Since this judge is openly homosexual. I wonder how he will rule? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Why do homosexuals insist on calling their unions "Marriage"?

If they are really only looking for "equal protection", there are other ways of doing it that the majority of people would support. Just leave the term "Marriage" alone, since it's been understood to mean a union of a man and a woman for thousands of years. Stop trying to impose your ideas on others.

John - because animals have legal standing and can sign a marriage certificate? Try being less ridiculous in your arguments and people might actually listen to you. Right now, you're just laughable.

Gender is not biological sex!

Separate but equal is illegal, so yes, it should be called marriage. Or make all legal unions by both hetero and homosexual couples being legally known as civil unions.

The slippery slope to bestiality is the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Polygamy, fine, as long as all members involved are legal consenting adults.

Roy - The same argument could be made with "since the judge is openly heterosexual, I wonder how he'll rule." Read the constitution. Learn about separation of church and state. Then stop trying to tell people that you're not imposing *your* morals and ideas on others, because, actually, that's exactly what you're doing.

lmv77...What age is legal consenting adults?? We try kids as young as 14 as adults?? So could there be an argument made that since kids that young are considered "ADULTS" legally that someone who practices the mormon faith and weds a 14 yr old be ok? Then how do you make your judgement? Is there some element of morality there?

Thisguy - Incest is an imbalance of power. It is therefore not consensual. I'd like to ask you to think about changing *your* sexuality for a moment. No? Can't do it? Then why do you think it's somehow different for gay people? When did you choose to be straight? Plenty of people would love to choose to be straight to avoid the judgment of people like you who don't have a clue what they're talking about and don't even want to try and understand, but you can't choose or change your sexuality. It's not possible.

Thisguy,

because there are laws within the family code of the judicial system that prevent that.

Only when gay marriage was taken seriously in the courts, and only then after the religious hypocrites out there were seeing that the proponents of gay marriage were actually winning the legal battles, did they decide to create laws to curtail those rights that were slowly being recognized, and granted by the judicial system. THAT is the difference. As with Prop 8, the majority in the country CANNOT, and MUST NOT be able to deny / take away rights to the minority. This is the United States of America: a democracy of the people, for the people, and by the people. Not just the majority rules, but ALL the American people. We are not living in Iran, which is a theocracy, their religious leaders (mullahs) dictate how the people should live based on their religious views. Is that what you want in this country?

Don't forget, Rights that are given by the Government can also be taken away by the Government. Fact of the matter is Rights are given by GOD not the Government.

All homosexuals are gambling that GOD does not exist. Should they be wrong then they will certainly regret it forever! After all, the bible is clear on this subject stating it is an abomination. Mankind can do whatever they feel like doing but will have to answer for it some day.

There are laws against law gay marriage -- unconstitutional laws, but laws against it. However, there are NO laws against homosexuality, as there are laws against bestiality, incest, pedophilia, and polygamy -- so by comparing gay marriage to those situations, you are comparing apples to oranges. Sexual orientation is inborn and immutable, while bestiality, incest, pedophilia, and polygamy are chosen behaviors, just like homophobia and bigotry.

The whole "slippery slope" argument is moot as well as an inherent logical fallacy. If you're going to argue against gay marriage, come up with something just a *tad* more convincing, yeah?

Simple math. Man = Woman, according to the law. Man + Woman = Marriage. Thus, Man + Man = Marriage, according to a consistent application of existing law.

Man does not equal (Woman x 2). So having three or more people receive the same rights and privileges as a two people is not equality.

Man does not equal animal. So having a human and animal couple received the same rights and privileges as two humans is not equality.

Good post, haha

If we apply the "slippery slope" argument here I think it's only fair to apply the same silly logic to gun laws. No guns should be allowed because soon everyone will have an arsenal of automatic weapons. Let's also bring back Prohibition on the basis that everyone will be constantly drunk. Etc., etc.

Actually DUDE, is the USA, the GOVERNMENT gives us our laws, not God, and when you say God, which one are you referring too? Last time I checked, Christianity wasn't the only religion, and didn't own a word older than their religion.

Solarus10 - Do you have an actual argument to "refudiate" my points, or was your cute but insignificant post 1.22 your way of surrendering?

@Thisguy

People only deserve right based on being things they can not change such as race and sex.

Agreed - we certainly don't want any civil rights regarding things which are a choice, like religion.

Why can’t the Tea Party-Republican-Rightists and gays get along? Based on the news over the years, there is plenty of overlap between the groups’ membership.

Here is an article about a gay man coming out as a Tea Partier.

FUNNY

http://www.dailygoat.com/?p=2100

IMV77

Here in the USA as Written in the Constitution, our rights are given to us by God. Which ever God you choose, Our Founding fathers were wise in putting this into the Constitution they knew that if Govt Gave us our rights then those Rights could be Taken away from us by that same Govt.. the same reason they put in the Separation of Church and State, Meaning that Govt shall make No laws reguarding Religion,

This post is not for or Against Gay Marriage, it is only to point out the Reason your Rights are given to you by God (again which ever god you choose) The Moment you Believe that your rights are given to you by Man those Rights are in Danger of being Taken away.

skrekk - The only rights I'm aware of concerning religion are freedom of choice, and freedom from persecution. If we take these rights away from religion why not that them away from homosexuals also?

Steve-505729 - You are confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. And while the Declaration is an important document in our country's history, it is not the basis for our laws. Our Constitution makes no mention of any god save the english translation of AD, in the year of our lord, when noting the year it was drafted.

@Steve

Here in the USA as Written in the Constitution, our rights are given to us by God.

Nowhere in the US constitution is any god or gods mentioned. Nowhere.

You should read the constitution sometime, Steve - especially the 5th & 14th amendments....you might then understand what "equal protection of the law" means.

@Thisguy - you made the ignorant claim that people only have civil rights when it comes to immutable traits. Is religion an immutable trait or a choice?

You are correct it is in the Delcaration of Independence and i knew this when i was writing the post my mind was just on Constitutional rights when typing, In any Event.. and Shrekk, i fully understand what equal protection under the law means, and i was not commentiing one way or another about Gay marriage. I was only pointingout Rights are given by GOD not man.. To protect us from GOVT. Take it however you wish.

One must believe in a god to accept that rights are given by one. Since our Constitution guarantees my right to believe or not in such a being, it stands to reason that it wouldn't contradict itself by demanding that I believe my rights come from a god.

DrownArepug, polygamy should be legal. What reason can you give for making it illegal, except that you, personally, have a problem with it?

Besides, using polygamy as an example of "what the world could come to" is bad strategy on your part, since it has been legal in many cultures throughout history without somehow bringing them to their knees. If we want to go back to "the way things used to be", then you should be arguing for polygamy, not against it.

Tying acts between consenting adults to bestiality is ludicrous. Animals, by definition, are incapable of giving consent.

Solarus10, whose definition of perversion are you going to use? Just because YOU find something "perverse" does not make it universally and imperically "perverse." It means it is "perverse" to you. Don't do it then. However, you cannot subject everyone in the nation to YOUR definition of perversion.

The animal analogy is a completely false analogy. Dogs, cats, horses, etc. (1) are a different species. Gay marriage would allow two people of the same SPECIES marry. (2) More importantly, animals do not have the ability to reason, consent, and enter into a marriage, or any other contract. You would not allow a dog, cat, or horse to enter into a contract to by property because they cannot reason to buy property. Therefore, it stands to reason that you would not allow them to enter into a contract to marry. However, you WOULD allow a homosexual human being enter into a contract to buy property because he/she has the ability to reason to buy property. Therefore, it stands to reason they can reason to enter into a marriage contract, so they should be allowed to do so.

Dude, based upon what evidence do you say homosexual people are "gambling" that there is not God? My church worships God, prays, believes in Jesus, is a Christian denomination, yet we ordain gay clergy and perform same-sex marriages. We both believe in God AND believe homosexuals are entitled to basic rights. Note that Jesus never once mentions homosexuality in the Gospels, but he sure does talk a lot about hypocrisy and judgmentalness.

