of you "decision."

Thoughts from Cali,

But you say it is a choice, so obviously YOU made the choice to be straight . . . which means you once considered being gay. See, you can't have a "choice" without considering different options

I honestly never thought of it that way before, but that makes logical sense. Great post!

Shane,

Marriage is not a "civil institution" it is a religious one

I'm sorry but you are technically incorrect. Marriage IS a civil institution where the law is concerned. It is the law, not the church, that determines what your legal rights are in regards to marriage. It is the law, not the church, that determines who gets what if you get divorced. It is the law, not the church, that lays down all the different rules in regards to marriage.

So, marriage is a civil institution, not just a religious one.

Bill, the first people that were married in Mass...the people that started the bill for gay marriage in Mass...are divorced. Why introduce them to divorce...they should have the right if they have kids to rights but in reality marriage is not a benefit in many cases but a liability. :)

Today millions children suffer the trauma of being raised as children of divorced man-woman couples.

Really? The majority of divorced couples I know, saved their kids by getting divorced. Basically, they didn't LIKE each other anymore. You are ignorant to think children don't suffer living in a home that lacks love between the parents. The ones that stayed together 'for the kids', well... their kids are f'd up!

To lookinpurtydarngood they haven't organized anything against you. I helped collapse several of your vile comments you have the right to believe what you want but you don't have the right to inflict your opinion on others. The judges ruling was in reference to the CONSTITUTION which the conservatives love to quote unless they don't aggree with what it says then they SCREAM ammendment P.S. if you don't like haveing your comments collapsed you could try being a little more civil.

Straw man argument. I agree homosexuals should be able to get married. Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. It is discrimination to say they cant. But this is about gay marriage, not divorce.

Mike Thompson, now you sound like the pot calling the kettle black. You said Lokingpurtydarngood has no right to inflict their opinion on others...is that not what you are complaining about in the issue of Gay rights? That nobody respects your opinion? I love how the gay rights advocates love to crap on anyone that does not support their position. Vile or not, everyone has their rights and that is in the Constitution too. Lets not forget the freedom of speech is for all! If the Prop 8 had been voted against by the people and the court over turned it would you be hanging on the Constitution? I doubt it.

The whole point about this discussion of divorce is that there is no such thing as "family values." It's just an empty, feel-good slogan that means nothing. If there is any value to having a family, it comes from caring and commitment. It has nothing to do with gender. What difference does it make whether you have sons or daughters? Why do "family values" have anything to do with how the adults in the family satisfy their sexual needs? It's the sharing and caring for the members of your family, not what goes on in the bedroom that is the true value in a family.

And as to whether homosexuality is a choice or not, what does that matter. Even if it were, why should people inclined to make that choice be subjected to discrimination? Do you really think calling it a choice means homosexuals are not different? If so, why are you then so opposed to them being able to enjoy the same benefits other married people enjoy?

Gays cannot reproduce so unless they adopt children will be spared.

Now maybe we can do something to spare the MILLIONS of children that are abused by straight parents. And by the way - gays can indeed reproduce. Gay women can be artificially inseminated, and gay men can inseminate a surrogate mother - the same way as a straight man with an infertile wife can.

Bill Trippster wrote "Divorce seems far more dangerous to me than same sex marriages."

Single parent and mother-only parenting is far more dangerous. Women have a monopoly on reproductive rights. Family and male indentured-servitude to a woman and *her* children are major issues. But you're right. Marriage law and family culture need a major overhaul. Introducing same-sex marriage is certainly a distraction to the larger issues.

BTW, same-sex marriage is a superset of gay marriage. Gay marriage affects the 1% of the population that is gay and what will be the disproportionately lower marriage and child rate of that group.

Marriage is not a "civil institution" it is a religious one.

Fine - then let's see you try to prove that you have a valid marriage if you ONLY have a religious ceremony. In this country, no marriage is valid without a GOVERNMENT issued marriage license.

Vicki-427762 wrote "Now maybe we can do something to spare the MILLIONS of children that are abused by straight parents"

Unless you have some statistics that show that gay men and lesbian women are models of social behavior and immune to the usual human passions, there is no reason to state that gay parents will be any better than straight parents.

And add to this mix, this new trend of starter wives. Have you heard of this? A woman will marry a man, and try out marriage, to see what she wants in marriage, and then after about a year, file for divorce. There are no children, so they aren't affected, but it wreaks havoc on the man who is usually blindsided by this happening, in that she never let on what were her intentions, and there were no problems to speak of. This is a new kind of evil.

Levi, do you really think that men don't do the same thing? I've known more than one man who decided to get married "just to see how I like it" and wanted a divorce within two years. In addition, sometimes BOTH partners see it as a "starter marriage". Don't pin this all on women.

Vicki-427762 wrote "Now maybe we can do something to spare the MILLIONS of children that are abused by straight parents"

Unless you have some statistics that show that gay men and lesbian women are models of social behavior and immune to the usual human passions, there is no reason to state that gay parents will be any better than straight parents.

That wasn't at all the point I was trying to make. I was just rebutting the statement that "children would be spared" by not having gay parents - with its implication that only straight people can be good parents. I completely agree that as human beings, subject to "the usual human passions", gay men and women may well be just as likely to be bad parents as straight people. However, I think that has less to do with their sexual orientation than it does with their basic nature.

Good point, Bill; however, the same people in favor of degenerate unions (that would be same-sex mariages) are the ones who favor easy divorces.

Anyone out there doesn't like my definition of same-sex marriages? Tough. I have the right of free speech too. So kiss my Conservative posterior, unless you're a flaming faggot, like that traitor who leaked the documents to wikileak.

It used to be that divorce was frowned upon...till the moral/religious leaders started following the same path as those who followed them. Of all states to make no-fault divorce legal was in the middle of the Bible noose in 1953 with Oklahoma leading the pack. Then you had Ronald Reagan who opened the flood gates in California...so he could get remarried.

