It was GRAY wolves, not gay wolves. I think you read that headline too fast.

so much for trying to inject humor into a usually negative newsvine.

RINO…

I always knew he was a social liberal! And only a fiscal conservative every 1^st Tuesday in November.

I just wish President Obama would notice Arnies political morals here and also do the right thing. You cannot be for Equal Rights and against Homosexuals right to Marry. Total Hypocrisy!

Arnold supports gay marriage?????

That's a switch. I guess if Dick Cheney can do it, anyone can!

Schwarzenegger

Is a political hound married to the Kennedy family. He could care less about California. The 8888 A44 can't even pronounce it right. His tenure as Governor is a failure, his ego! is at risk, . He will try anything to entice the public to tell him how great he is. ****Buffoon.

Arnold is for anything that will bring the state money. I wouldn't be surprised if the marriage license fee goes up over the weekend. Never mind that the majority of Californians disagreed with gay marriage it's all about the money and the accolades they can put on their wall. Pelosi and Boxer haven't been listening either so it seems California has no hopes of getting out of our current downfall as one of the large world economies and a state everyone wanted to live in.

damn, you figured out the nefarious gay agenda Joker69. It's all just a ruse so that the state can make 100 thousand dollars peddling marriage licenses. That will balance the budget for sure.

They're putting Kagan in the Supreme Court tomorrow so I'd say it's pretty much checkmate if, I mean when it reaches that court. My gaydar can't be that off.

does your "gaydar" sound the alarm when you look in the mirror?

gay marriage is moraly wrong!! I believe they may have some kind of legal union so that if they are with each other for several years and one dies they can get benefits like married couples. that I do agree with , but not marriage of same sex.

Oh Ah-nold. Eversince you posed naked, how are you able to walk down a street in Cau-li-faw-ni-a without drowning in the drool of your gay constituents? You're such a hunk! Drop that empty-headed Kennedy charade and marry me! We can pose naked together.

independentbychoice: There are gay wolves? OMG!

janis, you're statement is ignorant to say the least. why should your "morals" trump others'? who is to say your morals are "right"? and why, exactly, is gay marriage "morally wrong"? that's right, you don't have a good answer to any of those questions.

janis--I do not think homosexual marriage is immoral, but I also do not agree it should be allowed. Proponents argue that being deprived of the ability to marry is illegal and that people in love should be allowed to marry whomever they choose, so long as the relationship is with consenting adults. But marriage was designed to benefit society, not to benefit those in the relationship. It is because of the benefit to society that marriage provides, like social stability, procreation, and so on, that causes society to then reward those who do get married.

So, for me, the problem is a simple one. Show me how homosexual marriage benefits society. This was not the case made by those opposed to Prop 8, and I voted, again, to support the traditional definition of marriage. But if it was shown to us how it would help society then wouldn't we be ill-advised to reject the concept? No, this was a very bad way to change the law. Judge Walker has done a great deal of violence to our constitution, and his act seems to be at least partly due to hubris. But you are flat-out wrong too.

Civil unions as a "separate but equal" policy is what allows Judge Walker to come to the conclusion he did. Your sensitivities about sounding caring or compassionate is what this judge used to say your opinions are unconstitutional. Not to mention his ludicrous findings of fact. Read his opinion, and those above you too. Using Judge Walker's logic there is not a single relationship between adults, not a polygamist one, not an incestuous one, none, that can be denied the "fundamental right" to marry. A right that does not exist in federal law or in the constitution, by the way.

There was no unequal application of the laws in this case. This is about a social structure adopted by a majority of the voters in my state that a single judge simply tosses aside to achieve his thinly-veiled objective. This isn't the law, this is another step towards despotism. Walker isn't the only one to blame though. You, janis, help him all the way by wanting to sound as if you are not bigotted or judgemental--the popular culture wants you to be this way. But your idea that civil unions are the answer is exactly how Walker was able to wreak the havoc on our constitution he just signed.

Really - who cares. Gay marriage is not going to effect me personally. Think about it - how does the fact that a couple who marries (whatever their sexual orientation) effect you on a day to day basis.

There are gay wolves? OMG!

yes, didn'tyou hear? a judge, no doubt one of them librul 9th circuit judge, made a ruling that gave them protection. they must have been getting hassled by the straight wolves. here's the link.

http://topnews.co.uk/210610-judge-passes-orders-protect-gray-wolves-montana-and-idaho

KDWill, your posting is absurd. Morals are personal, you bet, and her's or mine or your's are no better than anyone elses in the abstract. But her notion that homosexual marriage should not be legal was supported by California voters, not once, not even twice, but many times. Just twice in the past couple of elections, and both times judges have stepped forward to make a mockery of our votes.

You can pretend anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot or not, that is what your morals lead you to think apparently, but we should all be able to agree that in this republic how we change the law matters more than what that change might be. Read the Judge's opinion. I'm sorry, but Vaughn Walker authored 136 pages of vomit. Consider just this one fact--Walker uses the fact that the state supreme court overturned the will of the voters and allowed homosexuals to marry, and that our elected officials did nothing to fight this usurpation, as a fact in favor of him violating our will as well. Ultimately it may be impossible to argue with the logic of people who think this way. I just hope you are the last to be eaten by the lion, so to speak.

Show me how homosexual marriage benefits society.

if people are happier, doesn't that benefit society in a myriad of ways?

here's a question for you. how does gay marriage harm society?

rich, thanks for the kind words about my post. anyways, you proved my point to janis perfectly: "morals are personal." you can't tell someone else that what they're doing is "morally wrong" just because it isn't what you want/believe in. "morals" should be left out of this. let straight people marry, let gay people marry. does it hurt anyone? no.

KDWill, morals are infused in every law we have. You don't really want to leave morality at the door of the court. Your point that HER morals don't trump your's is okay, so far as it goes. But this was a vote held among all the eligible voters of California, and the vote was pretty clear--no homosexual marriage. If your claim is that majorities cannot set up the laws under which society is constructed, then fine, say it. But if this is the case say goodbye to the republic, and say hello to anarchy.

lowrider......

you aren't being forced to be gay so why do you care about their morals....worry about yourself and you will be a much happier person.

KDWill............Gays have no morals, their lifestyle is disgusting and filthy. So therefore YOUR statement is ignorant.

finally. ironic as it is, thanks for helping me inject a bit of humor into newsvine.

rich,

the US is a republic, not a democracy. there is a difference.

Waterdog49

Ho dog Chill, all is not lost!

Good grief. Let them get married. We shouldn't impose our ideals on someone else if they want to do something different. We wouldn't like someone else telling us what we can and cannot do. If they're happy and it doesn't hurt anyone, then let them get married. There are BIGGER problems in the world to deal with. This is such a waste of time. Why is this even still being talked about. MOVE ON PEOPLE!!!!!

Rich it is not up to voters to decide on the rights of others. It is up to the Constitution to determine civil rights. That is why prop 8 is wrong.

If prop 8 was deemed acceptable we could start voting tomorrow to ban religion state by state, or heterosexual marriages, guns or anything else the majority decided was "immoral"

The Constitution protects everyone, not just those hated by a majority.

I remember Arnold talking about "Girly-Men" not to many years back, and now this. I guess that's what living in California does to you.

He and Jerry are saying this just to get votes.
But, I think they forgot how the majority of Californians voted ! ! ! !

lowrider... not real sure if that was a joke to be honest. pretty sick mind if you are serious.

rich... you still aren't proving any point about why gay marriage should be illegal, only stating past judgements on the issue--doesn't mean it's right or wrong. a majority doesn't make something right or wrong. there are many popular issues that don't make "moral" sense and vice versa. but really, how would gay marriage hurt anyone?

So gays are bad because of morals, and gay marriage is bad because of morals. Both of which are based in Christian beliefs, which is the religion that most people in the US believe in.

So I have a question for the Christians that are against gay marriage. If you were a Christian in Malaysia, would you have any problems living by Sharia law? After all, that is the morals and beliefs of a majority of the people in Malaysia. If Sharia law said you had to wear a burqa because it is the "moral" thing to do, then you would do it? If Sharia law said that you could not drive, or leave the house without a male escort, you would do that? After all that is the morals of Sharia law. If you had an affair, you would be stoned. That ok?

The way I look at it, if something does not have a victim, then it should be allowed. If I want to smoke drugs, and I am sitting in my house by myself, why not? If I steal someones TV to buy the pot, then fine, arrest me for theft. If a person wants to be gay, then fine. If they want to get married, then fine.

Of course they would need to allow brothers and sisters to get married, and a son could marry his wife. If the government cannot make it only be a man and a woman, then they should not be able to stop a brother and sister who want to get married.

independent, but of course you keep seeing me refer to the republic, and never to the democracy, yes? And if you missed it, I wrote fairly extensively about how process matters more to us than outcomes, and that this judge (and I did read his ruling) has disdain for the process we used to vote to make marriage in California between one man, and one woman, both competent to give consent, both not closely related. Our proposition process followed the constitution. There is no fundamental right to marry in the US constitution. There is a history of marriage only for the two people I previously identified. And on, and on. And at the end, he simply shrugs off our right to determine within the law (this is the republic you imagine I don't see) what kind of society we wish to establish.

Many on here ask why not allow that which they claim doesn't harm me. This is the wrong question, but not because it has no answer--it clearly does have an answer, one I am articulating. It's the wrong question because altering the law, altering the understanding of what constitutes a "fundamental right", should come following the case being made by the proponents for the change. The opposite metric is in place today, and frankly has always been among liberals, where those who prefer the status quo are demanded to prove the negative. This can lead no where good--history has too many examples of how societies go off the rails, all the while thinking themselves into rationality.

So it isn't homosexual marriage I oppose. It is homosexual marriage without the political process to show how society is to benefit. For if the concept of happiness or love is all that really is at play here, then the extreme cases become more plausible as well. Who are you, or I, to say who loves who, or who makes another happy? This is a bad way to make law, and Judge Walker made 136 pages of it.