Dan-451372 - polygamy, unlike gay marriage, would require an overhaul of marriage laws. Current laws are written with two people in mind. Since man and woman are equal in the eyes of the law, their interchangablity is easily accommodated. It can be done with legislation, but not in the courts. You can argue that 2 people equal 2 people. You will have a tough time convincing a judge that 3 people equal 2 people.

All homosexuals are gambling that GOD does not exist. Should they be wrong then they will certainly regret it forever!

We are not "gambling" that God doesn't exist. Many of us in fact have a belief in God. Just not the hateful vengeful one that you do. It seems ludicrous to "punish" millions of people for loving someone. It's not like any of us lined up one day and said..."Hey...I think I will fall in love with a man instead of a women today".

@Steve

I was only pointingout Rights are given by GOD not man.. To protect us from GOVT. Take it however you wish.

If your point was that the constitution doesn't actually grant rights, I'll agree completely. It simply says which rights the government may not restrict.

However, we'll have to disagree about your invisible friend.....who isn't even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (just a vague reference to a "creator", indicating that certain rights are inalienable).

If it is legal for consenting adults of any gender to wed, then polygamy should be legal too.

There's a big difference between being gay and being a woman horder. Neither are remotely comparable.

And, it will not be too long before human/animal sexual relationships are no longer frowned upon.

Unlike other humans, animals can't consent to sex with humans. Can't you people come up with anything new?

It will be difficult to put Pandora back into her box.

The homophobes opened Pandora's box when they started using religion to take away and or regulate the rights of LGBT persons.

Is this world not screwed-up enough already?

The world got screwed the moment Man invented God.

Whooo eeeee the nuts are falling off the trees today.

will not be too long before human/animal sexual relationships are no longer frowned upon

Or is this just wshful thinking LOL

Why do homosexuals insist on calling their unions "Marriage"?

We're insisting on the rights that are only associated with "marriage". Unfortunately, when it comes to rights, "civil unions" isn't yet the same as "marriage". Now if we re-assigned all those marriage rights to civil unions, gave currently married couples civil unions, and got the State out of the marriage licensing business, you could have "marriage" as a purely religious ritual with no legal connotations, and your church could define marriage according to their scriptures and be as restrictive and intolerant as it pleased, and the Government couldn't intervene.

But if we did that, how would you persecute the "sinners"?

Simple math. Man = Woman, according to the law. Man + Woman = Marriage. Thus, Man + Man = Marriage, according to a consistent application of existing law. Man does not equal (Woman x 2). So having three or more people receive the same rights and privileges as a two people is not equality.

So, since mathmatically man = man and woman = woman, then man + man = marriage, and woman + woman = marriage too! Also, since (man x 2) = (woman x 2), then polygamy should be legal as long as there are an even number of adults participating! No odd marriages! LOL!

I have a dog I am very fond of and I am sure she would have no objections to being married to me.

Can your b**H read and sign the marriage license and say "I Do"? Remember, informed consent will still be required!

All homosexuals are gambling that GOD does not exist. Should they be wrong then they will certainly regret it forever! After all, the bible is clear on this subject stating it is an abomination. Mankind can do whatever they feel like doing but will have to answer for it some day.

All narrow-minded bigots are gambling that their creator is just as narrow minded and intolerant as they are, ignoring the fact its the same creator for all of us. If there is a just afterlife, we'd be stuck with people just like us, whether that would be "heaven" or "hell" would depend on what type of people we were.

BTW, the same book that called "man lying with man" an "abomination" also called eating any seafood without scales and fins an "abomination", and that seafood ban is listed twice! So eating clam chowder is twice the abomonation that having same sex relation is!

Fortunately for us, this is a country of religious freedom and we're not legally bound by any of your religious rules, especially not the rules of a religion we don't belong to.

Here in the USA as Written in the Constitution, our rights are given to us by God. Which ever God you choose, Our Founding fathers were wise in putting this into the Constitution they knew that if Govt Gave us our rights then those Rights could be Taken away from us by that same Govt.. the same reason they put in the Separation of Church and State, Meaning that Govt shall make No laws reguarding Religion,

You haven't actually read the Constitution of the United States. I have. Sorry, "God" is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, nor is any other deity. The only mentions of religion is "No religious test shall be required for any public office" and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it. The United States is and always has been officially secular, with no official religion or official scriptures.

Mixing religion and politics is a slippery slope.

CM-6969 - I figured the Woman + Woman = Marriage equation was implied. And thanks for pointing out the even numbered polygamy argument. While no analogy is a perfect fit for reality, I don't want to give the opponents anything.

Looking out at the world and the universe or at the intricate detailed beings of this world, I don't know how anyone could not believe in God.

Harter

The dirty little secret about "gay marriage" is not about "equal rights" but that is viewed by a majority of humans on this planet as abnormal. If it were not- would we be having a disagreement? No we would not! Most societies view it as aberrant or abnormal for a reason - it is! Gay marriage is about being declared "normal" as apple pie by a court of law. A court can declare a pig a cow-it does not make it so!!

shrekk, I never Mentioned that i did or didnot believe in god.. your God can be a Tree for all i care it can be the Sky or the earth whatever you wish it to be.. and if it is given to me by this "GOD" it cant be taken away from me by Govt.. to me thats a pretty smart part of the Declaration..

"The world got screwed the moment Man invented God."

Man invented science...

Let them marry. If they want to be as miserable as the rest of the world, let them. With gay marriage will be gay divorce. Like the lesbian couple living in PA that were married in Massachusetts and now can't legally get divorced because they no longer live there, or something. HA that sucks.

Don't let them adopt. It is a direct violation of the 8th Amendment, unless you homeschool the kid and never let him have any social contact, except with children of other same-sex relations. Kids in school get made fun of for being fat and ugly; having two dads and no mom or vise versa and it is like pouring gasoline all over the child's psyche and setting a flamethrower to it.

lmv77 is right.

Let's get rid of legal marriage for everyone. Civil unions for all. Give consenting adults the ability to let the legal perks afforded with marriage by going to the state and getting your union registered.

Leave 'marriage' up to churches. If you want the legal benefits go to the state and get them- open to all couples as long as both people are legal, consenting adults of sound enough mind to make the decision.

Want a marriage, go to the church and make your spiritual vows before God or whatever diety you may or may not believe to be out there. That way no church that doesn't want to perform same sex marriages is forced to, and those churches that do believe same-sex couples should have the same rights as opposite-sex couples can marry those they deem fit.

As for children, I knew a couple children growing up that came from same-sex parent families. The 'fatties' and 'nerds' got picked on a lot more than they did.

The institution of marriage began and was defined by various religions.... since neither Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions do not recognize Gay Marriages..... wouldn't it be more appropriate for Gays (and Atheists) to have the option of Domestic Partnerships? This would give them the same rights and benefits as married couples without the religious implications and uphold the separation of state and church. I mean what's next.... will churches be forced to perform marriages they deem invalid?

Actually, John is not ahead of his thought process...People have already started to "marry" animals (Japan for one example). By the way, this world is screwed up and believe it or not, IT will get worse. You can bank on that.

Dave tug: That was hysterical. Thank you for the great laugh. I will have to check that site out more often.

Mike in Delray - You are being fed lies by those who, ironically, are actually trying to push their beliefs on others. The moment anyone tries to deny churches and the religious their rights, we will stand by your side to fight just as we have to fight when gays were denied their rights.

wake-up- maybe you should wake up. my son and 2 stepsons all went to small town schools and didn't have a bit of trouble with having 2 dads. i helped with the pta, community drives and actually chaperoned kids. i live in an even smaller more conservative town now and there are several openly gay kids in high school, both male and female, and they are accepted and appreciated. even if todays adults are close minded, their kids will not be, they are more accepting than their parents these days.

@Steve

shrekk, I never Mentioned that i did or didnot believe in god.. your God can be a Tree for all

My apologies - I think I reacted just to the word GOD and didn't read your post fully. You & I are in agreement.