This all changed in the late 70's when the same nutjobs who were down on divorce started to play their broken record on abortion & such. Now...these same leaders/followers are neither moral or ethical and would/could not understand what either term means.

I did forget to mention that I don't believe in same sex marriage...but if gay/lesbians want to be as unhappy as their straight counterparts...they can be my guest.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (14th Amendment). It is un-American as well as unconstitutional to have elections in which Americans vote to rescind, abridge or to deny other fellow citizens the very same rights to which each and all should enjoy! Prop 8 was and is the definition of unconstitutionality. No one should have the right whether mandated or arrived upon through voting to deny others the same rights!

What are you saying--gays don't get divorced? PURE HOGWASH. And do you REALLY think that a ruling by an openly gay judge on gay rights has ANY MERIT AT ALL? The people of California spoke, they voted as is the democratic way. Because some don't like the outcome, then lets get some faggot judge to overturn it. He should be removed from the bench for allowing his own personal beliefs and sexual preference to interfere with his legal obligation of fair and impartial rulings. This fool has told the citizenry of the United States that their vote does not count.

What part of Minority rights do you bigots not understand! Our very Government is based on works that are meant to control the Majority's oppression of the minority.

Go read the Federalist Papers!

This is a basic civil rights issue!

Above some bigot equated this with the right to keep Slaves, that I believe says it all!

And for those who lack any native intelligent or are just FOX ignorant - Separation of Church and State - is just as much about Americans having the freedom to pursue their own faith as is it about the right of those who do not share their convictions to be free of it. America is a Republic not a theocratic state! Jesus save me from your followers...

Jeff-496088 - Still waiting for the irrefuable proof... Is there a recessive gene that causes homosexual behavior or is homosexuality developed from some baser need? Your reference is not irrefutable just because an animal behaves this way does it mean a reasoning human should behave that way? Some animals also eat their young, does that mean humans should also eat their young?

Homosexuality is a symptom of a mental disorder. Anyone who is so delusional they actually believe a man is intended by nature to mate with another man, or a woman is intended by nature to mate with another woman, obviously has no concept of reality. Please call homosexuality what it really is, a form of delusion.

Mike,

To this point we know very little about the human genetic code and all of it's inner workings.

That being said most ecologist and evolutionary biologist are in agreement that sexual selection defines evolution and the propagation of the species. The idea that nature would or could not code a certain number of the species a non-propagating sector is rediculous.

If you truly want to look into the work having been done in this field here is a start.

Dr. Sven Bocklandt: David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.

Dr. Michael Bailey: North Western Univ

Dr. William Reiner: Univ Oklahoma

Dr. Dean Hamer:

spg64-1292127 I dont need to know about "the human genetic code and all of its workings"

Put two gay guys in a room and lock the door, no matter what they do they cannot produce a child, put two gay women in a room and lock the door, no matter what they do they cannot produce a child. That is blunt reality.

Calling what gays do sex, is nonsense. Sex is an act between two people that can result in a pregnancy.

"Closer To The Night", I don't see any connection between your comment and what's being discussed on here. That post belongs on an astronomy forum or something like that.

SPG - This is not about sex. Unmarried people have sex every day. Do you really think that gays and lesbians are fighting for the right to have sex? Wake up! Did you get married (assuming someone wanted to marry you) in order to have sex?

Mike,

I guess this is the problem,every sperm is sacred to you huh!

No need to educate one's self, all that book reading does is confuse the issue!

Marriage is not all about sex.

For those of us who have evolved past mating for the expressed reason of propagating it is about finding some one whom you want to share your life with, some one you want to grow old with, some one you want to build security with..

And our Government has no place telling American Adults whom they can share that experience with, that is the bottom line. Your whacked out, uneducated, religious bigotry can not be foisted on other Americans, they have rights!

PAV,

I have no idea what you are babbling about. It seems to me that it is you right wing nut bags that are hung up on the sex.

As I said above marriage is about far more than sex and that is the issue. Why should some one who is homosexual be deprived of the right to build a secure, loving life with the partner of their choosing. This is a straight civil rights issue.

SPG - my apologies. My response should have been directed at Sacramento who had quoted you in his post. Peace.

PA,

No worries, sorry about the babbling comment, caught up in the heat of the moment!

Sacramentomike is correct about one thing. A couple of the same sex cannot produce a child and that breaks the command: Be fertile. Go forth and fill the earth."

However, I do not see how it is anyone else's business but theirs.

Is anyone here so free from sin that they can pick up the first stone?

So, because as a christian I would like for my children to be raised in a country with a standard of right and wrong and a clearly defined line of morality, that makes me a pig-headed, narrow minded, religious gobbledy-gook?

Wow, you want equal rights then call people of religion 'gobbledy-gook'. Way to be a hypocrite there.

I guess only your view count and if someone believes in God, they are a wacko and are impeding on your personal rights.

Saddam and gomorrah felt the same way, I guess what happened to them means nothing... Oh, I forgot, you are not a religious nut job.

So, when people who like to screw animals come forth, I guess you are for bestiality? Or how about people who like sex with kids? Masturbation in public? Do these all fall under your 'personal liberties' ideal?

A little known fact to people like you. Man and women were designed (or evolved in your case) to procreate the specese. If the first two oozes who became two different sexes were gay, you wouldn't be here.

Heck, maybe that's not a bad idea after all.

Ignorance is bliss, enjoy your peaceful existence.

First off, there is no line between right and wrong. Everything is situational. Second, Why you think Gay marriage is "wrong" is beyond me, but then again, I consider myself above arguing over who adults should and shouldn't have sex with.

You might wish to consider that name calling shows you to be a bigot. Then you might wish to consider the fact that the majority of this country believes in some form of higher power. As for the rights of the people, I believe freedom of religion is one of those rights. Your arguments might carry more weight if they weren't filled with ugly prejudices. What about the right of free speech, since when did stating an opinion on a social issue justify persecuting an entire group by calling them pig-headed and narrow minded. It is my hope that America does wake up and realizes it's zealots like you, regardless of which side you are on, that threaten this country.