So Rich, if they showed money would be made by taxing marriage licenses and things similar to that, you would be for it? If you go even deeper into the idea, beyond the money government would make, there would be more business for catering companies, locals businesses, etc. I'm pretty sure no money would be lost...

Um, Jim...I'm not a christian. I don't believe in a God. Don't try for even one minute to ascribe my views to Christian dogma. However, I will defend Christians here too. DO they not have the right to hold whatever views they choose, or is it only the enlightened and anarchic left that has this benefit? Why you vote how you vote is something we can argue about, same with how I vote, but that a majority of people in California supported a proposition which merely says that California could recognize only those marriages where two people, a man and woman, were joined, can't be based solely on Christianity.

Maybe it's the Jews? They support monogamous marriage, yes? Maybe it's the muslims, you know? Don't they oppose all homosexuals and their relationships? No, you single out Christians for your bigotry. Well done, sir.

About living abroad...YES, people who go to those nations are subject to those moral codes. You got it! For whatever reasons the Malay people adopted the social structure they have. If I move there, Christian or not, I had better adapt to their moral codes. But what on earth does this have to do with accepting or not homosexual marriage here?

rich,

a democracy is rule by majority. a republic is government bound by charter (the constitution.)

we are a republic, not a democracy. your argument about majority rules is invalid. the majority does not rule. the constitution does.

KDWill, if money is how you judge benefit, and you think the gov't should make money from you getting married, then that would be your moral equation to work out. I think the gov't should enter our lives the least possible, as freedom and liberty are, to me, the highest values we can pursue. But if you see yourself happiest in a statist world like you describe, then make the case. To answer you outright though, no, those are not things which benefit society (imo). They might help produce social stability, but that would be indirect at best.

The best arguments I saw Judge Walker make had to do with the stabilizing effects marriage would have on child rearing. Yet he misses, entirely, the context within which the discussion is occuring. The people of this state, and of the nation generally, have adopted over time policies which make single parenting easier, which make divorcing easier. If his opinion had serious intellectual heft behind it, wouldn't he want to invalidate THOSE laws, even though the larger society accepted them, as they harm society in his view? So I am left with one of two directions to go on this.

Either I can accept the liberal claim made by Judge Walker, mantra really, that all families, whatever they look like, are equal, and say that the one remaining facet of heterosexual marriage that distinguishes it from homosexual relationships, the ability to procreate in most cases within the relationship, is meaningless...OR, I can accept Judge Walker at face value and conclude that the this same liberal mantra, but for the exact opposite reasoning, is harming those kids who are being raised within homosexual-couple households, and so to end it we should encourage homosexuals to marry.

Do you not see the intellectual cul-de-sac Judge Walker drove us into?

To me this isn't even about gay marriage (personally I could care less who wants to marry who, as long as they are consenting Adults), misery loves company. And heterosexuals, at a 50% or more divorce rate have nothing to brag about. It has to do with states rights, and marriage rights are determined by the state, not the Feds.

If the states didn't set the laws, then why do we have different values per state as to who, what, why and when AND age of consent?

This link referrers to the Feds role in marriage, which is the financial obligations, not the definition of marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm

I see this more as an intrusion of negating the VOTERS (which is who our government is suppose to represent) and taking states rights away, which have always counter balanced our rules of law, until recently...We are headed away from any sort of fair government rule of and for the people, into a combo socialist/dictatorship with Corporate America running the show. Scary times people...

independent, I invite you to find where I wrote, ever, that a majority always rules. I said we followed the law in how we arrived at our decision. I said there is nothing in the US constitution which provides that marriage is a fundamental right for anyone, let along homosexuals. I said that the problem here, at least for me, isn't that there will be homosexual marriage, but how we are getting to that point. You can pretend, which is obvious, that I want a simple majority to rule the day, but consider this...

The opposite of that is what just occured. Not a majority, but a singular individual ruled that millions of other people were wrong. If you think he is right, then aren't you, without giving any explanation as to the validity of his opinion, supporting a move towards despotism? Disagree with me all you want, I don't much care. But don't simply agree with Walker because you got the opinion you want. It is this thing which I am arguing against here.

Rich, The people of California voted against gay marriage not once, but twice.

The people of California voted against gay marriage not once, but twice.

Who cares?

Rich,

you still haven't answered the first question: how is gay marriage going to hurt anyone? It will be as socially beneficial as straight marriage. If you are going to use the argument that they can't have kids, well, they can adopt the ones that are currently in orphanages or go about another way of childbearing. Why not?

Still haven't seen an substantive argument against it... so again, how does gay marriage hurt anyone?

I want to know when I'm going to be allowed to legally marry my sister or my mom in California.

I heard (although im not sure its true) that teachers were gonna start teaching about homosexuality in schools. Does anyone know if its true or not? It's my job as a parent to talk to my kids about sex and i dont think we should leave it up to our school system to teach our children about sex or sexual oreintation. I think its all of our responsibilies as parents to talk to our kids about sex although i am aware some parents neglect this part of parenting for whatever reason thats their business. anyways thats my only concern can anyone tell me if this is true or not?

rich,

the problem here, at least for me, isn't that there will be homosexual marriage, but how we are getting to that point.

The opposite of that is what just occured. Not a majority, but a singular individual ruled that millions of other people were wrong. If you think he is right, then aren't you, without giving any explanation as to the validity of his opinion, supporting a move towards despotism?

I wrote fairly extensively about how process matters more to us than outcomes, and that this judge (and I did read his ruling) has disdain for the process we used to vote to make marriage in California between one man, and one woman, both competent to give consent, both not closely related.

This is about a social structure adopted by a majority of the voters in my state that a single judge simply tosses aside to achieve his thinly-veiled objective. This isn't the law, this is another step towards despotism.

take your pick. each quote from you espouses how prop 8 should not have been overturned because the majority voted for it. again, that is not how a republic works. the judge defended the constitution.

But don't simply agree with Walker because you got the opinion you want.

i agree with walker because because he upheld the constitution. as for gay marriage, it will not, nor will it ever affect me in a negative way. if it makes some peoples lives better, then that's great.

in a previouspost, you asked how gay marriage will benefit society. i gave you my opinion, which i believe is valid. i then asked you twice (now three time) how gay marriage will hurt society. it's noted you never responded.

I want to know why those hypocritical LA government leaders did not call for people to boycott California because of the passage of Prop8, like they did for the recent Arizona law.

So why can't I marry my sister or mom in California?

Who cares?--------------

Is the only thing happening happening here for you 'gay marriage'? Who cares about marriage at all, I don't.

This ruling has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. I think bigger issues, like state rights, which are way more important. Little by little REAL rights are being stripped away from the people of this country, but that's okay as long as 'gays' can marry? Do away with all marriage then...let people marry their pets or daughters...and I'm not being funny, there is a BIGGER problem underneath this ruling. Hell, lets not have any rights at all...would you be happy then? As long as 'gays' can marry??? See where I'm going?

I find it funny that many of you are argueing that the judge is wrong because hes going against the will of the voters. but just because popular vote swings one way doesnt mean its right! what if in your state a proposition against free speech won a popular vote. would u think that was legit or would u want a judge to uphold the contitution and your rights.

So why can't I marry my sister or mom in California?-----

Nevermind, I see the stupid are posting. My fault I forgot, It's the weekend, no intelligence left on the boards.

Seriously, if being gay or lesbian has hurt this country in any way, I'd like to know. I have a 12 year old daughter I'm teaching morals to and to "do the right thing", and I really want to know, because I don't see a problem with it. I want her to be tolerant of ALL people, regardless of where they're from, the color of their skin, what have you. So far I've succeeded, but this gay/lesbian discussion is just getting to be too much.

I've met one gay couple in my life I considered friends, not close, but friends none the less, and I thought they were both great, and that they'd both make wonderful fathers. This was back in 1995, before all this crap came about and it wasn't even an issue. Civil unions weren't even around then. They were together for 15+ years and as happy as could be, while I was dealing with a deadbeat who left me at the age of 30 when he found out I was pregnant, and I decided to raise my daughter on my own - not that I regret it one bit.

But really, someone, please give me an honest answer on what gays marrying will do to you or me, or the potentially thousands and more children waiting to be adopted, will do to bring this country down? This seems to be the outlying problem with opposing groups. Reminds me of driving past Planned Parenthood with a bunch of OLD men protesting outside with very young boy and girls holding signs of what abortion looks like. Seems a little immoral to me to have a child that young see something like that!

We have people on both sides here - one woman says she's all for civil unions, but against gay marriage... what's the real difference here, as I seriously don't know or understand. Is it the same thing as saying I'm pro choice, but against abortion? Which to me makes perfect sense. When I got pregnant, knowing I was going to be alone and broke, it entered my mind because I had that choice, but opted against it because it's not for me.

But what's the difference in benefits between civil unions and gay marriage? Is it just that other people think gay marriage is immoral? Or that gays and lesbians want the right to marry? As citizens of this country, don't they have the same rights, or should have the same rights as I do? To raise a child on my own with the option of abortion on the table in the beginning, or to get married as I please, then divorce when it's over? They should have that right too. It's the American way.

If that's that case, what these religious people believe, that it's "against God's Law", shouldn't we leave that between God and the couple getting married or being in a civil union, or just being gay for that matter? The same thing with abortion. It's against the Catholic church, but it should be left between God and the woman. It's really no one else's business.

From the way I see it, besides the political advantages/disadvantages in getting voted into/out of office, religious types are basically trying to impose their moral will against others, and to me, brought up Catholic, that's not the way things are done. We are suppose to be tolerant of everyone - everyone! Regardless of what religion or their beliefs are. Catholic or not, just any Christian in general are supposed to behave this way - yet we all know they don't.