As a Libertarian Tea Party member, I applaud this decision. One of my favorite quotes is,

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

- Ayn Rand

Slowly the distinction of what is acceptable is becoming more cloudy every day. Can anyone begin to imagine what the earth would be like if there were no laws. People do not control their behaviors. It's all about as they say their "civil rights". Every since gays came out of the closet it has been one push after another. Soon pedophiles will have their say, beastly will want their say, polygamist will have their say, everyone will have their say because it's their civil rights. People have insatiable appetites for anything and everything and soon this world will be anything goes.

You know having two people who absolutely love and cherish you is cruel and unusual punishment.

I love that simple minded people have come to the conclusion that if you're homosexual you're automatically maladjusted. Thus, rendering you unable to love even a child without having some sexual intent behind it.

Grow a brain and step out of the myopic world of faux morals you've created. None of those red words in the New Testament say anything about passing judgement and isolating/stripping homosexuals of their humanity.

This country and its morality are like a big turd sliding down the sewer, never to be heard from again!

Rachel, please show me where in the US Constitution it states "separation of church and state".

This ruling will make any and all laws against polygamy illegal. Nowwhere in the 5th or 14th amendments does it state that marrriage is limited to 2 people.

Arteur, you show you sexism by saying a ploygamist is a woman horder. Why could it not be 1 women and 2 men?

Can ANYONE here give me a reason why polygamy should not also be legal now?

Here's something for all of you who think God is against homosexuals to think about. If God makes all things, and God is perfect, God made homosexuals, therefore homosexuals are perfect and cannot be a mistake if made by God. By the way, for all who keep saying it is an abomination. Abomination is mention in the Bible 142 times, look it up. A lot of things are abominations in the eyes of God, like eating certain foods.

They way I look at this, what one person may think is morally right or wrong doesn't make it so. Just because one chooses to eat pork does not make you a bad or morally wrong to those that believe eating pork is dirty and a sin.

I love all people and I don't care if they are gay or any shade of color. We are people and we all need to learn to understand that we are all born different. If we were all born the same this would would be dull as he!!.

Gross! Hopefully the 9th Circuit will use common sense and put a stop to this before next Wednesday.

I don't know if there are any "Gay" 9th Circuit Court Judges.......I don't think so.

What foods?

agreed sniper

'Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.' Leviticus 11:12. And that's just one. Pork is another.

All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.' Leviticus 11:20.

If it's going to stop the whinning, let them "marry". Enough already! I'm so tired of hearing people tyring to justify their relationships. If it was truly meant to be, then we would not have different sex organs. We would be a-sexual. But if people want to be abnormalities of nature then let them.

And John, your 2 stepsons most likely did have a problem with having 2 dads, they just didn't want to hurt your feelings. I'm sure their friends were "super-cool" about it! Don't kid yourself, to justify your own desires....

I know lots of gays that attend church and believe in God. NO ONE is without SIN. This is a problem with them and their creator. If you are Hetro and commit any sin, whats the difference between your sin and having gay sex, in the eyes of God....ZERO. You know how many divorced Christian people i know that think they are better than the typical gay, and say that they shouldn't wed. My response is you shouldn't wed. You clearly aren't taking it seriously.

When I think fowl, I think bird. What bird creeps on all four? What bird has all four?

Wow! This discussion is ridiculous! Animals, incest, etc.

I don't really understand why homosexuals want marriage vs. civil union, but then again, I don't really care why. It makes no difference to me. It doesn't affect my marriage. I don't have to live their lives. So why on earth would I go to all the trouble to protest gay marriage and call it an abomination?

The outspoken moral condemnation of homosexuality and gay marriage that has been taken to the extreme of creating laws to denounce and forbid them is only slightly less fanatical than those muslim extremists that want us dead just because we're Americans...slightly less.

JQ 12261891 - Just because your opinion is based on what your god tells you, it doesn't mean it is holds more weight than mine in our religiously neutral society. You god deserves a spot at the table. It just doesn't get to sit at the head of the table and boss us around.

I agree to a point JC. However, there is a difference between committing a sin and living a lifestyle of sin. Everyone is going to sin, that's a given, but if you are attempting to live your life as a Christian, then you naturally are going to want to minimize the amount of sins you commit. You are going to want to recognize when you have a committed a sin, repent for that sin and take steps to prevent a repeat of that sin. If you are living a lifestyle of sin, whether it be homosexuality, pre-marital sex, smoking, boozing, etc... then you can hardly say you're making an effort to halt your sinful ways. Of course, all of this is only relevant if you're a Christian.

I'm still waiting to hear why they want the right to marry? It can't be just about money.

I believe gays should have all the rights and protection that all of us have...except for marriage. Call it a civil union or whatever, but don't compare it to a marriage between natures design which is a male and a female. My personal view is the fact that homosexuality is a perversion and should be treated and viewed as a perversion. This is just about as legally perverted as you can be. And just because it is legal for consenting, same-sex people to get it on with each other doesn't make it right or acceptable. It just means you don't go to jail. So why so many states get caught up in this perverted crap and waste tax payer money is beyond me. My best guess is votes and perverts serving in our government.

Marriage was created to join man and woman in a holy union. We have destroyed the menaning of that union with the high number of divorces, infidelity and now same sex marriages. If you don't believe in God or fear him then it's not going to register with you that it's immoral and not favored by God and that is your right to feel that way but for goodness sake how can a minority group of people dictate the majority simply because of their sexuality? Believe in it all you want....the truth will come in the end. I don't have a problem with anyone loving who they love just don't force me into believing that God approves of the action.

I just want to point out to the many people indicating that others need to read the constitution concerning the separation of church and state that that phrase is not in that document. Just FYI.

Tiger 1990 - How does your life change if my cousin and his partner married? How does your life benefit by their continued denial of equal marriage rights?

I don't want to change your mind. I don't want to change your religion or deny you your right to it. You can continue to believe that a gay marriage is wrong while its going on.

Are you denied your religious freedoms because we don't ban Hindu marriage? Is there a crisis in your church when someone converts to Buddhism? These all go against your commandment to have no other god but God. Why don't I hear about a need to change the First Amendment?

Let us understand a few facts. First the constitution says absolutely nothing about any separation of church and state. All the founders wrote and spoke about the importance of a moral society and the need for a divine being in order for our type of society to flourish. Well over the years we have certainly kicked that notion out of the market place. The constitution restricts the government from jamming any religion, even secular humanism and liberalosm, down my throat. Boy that worked well didn't it.

Now for all that wanted same sex marriage rights and your sanctity, will you extend that same sanctity to mother and daughter, lets presume they are consenting adults. Can 2 brothers wed. Can brother and sister wed. Can father and daughter wed. Can 2 sisters wed. If I have 3 brothers can I marry them all. After all, I just want the same rights that you have to being in a loving committed relationship tied together by the legal bonds of matrimony. Does this sound ridiculous. Who are you to decide what my rights are with respect to whom I marry. Just because a brother and sister marry does not mean the offspring will be imbeciles, after all the sister had her tubes tied. Ya see marriage, as you very well know, is not about pro creation...correct. Is sanctity only your right or will you extend it to others. Don't tell me incest is wrong if marriage is not about procreation. Now you know the rest of the story.

Solarus10, just shut up, would you? The anti-gay laws you're referring to are in the Bible, not in the law books. Same goes for you, ThisGuy.

It might have been illegal for a man to marry another man (or a woman to marry another woman), but under today's standards, those laws are outdated. You need to be brought back into the 21st century.

And by the way, not trying to make fun of you, but both of you are kind of perverted, because I don't see how bestiality and incest have absolutely nothing to do with homosexual marriage.

i couldnt agree more dave. the funny thing is, the term 'marriage' has been tampered and sullied so much to the point where it practically means nothing except two significant others living together. they dont even have to love each other, and the honesty issue in it means nothing, being almost every marriage winds up with cheating and/or divorce. and they call same-sex marriage threatening? what is so bad about two people of the same sex marrying, when divorce seems to dominate over the threatening of the sanctity of marriage? and yet these conservatives feel theres nothing wrong with the divorce issue and dont do anything about it. if theyre gonna fight to ban same-sex marriage, then they better fight to ban divorce, although i find fighting for both tampers with our freedom, and is a ridiculous waste of time either way.