As for the rights of the people, I believe freedom of religion is one of those rights.

Then you should support gay marriage since numerous religious sects recognize and perform gay marriage. If not, you're simply a hypocrite and a mean-spirited bigot who wants to deny the special rights you reserve to yourself.

There we go, off into bestiality land, something only heterosexuals ever bring up.

That argument didn't hold either.

Homosexuality: Nature's answer to overpopulation.

TxProud-1203643

Just worry about raising them in a household with a standard of right and wrong and they should be fine. The entire country does not exclusively belong to you. It is made of many.

@ Patrick-1112710:

I couldn't agree with you more. I am continually amazed at how many of these people claim that they "only want equality and unity", then condemn and verbally assault other people that they have never met and do not know anything about based upon the fact that we are Christian, Republican, whatever the case may be. Doesn't sound very much like equality and unity to me.

Marriage in a church or by christian vows however is between a MAN & A WOMAN. And that is why gay marriage should be banned - its the name of it that makes the big deal. A UNION allows a gay couple the exact same rights & priviledges a marriage provides, so the ban was only for upholding the sanctity of marriage and not making a mockery of christian religion. By ruling to make gay marriage legal it is a violation of the religious persons / churchs rights, which are supposed to be seperate from the state. If you believe in the bible it is very clear that marriage is between a man & woman only, quit complaining about nothing already ! Get Unioned & live happily ever after if you will, please ! Quit trying to twist my faith so that it fits in your delusional world, I swear if you are not ashamed of being gay then why try to change Christian principles? Just be who you are and stop trying to change everyone else to suit your needs or make you feel better.

Dear bigots (you know who you are),

Thankfully, the Bill of Rights protects minorities from people like you. As has been brought up many times, the majority does NOT get to vote on the rights of minorities. Rights are rights. This could not happen soon enough.

Yes, it does.

Consider this a personal attack. You are ignorant, and your rhetoric shows it. I'm not a homosexual, but I know plenty who are. It is not "immoral," it is not a question of "right and wrong." Your words smack of religious dogma. It's the same kind of thinking that once dictated (in some derivations) anything from whether one could marry a person of a different race, to whether condoms are a morally acceptable form of birth control.

Believe it or not, it's not impossible to hold your religion closely without ostracizing others. Do you really think your children will be so affected by the MARRIAGE of homosexuals that it will somehow corrupt them morally? Even if it were ultimately immoral (somehow) to be gay, homosexuality will continue to exist whether the marriage license exists or not. Are you so perfectly moral in nature that if your thoughts/actions became universal standards applied to all people there would be no gray area between moral and immoral?

You cannot hide your children from it forever; or, is that what frightens you? Does it worry you to think your children might grow up in a world with tolerance to different ideas? Does it worry you that your children might grow up to make their own choices and evaluations? I should certainly hope not. Their souls will not somehow be tainted by the fact that homosexuality exists. In fact, how confusing and damaging is it to a child to see that true love should only exist in society conditionally?

There is no true right and wrong in this world. And, if there is, you and I cannot decide it. So instead of defaulting to the negative on things you're not familiar with, try something new and empty your cup for a moment. Only then can you find out how baseless your justifications for morality are.

Yeah...only cats are an entirely different species who can neither consent to marriage nor understand it. So once you can justify marrying a 3 year old you can make that argument...

@ Txproud...... sort of. You see, by telling your children that there are always definite rights and wrongs in the world will result in them having a lot of problems when they grow up. They will become frustrated easily when the answer isn't black and white and they have to make a decision for themselves. Also, when they see something they think is wrong going on but which in no way affects them (like homosexual marriage), they will become angry which results in a shorter lifespan and jump in the odds they end up with heart disease. Being angry all the time will do that to you.

You may not appreciate what I just said, but in my part of the country (I grew up in North Dakota) we do that village raising a child thing. Every member of the community can share their divergent views with the child, and part of the maturation process is allowing the child to sort it out for themselves so they don't become drones. So I mean no offense, but that's how we do things.

So, because as a christian I would like for my children to be raised in a country with a standard of right and wrong and a clearly defined line of morality, that makes me a pig-headed, narrow minded, religious gobbledy-gook?

Not in the least, as long as you respectively remember the country does not BELONG to you and not everyone follows your ideals of right and wrong or "morality". As long as the actions don't hurt you (and gay marriage can't possibly hurt you) than it's really none of your business. Raise your children the way you wish, following the Golden Rule, and you will be a good parent. As to being a good Christian, I can't judge. Most of the good Christians I know spend their time being compassionate and trying to help others.

Closer To The Night

This eruption is directed right at us and is expected to get here early in the day on August 4.

Did I miss something while I was napping? What eruption? I hate when that happens. Am I snoring again? I'm sorry. I'll use the nose strips again.

sickoflibspin

A UNION allows a gay couple the exact same rights & priviledges a marriage provides, so the ban was only for upholding the sanctity of marriage and not making a mockery of christian religion.

A little myopic there! Don't you think? There are other religions that perform marriage ceremonies not just christian. I think your victimhood is showing.

@TxProud-1203643

I think the point is that your insistence on your right to define what the standards of right and wrong and the clearly defined line of "morality" are for everyone is what makes you "a pig-headed, narrow minded, religious gobbledy-gook".

@WakeUPAmerica1970

Restricting the rights of an entire class of citizens because they fail to conform to the percepts of some ancient concoction of fabricated religious mumbo-jumbo is not free speech, it is advocacy of oppression. The tactic used by reactionary conservatives of claiming to be the victims of their own tactics is getting pretty old.