I can't really say I approve of gays or lesbians or their constitutional rights to get married, because it just doesn't bother me one way or the other. None of it hurts me, nor my family, therefore I do not give a crap. If I'm forced to make a decision, I vote for their rights to marry just like everyone else. Wasn't it once against the law for people of different colors to marry at one time - that was way long ago and since then people have forgotten about it, just like they will this issue when it calms down and the entire country jumps on the bandwagon and lets anyone marry whomever they want. As it should be.

KDWIll, I will be blunt for you seem determined to not read what I replied to you. I do NOT care if we have homosexual marriage, per se, I care how we arrive at that conclusion. Judge Walker's opinion sets into motion many bad unintentional (I hope anyhow) consequences. It demeans civil government to simply argue the law should be changed because you can find no reason that you are personally harmed. First, whether I am personally harmed and can quantify it is irrelevant--marriage is a social contract which benefits society, not me personally. As for how it hurts others I can't say. So the question you ask, on its face, is dumb. But, second, the notion of altering the laws, in Walker's own words the "fundamental rights" of individuals on the basis of arguing the negative is pathetic. You should be arguing HOW homosexual marriage helps others, not denigrating them for opposing it when they see no reason how it might help them.

That is...your political constructions damage our society, both in how you argue them and what they are. If the claim is simply that homosexuals being happy helps society, and on this basis we alter the laws, then to what group could you ever deny anything if they are able to claim it makes them happy? What federal agency will you establish to engender happiness among the people, and how will this play out? Will unhappy people be able to demand federal assistance to make them happy? This is all nonsense. The judge's opinion is nonsense too. Read the damn thing.

Arnold's very cool, a realist, and quite hip! : -)

Rich: I read your posts, but your answers are all over the place. It's hardly relevant to the topic. Plus, you are very much stuck on certain issues that only you seem to be having problems with.

clueless

So why can't I marry my sister or mom in California?

Have you asked either of them?

I suggest to take it to court since this really seems to bother you.

You probably have a chance if you really want to fight it in court. I believe it was originally banned because of the likelihood of deformities and mental retardation in any subsequent offspring. Though scientists are now suggesting that may not be the case.

You know your sister and mom may be pissed that you are considering both of them instead of just one.

"i agree with walker because because he upheld the constitution."

independent, this had nothing to do with the constitution.

Prop 8 was overturned because it violates the Constitution. We have a system of checks and balances in place to ensure that the opinions of the majority never oppress the rights of the minority. California voters voted to oppress gay rights. Their votes counted. The majority just voted in a way that cannot stand in a republic. Women did not gain the right to vote because the majority of men voted for it; anti-miscegenation laws were not overturned because the majority of white citizens voted for it; desegregation of our schools did not happen because voters voted for it. Instead, each of these civil liberties were granted due to the interpretation of our Constitution.

Pandabear, the threat of teaching gay marriage (and the gay lifestyle) in schools was a rumor started by the proponents of Prop 8. I taught in middle schools in California for over a decade and I am very familiar with the state standards. Marriage (not just gay marriage) is not taught in schools. The only time marriage is even alluded to in a state standard is in matters of health (predominantly pregnancy) in the health standards for high school and even then it is not a standard per se. It takes years for state standards to be changed. If the state does attempt to include the teaching of gay issues into the state curriculum, then you should allow your voice to be heard. But what is taught in school is a completely different issue than the legality of same-sex marriage.

I'm so weary of this issue. Nobody changes their minds, and nobody budges an inch. This is an unwinable war, and even if one side is declared the winner, they lose because our national unity will be irreparably broken. "'National unity' you say?" Oh, that's right. We haven't had national unity since only God knows when. We probably came close right after 9/11, but that's only because we all had our focus on something other than that which divides us. Maybe we need more national tragedies. Something real, something good seems to happen to us as a nation when we are suffering, even if indirectly.

I don't even know why we're even having to HAVE this discussion. You have all these people shouting about the Constitution, "We need to protect the Constitution!" yet, anytime they don't like who the Constitution protects they want to change it or do something that goes entirely against it.

We REALLY need to fix our educational system and quickly. I don't think the schools are devoting enough time to teaching kids about the Constitution and I also think we need to have people who have studied the Constitution extensively teaching it to our kids. Not just one teacher who has to cram in all kinds of history and civics lessons.

Just one class designed for this purpose and this purpose alone so that our kids know it and understand it as well as they know their own names.

Thank you Arnold, and supporters! Slowly and surely American is becoming a more liberal, progressive place, and I want to say I am PROUD. Prop 8 supporters can do all they want, but the happiness & understanding of the American people come first, even if it causes a few hiccups initially, and wasn't a popular choice. That's why there are amendments! Face it people and accept us! The concept of sexual fluidity is out there, and so it's really just a matter of time before society is completely open. I really don't have to say it out loud, but our philosophy is that we deserve the right to be intimate with the gender we choose. And yes to be open & honest, you its a subtle agenda.. But with this ruling, it's too late, the people have spoken, and the judge has ruled...

As you may be able to note, I fed up & have no issue with this ruling, it's come far too late after rallying America to cheer for us as underdogs.. America is evolving into what it was meant to be, "land of the free". Marriage has changed, and I think many of you bigots still struggle with that concept. If we want it, we should have access regardless of makeup of gender, and our choice in partners. The "institution of marriage" that closely resembled the nit conventional family of the past is just something that was just too exclusive & discriminatory. I wouldn't be surprised or I really don't care it become open to more members as well, just as some Mormons are, AND more mainstream as well (although I'm up in the air about it, but.. many of my friends would honestly welcome it). The underlying concept, if it doesn't directly infringe on society, or hurts any feelings, we shouldn't have an issue. We've become a society of too many archaic laws and this judge has proved it TRUE. All it takes is a great lawyer and constitutional ambiguity.

Little by little, the society breaks down. Little by little, morality erodes. Poco a poco, our language changes. Bit by bit, me Dios is kicked to the curb. Our music is filthy, our government corrupt, our once most beautiful state is a fetid den of iniquity. The warnings and complaints of the majority are disregarded. Infantacide and sodomy are common practice.

This country has ceased to be America.

Welcome to Hell.

After reading a lot of these comments I am curious as to why the gay/lesbian community is so bigoted against the bi-sexual community. Even the ruling by the judge is discrimatory against bi-sexuals. Since bi's do in fact "love" people of both genders why do those in the gay community not want bi's to be happy also? Why are bi's forced by the judge and gays to chose which of the 2 people they love to marry? Why can't bi's marry one of each since they love one of each? What harm would that cause to gay marriages? Would it not be better for society since there would be 3 loving adults in the family to care for the children? Would it not lower some of the single parent homes? In this type of marriage, two of them could work and support the family while the third member stays at home and takes care of the children.

So please, all of you gays who keep insisting that marriage is between TWO consenting adults stop putting your values and morals on those bisexuals in our nation who just want to have a life and marriage with the man and women of their choice.

sodomy are common practice.

If this is bothering you that much then perhaps you are spending too much time thinking about what other people are doing in their bedrooms. It would creep me out to be your neighbor.

This country has not ceased to be America. America is growing - as it should.

And by the way Infanticide... if you mean abortion... was legal long before it was ever illegal and then made legal again.

This "righteous" country didn't start out "protecting the unborn" nor did it change the laws to "protect the unborn" because people believed it was morally wrong and an abomination in "God's" eyes. Abortion was originally made illegal thanks to racists who feared becoming a minority.

At one time in this country prostitution was not only common but legal.

At one time in this country it was legal to beat your wife.

At one time in this country it was okay to kill a person because of his/her skin color.

At one time in this country it was legal to have sex with and marry 13 year old girls.

At one time in this country it was not considered rape if a man forced his wife to have sex.

And people still think this country was founded on Christian beliefs? LOL

Really, you should learn the history of America and you will find out that it hasn't changed the way you think it has.

Welcome to reality.

And people still think this country was founded on Christian beliefs? LOL

Actually I don't know why I laughed. These were the Christian beliefs brought with settlers from Europe.

Thank goodness the laws in this country didn't end up siding with the Christians.

Man is so puny when compared to the vast size of our Universe -- physical terms... Man can learn to use their knowledge correctly -- with reason. Wisdom takes effort... It isn't a magical process. Consult someone wiser than yourself and seek answers to one big question. Who created the human body and why do we have weakness? All of us have something we need to overcome. Some just choose their selfishness and deny themselves true joy and happiness -- and take away the same from others in the process. If any person suffering from inequality in prison for making a wrong choice asked why --- would we seek to correct that? So when someone chooses their puny judgment over the judgment of deity, they are on shaky ground because the consequences will follow and will be very uncomfortable. When we violate traditional God's institutions (made for the benefit of mankind) like the sanctity of Marriage, we offend Deity...(the one who loves all-- even Gay people who are struggling with their tendencies. So I believe the root of this issue lies in whether or not we believe in a just God or a God who restricts us from indulging in selfishness and foolishness.

Wasn't Schwartznegger elected as a Republican Governor for the State of California?

All the Democrats should be happy, yes, the Republicans agree gay marriage is good! Now all of us have a choice; both parties have the same platform and thoughts.

It is a one party system here in the US.

Schwartzenegger ran under a phony pretense of being a Republican. Will Rosie O'Donnell get back together with Kelli again?

California can't keep Laws decided by Courts, and leave them alone. Everything has to be turned upside down, including many other judged Laws there. Wonder what is next for CA?

Frankly, I don't care what they do; it is the false pretense of Schwarzenegger running as a Republican. NOT!

It's a sad day.

Ahhnold has finally become one of those "Girlie Men".

I'll never watch Terminator again.

Rogue USA:

The Terminator will do anything to please all the people of CA. Is he any better than the previous Mayor, (Davis)?

What has he done for CA? He and Maria should be living in Massachusetts.

Quite a list of talking points, Eris. And actually, not much has changed, has it? This didn't really bother me enough to do that much research. Apparently, it's bothered you alot...

Actually hell the difference between you and I is that I feel America has improved. You seem to be "bothered" that America is not what it once was. Knowing your history is not the sign of being bothered. It's called being educated.