Jim-736496 - You are partially right. The term "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. But neither are all the writings you reference where the founders spoke about there PERSONAL BELIEF that religion was important. What is in the Constitution is the idea of religious freedom. It is bundled up in the First Amendment along with other means of expressing one's self. The gist of that amendment was that the government has no right to control how we think or how we express ourselves.

As a side note, you don't see the irony in rejecting the phrase "separation of church and state" on the basis of it being from a personal letter while trying to sell me on the idea that the personal writings of other founders should help color my reading of the Constitution?

Also, why is Thomas Jefferson's "separation" phrase rejected while his inclusion of the ambiguous term "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence is treated as proof of our Christian beginnings?

I am trying to understand these double standards.

Post 1.13 is great. Dude875416 says it all in one small post.

And by the way, why are all of these judges making laws? Esp. one that has been voted on by the people.

The institution of marriage began and was defined by various religions.... since neither Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions do not recognize Gay Marriages..... wouldn't it be more appropriate for Gays (and Atheists) to have the option of Domestic Partnerships? This would give them the same rights and benefits as married couples without the religious implications and uphold the separation of state and church.

First, there are Christian denominations that recognize gay marriage. And, frankly, anyone can found a religion that recognizes gay marriage. Religions are not licensed and restricted to a chosen few sects.

Second, as soon as the state began to issue marriage licenses and to confer benefits and legal recognition on married couples, marriage became a secular, not religious institution. If religions want their own institution similar marriage, I suggest that they come up with a new word for it and not let it be regulated by the state.

To everyone who makes the argument that homosexual lifestyle is perversion, what is this based on, besides your own set of values? America is becoming a place of acceptance, beyond the archaic norms. I have a right to be homosexual if I want, I made the choice. and when I was involved in straight relationships, it was my choice as well. My impulsive feelings are protected by the Bill of Rights, and honestly if I choose to be involved in a straight relationship, then well, that should be protected too!

CONGRATULATION'S CALIFORNIA! it's about time to do the right thing. It will be a long long time before Texas stands up to do the right thing for gay people to get married. I'm so proud to be gay. I'm 63 year old gay male in Texas and when I first came out at 18 I never dreamed gay rights would come this far in my time. I'm just amazed. I'm also amazed at the number of the Heterosexual community that support this move of California which makes me think people are starting to understand gay people more. I'm also disappointed that there are those who slander us gay people and some Christians that hide behind their bible and only use the parts of that book to suit their argument. Pushing their belief exactly like the taliban do. That is truly disappointing, who is the sinner there judging others. We have enough hate in this world why do create even more? So Sad

Paul, what is in the constitution is that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof. That very simply means that there can be no US established religion like the Church of England. ANYTHING else is strictly an interpretation of what people think the founders said. AS WRITTEN, (when one includes the 10th amendment) a state could have a state religion. That thought, however has obviously been overruled by SC.

Please note that I have not used any of the founders other writings. As such, there is no such thing as separation of church and state. It is a made up idea.

phantom-396954 - Your interpretation that it prohibits a Church of the US, such as the Church of England, is correct. But that only accounts for the establishment section. The exercise section is where one infers a freedom of religion free from government influence. The entire First Amendment basically says "the mind is not the government's to control". Would you say that is a fair interpretation?

Yes....divorce is also devastating to the sanctity of matrimony...SJS

I was going to comment but then I realized all the comments I have to say have already been said and all those they would have been answering to are to hypocritical, homophobic bigots who you can not reason with. Good work my friends, to those on the RIGHT side of this discussion!

We have gay neighbors who are married. They mow the lawn, take out the trash, go to their church, and take their adopted kids to school. The threat that they pose to the social order is just incredible. And we have a straight couple on the other side of us who yell and fight constantly. Their kid has been arrested several times, and the woman once had a restraining order against the man that she was living with when her present husband left her for about a year. They both drink, throw trash on the lawn, and play loud music late at night. Thank God that they are maintaining the integrity of the family.

Paul N...the Constitution grants rights that were not endowed by our Creator. We need to stick to the rights that were granted...they are in very plain english...and amend the Constitution when necessary. I know that does not sit well with a lot of people, however our system of governance used to work quite well until the courts started using crystal balls to find things that just are not there...and no there is and was no constitutional right to slavery...it just ain't there. Ain't it interesting that the Dred Scott decision was the first moment the courts legislated from the bench and they been doin it ever since and here we are. We do not have mob rule in this country. If you think we do because of Prop 8 then you must also believe that obama is a product of mob rule...but maybe not because that was a vote that you may have agreed with. Aint it funny that if I disagree with the outcome of a vote it becomes "mob rule" where as if I like the outcome of a vote then that is the democratic process at work that our founding fathers wanted. It all depends on ones perspective and who is sitting on the bench.

The civil rights law of 1984; was not meant to override the Constitution, original jurisdiction on this issue belongs only in the Supreme court; I for one am very tired of this gay media hype, if two people want to be together so what of their gender; marriage has always meant the union for the procreation of the species, Code of Haniruipi 3000 b.c. , a contract for life between two persons should be given the same legal status as marriage; but do not call it a marriage!

The states should not be involved in marriage at all. Marriage needs to go back to how it was started. It was meant as a religious institution between two people. There is no longer a need for the government to be involved in this as a civil matter. If you want to get married to someone, say your married, congratulations it's done. If you want to make a ceremony of it with a church or some other crazy wedding party, fine. It is still a promise between two people. People can be responsible, have a family, and make a commitment to someone without involving government bureaucracy. If it is about tax breaks it is because the tax system is flawed. People should have the same civil rights and privileges regardless of whether or not they are married. This whole controversy is a joke and a waste of tax dollars.

The STOOPID! It BURNS US!

Seriously, though, how does the Constitution declare that God gave us our rights? The Constitution was drafted by PEOPLE! Not some sky-fairy that you like to pretend to talk to (if you're actually hearing voices talking back, seek professional help). People made this country. The whole idea of god-given rights sickens me. You only have rights as long as you are willing to stand up for them and be counted. But you also have rights as an individual of the collective, rights that we CANNOT vote away (except by Constitutional amendments, or revolution). The Constitution was put in place as a safeguard, granting reprieve from the Tyranny of the Majority. You know, that whole thing about trading 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away? Yeah, that applies here.

Rights are rights, not privileges. You don't get to limit them WITHOUT CAUSE! No cause has been shown to be forthcoming. All who argue "It's icky!" or "It's perverse!" or "It's a slippery slope!" Yeah, right. Show us these things IN ACTION! Oh, right, I forgot, when N Korea detached, and we beat them back, that must be when China converted to Communism (historical hint: wrong way around). When Vietnam fell, there went Bangladesh and Thailand (still mostly Democratic, though with a nice large heaping of corruption, but that's still nothing new). Prop 8 is an abomination. Polygamy, well, we'll cross that barrier when we come to it.

The Constitution already provides a guideline for an age of consent, also known as the Voting Age. Look it up, it always has had an age requirement not only to vote, but also to hold Federal public offices (HOR, Senate, President). This gives a basis for considering an age requirement legal in laws to determine things like marriage, dependency, smoking, driving, etc. Thank you, come again.

Also, the whole bestiality thing - is that really how you see homosexuals? Referring to them as animals? Or are you somehow afraid that if gay marriage is legalized, you and half the straight men in this country will suddenly wake up gay one morning? Do you think Ted Haggard should be applauded for making an entirely miserable family by denying who he is? For convincing others to do the same? Seems rather unnatural, to me. And, on that subject, it's shown that naturally, up to 10% of many animal populations are homosexual. Birds, monkeys, chimps, etc. all have been observed to have homosexual relationships. Some were for life, some seemed to be a fling, some seemed inherently bisexual, just homosexual at times when mating season was over. Do some research, you might be surprised at what you find. And that is the naturalist argument. Also, overpopulation concerns right now rather trump your whole crap about not bringing children into the world. The world NEEDS fewer kids, or else we'll run out of resources before we can replenish them.