@Patrick-1112710

Both bestiality and pedophilia involves acts in which at least one of the parties lacks the capacity for informed consent, so that part of your syllogism is obviously broken. As for your remaining example of public masturbation, I am aware of no jurisdiction in which such a practice is allowed to one segment of the public while being denied to others. This debate is not and never has been about morality; it is about the right of all citizens to be afforded equal protection under the law. We are a secular society, and marriage is basically a legal device invented to secure the transmission of wealth and property from one generation to the next -- we allow churches to perform marriages, but also recognize marriages not performed in churches, and we require people to obtain marriage licenses from the state. The arguments which you make are essentially the same as those once made in support of the anti-miscegenation laws which were overturned by the ruling of the US Supreme Court in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. The state cannot be shown to have any compelling interest in preventing the marriage of same-sex couples.

gays are a different species,

Really? They aren't homo sapiens? How interesting. When was this discovered?

sick, easy-way-out lifestyle

Most gays I know are hard working, and some are pretty darn conservative.

.it's sick and perverted and the facts simply speak for themselves

A lot of things are "sick and perverted". In MY OPINION, which is just as valid as yours, bigotry is sick and perverted ... as pedophilia which is much more common in heterosexual men than homosexual ones. In the US, 50% are married men (http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html)

How about my rights and tax dollars NOT going to support their enormous medical bills brought about through the massive spreading of AIDS?

All gay people do NOT have AIDS, in fact these days black heterosexual males are the highest risk group. (http://www.avert.org/america.htm)

But, since these facts don't suit you, you won't believe them anyway. But I welcome YOUR sources -- please feel free to cite them.

@sickoflibspin

Marriage in a church or by christian vows however is between a MAN & A WOMAN

That would be only certain wingnut Christian sects - many religious sects recognize gay marriage and perform gay weddings. But religion is irrelevant to the issue of marriage equality under the law.....no one cares what your bigoted religious sect does.

If Gays have ewvery right and every freedom except calling themselves married, then there is no problem right?

In California, gay people already had every right and every freedom straight people had. This ruling is wrong on so many levels.

But the bright side is more independents will vote for the GOP in November because of it.

Any State that allows Civil Unions gives Gays the exact same rights as straights already.

@zardoz28

Hot damn! If I were a dictator I would recruit you immediately! You would stick to whatever my position was despite all the evidence to the contrary and willingly (eagerly even) impose my will on others. Hitler missed out on an excellent SS candidate! yes you can consider that a personal attack.

Who are you to assume that just because I don't hate gay people that I have no "code"? From what you have said I am proud, and I think everyone is much better off, that most of us do not share your "code". Besides what have gays done that you need to be protected from? Aside from that, everyone can get AIDS, more heterosexuals have HIV than homosexuals. I have no idea where you are pulling these ideas from but please get a little more reputable information before u spew your "beliefs".

Any State that allows Civil Unions gives Gays the exact same rights as straights already.

Except that the CA supreme court already ruled that separate ain't equal. Note the recent DOMA case in Massachusetts - were those couples to have had a civil union rather than a marriage they would have had no federal claim, even though they would still be suffering under the same discrimination.

Beth, thank you for the support. But I will however honestly say that if that said "heterosexual" guy actually has sex with a male child-- he IS a GAY (or bisexual; if he still ventures out) pedophile! We throw so much stuff out at you straight people that you have NO idea what goes on our community, nor how we REALLY think. I live in a very liberal (gay; largely white, hispanic) community, and yes, we do have rashes of transmitted illnesses here and there, but it's not higher (if not lower) than the rates for hetero couples I would presume (yes, is can spread like wildfire...)! And for the record, we ARE hard working Americans who want this country to suceed, but we want our piece of the pie, even if at some point it was considered immoral. Whatever! By the way, most us are NOT conservative, unless we were traumatized in dramtic fashion...It all apart of the lifestyle preference. Again hooray for this Judge to strike such a unpopular ruling!

The level of ignorance and pure stupidity seen on newsvine is simply mind-boggling, especially from these believers in the "Bible."

Do you clowns realize that the Christian church existed for almost 14 centuries before this emphasis on your silly little book, and on only your silly little book, even began to become so prominent? The bible, the bible. Christ, what a bunch of pathetic losers!

Fundamentalists are woefully ignorant or simply stupid, and their weirdo beliefs should in no way influence rational public policy on any matter.

" as pedophilia which is much more common in heterosexual men than homosexual ones. In the US, 50% are married men "

actually marrital staus is not a criteria for determining sexual orientation....its a well known fact that many homosexuals get married to opposite sex partners and have children....so there is no basis to assume because some one is married or even if they self identify as hterosexual, that they actually are heterosexual....studies on self identified heterosexual males who are homophobic also show that many are actually attracted to some degree to the same sex....and analysis of studies on reparative therapies that also show that many self identified homosexuals are not exclusively homosexual after all...but bisexual...the only study that attempts to draw the conclusion that pedophlies are mostly heterosexual, its conclusions are without merit...jenny et al 1993 is worthless because they never actually asessed the sexual orientation of the perpitrators in the study.....meaning they actually have no idea what their sexual orientation is....they didnt even speak to them ...let alone ask.....so the pedophlie issue is not sorted out like you might think......and given the history of homosexuality (being mostly adult males and adolescent boys in virtually every culture where homosexuality was common) im pretty sure a serious look at the evidence reveals a different story....than "srt8s are really more to blame for sexual abuse /exploitaion of children...than homosexuals"

EliMae wrote "Homosexuality: Nature's answer to overpopulation."

At a rate of 1% of the population, it's not much of an answer. Wealth seems to be the greatest downward pressure while poverty seems to be the greatest upward pressure on the size of the population.

Uh oh someone left the chicken coupe door open because there are feathers flying everywhere on the Vine! Holy rollers if you want to beat the bible your suppose to do it in private. Gay guys um yeah. Lesbians uh hmmm well I like the flannel shirts you wear in the winter. :)

I'm tired of this story resurfacing again and again. And every time its made a big deal out of on both sides. I don't care, and I am gay. We are all people. The one main goal that all humans need to achieve is love. How ever you are able to achieve it, good for you. Not everyone is you so not every one is going to get there the same way. Gay, straight, black, white, Christian, Muslim, Atheist. No matter what you believe, love is the same all the way around and we are all entitled to it.