I will take consensual anal sex and dirty music lyrics over the old Christian "morals" any day.

@ Rich-281385

You do make some valid points in your last comment to KDwill. I personally vited for prop 8 two years ago. As I have said im on the fence though as to the legitimacy of many of the views surrounding the gay community.

Having more happy gays because they can get married will DEF not make the world a better place or wave a magic wand that solves multiple social ills. If we go by morality everyone has their own opinion. If we go by other things such as higher rates of certain communicable disease in the gay community well, the situation starts to look bad for the gay community. Its a very complex issue, I personally have a problem with activist judges stepping in to overrule a ballot measure that was overwhelmingly approved in CA. However yes we do have the 14th amendment issue and the matter of a gay marriage ban being constitutional. Time will tell but ITs interesting to see people get so worked up almost to the point of violence in order to protevt their value system and what they feel is "right"

Rich I can understand KDWIll's point. On one hand you are saying, You should be arguing HOW homosexual marriage helps others, not denigrating them for opposing it when they see no reason how it might help them. Then on the other hand, "Will unhappy people be able to demand federal assistance to make them happy"? It is pretty contradictive.

The judge was faced with many facets of the issue. Moral, religious, parental, etc. etc. His duty is to evaluate the arguments that are presented to him regarding this issue. This is NO easy quest. The judge is NOT going to appease someone who states this behavior is against their religion. People have beliefs and they are NOT going to change. It isn't the responsibility of the judge to conform society to new social standards.

Arnold, I was really dissappointed with you regarding your comments regarding "girly men" during the elections. It would be nice if representatives had the stength and courage to do what is in the better good of ALL instead of doing what is most popular. I believe if that was the focus this world could evolve into a better place.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I believe that is what we are ALL striving for Rich.

Great news to see and hear!! ;-)
In my lifetime since high school 20 years ago, then proudly serving in the military under DADT for six years, to Celebrating 7 years September 1st 2010 with my Loving Husband, Sonny Hood- I take a moment to take a deep breath, Smile and realize how Blessed we truly are each new day. Just in these past five years living in the moment 24/7 and being a witness to the Amazing Gay Rights & Political Movement and seeing all these positive outcomes is Awesome! Thank you to everyone in our lifetime both past and present who's worked so hard and tirelessly year after year to where we are now reading headlines in the news like these by helping and lending support making a positive change for all Gay's, Lesbians, & Transgendered. Todays younger generation are certainly growing up with a wonderful support team both@ Hm & Abroad, and with much more technology, and Gay Freedom that alot of us never had until now. God Bless each one of you...
Amen California..Amen..

im-in-hell, Socrates uttered very similar sentiments long long ago. The country, the next generation, etc. is always going to hell in a handbasket. And somehow mankind seems to survive.

xxTYxx-

As I have said im on the fence though as to the legitimacy of many of the views surrounding the gay community.

Meaning you pretend to entertain the idea and plan to demonstrate your thoughtful consideration with carefully written, faulty logic.

Having more happy gays because they can get married will DEF not make the world a better place .

You know, at first I wasn't convinced, but since you threw "DEF" in there, I just can't keep myself from agreeing with you. You're right, happiness DEF doesn't contribute to making the world a better place.

If we go by other things such as higher rates of certain communicable disease in the gay community well, the situation starts to look bad for the gay community.

A certain level of vagueness glossed with pretend scientific knowledge, though, as usual, lacking any sort of reflection. Would providing a legal venue for equal gay monogamy cause:

A) celebratory orgies everywhere?

B) an increase in committed, stabilized relationships?

C) a decrease in rate of infection by certain communicable diseases?

If you think the answer is celebratory orgies, you're probably not living in a real world.

Its a very complex issue, I personally have a problem with activist judges stepping in to overrule a ballot measure that was overwhelmingly approved in CA.

Unconstitutionally voted into law by 52% of people who voted. Let's not use buzz words like "overwhelming" where they don't fit. Let's also not forget that our government worked as it should have, and this judge, regardless of what he does with his personal life, adequately performed his duties by protecting a minority group from a crusading majority.

However yes we do have the 14th amendment issue and the matter of a gay marriage ban being constitutional. Time will tell but ITs interesting to see people get so worked up almost to the point of violence in order to protevt their value system and what they feel is "right".

I hope you're referring to the moral majority here, and not the gay/lesbians and their family and friends whose lives these issues directly affect. Or those who understand the constitution and think it's more important to adhere to its ideal of equal rights than to shut out a few people who, for some reason, make you uncomfortable when they hold hands.

Having more happy gays because they can get married will DEF not make the world a better place .

Do you think the betterment of the world also relies on whether or not YOU are happy? Since your happiness is not a consideration maybe we should just deny you what makes you happy until we can prove that it somehow contributes to the total betterment of this planet?

I guess the question is... why is this statement something that even crossed your mind? What does it have to do with any of this?

I think they should allow everyone in a relationship to marry. Three some's foursomes 5 somes 6 somes. How does that work? No discrimination remember. What if Fido gets involved in a 5 some, couldn't vido become married to the other 5 some. Animal rights, no discrimination. It's a sick world, nothing is simple anymore. Pandora is "out" of the box. Glad I don't have long left because I'm gonna leave it with you. I grew up on "my three son's" and "lassie", to hell with this. What's that smell?

Referring to Arnold as a 'terminator' is one thing...but a 'girlie man,' he's not! : -)

Gays and lesbians are legal citizens, and the practice of allowing one group to vote to deny Constitutional right to another is extremely dangerous--obviously unconstitutional.

Marriage is not a Constitutional right-- show me where the word is in the Constitution. It is a privledge.

Once you accept that it is unconstitutional to ban mixed race marriages, you've already accepted that marriage between consenting adults is a right that cannot be denied arbitrarily to a suspect class that you don't like. After that, it's just a matter of when you realize that gay people are also a suspect class that you don't like in this regard, and the rest of it is just hand waving.

As for the salient point of where the word is in the constitution, you should instead look to the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, the fact that nobody actually says marriage is a right in the Constitution means absolutely squat. The rest follows from the previous response.

Brian,

it's a human right. And human rights are protected under the Constitution. "Life, liberty..." and all those other things you want to deny gay people of. And the Declaration of Independence also guarantees it. You'd know that if you'd ever read them.

You might also want to read James Madison's Federalist Paper #10 about the checks on the tyranny of the majority. Read slowly.

Marriage is not a Constitutional right-- show me where the word is in the Constitution. It is a privledge

Marriage isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, but equality under the law is. That's what the lawsuit was really about.

stilt, you are right about what the 9th amendment says, but wrong about what it means. It was not put in place to allow judges to decide to expand our rights, not at all. It was put in for the purpose of simply stating that not every right of an individual is enumerated in the constitution, and so the constitution can't be used to deny the people the ability to expand their own rights as they see fit. How can we do this? Using Article 5.

My problem with homosexual marriage is the way in which it is being adopted, not that it is being adopted. What you infer with your post is that any federal judge, so long as he is not overturned, or the USSC itself (see Griswold or Roe), can expand the list of rights protected by the constitution DESPITE the majority vote of the people in accordance with their own constitution, to come to a completely different conclusion. What you mean, then, is that you are little more than a serf, answerable, in the end, to only those wearing a black robe. Fine, but is this REALLY what self-government means? Seriously. You may get the feudal society you (I think) inadvertantly support, but I doubt you will like the outcome.

Marriage is not a Constitutional right-- show me where the word is in the Constitution. It is a privledge.

Brian - the US Supreme court has decreed that there is a fundamental (constitutional) right to marry. In Loving v. Virginia, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man (court quote its opinion in Skinner v. State of Oklahoma).'" If you want to go strictly by the exact words written in the Constitution, then I hope you are ready to kiss your constitutional right to privacy goodbye, because there is no express right to privacy.

You must really be a lonely, miserable, person...How can you even say that about people? Absolutely disgusting!!

Need to see a shrink boy

You're an idiot - that should be grounds for denying you the right vote. Permanently. Bigot.

The case of Loving vs. Virginia already established marriage as a right. This is the case that overturned anti-miscegenation laws. If you want to understand how the interpretation of the Constitution leads to the establishment of marriage as a right, then read the SCOTUS judgment.

What about my Constitutional right to own a machine gun? Or any kind of gun? the anti-gun lobby is trying and in some cases suceeding to revoke my rights to own a gun. Don't give me that bull@!$%# about Constitutional rights!

Im-in-hell - while I find your comment to be off topic, I will respond and suggest you actually read the 2nd Amendment, since you seem to be supporting a strict reading of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Under the strict reading of the Constitution you have no constitutional right to own a machine gun except to form a well regulated Militia (i.e. for a new country fighting a revolutionary war and a civil war when there was no formal military in place.) Now I am not saying whether I support that interpertation on the amendment or not, because it is off topic, but I did want to point out what a strict reading of the 2nd amendment actually says.

purbear . oh REALLYwhen we were stationed in CA the teachers sent a book home with my daughter for a book report.....the book was all about a gay couple and calling Christians miss-informed, old fashioned, wrong, etc.... When I went to talk to the teachers about it we were told she either did the report on the book they assigned or they would fail her, and that any objections we had were simply our bigoted views, and that parents had no right to object to anything they wanted to teach, took it to the school board and received the same response..... She did the report, but at the end wrote that the book was in conflict with her personal beliefs...and they attempted to fail her for her personal comment till I threatened them with lawyers.

Brian-352902

Marriage is not a Constitutional right-- show me where the word is in the Constitution. It is a privledge.

You are right as long as liberty is not a part of the constitution.

The gay marriage issue is about the majority infringing on the rights of the minority. Whether 14th amendment or 2nd amendment. That's how this relates. The intent of the 2nd amendment was that citizens should be able to bear arms for protection from their own government, hence the ability to match firepower with federal troops. While our Founding Fathers never foresaw the awesome power 21st century weaponry could achieve, the intent remains. And the fact remains that anti-gun lobbiests are making a concerted effort to revoke the intent and letter of the 2nd amendment.