As for marriage being the purview of religion, I call BS! For the first few centuries of the christian cult's (read Catholic and Orthodox Churches') existence, they refused to do marriages for people. Marriage was a civil affair, in general, that was recognized by the church. Later, as the church began to dominate the government, it decided to make its own money by holding weddings, and interposing its own rituals in the grab for power over individuals. But marriage was around long before the Abrahamic religions got their footholds. Maybe it has always been defined as being between a man and a woman, but I'll tell you that we used to have slaves, too. Yep, the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Romans, Greeks, and just about everyone else in the Western Hemisphere (probably the Eastern, as well, though I am not as aquainted with their history as well). Did that make it right? Do you want to go back to the good old days? When war, famine, disease, horrible atrocities were not so much legends as everyday life? When people either bowed at the knees or were cut off at the neck?

Sigh, this rant has gone too long. At any rate, I guess what I'm trying to say is this:

Prop 8 supporters: Go take a flying leap off a bridge somewhere and leave the rest of us in peace. Don't worry, I'm sure your god will take you up to his bosom in heaven and feed you with his enourmous mammary glands (*shifty eyes).

Matthew 25:40 "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

I just wanted to remind everyone quoting the Bible that there are other passages that deal with the way you treat people. Think about how you are treating gays, because that is how you are treating God. If Jesus were here, he would not stand with you in your hatred.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are nothing like your Christ."

"Let me see if I understand this - gay marriage threatens the sanctity and institution of marriage. Relatively easy and quick divorces don't?"

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

AND I always CHUCKLE when bigots say that that allowing gay people to marry "lessens" the "Institution of Marriage." I always say that DIVORCE lessens the "Institution of Marriage," in 50% of ALL male-female marriages. Are the bigots (and Mormons) campaigning to make DIVORCE illegal? I think NOT........they EMBRACE divorce. Take Marie Osmond for example.

Can we say HYPOCRITES?

For those of you claiming that the bible also calls various other actions abominations, do not believe that you, in fact, know the bible. There is a difference between the mosaic law, and the new covenant. Fact is, Jesus Christ came to FULFILL the law, since no man is capable or following the law perfectly aside from HIM. Yet, we should still strive to follow the law and carry our cross, as Jesus has called us to do. However, the mosaic law was done away with, but even in the New Testament, homosexuality is said to be deplorable:

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

-Rom 1:24-27

Remember, context is as important as content.

This, however, is not to dehumanize homosexuals, or any other sinner:

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

-Rom 3:23

For this reason, Jesus Christ came down from Heaven to die for OUR SINS:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

-John 3:16

For those who say that you have morals, where do your morals come from? Do you just see something and know that it is wrong? How do you know? If morals are universal, there can only be one source of morals.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

-Rom 1:16-19

They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

-Rom 2:15

If there is no God, what do you live for, other than to satisfy your own passions and live a comfortable life? Do you claim to live for others? Even then, what is your purpose if their life, too, will end?

And whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I kept my heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil. Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun.

So I turned to consider wisdom and madness and folly. For what can the man do who comes after the king? Only what has already been done. Then I saw that there is more gain in wisdom than in folly, as there is more gain in light than in darkness.

The wise person has his eyes in his head, but the fool walks in darkness. And yet I perceived that the same event happens to all of them. Then I said in my heart, “What happens to the fool will happen to me also. Why then have I been so very wise?” And I said in my heart that this also is vanity.

-Ecclesiastes 2:10-15

There is but one purpose to your life, and it is the glory of God, whether you are with HIM or against HIM, the glory will be HIS.

IamDaniel,

Please see my previous post about Mathew 25:40 and consider how YOU treat gay people.

In addition, please reread the many stories of Jesus . . . then think about the classic saying: "What Would Jesus Do?"

Do you honestly believe that the man, the God, who loved ALL would stand with his hate-filled Christian followers?

The overall message of the Bible is to love one another. The so-called "Christians" here have perverted that message, and changed it to "hate everyone not like me."

Paul, I think that may be a fair interpretation but the fact is that the government does now control our minds. If we go with your interpretation that would make "hate" speech or "hate" thought laws unconstitutional. Yet we now have laws that make it a crime to "think" something that can be offensive to others or could be considered "fighting words". No where in the constitution does it give any of us the right to NOT be offended.

I'm an atheist and I believe the church owns marriage. It's the churches institution not the states. I believe what is actually being done here is a violation of the separation of church and state. The state needs to rename marriage to regulate it as far as I'm concerned.

Jim-736496 - Are you actually responding to someone else in 1.100? You are seem to be responding to points I never brought up nor would bring up. Mob rule? Our founders called democracy that, but I haven't. But I do take issue with your comparing the election of the President to the voting for Prop 8. The rules of the Electoral College only require a simple majority of 50% + 1. The issue surrounding Prop 8 was the being able to change the civil rights for a particular group using a simple majority. You may think that that civil right was made up by a court with crystal ball, but it was the result of logically applying existing law that man and woman are equal in the eyes of the law.

And since you brought it up, I too disagree with the rampant intellectual dishonesty in this country. It exists across the board. "Keep it at home" and "It belongs in school" arguments switch sides between conservative and liberal parents depending on whether we are talking about prayer or sex ed. The judge was either going to be biased because he might be gay or because he was appointed by a conservative - it all depended on who won this case.

And as I pointed out in my original response to you, 1.89, the personal writings of the founders are either to be rejected or integral to your understanding of the Constitution depending on whether they agree or disagree with the views of the individual.

Janstince,

2 points: (1) slippery slope that you discount; when the sodomy law was overturned many on the losing side stated that the courts decision would lead to gay marriage. That, of course, was totally discounted by the media and liberals in general. So where are we now? How is that for proof of slippery slope.

(2). Lets go to polygamy now. Do you support polgamy? If not why not? Even if you don't what would make it illegal? How does a marriage between 3 or more people (regardless of sex or orientation) hurt either 2 person marriages? Why can't 2 adults who happen to be related also get married? How does that impact society? Please make a case for continuing to make incest a crime. (I am not talking about an adult having sex with a child but 2 consenting adults).

yeah the judge is gay..so what? We have black judges, should they not be allowed to rule if a black person is involved in the case? Or women judges, should they exclude themselves if there's a woman litigant? I think not. Your reasoning is just plain stupid.

I agree this opens the door to marry brothers and sisters...cousins....for some people its not a choice as someone said. I personally know of a couple of gays that went back to straight...so for some gays its a choice.

Polygamy agree...they are a minority...why aren't there rights protected? They aren't hurting anyone and they are conscenting adults?

Thisguy - Incest is an imbalance of power. It is therefore not consensual. I'd like to ask you to think about changing *your* sexuality for a moment. No? Can't do it? Then why do you think it's somehow different for gay people? When did you choose to be straight? Plenty of people would love to choose to be straight to avoid the judgment of people like you who don't have a clue what they're talking about and don't even want to try and understand, but you can't choose or change your sexuality. It's not possible.

An imbalance of power..? I thought you said it was about two consenting adults for the basis of your defence of homos having a right to "marriage" If your going to defend same sex couples being "married" then don't assume that it's going to stop at that. If you think the immoral slide of this country stops at only the immoral acts that you deem acceptable in your own life, think again. Don't grasp straws though with a imbalance of power nonsense when the person gave a well pointed example of two consenting adults which is what the homosexual defenders always point out as to what sets their "rights" apart. Secondly yes a person can choose to sleep with someone of the same sex if they choose even if the idea is not an appealing thing to that person. Example... for the life of me I can't imagine the idea what so ever of why anyone would want to go do drugs or drink and get drunk. I honestly have no desire what so ever for that... nor can I see the point in it. However... it may boggle my mind that someone could do that but it don't mean that if I choose to that I could not go out and drink till I got drunk or shoot dope of I wished. Point being... you don't have to always have a desire for something for it to be wrong. Sin comes in many forms and the devil is always willing to work with a person to try and tempt them into something that may be appealing to that person if they allow that into their life. As far as avoiding judgement of others because it would be easier to be straight is not true either. The same could be said for people who destroy their lives with drinking and make excuse after excuse as to why they don't have a problem yet don't understand why they are a cause of a problem what so ever.

phantom-396954 - I won't go so far as to agree that our minds are controlled. I don't believe hate speech and hate crimes deserve special consideration - crime is crime - but I don't think those laws go as far as you portray them. Just by reading the posts here you can see that hate is alive and well in America (and that is show allegiance to no single side). Hate groups are allowed to put up their own websites to spread their message. No one stops them from talking. They are stopped when those words become actions, and rightfully so (although as I said, I don't think a KKK attack on a black man should be treated differently just because they are a hate group).