I have nothing against gays being together I just don't think they should call it married. If you want to be different then come up with your own title. Civil union seems to work so take that one. And as the joke goes you have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us. I just want to see how the divorce laws grow out of this.

University of Chicago student wrote "Also, when they see something they think is wrong going on but which in no way affects them (like homosexual marriage),"

How does a public beating or even a murder affect you ? In your world, it doesn't.

What does affect everyone is the state of the family which in the US and all other industrialized nation is female monopoly with women in complete control of their reproduction.

Zen if you believe sexual orientation is everybodys right great! Bring on the deviants, the child molesters, those who practice beastiality..etc. After all maybe thats their "sexual orientation". We will need to find a deviant judge to overturn the majority decision of a state though. Oh, and for those of you who make the case that homosexuality is not a choice then you MUST admit that there is no Bisexual....you are one way or the other. Maybe I could marry my dad and get around Obama's 50% death tax when he dies? HMMM?

So, because as a christian I would like for my children to be raised in a country with a standard of right and wrong and a clearly defined line of morality, that makes me a pig-headed, narrow minded, religious gobbledy-gook?

It's not up to this country, or its government, to provide "a standard of right and wrong and a clearly defined line of morality". That, my friend, is YOUR job. You have every right to raise your children with whatever values you would like them to have. What you DON'T have the right to do is force your morality on anyone else. (And please, don't try to counter by saying "that's just what everyone who wants gay marriage is doing". Making gay marriage legal doesn't force anyone to participate in it, or even approve of it. Making it illegal forces gay men and women to adhere to someone else's moral code.)

A UNION allows a gay couple the exact same rights & priviledges a marriage provides, so the ban was only for upholding the sanctity of marriage and not making a mockery of christian religion. By ruling to make gay marriage legal it is a violation of the religious persons / churchs rights, which are supposed to be seperate from the state.

There are SO many things wrong, just in these two sentences.

1. No, civil unions do NOT give exactly the same rights and privileges that marriage does. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of rights automatically granted by marriage - mostly under federal law - that are not granted with civil unions.

2. "Upholding the sanctity of marriage and not making a mockery of the Christian religion"? So you're saying that only Christians have the right to be married, or that only Christian marriages are legitimate? Are you also saying that Christian marriages always uphold the sanctity of marriage? Divorce statistics for this country will definitely prove you wrong.

3. No religious person or church is having any rights violated by making gay marriage legal. No religious person will be forced to marry someone of the same gender, and no church will be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies. (Churches already have the right to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies - that won't change if gay marriage becomes legal.) On the other hand, making gay marriage illegal IS violating the separation of church and state - because it's allowing religion to dictate law.

I don't agree with same sex marriages, however, you may call it a union.

Marriage is for man and a woman. You can call it whatever you like if you want the rights of a man and woman and be of the same sex.

You can answer to your God (if you believe in one) when you die. I won't judge you, but don't impede on my rights in the pursuit of yours.

But I will however honestly say that if that said "heterosexual" guy actually has sex with a male child-- he IS a GAY (or bisexual; if he still ventures out) pedophile!

I don't think this is any more true than saying that men who have sex with other men in prison are gay. Often, it's a matter of availability. That's why very few girls were molested by Catholic priests - boys were just more accessible. And the same can hold true for other pedophiles - they may be attracted to children in general, or might even be attracted to female children - but a male adult would be more likely to be able to have access to male children - for instance, as a Boy Scout leader (and no, that is NOT a slap at the BSA) or a sports coach. If someone wants to have sex with children, they'll take what they can get.

See.... This is where you lose your arguments so badly, be you Homosexuals or Anti Christians like REDMIKE here (I'm certain Red Mike being a knod to the obvious choice of political preference).... This is where all the "Acceptance and Rights" you want become blurred. From a person who wishes freedom for you and those who are guaranteed it... this is the WORST of what LIBERAL THINKING produces.... Here is..."REDMIKES" statement...

"The level of ignorance and pure stupidity seen on newsvine is simply mind-boggling, especially from these believers in the "Bible."Do you clowns realize that the Christian church existed for almost 14 centuries before this emphasis on your silly little book, and on only your silly little book, even began to become so prominent? The bible, the bible. Christ, what a bunch of pathetic losers!Fundamentalists are woefully ignorant or simply stupid, and their weirdo beliefs should in no way influence rational public policy on any matter."

REDMIKE, Before I say what you have coming I will first say this, I am Christian, and although the Bible was not assembled until the early 17th century, the "Books" that are contained in it were available to be read and taught within 100 Years after the Resurrection of Christ. So... READ a little More "CommieMike"... and stop believing yourself smarter then you are. The POWER of the Bible is evident in the way it has changed for the better MILLIONS of lives leading them to help others. And, just like many secular works have been perverted and used for evil... so has the Bible... I am sure you are way beyond that..Huh Mike.. Since all us Newsvine Dummies no nothing?

I should also say that I feel that these people should be allowed to do as they please in their own homes. Trying to FORCE people to be a certain way only leads to resentment and bitterness...

YOU, other than being just a plain BIGOT, have called people of faith silly for their beliefs, Yet, we are supposed to take YOUR BELIEFS about Having intercourse and Marriage with the same sex as..."Just normal stuff"... You have referred to a book that some consider as sacred as "A silly Little Book" yet think those same people should look into these lifestyles as "NORMAL"? REALLY? Your a BIGOT, ANTI-CHRISTIAN, anti-faith Communist "REDMIKE" and are a VICTIM OF THE EXACT STUPIDITY YOU SO RAIL AGAINST...... Keep hating Christian Mike... they will be here long after you are dead and gone.... most, in one way or another do far more in a day for those in this world who need help or someone to listen to them then you will your entire life. If it were not for Christians and other people of faith be they Catholic, Muslim, Christian, Mormon...you name it.... MILLIONS would not eat, have shoes, have toys at Christmas, have a pastor to marry them if they are GAY... Christians and Others of faith have done so much more for this world then TRULY narrow minded people who cannot see past what can be touched and corrupted. IT IS YOU SIR... who lack the wisdom of life and the wisdom of knowing there is something bigger then your narrow and insignificant thoughts.