Brenda, you bring up a great point. It is (or should be) unconstitutional for one group of people to vote to deprive another group of people their rights. Maybe that is the argument we can use to repeal the health care reform. Congress (a group of people) voted to deprive taxpayers (another group of people) of their right to decide for themselves.

Gays have equal treatment under the law. Whether they are "married" or not is immaterial. If they want to get "married", go ahead. But if that "marriage" bestows special privilege, by law, then it is an illegal act.

I, for one, believe that gay marriage is distorting the laws of God and nature.

Once you accept that it is unconstitutional to ban mixed race marriages, you've already accepted that marriage between consenting adults is a right that cannot be denied arbitrarily to a suspect class that you don't like.

Gender is not a class, and we do restrict marriage between consenting adults, on the basis of the familial relationship. First cousins are not allowed to marry in some states, but are in others. California allows such unions. Arkansas does not. In which state are first cousins facing discrimination?

Simply put marriage has never been an umbrella relationship between any 2 or more consenting adults in the U.S., and what proponents of same sex marriages are pursuing is a redefinition of the institution.

Traditionally, marriage is an institution only pertaining to people of opposite genders, so it simply does not apply to same sex unions. This definition can change. Perhaps it should change. But it is not a constitutional issue, it is legislative issue.

it's a human right. And human rights are protected under the Constitution. "Life, liberty..." and all those other things you want to deny gay people of.

And Brother/Brother, Sister/sister, Mother/daughter, Father/son can all be married with this line of thinking.

Mr. Ed,

I have a pair. If you read the line that "it is a human right". We are all humans and incest doesn't factor in that statement. Incest is something humans made up.

The problem with the incest argument, in a legal sense without arguing its potential for harm, is that this form of relationship is not being bared along any identifiable demographic; race, gender, age, disability, religion, and sexuality all of which can and have been targets of discrimination.

It is equally illegal for all demographics not just a few or one. Therefor, this form of relationship cannot look to the 14th Amendment for overturning. The same holds true for plural-relationships.

What I was comenting on was the fact that the only rights humans have are the ones that we give ourselves. There isn't any potential for genetic harm in a same sex relationship. And again the only rights that humans have are the ones we give ourselves or the ones that we deny ourselves as humans. Love and mating are also two different things. You can love and not mate or you can mate and not love. Love is a human emotion, and who is to say that it is or is not a human right. Only humans, and how do they get these rights per say, you really need the majority of the population to approve that action. The human rights of the Chinese population are different than the human rights of American population. Go figure.We're all humans.

Well, there are a couple of interesting points I can make about incest being falsely used as a tool to derail an argument about rights. First, though... you are correct in saying that a "right" is something we invented. However, being as we fashioned a country on invented ideas, sticking to them pretty well means that everyone gets them.

As far as incest... we may have invented it as a sin, but actually if you read pheromone research, nature highly discourages incestuous relationships. This is why everything about your mom (trying to be honest, not gross I promise) is normally rather repulsive and NOT sexual, no matter how hot your mom is. Same with siblings. I guess my point is if you cast the idea of incest as "only an invention" and a same sex ruling will open some sort of floodgates, there are only two reasons to say this. You are trying to equate one phenomena that HAS natural support (same gender pheromone attraction) to one that pheromones (evidence supports) works to negate (incest). So you must keep in mind, it isn't just legal apples and oranges, it is apples and oranges in a literal sense as far as nature is concerned. The only other reason is that you are trying to equate a nigh universal bad to something that your position alone says is bad to make an emotional appeal.

Also, on a more legal sort of counter.... you actually CAN marry your sibling/cousin/whatever. Which isn't to say there wouldn't be ramifications if anyone found out, but consider this: I never had to supply a birth certificate nor family tree documentation to marry my wife. So if you want to wax technical, a brother probably CAN marry his sister even now with no problem. Totally different if you walk into the courthouse as two men or two women, isn't it? It is a sick irony, I suppose. You say this will "open up" incest, but in reality... even incest is currently more attainable than same gender marriage.

Clifornia had recall election laws, recall Arnie and brown.

^^^^^ Simply stunning...

Or maybe, we'll negoiate a treat with RWAndA after the constitutuional amendment and all the fags will be living in Rwanda.

An example of manipulating stats. Some folks get married a number of times, skewing the stats.

e.g.--A friend of mine, and his wife, have seven marriages between them. They finally got it right--they have now been married 27 years.

The IRS regs had a sizable tax penalty ON marriage beginning in 1973--it has now been gradually zeroed out.

It's more than just IRS regs. It's all of the other special benefits that 1400+ laws give to heterosexual "married" couples, and THAT is what is unconstitutional. Every one of those laws should have been challenged and declared unconstitutional, just like Prop 8.

So you get a gay judge to overturn an anti-gay law.... this too will be overturned in due course.

It's not about any of the above. I think it's about I want and I should be able to do it. I agree.

Fine so be it. Can't really understand why anybody would want to ruin a great romance by getting married regardless of sexual dictates.

Spike: Not sure about polls or stats as I've never actually met a divorce pollster, but I do know a lot of people. Plenty of divorces between all of them. There is an inescapable pattern of increased divorces over the past two generations especially, and that statistic can't be manipulated. Society is changing.

I'm a huge proponent of completely rewriting marriage laws across the board. People get lovesick, make bad decisions, and then many spend years battling it out in family court. If nothing else, a staged sort of pre-nup would be more relevant of the times. Like, if you are married less than two years, the property you went into the marriage with isn't divided.

The only part about keeping gays from being able to marry each other that I agree with is that it will be less people in divorce court, haha.

Until 1969 it was ILLEGAL for men and women to get married if they were NOT the same race. Can you believe that??

that says it all, shorter and sweeter.

My great-grandparents were an interracial couple. When the census worker showed up in 1910 Mississippi and asked my great-grandfather about his wife and children, he pointed to the African looking woman sitting on the front and told that worker that my great-grandmother as his wife and that the little brown children running around the yard were theirs. The worker put his race down as Negro (he was Irish American) and put them down as married. It takes courage to effect change. It's also interesting how protection of children is usually not a compelling argument when it comes to the children of minorities. My great-grandparents were not married and Mississippi gave each of their children a birth certificate that said "illegitimate" on it. The children of gays an lesbians likewise have not been protected.

Brenda,

My Great Grandmother and Grandfather were never officially married either due to the fact he was Iroquois and she was an Irish Immigrant. It is a shameful part of our history. Hopefully the Gay marriage issue will soon be the same, just a shameful part of our HISTORY.

"Until 1969 it was ILLEGAL for men and women to get married if they were NOT the same race."

Actually, it was in 1967 that SCOTUS outlawed bans on mixed race marriage. That action overturned such bans in 16 states, which means the other 34 states had already dispensed with such bans -- if indeed they ever had them.

In other words, your statement is very misleading. As obscene as such laws were, there is no point in painting the situation worse than it was.

Lets not bring in the race argument. That's comparing apples and oranges. Oh wait, two fruits! Nevermind it works.... as you were....

The shameful part of history is you religious kooks who thinks that God put you here to judge other humans.

The shameful part is that you don't understand the Christian at all.

Frankly, the Christian can kiss my butt.

Obama "bin laden" has come close to distroying our country....and he may just do it.

Sad, after all of these years we now are a socialist country. You must be on government payroll somewhere or on welfare.

Steve,

Get a clue! Had we continued with the Republican agenda over the last 1.5 years we would be in a full scale Depression.The Tax plan the Republicans are pushing right now gives 117% of the relief to the top 1% of the wealth bracket. How do they give more than 100%, by raising taxes on the bottom 95%. So you are either extremely wealthy or really stupid!

Why is it all of these right wingers want to give all of our money to the wealthy and take rights away from everyone that is not a WASP?

Steve - Your skewed and utterly inaccurate concept of 'socialism' is a direct affront and offense to the tens of millions who died under real socialism.

This claim is so tired, ignorant and wrong, that it cannot be disputed enough. Obama isn't a socialist, not in the slightest. Look it up, you just might learn something.

Fred,

You are correct that Obama is not a Socialist and to claim he is is an insult to real Socialists. But you are incorrect in using the term "real socialism."

There has been no real socialist state ever in any nation. Some have claimed to be but were simply corruptions of what a real socialist state aims to be. The European nations that have embraced a socialist economy on some levels are far from being real socialist states. I am a Socialist. I would love to see a real socialist state, one not corrupted by maniacal murderers (Stalin, Lenin, Castro, etc.) and one where the economic system is truly fair and just. I doubt I will live to see that here, but I hope my children or grandchildren will.

Here's what real Socialism looks like.

Well, socialism IS part of this whole debate. Because, if my neighbor dies, his wife and children will collect on his Social Security because the heterosexuals have changed Social Security to benefit themselves. Meanwhile, if I die, my partner gets zilch.

It doesn't matter that I paid the same into Social Security as my neighbor did. AND, I paid MORE in Federal Income Tax because I can't claim my partner as a dependent.

A socialist economy is not such a bad thing.

Evil and SPG

Actually it is socialism and if you read about his Columbia professor you will understand that his plan is to undermine the country from the inside out; to make the nation "needy" of an all present governmant. That is socialism.

Once empowered, the people cannot afford to vote it out. If it continues we will soon join our European friends and find ourselves paying 60% or 80% of our income in taxes to support those socialist programs.

I believe in hard work and supporting myself; not hard work to support lazy people.

steve,

we've been a socialist nation for a very long time now. where have you been?

have you ever been the beneficiary of local law enforcement? have you or any family members ever attended publicly funded schools? public libraries?

have you or any of your family members ever been the beneficiary of social security? medicaid? medicare? unemployment benefits?

i'm assuming you've driven on roads, highways, or interstates that used public funds for construction and or maintenance. used the lighting on those arteries? highway rest stops?

have you benefited from the security our armed forces provide?

the list goes on and on.