So, I decided to check-out the comments and the original post made perfect sense. Of course the very first reply (Sam Adams something or other) gives us the "cats and dogs living together" response.

Attention: The "slippery-slope" argument is a logical fallacy.

Just sayin'...

I for one, do not see what all the fuss is about. Just keep your nose out of your neighbors bedroom. Part of many of todays troubles seems to be from the tendency to "flaunt" any difference from the perceived "norm". I don't care who you, or the next guy, or my neighbor sleeps with. Why broadcast your sex lives, really. Why in h#(( does anyone care, I don't. Remember, those that live in glass houses...................

PeterVangsta,

So your only concern is about the word "marriage" and if they are allowed to use that word? You are perfectly 'ok' with all the rights being shared, but not a simple word?

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Kitty-1341278 - Could you please clarify what you mean by the word "flaunt"? Sometimes word is misused and I want to know what it means to you.

Feelngoodw/christ

You are the only one here trying to impose your will on other people. You claim that you are not but your comments clearly show that you believe the bible to be fact. Homosexuality and fournication are only sins for YOU! It is not morally wrong to anyone who doesnt try to butt into other peoples lives. This country was built on freedoms. The freedoms to choose religion or ignore it. You cannot put religious beliefs into law becasue not everyone follows your cult.

With a statment like this, one could argue then why is it that things like not stealing or don't commit adultry are supported by law and frowned upon by most people. Ever ask yourself where those teachings came from to begin with...? They came from the Bible. My point is that you may frown upon the word of God by your choice but the truth is that God created a moral compass for mankind to live by. If you dismiss the Bible and say there is no creator then ask yourself this... Who determins moral compass or should be able to say what is allowed and what is not period? If you say it's man, which you would have to say since you don't accept the idea of there being a supream authority that which is God who says how we should live, then there comes a huge problem in that thinking. Who is anyone then to determine what is right and what is wrong? The only reason people deny Jesus is because they refuse to deny sin.

HMMMMMMMMMM, WHY IS EVERYONE SO HAPPY ABOUT THE RULING TO ALLOW GAYS TO MARRY????

I understand the hoopla about making it legal for gays to marry, what I don't understand is WHY?????

Why would ANYONE want to get married nowadays? Our illustrious Congress led by Barrack, Nanny, Hairy, Dudd et al added that little provision in the Health Care Redistribution of Wealth Hoax where marriage gets penalized. Most people feel that marriage is a healthy institution that society should encourage and strengthen, reagrdless of your gay/straight opinions. Does our government feel the same way? Au contrare, those sneeky little Liberal Progressives snuck another little gift for us all in the bill.

The bill is designed to provide health care benefits that are significantly more generous for lower income persons. The bill’s anti-marriage penalties occur because of the income counting and benefit structure rules of the bill. If a dual-earner couple is married, the bill counts their income jointly, since the joint income will be higher, a married couple’s health care subsidies would be lower.

By contrast, if a couple cohabits rather than marrying, the bill counts each partner’s income separately. Separate counting means that, all else being equal, cohabiters would be treated as having lower incomes and therefore receive disproportionately greater government benefits. The bottom line is, under the bill, a cohabiting couple would receive substantially higher health care subsidies than a married couple even when the total incomes of both couples are identical.

Under the bill, MARRIED couples in general would receive between $1,500 and $10,000 less in government health care support than would cohabiting couples with the same total income. Here's a simple example. A young couple without children, age 20, each making $20,000, would receive $4,317 more in health benefits each year if they cohabit rather than marry. Slipping on the wedding ring would cut the couple’s annual disposable income by more than 10 percent. So, rather than pay this new wedding tax, the couple is much more likely to postpone marriage or forego it entirely!!!!!

Penalties against married couples add up year after year also, as long as the couple remains married. Some couples who remained married throughout their adult lives would face cumulative penalties of over $200,000 during the course of their marriage.

The health care bill sends a clear and confusing message until you think about it. Married couples are second-class citizens. On the other hand, the bill establishes cohabiters as a privileged special interest, quietly channeling tens of thousands of dollars to them in preferential government bonuses. Coincidently, the divorce rates by race are white population the rate is 9.8%, 11.3% for African-Americans, and 10.6% for Hispanics.

Gays may be careful for what they wished for. Those benefits they seek from the right of marriage may not be around very much longer. We're all being lead down the path of socialism.

Interesting people bring up "seperation of church and state" actually, the constitution says " one shall not interfere in the business of the other.. the state issues a marriage license, based on a civil union. however, the church's biz is to define marriage, not the states. therefore i see the state of california and others " interfering in the biz of the church" please note, there was an infamous case in the 1960's where a black and white couple sought to be married.. the state refused to grant a marriage license, and the case went to the supreme court, in the majoirty ruling opinion allowing this marriage, the court said that " the church (bible) makes a clear distinction between a "man" and a "woman" and does not imply race or color, simply opposite sex.. the court went on to clearly state the church(of england, which the constitution infersn from) defines marriage as a man and a woman, and it is THEIR BIZ, not the states.. therefore this is case precendence.. which law is based on in great part. I see this issue as the state interfering, seeking to define something that is clearly the biz of the church, Just as it was the church's biz in the 1960's case...

is this so hard? it is not a moral argument, its a legal one. Everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law.. so, the state has the power to grant a "civil union"

Im a conservative by the way, and my opinion in this is indentical to President Obama's.

RogueUSA,

Very good point. And this is why, as a straight man, I only live with my girlfriend instead of marrying her. It is currently the better decision. Add to that all the ways marriage can destroy a man financially . . . wedding expense, splitting assets, losing assets in a divorce, alimony from a divorce, etc. Marriage is not a smart choice.

That being said, I support gay marriage because I support equal rights. Straight people have failed at marriage (50% divorce rate). The institution is a complete and utter failure. So why defend something that straight people have failed at?

Additionally, why not let the gay population be as miserable as married straight people? Think about it . . . 50% divorce rate means that HALF the married population was unhappy and got a divorce. Now think about everyone who stays married, even though they are unhappy. They may stay together for the kids, for religious purposes, because they know they can't get anyone else, or different reasons. So 50% stay married but not all of them are happy. That means that less than half of all marriages are actually happy unions. That is a very VERY small percentage of happily married people. So like I said, why not allow everyone to be miserable?

It's all about equality . . . and seeing overly conservative people get SO upset. That's the best part. LOL

Rachael forget to add in Loving vs Virginia;

"The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Please note, "Race" is clearly defined.. Is being "gay" a race? now read the whole courts opinion.. equal protection under the law is based in secular law.. however again, the constitution clearly states that the state shall not dictate to the church it's biz.. before there were state, who defined marriage? under the constitution, it is the church's biz..

since when does the state have the right to infringe upon the defintion of marriage, which has always belonged to the church?

the state can issue a civil union. if a gay couple belongs to a "gay church" then i am sure that church can issue a marriage cert..

this is about the state intefering with the church, period.. and if people cannot clearly see this, I say u have a clear bias and you are ignoring the constitution.. Even as Liberal as Obama is, he clearly sees this.. so your emotional opinions do not matter. it is the law that matters.

Scott,

The state has infringed on the church long ago when marriage became a legal contract. According to the state, marriage is basically a business merger wherein two parties come together and join assets.

Marriage will once again belong to the church when the following occurs: The state completely removes marriage licenses. The state removes ALL marriage benefits. The state removes alimony. The state removes divorce court. The state no longer recognizes marriage as a union.