IF YOU... REDMIKE... are the image of life without faith.... Then the world could be a terrifyingly lonely and corrupted version of what some may consider as "Hell on Earth"

I wish those who seek peace, regardless of lifestyle or sexual preference... But Christians are not your problems... it is those who hijack YOUR cause for their own hate that you should be aware of.

Lolol. Wow, I love how Christians think the rapture is close at hand. Do you remember reading "The Son of Man will come like a thief in the night?" Or how about the one that reads something like, "Not even the Son of Man knows the hour..."

If Jesus was not revealing the time of the last judgment, do you REALLY believe you actually know? If you do, could you give me God's number so I can call after you get off the phone with Him? Because I have a few questions...perhaps I can share them with you so you can tell Him. I am sure that you would probably think God doesn't want to talk with a liberal pastor like me. Here are my top 10 questions (and in no particular order of significance...I mean, if He's God I am sure He'll know what's in my heart and what matters most in the hearts of man...unless of course you know better than God...)

1) Since the Bible condemns homosexuality AND women being leaders in a church, could you explain to me why there are people like these bloggers who reject gays but ordain women?

2) Since the Bible condemns eating pork, as well as many other abominations found in the Levitical Holiness Codes, could you explain to me why Christians reject ALL of the Jewish dietary laws (among many other things), but keep what they thought sounded good? It sounds a little to me like a Cafeteria Christian.

3) Who decided that the Cross should be a sign of bigotry, intolerance, and ignorance? I always thought that Jesus was a progressive, revolutionary prophet that spoke of love and kindness? Maybe I just read the Gospel wrong. Could you rewrite it for me so it actually sounds like the hate speech that I keep hearing from his followers? Thanks, God.

4) Could you give me the FINAL answer about gay people? I mean, I keep reading from EVERY social and scientific research institution (that actually is credible and not sitting and spinning on their own heads) that the children of LGBT parents are just as healthy and fantastic as the children of straight people? I would appreciate that very much.

5) My best friend is gay and asked me to marry him and his partner. Since I love my wife more than my own life, am I really in a position to tell my best friend that the love he has for his husband is somehow inferior to the love I have for my wife? Because actually, God, I don't think I am comfortable in judging that for myself...especially since you're the only judge. Or at least that is what I think I read somewhere in that little book called the NEW TESTAMENT.

6) Should we just throw out the Constitution, especially the 14th Amendment that guarantees equal rights? Should we allow the good people of California to vote for having slaves again? That might be helpful, since the Jews helped build the pyramids for Pharoah. We may actually be able to build that freaking 9/11 Memorial on Ground Zero...if only we had slaves again. So I assume that the 14th Amendment protects would-be future slaves from that nasty fate, even though we would feel great about having that memorial to the Americans who died? Just curious...because since gay people aren't protected by the 14th Amendment, why should anyone else be? Let's bring it to a vote, God!

7) Could you explain the Trinity? I am still a little foggy on that...but you do work in mysterious ways. Just curious...and even though it's irrelevant from the conversation at hand, I figured since we had you on the phone I would ask. My congregation keeps asking me...and well, I keep referring back to your wondrous ways and every now and then ask them to read Luther and Augustine. But they get confused, like so many people seem to be on this blog. Help me, Lord. Please.

8) If BP is protected by federal law and they can ACTUALLY, REALLY destroy people's lives, I am curious as to why LGBT people aren't protected by law since they ACTUALLY, REALLY destroy NO ONE. At least, I don't think so. But then again, I haven't been attacked by gay pepole on the street, so what do I know about those scary people?

9) I am told by many of my fellow conservatives that same-sex marriage destroys the American Family. God, could you please protect my home? I mean, if that is true, then aren't there gay people hiding in my bushes outside the house, ready to pounce on my children and rape my dog? My dog is old and blind, and my children are my life. I can't imagine that my gay people want to destroy my family, but if they do, should we create a new kind of Gayicide that will kill them when they infest my property? Just asking...because you are Omniscient and all that.

10) Finally, God, could you please save me? I don't mean on the cross...because you already did that. (And I really appreciate that, which is why I became a pastor and all.) What I mean is, could you save me from the ignorant, bigoted, hateful people in this country who actually believe that it is a Christian principle to lash out against people because they think they understand a 2,000 - 4,000 year old document that most of them actually don't read? I do read it, in both Hebrew and Koine Greek, and I seem to have missed the passages they are referring to where it reads, "Let us all hate one another and be @!$%#s." Text me that piece of Scripture, God, so I can transcribe it and pass it on to all of the other Christians like me who love their LGBT neighbors.

11) OK, God, I lied. I have 11 questions. The last one is actually more of a favor. Could you please help the U.S. Court system to grow a pair and give people their freaking civil rights? Thanks a lot. :-)

It's amazing how you get two different stories from two different news medias. Msnbc failed to mention that this judge was OPENLY GAY. Does anyone out there think that maybe, just maybe this had any influence on his decision? WOW, MS NBCdidn't think you even needed to know that. If I hadn't read the same story on FOX NEWS, I wouldn't know it either.

One other note , this article keeps mentioning how the lawyers were defending the Religious opponents . Shouldn't they state that they were defending the 8 million people of California who voted for this law.What kind of society have we become ,where one Gay judge over rules the will of the people. Democracy is truly dead in this country. Long live the new LAW of Judge's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joshua -- if there were more preachers like you maybe a lot more of us would consider themselves Christian.