Steve............you are right on. Don't let the "poop packers" get to ya. It's time we get back to normal and get rid of the fags, liberals, dumocraps and the idiot obumbo while we can still salvage our country.

usa1967, we should use ovens to do it! :D Maybe little holding camps would expediate your final solution?

Fred, so you are tired of having to work and would like to live off the hard working people in the USA. Well, I think there are other countries better suited for you and don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Hayte, that would be a start.

Yeah, yeah, yeah....your intolorance makes you lonely.

Rich. You are a sad, sad individual. Look how much time and energy you spend on seemingly every forum spreading hate. Don't you have a life? So sad really. Your self-loathing is very evident

"Fred, so you are tired of having to work and would like to live off the hard working people in the USA."

What are you talking about? Speaking from the law of averages, I probably pay more in taxes than you earn. Once more, educate yourself, you deserve it.

he apparently thinks they have rights. who doesn't?

spike-322306

I am disappointed in the governator. I thought he did not care for, "girlie men"?

He doesn't HAVE to care for them, he just said it's a matter of:

treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect.

That's something you'll never understand, being an ignorant yahoo.

You're going to gay-bait the Governor now?

Ah yes! Attack, and call names, any who have a different opinion.

My opinion---marriage should be between a man and a woman. As do the majority of Californians.

And the majority of people felt blacks should be hung from a tree at one time or work in a field. Screw the majority. A hive mind is a dangerous one.

Buzzzzzzz off.

you are welcome to that opinion. you are not welcome to that law.

spike, I have never had a good answer from anyone opposing gay marriage. What does it matter to you if two men marry? How will this affect you or your relationship at all? I know that it won't affect my marriage.

I thought he did not care for, "girlie men"?

Let's not forget he used to be a professional body builder. Some of those "girlie men" could kick his butt now.

"A hive mind is a dangerous one."

I think the Borg is alive and well. As soon as any story surfaces in-re to homosexuals, the Borg alert goes out.

"My opinion---marriage should be between a man and a woman. As do the majority of Californians."

Fortunately, we have a judicial system to protect us from a majority willing to violate people's civil rights.

I am disappointed in the governator. I thought he did not care for, "girlie men"?

He doesn't. He was a macho bodybuilder that pumped iron in the gym with other macho bodybuilders. But get this: Some of those macho bodybuilders happen to be gay, a few have even settled down with another hunky muscle stud, and they want to get married!

Arnie spent years in the Venice Beach body building scene and the LA/Hollywood movie making scene and it was inevitable that he met a lot of gay hunks there. The Governator is straight and happily married, but he does have a lot of gay friends.

It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to turn-off your brain to the point that you can believe that the bible is real.

There are a number of things written in the New Testament that are ignored these days by the religious right. First is "Judge not lest ye be judged". That one is always ignored. Second comes the one that says to give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, give to God that which belongs to god. Since Caesar was the government, that specifically requires separation of church and state, right there in the Bible. Finally I bring up for your consideration where Jesus stated the only two "laws" that are required. First is to love god. Second is to love your neighbor. How much love do you hear from the religious right? It always seems to come down to judgementalism and hate. That attitude and hypocrisy is what drove me away from Christianity.

"Second comes the one that says to give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, give to God that which belongs to god. Since Caesar was the government, that specifically requires separation of church and state, right there in the Bible."

What a ludicrous interpretation.

what would be your interpretation tristan, something more along the lines of Westboro baptist?

@tristan7871

Second comes the one that says to give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, give to God that which belongs to god. Since Caesar was the government, that specifically requires separation of church and state, right there in the Bible."

I think tynan's interpretation was correct

"Second comes the one that says to give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, give to God that which belongs to god. Since Caesar was the government, that specifically requires separation of church and state, right there in the Bible."

What a ludicrous interpretation.

Well, it's really about paying where payment is due, including paying taxes. But of course the "religious" conservatives don't want to pay no stinkin' taxes, they prefer "borrow and spend" to actually balancing the budget.

They're too damn lazy to take off the rose colored glasses that create the utopian fantasy, Pleasantville.

That's one thing I've never understood, either you believe the bible, or you don't. You can't have it both ways, picking and choosing which passages are black and white, and which are shades of gray. They love to quote Leviticus and the passages that condemn homosexuality, yet blithely ignore the passages about divorce, stoning adulterers (while giving the men a pass), killing disobedient children, shellfish and the like.

Religion, hypocrisy at its best!

rich--- i love the movie pleasantville (sorry i had to say it)
but anyways i completely agree with you
you cant choose what part of the bible to follow either you follow it all or you dont follow it

So, in your all or nothing world, blackfire, do you follow all of the Constitution or none of it?

The thing about paying is the standard explanation, but in my reading of the words of the carpenter, he NEVER uses a lesson to say only one thing when it can be a general principle. The lesson about the good tree and bad isn't about trees. It's a general method of appraisal. That principle seems to extend to everything he said. Look for the general rule in the specific example. The specific rule in the one about Caesar and God was about if God's people should pay Caesar's taxation. The general rule was that all due respect and obedience was to be given to government, God was to get the respect and obedience due him. Two separate things, each due respect and obedience. Government shouldn't push it's nose into the Church's affairs, similarly the Church was to stand separate from government. Besides, the government is "of the world" and the church isn't. Another reason for separation.

"Well, it's really about paying where payment is due, including paying taxes"

Exactly. Along with, perhaps, a suggestion that government has its role to play in society. How someone can extract 'separation of church and state' (a legitimate concept) out of that is mind-boggling.

"what would be your interpretation tristan, something more along the lines of Westboro baptist?"

Sorry. I have no idea what westboro baptist is. I was raised in the Calvinist tradition, so the answer is probably 'no.'

Dear people who think that Christians went to a school to become dumb, and are having your little giggle, there is at least one way that Christians have a serious edge over you; they tend not to lie, twist words, and are willing to engage in civil discussion. They don't tend to maliciously label those who show a hint of disagreement with their views. And tell me, how many 'converts'...people who see your point and change their opinions to agree with you...how many have you made? Who ever changed their views by being badgered, lied about, lied to, having been called outrageous and vicious names, slandered and libeled? All you suceed in doing is affirming in the minds of your opponents that you must be opposed, at all costs. And if you think that is a victory, then you are a true fool.

The fact that you accuse a generalization of being invalid by making your own generalization utterly invalidates your point and strengthens the counter point. You assume too much, and then apply what YOU think to a group, even though you say another group is wrong. Not very logical or productive.

huh? This is kind of a "if the shoe fits, wear it." If you think Christians are dumb, stupid, racist, bigotted, and so on because they don't agree with the gay lifestyle, then you really are part of the problem, now aren't you?

Exactly a restatement of what I just said. I didn't say anything about a group. YOU did, and I pointed out... well... that is ridiculous just like you did. Now stand in front of a mirror and recite your own post aloud. Then you will start learning.

Since you insist on inserting yourself in the middle of comments, please read #12 above, and the following comments. I was responding to that. And just like your comment, show me that what I said isn't true...every word. The petulant little child fails to look at himself and points the finger. I always look at myself, and judge my thoughts and words in the light of truth. I don't think that's something you do.

The whole post is 12. I was responding to post 12.15, directly after mine. I was responding to the post directly ABOVE mine (your most immediate). Now just to play devil's advocate (gasp... sorry... I mean assuming that you are correct)... fine. You weren't referring to the comment directly above yours, though you didn't specifiy. No harm done. So respond to 12.14.

"dignity" doesn't have anything to do with it. Marriage requires consent, which is why there won't be any "animal marriage" or "pedo-marriage".

You're right, of course, someone else getting married, gay or straight, doesn't affect anyone elses marriage, two men or two women getting married doesn't hurt any straight marriages - unless one of those getting married is already married, but that's a whole nother issue, and one not limited to gay marriage.

There does seem to be this quaint notion by religious conservatives that marriage is some sort of license to have sex. Sorry, that isn't true and has never been true, people will have sex, gay or straight, regardless of their state of marriage. Gays aren't looking to get married to make whoopie, they are looking to get married to gain the legal rights reserved for married couples.

There is only one way I can see same sex marriages affecting straight marriages. It might take a bit longer to get divorced.

"If enough people want something, then it should be allowed."

Thank god our founders anticipated your stupidity.

It absolutely is. President James Madison said as much in the Federalist Papers #10 where he spoke about the need to have checks on the tyranny of the majority.

The Federalist Papers should be required reading. I keep telling people that there really is a doctrine called, Tyranny of the Majority.

You haven't seen doodley yet sunshine, after we get rid of Obama look for a constitutional amendment.

The 14th gone, fags gone, we'll negoitate a treaty with Rwanda to take them off of our hands.

Jerry, you dear fool, be careful of what you wish for. Also, think about you logic carefully. Didn't the judge overturn a constitutional amendment?We may vote to put you fools on a boat out of here.

No he didn't overturn a constitutional amendment. he overturned a vote b the people of California that was unconstitutional. And amendments are not sacrosanct. Read the Constitution. Remember those slaves that got freed? Remember when Prohibition was repealed?

You cannot deny people human rights, i.e. getting married just because you think of marriage in one way and they disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage being between a man and a woman. And despite the best efforts of the Christian extremists and right wing nuts to get a "defense of marriage" act passed it will no pass Constitutional muster. It is discriminatory on its face and will never happen.

The world will not end if gay people are allowed to exercise their human right to marry just like heterosexuals. In fact, it will be a better place.

...and mortsnerd70, in the case of Loving v Virginia, SCOTUS did rule that marriage is a fundamental right that could not be abridged.

Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment, although it just affected California. The founding fathers based this society on a culture of equality and majority rule that is limited by some fundamental, basic rights that cannot be abridged. If we could just abridge each others' fundamental rights arbitrarily we would not need a US Constitution. It is possible that a Constitutional amendment that abridges the fundamental rights of some, but not others would also be unconstitutional, sui generis. We need to understand our tricameral government better.