Until that happens, marriage will continue to be a business contract, provided to two people by the state.

why does anyone need the approval of society or church, to share their lives together? what a bs custom based on superstition!

this is my point, these "marriage licenses" are merely civil unions.. the state simply "goes along as to not interfere" with the church's defintion of marriage,, a formality, the state calling it " a marriage" when in fact it is a civil union. The problem here is the state going beyond the simple formality of calling the union a marriage, and now they are dictating to the church, seeking to change the defintion of marriage that clearly is the biz of the church to define, the constitution seems rather clear to me in this.. people here are arguing that america is a secular order. and i agree, it is.. but where does the term "marriage" come from"? we can go back thousands of years, and it has always been a "religious" term, in hebrew and even older cultures and languages..

does the state have the right to redefine the term "marriage"? to me the state should remain secular, hence " civil unions" should now be applied accross the board, whether between a man and a woman, or same sex, IF THE STATE IS issuing the license.. hence we can have clear equal protection for all, and keep the religious term of "marriage" ( the biz of the church) where it belongs... is anyone following me in this? put aside the emotional arguments and think rationally.. it is not a matter of an opinion based in emotion, morality, whatnot, but the so called "seperation of church and state" since the term "marriage" orginates within the frame of the "church" it belongs to the church, not the state..

im all for civil unions to grant equal protection under the law as noted above :)

Why do people worry so much what other people do with their personal lives when it has absolutely no effect on them personally? Are they stupid? Insecure? Meddlesome? Authoritarian? All of the above? The irony is that the same people who oppose same-sex marriages are often the same people who p--- and moan about the government overstepping their boundaries! LET PEOPLE LIVE THEIR OWN LIVES & MYOFB!!!!!

Equal rights for pederasty.

"It's a really sad day for Californians, for families, for our future and for voters that a federal judge has trampled on the civil rights of voters," said Luke Otterstad, 24, of Sacramento.

Trampled on the civil rights of voters. It's comments like these that make me question the intelligence of a lot of people in this country.

"God's Holy law has been trampled on by one person."

Well then let your God deal with it but he upheld OUR laws.

Freaking psychos.

Has anyone even bothered to look at the divorce rate for Gay marriage? It was well over 50% last I heard. Means that even the homos don't want to be married

Please note, "Race" is clearly defined.. Is being "gay" a race?

It has been defined as a class in court cases. So the precedent is there.

All acts of immorality harms

Thoughts from Cali,

You are half-correct in saying that the overall message of the bible is to love one another. First and foremost, it is to love God. You are also correct in percieving that there are hate-filled so-called "Christians." However, I am very concious of this, and strive to not be like them. There is another classic saying, "Hate the sin, not the sinner." While I acknowledge that we all sin, we should also be striving NOT to sin. Disposition to sin is not an excuse before God. That being said, there is a disproportionate amount of attention being given to homosexuality. People sin in various other kinds of ways, and I doubt that those who speak with hate, resentment, pride, haughtiness, or other such ways, are truly christians. Homosexuality is not the most prevalent sin, nor should those who engage in it be dehumanized.

While I understand that you may have experienced "christians" who live with hate in their heart, please do not presume or imply that I am among them -- their words and actions are even more disgusting.

Furthermore, while it is true that we should be loving to our brothers and sisters, and that we as humans are predisposed to sin, this can never be a reason to condone sin. Yet, no one is capable of coming to God EXCEPT through Jesus Christ, His only son, who came down to earth to die for our sins! It is not through our own works or righteousness, but through the righteousness of Jesus Christ, that anyone is saved. Therefore, noone should be prideful and boast.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Ephesians 2:8-9

Excellent - then using the same reasoning that defines this "class" since it is very obvious there is no biological procreative basis for homosexuality - it must be a urgent need centered in the mind to be with a same sex partner - compulsively -

ergo any compulsive sexual behavior must be "natural" by the same definition -

so Pedophilia it's not covered in the Constitution but it is an compulsive urge to have sex with children -

Polygymy - hey - not covered in the Constitution - but it is an compulsive need to be with multiple partners -

the two just mentioned are not part of that archaic hate book the Bible but they are frowned on by the Christian a western European hate group the Church as described by the Gay agenda…

... so hell release the polygamists and the pedophiles based solely on the same reasoning that somehow condones -- homosexuality !! Hell - why settle for one when you can 2-3 or more!!

Tyler - I'd appreciate you leaving this ... this time because it brings up serious precedent issues - if I were in prison for having had sex with a consenting minor you can damn well bet I would sue under the statute which gives credence to homosexuality as a genuine state of attraction deserving respect arguing the same criteria.

Has anyone even bothered to look at the divorce rate for Gay marriage? It was well over 50% last I heard. Means that even the homos don't want to be married

There has been a decline in marriage between heterosexuals. Guess the heterosexuals don't want to get married either.

Yes they both do.

Well, you might hate me or you might love me, or I just don't care. Calling having a baby a miracle is just a saying. Having a baby is not a miracle since people are having them night and day and popping out like jiffy-pop popcorn.

God didn't create people like some would like to believe, we evolved and in a science-documentary called "Volcanoes of the Deep" (great film), it shows creatures way beneath the oceans that carry human dna and blood. This is where it's believed we evolved from. They even cam across a creature that looked like an elephant, and others that look like other creatures on the planet.

So as for babies being made and religion, lots of so-called people have kids out of wed-lock, we have an enormous number of dead-beat dads that refuse to take responsibility for their one night stands, and here you have gay people looking to adopt, marry, and become caring parents for kids that the heterosexual community have tossed away, or have been taken away from the parents, or the parents that don't want a child can abort it.

Then you have gay men and women that do not abort children, do not abuse physically and or sexually them (biggest percentage of pedophiles are heterosexuals).

They serve in the military to protect you and I, they are doctors and nurses that save people's lives, they adopt aids babies, crack babies that were born to those that are junkies and alcoholics, and then are shunned all because they were born gay.

If you are born heterosexual, prove how you were born heterosexual. Some people really need to go back to school (bible thumpers and bigots) and study Psychology and Human Sexuality, and learn all about the development of the child in the womb and the X/Y chromosomes that will determine if you are going to become a male or female, and sometimes the process does not complete therefore creating a gay male or gay female.

Congratulations to all the gay people in California, I support all of you 100% and I wish you all the best in life.

As for the time wait until the 16th, remember, just because one judge makes a ruling, there is a lot of other paperwork and precess that needs to take place to put your marriages into place. This heterosexual judge is doing it correctly and by the books from what I can see and read, and he's making sure there are no loop-holes for the bible-thumpers and bigots to jump threw to ruin your day of marriage.

Patience is a virture, and a lot of us heterosexuals are backing you up 100%.

Blessing to all of you.

FeelnGoodw/Christ

One last thing where are gays refered to in the Constitution?? I cant find it anywhere?

If you read the US Constitution and where it reads the word "PEOPLE" that includes gay people.

Equal rights for "ALL People"...

US Constitution: Preamble

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If you only had a brain... (Wizard of Oz) and the Scarecrow was smarter than your comment.

PeterVangsta ... if you're going to bring up the old "marriage is for procreation" argument, then you've got to explain why infertile individuals are allowed to marry? You've also got to explain how allowing gays to marry interferes with heterosexual reproductive abilities.

the constitution guarantees every citizen the pursuit of happiness. if in their pursuit of happiness gays decide they want to get married then they should be able too, no questions asked.

do we really need another civil rights movement in this country simply because "moral Christians" are trying to deny people equal rights?

If you are going to add sexual prefrence to that list than you must include all pornographic desires, including child sexual abuse, statutory rape, and don't forget my little dog.

Is it REALLY so difficult for you people to understand that ALL of these scenarios you keep throwing around imply a lack of consent? Being gay is not a choice. And it's no more of a "pornographic desire" than heterosexual sex. But just keep throwing around the same arguments - they show just how stupid you are.

A gay person won't die if he does not have sex with a same sex partner.

And a straight person won't die if he/she does not have sex with an opposite gender partner. So should we start making laws banning straight sex?

Dave, one point - those "quick and easy divorces" could also pertain to gay marriages. That is not a valid argument in the whole reasons TO allow gays to marry.

No matter your background - gay, straight, bi, whatever you may be... all can have a divorce. Hell, even George the VIII ABDICATED (stepped down from the throne) in order to marry Wallis Simpson - and he had to step down because he - as king - had to support the Roman Catholic Church, and the church refused to let him marry her because she was a - gasp - DIVORCEE.