By your reasoning Joe we'd need an asexual human being to make a decision on this case that would be "fair" to all. Religion has no place in the realm of deciding human rights for individuals. Allowing homosexuals to marry one another is not hindering or putting restrictions on how any of the religious bible-thumpers and holy rollers raise their children. What you do in your own home and how you raise your children is entirely up to you. The religious section of the US always has to be dragged kicking and screaming into progress when it comes to the civil rights of everyone different from them. Religion was used as the excuse to keep slaves, as the excuse to deny civil rights to women and blacks, and now it's being used as the excuse to deny civil rights to a section of the population simply because you don't agree with how they live their life. There is nothing illegal or immoral about homosexuality as there is nothing illegal or immoral about being a woman, being black, or being a human being. The christian religion isn't the only religion in the world where it's followers marry. With that being the case marriage isn't the sole intellectual property of christians and your religion shouldn't be used as a club to drive the rest of the nation into submission of your whims. It's really amazing how christians hoot and holler about not wanting homosexuals forcing their way of thinking on them when in reality it is you people who seek to force your way of life and thought processes on the rest of the world at large.

Let's see if I can put this simply:

Historical time frame for heterosexual marriage: Since man was on the earth.

Historical time frame for gay marriage: 0-1 years

I'm willing to bet that 20 years from now, if gay marriage becomes a norm, we'll see a divorce rate around 50 percent. And if we don't, it will simply be because gay marriage is so much easier. You don't have the devil attacking and opposing gay marriage because he's already got them. Sad but true. And unless children are adopted, or in the case of females, children are born from a petrie dish or artificial insemination, there won't be children. However most likely most gay couples who are married will seek legitimacy in every way, and will do those things that bring children into the home. Then they too will be able to raise up a generation like unto themselves.

Again, you're forcing YOUR values and religion on the US as a whole.

I'll let you in on a couple of little secrets that you might not be aware of: CHRISTIANITY WAS NOT AROUND WHEN THE FIRST PEOPLE WALKED THE EARTH, CHRISTIANITY IS NOT THE ONLY RELIGION IN THE US NOR THE WORLD, AND THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T RECOGNIZE EITHER OF THOSE TRUTHS IS A REPRESENTATIVE LOGICAL FLAW IN YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT.

Allowing homosexuals to marry isn't going to impede the propagation of the human species because you're either gay or you're not. No one is mandating that ALL relationships will be that of homosexuals. People still have the RIGHT to choose, and that's what this debate is all about. RIGHTS.

Zen, who says marriage was always a Christian institution? You must have read some of my other posts, because the statement you replied to mentions nothing about Christianity or religion.

You think I'm "forcing (MY) values and religion on the US as a whole?" Hypocrite. What do you think you're doing? Pull your head out and reply with reasonable thought processes to the comment, or butt out. Sure, this is emotionally charged. But speaking out of our passions will guarantee frustration of any true dialogue, and only inflame emotions. Let's be wiser than that!

@Levi

Historical time frame for heterosexual marriage: Since man was on the earth.

Historical time frame for gay marriage: 0-1 years

You seem to be conveniently switching parameters, Levi. If the scope is all of human history across the world, it goes back at least 600 years to medieval Europe, Rome prior to 342 CE, and other cultures even before that.

If you want to restrict it to the modern era it's 21 years, starting in 1989 in Denmark.

If you want to restrict it to just the US in the modern era, it would be 6 years - the first gay marriage in the US was on May 17, 2004 in Massachusetts. As usual, the US is not at the forefront of human rights.

And don't forget Levi....the definition of traditional marriage was as many wives as one could afford.

Much better, Zen. Thank you! I stand corrected on the time frame for gay marriage. It's not unreasonable to put forth that before rushing to judgement concerning hetero marriage, which admittedly is very much at risk, let's give gay marriage some time and see if they fare any better. It may end up proving that we humans are not as perfect as maybe we think we are, and a little humility would really look good on all of us.

That's not my response up there Levi. And I'm sorry if it seems I was being overly emotional about the subject, LoL. I'm not gay, but I do have a problem about people being denied the same rights as others and that denial being based upon the religious beliefs of another section of society. True, you didn't mention religion in your post, but I took the reference to man being on earth to mean in a religious context (as most arguments against gay marriage have been taking).

The pro-gay marriage people are not thrusting any lifestyle on those opposed to it. And that was the point I was trying to make. No one is mandating that all marriages must be same sex from now on. It's merely stating that homosexuals have the same right to happiness as everyone else in the US (or unhappiness as many marriages do end in divorce LoL). But simply because one doesn't agree with the lifestyle another lives does not give you the right to deny them happiness unless that lifestyle is illegal (notice I didn't say immoral). Interracial relationships were (and to some degree still are) frowned upon. I recall an article about a southern town that forbid an interracial couple to attend their school prom. Most of the US was outraged and perplexed that, in this day and age, prejudice like that still took place. I was shocked myself when I read about it. But those same people wouldn't bat an eye at a gay couple being forbidden from attending their school prom. There is no difference between either form of discrimination.

You cannot compare homosexual relationships to conditions such as necrophelia or pedophilia because the two do not equate. Dead bodies and children do not have the mental capacity to understand and consent to any such sexual activity that would take place between them and an adult.

I do agree with you that a little humility would do all of us some good, but unfortunately that will most likely not come for a few years yet.

let's give gay marriage some time and see if they fare any better

Levi,

I applaud your "give it a chance" stance but why the "fare better". What would be the social harm if they fare the same or even worse?

Hetrosexual marriage failure is around 50% and increasing in some places, decreasing in others.

A high chance of failure is not enough justification on its own to not attempt or even bar the endeavor.

What if hetrosexual divorse rate would rise to 75%, 85% or even 95%? Would this be justification enough to illegalize hetrosexaul marriage and prevent a couple from attemting to beat the odds to achieve a lifetime of happiness?

Sure, you make a good point, Just an Observation. However in that it has been put forth that, in view of the sorry state of heterosexual marriage, there is no justification for heteros to deny gay marriage, I'm simply suggesting that after some time being legal, perhaps gays may not fare any better, thereby nullifying their argument. Perhaps us heteros have something to say about marriage after all, and who should get married. Gays cannot assume facts not in evidence, such facts being that gay marriage will suceed where hetero marriage has failed.

Actually, the value of two by two began with Noah and the ark.

Vincent Denali wrote,
EliMae wrote "Homosexuality: Nature's answer to overpopulation."