You're right. This cannot work on a state by state basis. I lived in San Francisco, but was offered a job in Texas. What do I do? I know that SCOTUS may vote to overturn the judge's ruling, but I have to take that chance. We all do.

Well the fact is like it or not Homosexuality is a perversion, whether a person is born with it, or it's acquired. If that makes me a Homophobe or a bigot, I plead guilty. Anyone with even a little bit of common sense can figure out it's unnatural to be sexually attracted to a person of ones own gender. If you have an attraction to your own gender what you do is your own business. However please don't ask the state to treat that relationship as a marriage which is by nature and Gods law to be between a man and a woman. I suppose you think polygamy and incest are ok as long its done with consenting adults. And the argument that children aren't old enough to consent, I'm sure someday some pedophile group will be in front of some liberal judge arguing that who is the state to say what the proper legal age of consent is. These lines have to quit being crossed before it's too late. As my pastor said " If this country gets much worse God is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gamorah"

How about in addition to your bigotry and homophobia it makes you an ignorant @!$%#? Your pastor is probably one as well.

I love the way some people claim to have a hotline to god. They cite "god's law" as if they actually know what god's law is. Oh, yeah, they cite a book written thousands of years ago by some old men with their own prejudices and beliefs. They make me tired.

Heterosexuals spend an inordinate amount of time imagining our sex lives. Well, let me tell you: Some of us haven't had any in ten years and, yes, we're still gay--and searching. I only have sex in committed relationships and one has been eluding me.

i totally agree with you:)

well said.

That is so true! Even the Mormon church, gay marriage's biggest opponent, says there is no sin in having homosexual feelings (LDS.org). Though they do say acting on it is the sin, but I don't agree with that. However, I think people fall away from many churches true meanings and interpret things wrong and hatefully. So sad.

Well, Susan, the problem with letting religion be the arbiter of rights is that religion is a lifestyle choice. People are free to practice whichever religion they want, change religions, and many reject the parts of their religions that they do not like. Some of the problem is that the Bible is so badly written that we can all find support for most of our beliefs in it. It's usually a matter of interpretation. How can you let something so fickle be the decider of rights in society?

Thank you,you made me smile:)

So why would they even need two different terms? I'm not following.

Not at all. "Married" never should have been meant to mean only a man and a woman. For example before 1969 interracial couples were not allowed to get married at all. So back then "married" meant "same race marriage". Then in 1969 that was overturned by the Supreme court. Now "married" means between any man and woman, regardless of race. But it's still called "married". So if gay people are allowed to get married, precedent shows that there is no need to change the term. "Married" will mean the same thing for men and women, regardless of their race or sexual preference.

Here's a thought. Let's take marriage away from all citizens. Marriage is really a religious matter anyway.

If you want to have the legal rights afforded now by "marriage", everyone, gay and straight, gets a civil union or other legal contract.

Then, if you want, you can go have your marriage in your church. That way, all the bigots can keep "marriage" safe for the straight christian bigots without taking away legal rights from everyone else.

Signed,

An Ally

"Marriage is really a religious matter anyway."

Sorry Cassi, this atheist begs to differ. My marriage has nothing to do with religion, and never would. I don't want a 'civil union.'

Fred Evil

Good name Evil!!!!!!! for that is all you will recieve Ling Ling.

Fred Evil, I am a non-christian as well. My marriage has nothing to do with religion. Frankly, I am married because I want to show a commitment to my husband in front of our friends and families. I can have that and call it something other than marriage. It is semantics. If "marriage" ceased to be a legal term, then we would all be celebrating our civil union, drunkfiesta, or whatever we now call the legal way of saying two people in love (or needing a green card, etc) are making a commitment.

It is pure semantics. The word marriage holds no power - it just has the power of what we give it. If we give another word the same power, then we will derive the same meaning from it. One of the major problems is that christians have claimed the word marriage for use by only themselves.

By stating that you want a marriage, and not whatever the alternative word would be, you are still saying that because you can get married, your partnered state is better than someone who cannot get married.

English Common Law simply borrow the word marriage from the church instead of coming up with its own. Our laws are basically English Common Law. And even English Common Law recognizes relationships that have not had the blessing of the church in marriage (in most states, you can be a "common law" spouse if you lived as if married for long enough).

So, abolish marriage. Let the christians have their church ceremonies and call them marriage. Let the pagans have their ceremonies and call them hand binding. Let the atheists sign the contract and call it whatever we vote to call it.

"For example before 1969 interracial couples were not allowed to get married at all. So back then "married" meant "same race marriage.""

Actually, it was in 1967 that SCOTUS outlawed bans on mixed race marriage. That action overturned such bans in 16 states, which means the other 34 states had already dispensed with such bans -- if indeed they ever had them.

In other words, your statement is very misleading. As obscene as such laws were, there is no point in painting the situation worse than it was.

tristan:

belittling the very real bigotry that went(and is still going) on, shows that you have no clue what it's like to be discriminated against for nonsensical reasons.

It doesn't matter the exact year the bans were overturned. People were(and still are) discriminated against, even after the laws changed to make it a crime.

Yep, since the Religious insist that "Marriage is ordained by God" and "Marriage is sacred", then it doesn't make sense for the State to be licensing Marriage. After all, no other religious ritual requires a license, no permits needed to pray, or preach, or read scripture, or perform ceremonies.

The reason, of course, is that "Marriage" is the only religious ritual that also grants special legal rights. So why don't we transfer all those legal rights to a "Domestic Partnership Contract" or "Civil Union", get the State out of the Marriage Licensing business, and let the religions define marriage the way they want. If the Church wants to restrict their marriage ceremonies only to the opposite sex and same religion, so be it, it wouldn't affect the legal rights at all.

If gays aren't welcome in the Church, they'll go elsewhere.

"belittling the very real bigotry that went(and is still going) on,. . . "

How did I "belittle" bigotry? And assuming I did, would you prefer that I glorified it?

Do you really think it's okay to distort the facts -- even when such a distortion will advance your cause? What other deceit do you engage in?

And if you read my posts, you would know that I applaud the judge's decision to overturn Prop. 8. But why bother to read my posts?

Its a European thing!!!!!!!!!!!

Recall him and Brown

I grew up as a Southern Baptist and was also taught that marriage was between a Christian man and a Christian woman. So, if the couple next door to you is a married Hindu heterosexual couple, do you consider that marriage? Wouldn't you say by your beliefs that only Christian marriages should be recognized by a government that believes in separation of church and state?

So,you have been told by our father,that its wrong to be in a physical relationship with close kin...but we are all products of incest according to the bible...remember,adam and eve? if we take the bible literally then there were no other people in existence..

Puh-leese spare me the bible krap, keep religion OUT of government

What does your Bible say? Does it say marriage is only for Christians? No, it says it's between a man and a woman. Go ahead and look for yourself. Besides, do you believe you should take man's word for it, or check out what He has told us for yourself.

If the US is in trouble Gossman8310, it is because idots like you have the vote and have elected similar morans to run the nation-or at least until the last couple of years!

oswaldgirl

It is possible, although we don't have hard evidence, that the early group of humans had incest. It was later that God told us it was wrong. On many occassion I've read or heard from those in the scientific community that early humans would have had a much more pure gene pool than we do now and incest would not have produced the mutation that we see happening today, so there might very well be a logical reason for that.

This is going to sound a bit preachy but nevertheless

You're right, it does sound preachy. It also sounds like you want the laws of our secular country to reflect your personal religious beliefs. I'm grateful for the 1st Amendment.

People here are sick because people like yourself refuse to pay taxes on universal healthcare. You consistently call for the death and/or removal of people who just want to make a living in life. You've forsaken the good teachings and only look to the damning ones. You'd let a person die on the street just to save a few bucks, you care about no one but yourself.

You can take your theocracy and go straight to Iran for all I care. With your zealot views, you might just be welcomed.

Are you one of those people that blame the world disasters on the gays or bad behaviour? And your right ...... it does sound preachy and kinda naive. Don't you even understand WHY gay people would want to get married? If you can't see the difference between having a relationship with another human and having one with an animal, I would ask where is the farm you grew up on? If you really think that ANY gay human would like to have sex with an animal, you need to take your head out of the sand and stop reading that book if that's what it tells you. Please give a logical reason for not letting gays get married.

The logical reason is because our Father told us it was wrong. If that's not reason enough then I don't know what to tell you. Let's let God answer the question:

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen.
Romans 1:25

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ In the same way the men also abandoned 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. ²⁸ Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. ²⁹ They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹ they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. ³² Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

I thought god was going to destroy us because Gossman eats shrimp and wears clothing that is a linen-wool blend, both equally bad sins as homosexuality according to the bible.

Oh, and don't forget that cheeseburgers, which I am having for dinner tonight, are doubly bad sins - you get the whole dietary restriction issue of cooking a poor little cow in its mother's milk, and you get to commit the deadly sin of gluttony!

Even early christians realized that organized religion needs to adapt to the times and culture. The bigotry we see today is on par with the crusades and the jewish ghettos. While some will disagree that we don't go on crusades today, and I am pretty sure we stopped corralling jewish persons in ghettos, I think you can see how christianity has come to a stand still since about 1950.

You can't have cafeteria style religion - if you decide that certain parts of the bible are out of date or no longer relevant because "times have changed", then you must admit that there is the possibility the ONE LINE in the bible that mentions men lying with men (and by the way - I guess lesbians can get married according to that logic) may be out of date as well.

And while we are at it, let's get back to stoning adulterers and let's scratch the part about suffering no witch to live. I might get back to this bible-thing if I can take it MCL-style.

@Ovais - thanks for showing that not all christians are bigots. It was refreshing to see your comment.

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26

Jesus preaches intolorance and hate. Now you do too.

BTW, Dragons, witches and unicorns are in the bible too...care to discuss that?

I think any two people should be able to be married...and also be able raise their natural born children with the same beliefs. I do not think gays or lesbians should be allowed to adopt or to teach school either.