At a rate of 1% of the population, it's not much of an answer. Wealth seems to be the greatest downward pressure while poverty seems to be the greatest upward pressure on the size of the population.

I was referring to the fact that it's another type of "sterilization," if you will. They are the only population that MUST resort to adoption or scientific conception, and so the odds are better they will adopt instead of raising the numbers. It's sort of not a joke, but really it is, since obviously homosexuality is not a sure bet they will not have biological children.

But I figure, hey, as long as we're being irrational, why not ignore modern science all together?

Our state governor signed the civil unions into law AFTER it was defeated at the polls...in the same month! Know why there wasn't a huge flap over it? Because the media gave it scant mention on page three buried in between ads and (con'td) sections from the front page. They mentioned it once, and that was it.

Elected officials do not have to follow the will of the people. If there's a way out of it, they will go with what they want, in spite of what the majority wants. So much for democracy. What would that be? Not sure, but it stinks. Isn't that how civil wars and rebellions are started? I mean taxation without representation has already been in place for several years. Try going to another city from where you live and spending money. Most likely you have to pay a city tax. When did you agree to that? You have to pay it because you do not live in that city yet you are shopping there. Isn't that crazy?

Our country is founded on having checks and balances. If voters become legislators, then courts are the appropriate check.

And when exactly should it be OK to vote on the Constitutional rights of a group that represents a minority?

The voters voting for something that's against the law doesn't suddenly make it ok. If people in a state voted that everyone of a certain race or religion was no longer allowed to marry, would you think that's fine because the voters voted for it?

The law protects everyone, not just the simple majority.

Constitutional issues are not a popularity vote. You are correct, it is pointless to vote on unconstitutional propositions.

The voters put through a law that violated the Constitution of the United States. I'm sorry if it gives you a sad that you don't get to do whatever you please so long as a vote was taken, but that's not how things work. It's called civics. Someone should have taught you this in High School.

You misunderstand the function of the courts, at least on constitutional issues. Their duty is not to follow the will of the people but rather the Constitution. Legislation is sometimes found to be unconstitutional, as in this case. The will of the people can not take away rights granted by the Constitution.

Let's just get on with daily business, was this ever really an issue?

That's why we should stick with the Standard that our founding fathers used.

Majority rule does not make it right. If there were a vote to prohibit African-Americans from using public restaurants or bathrooms should a judge could overturn it since it is unconstitutional.

My goodness....ignorance abounds on all sides here.

And all state constitutions and their amendments MUST conform to the US Constitution and cannot "supersede" such. This amendment to the CA constitution has been ruled in violation of the US Constitution's guarantee of equal rights for all citizens.

I would like all to know that banning same sex marriages has nothing to do with fear, please be reasonable and ask yourself, what is there to be afraid of. Absolutely nothing. Secondly whether you believe in creationism or evolution homosexuallity is wrong. I am just showing an open mind view, not a hate view. If we are just mammals then that means we live by the Survival of the Fittest and Natural Selection, that is where alpha males and so forth come into question. The first thing all species do is reproduce, and if you aren't part of that equation then you don't live long or you are weeded out. Again just another way to view it. That is why the majority in every state that this issue has been brought up in has been against, if this is what you believe, evolution that is. So if you are a non-christian then you have to validate some rule of thougth of how we got here and if so, the abide by it's laws. I believe you most likely believe in Evolution. Again just another way to think about it. I do have an open mind and it led me to different thougths of why the majority is against homosexuallity. I HATE NO ONE

Everthing they said above. I can't keep up with you people.

I don't thik you hate anyone, you just dont know the facts. Homosexuality is replete in nature.

I HATE NO ONE

Denying basic civil rights to your fellow Americans isn't hate?

Unfortunately, you have no understanding of what evolution or natural selection is all about. Evolution and natural selection have nothing to do with "alpha males and so forth" as you stated. the term "alpha male" refers to the dominant male in a social hierarchy. And evolution has nothing to do with the majority opinion of any group of people or animals. The majority of people are heterosexual, that is why majorities tend to vote against same sex marriage. And just for the record, you are a hater. You stated that homosexuality is wrong, and that's what makes you a hater. Homosexuals are people and citizens, and as such they have a right to the same protections under the law as everyone else. If you disagree with the idea of homosexuality, that is fine. But you or nobody else has the right to impose their beliefs on other people, no matter how many people may share that belief.

mikedesi0804 - though your 'mammal' example has some merit, there are a few distinct issues with your supposition. Humans are obviously mammals; however, we are the only species that can consciously 'choose' whether or not to procreate. Lower animals function on a more hormonal level - if food is avail, they birth...if as in the example of feral cats - no food, no release of hormone causing 'heat'. We can just overpopulate the world and live in squalor or famine, yea for us? Your example, focused on the fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate on their own, leaves out 'coupling' for any person who either chooses to not have children or born without the ability to have children. One of my best friends is severely anemic - giving birth would kill her (She is aplastic-anemic, diabetic and a rare blood type) - should she then be denied her right to marry because she cannot have children herself? My other question would be in regards to the many abandoned/orphaned children that are then adopted by loving, stable homosexual couples. Do those children count less? I understand your 'devil's advocacy', however if someone were to believe in evolution (rather than pure religion) they would have to acknowledge that we have evolved far beyond our 'natural selection' state in the wild...if we hadn't, we would not have the amount of people thriving with what used to be debilitating disfigurations or the joy of knowing someone just a little more 'special' than others.

The first thing all species do is reproduce, and if you aren't part of that equation then you don't live long or you are weeded out.

Incorrect. There are a number of very successful species in which the majority of individuals do not reproduce, such as ants, bees and termites.

Evolution selects genes, not individuals, and there are multiple ways to ensure the survival of your genes. Traits that promote the survival of your relatives and/or your species as a whole will therefore be favored by natural selection, even if the same traits prevent you from reproducing, because those you are helping to survive also carry your genes. This appears to be the case with homosexuality, as it has persisted in all human societies in the world since the beginning of known history.