Much like the restrictive movie ratings; it is a bad image for children to see.

"All I can say is, take a stand for something, take a stand for what is right, take a stand for morality for ourselves and our nation."

I have taken a stand for morality, it's time for the bigots to leave the homosexuals to enjoy their lives. You are the immoral one here Gossman.

The only defense a Christian has. If you can't speak on your own, just quote scripture.

And that is why we are not a nation governed by the Bible or those who believe it. It's a good book, but it is not our Constitution. Thank god...whichever one you choose.

that good ole' bible sure is a good substitute for serious thinkin'

unless you're thinkin' 'bout what makes a baptist different from a catholic or a mennonite or a lutheran or an eastern orthodox, or a jehovah's witness, or a mormon or a pentacoastal or a methodist or an anglican or a quaker or a presbyterian or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Bible Translation Correction: In the Sodom and Gomorrah story, the original text is translated into English in the King James Version of the Bible, as unnatural relations between/ among men. Unnatural relations between men/ women can be rape, and not necessarily homosexual acts. Also, the original writers of the bible did not refer to women collectively, so 'men' also refers to women in the bible. It's also interesting to note that homosexuality occurs naturally in the wild, according to the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

@Steve: So it would be better for children to live without a home that to be adopted by someone (or two people) who happen to be gay? And, what does sexual orientation have to do with education? I wouldn't appreciate any teacher standing in class talking about his/her personal life with my (hypothetical) children. So, it shouldn't be an issue! I would like to make it illegal for an idiot to become a teacher/stay a teacher, but good luck with that (the teacher's union would never allow it!)

This whole thing is silly. Absolutely silly. In the words of my grandmother "Let 'em get married. Who cares?! Honestly, I'm too old to stick my nose in their business." Hell, I'M too old to stick my nose in the business of strangers when it comes to who they want to marry...and I'm 22! If you are both (all if we want to legalize polygamy) consenting adults and want to get married (why would you?!), then good for you...good luck with it!

"He"(God) didn't write the bible, men did. So, "he"("they" / other men) wrote the doctrine you are trying to follow, and claim as "holy".

Do you follow the old testament to the letter? If old testament laws were still followed, every adulterer/cheater would be stoned to death. The bible(old testament) contains some very violent ways of living. Just as violent as the Koran in many ways.

The description of those punished at Sodom and Gomorah, were those who had sex(all kinds of freaky sh*t, between hetero/homo couples and even animals) for pleasure.

The bible says nothing about same sex couples pledging themselves to each other in love(not lust) being wrong in the eyes of God.

Steve,

Where do you think gay children/kids came from? CLUE - it wasn't the gay stork...it was from straight parents.....

foolish....

Why should gays be spared the agony of marriage?

yes your bible says that homosexuality is wrong but you cannot follow the bible blindly
assuming that god is real and he met with you would you listen to him if he told you to jump off a bridge
i dont think so
so why would you just follow everything the bible tells you
whats that one saying about the sheep following something and then the wolf eating them
i dont know but my point is even if your bible says something you dont have to follow it
you have a brain use it

If by God you mean the supreme creator of the universe and of everything and everybody in it, as the Heavenly Father in whose image we were created--that omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being--then, yes, I believe those who thusly believe would jump off a cliff if He told them to.

Since he also declared homosexuality a grave sin, in both the Old Testament and in the New Testament, those who believe in Him, as I do, believe homosexual behavior is wrong.

I am not afraid of homosexuals or their behavior (the homophobia attack is getting really old and it is terribly ineffective), I simply believe the behavior is wrong, as is my right to so believe. You can spin it however you want, it still remains that homosexual behavior is wrong, it is immoral, it is anatomically incongruous with the purposes of the body parts involved and, therefore, serves no legitimate purpose, it being a purely functional means of gratifying the base desires of its participants.

Please note that I have said nothing of those who engage in homosexual behavior; I have addressed only the behavior.

To the extent homosexuals are "born that way," I submit that we all have innate proclivities we must overcome. Whether it be alcoholism (which we now know can be an inherited disorder) or an attraction to the opposite sex or the myriad other afflictions, disorders and inclinations most people have to one degree or another. Some are more severe, even devastating, than others, not unlike the many different physical afflictions that beset so many people. We are not all dealt an equal hand when we are born.

A natural inclination to a certain behavior is not license to engage in the behavior. Morals are not personal. Morals are absolute. You can choose to disregard them, but you cannot deny their existence.

I hope and pray this country comes to its collective senses and leaves intact the millennia-old tradition of heterosexual marriage.

God all but destroyed mankind once for rampant evil

So you worship a god of death and destruction, do you? Hey, this country has religious freedom, so you can join whatever bizzaro cult you want, but leave me out of it, and please understand that I am free from the rules of your cult, as is anyone else outside your cult.

Does your "all mighty God" not have the power and accuracy to knock off the sinners without destroying everyone else? Is your "God" incapable of speaking for itself, and must rely on mere mortals who cannot agree on what "Gods Word" really is?

Seriously, though, don't you realize that a "God" that would destroy the innocent because there were sinners among them is a god that is not worthy of worship?

If you are a true believer you know you are safe, God would never ask you to jump off a cliff. Now also remember, we are only here to deliver the message, where it goes from there is His will. KRW, you almost have it right, but, there is no such thing as being born gay. Science has yet to show any inconclusive proof of this, they only have their theories, just look into history, they have lots of them.

Now as far as gay people being allowed to be legally married, that is man's law, and remember one of His greatest gifts, "free will". No matter how we feel, we must abide by man's law until His return.

CM-6969 . you prove not to understand God at all......Yes we are a free nation....you are free to live in sin if you wish....and I am free to call SIN, SIN.

Are you also free to spell improperly? :S

Are you also free to have horrifically bad grammar? :S

Cassivella,

"Even early christians realized that organized religion needs to adapt to the times and culture'

This comment could not be further from the truth. This opinion is derived from a lack of understanding. The scriptures are the Word of God. God exists outside of time. He is not a learning God, he is already all knowing. Learned Christians like myself, do not pick and choose. The rules of the game, so to speak, changed after God Himself, as Jesus, sacrificed Himself as atonement for all mans's sins. Because of this, God created a new covenant, or contract with man. We did not chose to ignore anything in God's Word, nor is it subject to modernization. I explained this a bit more in my post # 566.

"Even early christians realized that organized religion needs to adapt to the times and culture'

This comment could not be further from the truth.

Why do you think Christmas is celebrated on Dec 25th? Why do you think there is an Easter Bunny, Easter Eggs, or even called Easter in the first place? Why do you think that for Christians the sabbath is Sunday instead of Saturday like the Jewish faith practices?

All of these are examples of Christianity changing/adapting to society and culture.

Just an Observation-826313,

The sabbath has always been Saturday. Any learned Christian knows this. The Easter Bunny and Santa Clause are secular characters. They have nothing to do with Christianity which is why Christians like myself have nothing to do with them. Therefore, those arguments are invalid.

The Dec. 25th thing is a long discussion but basically, Jesus' birthday was not remembered so a date was chosen. This date goes way back to King Nimrod, however, as does the christmas tree. But my point remains, Christians have not adopted. True Christians know that God's Word is not affected by time.

"But my point remains, Christians have not adaped to the times" - correction / typo

Yay for christians. More to the point... what does that have to do with letting everyone else adapt?

Therefore, those arguments are invalid.

No, they are in fact valid examples of Christianity adapting in order to be more acceptable to a larger populace. More specifically Christianity adopting Pagan practices in order to entice the Pagans to convert. The whole reason Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate these events, which you may be a part of and have every right to do such.

Santa Claus and Easter bunny secular?

The name Santa Claus is a derivative of the name Saint Nichola. Saints are not secular.

Rabbits, bunnys, and eggs were/are symbols of fertility, for obvious reasons, and used by Pagan's in there spring fertitlity celebrations. Paganism is not secular.

Just because they do not pertain to your religion does not mean they do not pertain to religion.

With your reasoning I could claim that Jesus Christ is a secular figure.

Christians have not adaped to the times

And you wonder why many people in the 21st Century laugh at your type of religion and way of thinking?

You must see very few of the 2 Billion Christians world-wide as being true Christians if you think Christians have not adapted with the times.

supraliminal13,

"Yay for christians. More to the point... what does that have to do with letting everyone else adapt?"

Christians like myself have been trying to warn everyone about what God has said about embracing homosexuality. No offense to the homesexuals themselves, but homosexualiy will not only harm them but if we as a nation embrace it, it wll harm our entire nation. Read Deut. Ch 28, and you will hae an idea of what I am saying but simply put, the prosperity of our nation is directly poportional to our morality. If we continue to embrace that which is evil, we will continue to lose blessings and we will be subject to more poverty, sickness, military defeat, general happiness, and we will have less success in all that we do. Our nation has been on the moral decline or some time now, and as a result, our prosperity declines with it.

Mr Edmond,

There is only one version of the Bible. There are however numerous translations into different languages. First you must understand that the Word of God is not physical, it's spiritual. The words on the page are a vessel. I understand English, so first I ask God for wisdom and understanding. Then I typically study the scriptures in english, then, as I look further, I will go to the original Greek, and Hebrew to bridge the gap between the languages. All evidence points to the fact the Greek and Hebrew texts, still available to us today, are exactly the same as the originals. What I do in the natural world help but the real understanding comes from God.

Mr. Edmond,

2 Peter 1:20,21

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

As for me and my house, we will trust in the Lord.

Yeah this Republican Governor never ceases to amaze me. It's probably the Kennedy's in his family that influance him.

it's that quality that was already in him that let him marry as he did and have it work.

Apparently we are talking about the king's "english" here, sans capitalization, sans punctuation?

Amen to that.

i don't believe most dirt bags have marriage on their minds. or procreation.

the urge to merge is most predominant with the consequences be damned.

Rush and Glenn don't represent me. Just like Al and Jesse J. Jr.