In all sincerity, this argument - that gays won't divorce but straights do - has been by far the most INVALID point made by that side in order to marry.

By the way, there used to be laws against performing gay acts.

No, there were laws against sodomy - and they applied equally to gays and straights. Or do you really think straight people don't have anal sex? There have also been laws against oral sex. And in at least one state, there are still laws on the book that forbid any kind of sex but the missionary position. So if you're using the argument that there used to be laws against certain activities, and therefore those activities are wrong, I hope you've never gotten a blowjob in your life.

Excellent - then using the same reasoning that defines this "class" since it is very obvious there is no biological procreative basis for homosexuality - it must be a urgent need centered in the mind to be with a same sex partner - compulsively -

Yeah right, and you've only ever had sex to procreate. Lots of heterosexuals have sex and it is NOT to procreate. Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

Tyler - I'd appreciate you leaving this ... this time because it brings up serious precedent issues - if I were in prison for having had sex with a consenting minor you can damn well bet I would sue under the statute which gives credence to homosexuality as a genuine state of attraction deserving respect arguing the same criteria.

Wrong. A minor is a child and not an adult. therefore your argument again is entirely flawed.

I will agree though that if two or more consenting adults want to get married it should be allowed. It is not anyone else's business.

@Steve-505729

The Declaration of Independence reads:

"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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;"

Not the Constitution...

Step #2 will be to attack all the Churches and Synagogues that won't perform same-sex marriages, to have their tax-exempt status taken away for standing up for their beliefs.

This argument is almost as stupid as the bestiality one. Churches and synagogues are ALREADY allowed to decide whether or not they will perform certain marriages. Try getting married in the Catholic church if one partner has previously been divorced. Try getting married in an Orthodox synagogue if you're not Jewish. Try getting married in many Protestant churches without having church-run marital counselling. All of those situations are already standard practice in this country - and yet, the churches and synagogues have not had their tax-exempt status taken away. Besides, with the number of churches in existence that are perfectly willing to perform same-sex marriages, why would a gay or lesbian couple try to get married in one that considers them subhuman?

I'll grant that a majority of people are morally opposed to gay marriage. That's great. In fact, I'm not crazy about the idea. But, I'm probably a bigoted old dinosaur.

There just is no way under equal protection in the constitution that a ban on gay marriage will stand.

Get used to it folks. A generation from now, people will look on the gay marriage bans and shake their heads at how ridiculous we're acting.

I can't see how waking up to a hairy a-- can be considered anything of right, but do what you want to do...Please do not use or desecrate the word matrimony ...

And yet, women have to do it all the time. Guess that's not normal, either. As for desecrating the word "matrimony" - it's only a word. If you're talking about the institution of marriage, I think we straight people are already doing a great job of making a mockery of it.

im back..

I don't really understand why homosexuals want marriage vs. civil union

Since you appear to be a reasonable person, I'll be happy to explain it to you. The LEGAL (not religious) act of marriage automatically confers hundreds of rights - mostly federal rights- on the participants in the marriage. These rights are NOT conferred by civil unions. Such things as being able to file joint tax returns and having automatic inheritance rights are not a part of a civil union. If a civil union provided EXACTLY the same legal rights as a marriage, it might be acceptable. Even so, there would still be gay couples that would want the ceremony. It's no different than straight people. All that is NECESSARY for a couple to be married is to get a marriage license and having an authorized person perform the ceremony- but most couples CHOOSE to have the fancy ceremony to go with it.

However, the mosaic law was done away with, but even in the New Testament, homosexuality is said to be deplorable:

Oh really? So, if the Mosaic law of the Old Testament is no longer valid, I guess that means none of us have to follow those pesky Ten Commandments, right? Especially since they don't appear in the New Testament. Some Christians are so quick to use this "new covenant" argument - yet are happy to cherry-pick from the Old Testament to support their arguments.

I don't have a problem with homosexuals, I have a problem with the biased judge. Has anyone done their homework? You have your rights but to what avail? Throw the rules out, your judge is an openly gay man. Walker is reportedly gay, an obvious point of attack for those who would like to blame Prop 8's failure on an activist judge. The question of Walker's bias in sympathy with gays drew "no comment" from the judge

Read more at Suite101: Who is Prop 8 Judge Vaughn R. Walker? http://law.suite101.com/article.cfm/who-is-prop-8-judge-vaughn-r-walker#ixzz0wSFRCsFe

Don't get me wrong, you can have the same rights as me, that I have no problem with but allowing someone who is biased rule on this is crazy.

I don't see it as a win, I see it as a loss of our freedoms. Why might I say that? Because he is biased, but I guess whoever is in power is biased. No matter what the judgement.

I wish we could live besides one another in utopia, maybe one day we shall. I wish no one harm , only peace and prosperity.

If one has only witnessed to what I've done and seen, the world would be much different.

The marriage commitment between a man and a woman is intended to be "until death do us part." Clearly, we've lost track of the importance of keeping that (or any) commitment to each other. However, I fail to see how one bad idea makes another bad idea okay. Tricky logic, there.

Quick divorces are yet-another result of the increasing distance our society puts between us and any common moral standard (with or without religion's influence). Relativism has ripped us to shreds as a nation and still we continue run as far and as fast toward libertine self-destruction as possible.

cm6969 wrote this--So, since mathmatically man = man and woman = woman, then man + man = marriage, and woman + woman = marriage too! Also, since (man x 2) = (woman x 2), then polygamy should be legal as long as there are an even number of adults participating! No odd marriages...----for the first time in my life i totally agree with a --dont know what you like to be called, and dont want to make you mad or hurt your feelings---gay person-------NO ODD MARRIAGES.

I don't have a problem with homosexuals, I have a problem with the biased judge. Has anyone done their homework? You have your rights but to what avail? Throw the rules out, your judge is an openly gay man. Walker is reportedly gay, an obvious point of attack for those who would like to blame Prop 8's failure on an activist judge. The question of Walker's bias in sympathy with gays drew "no comment" from the judge

How would it be any more fair for a heterosexual to decide this case? This case involves people on opposite sides of the spectrum. Either way it could be argued that a judge was acting as an activist.

Eunuch anyone?

If 1=1 is 2 then they would't have an odd marriage.

Unless of course you mean odd as in unusual and you're are suddenly in charge of defining what is odd? But if odd means unusual then we can make gay marriage usual then it would cease to be odd. Problem solved.

Next!

Everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law.. so, the state has the power to grant a "civil union"

Actually, the STATE is the only entity that can grant a "marriage", as well. In this country, if you don't have a properly executed STATE-ISSUED marriage license, you aren't married. You can have any kind of religious ceremony you want, but without that license, you're not married.

Personally, I think France (for one) has the right idea. You have to have a CIVIL ceremony first, to be legally married. After that, you can have any kind of religious or formal ceremony you want.

HoustonDave, they both do.

No matter your background - gay, straight, bi, whatever you may be... all can have a divorce. Hell, even George the VIII ABDICATED (stepped down from the throne) in order to marry Wallis Simpson - and he had to step down because he - as king - had to support the Roman Catholic Church, and the church refused to let him marry her because she was a - gasp - DIVORCEE.

Mel, there's several problems with your post.

1) English monarchs don't belong to the Roman Catholic Church - they belong to the Church of England, which is basically equivalent to the Episcopal Church.

2) It was Edward VIII, not George VIII, that abdicated the throne.

3) The abdication had nothing to do with religion. The Prime Ministers of the various parts of the British Empire felt that people would not accept a divorcee - and an American one at that - as queen. The British Prime Minister, and all government members of the same party, had threatened to resign if Edward married Mrs. Simpson. This would have led to a new general election, and would have cost Edward his political neutrality. Edward made the choice, for the sake of the country's well-being, to step down from the throne.

Gay Marriage is a disgusting scene to most straight people. It is unnatural and a perversion of God directed relationships of one man and one woman in marriage. Even if you do not believe that homosexuality is a mortal sin, most Americans would prefer to not have it flaunted in their face. I would like to see homosexuals exhibit some personal pride and not flaunt their perversion by demanding marriage. BTW, most homosexual relationships are of a temporary and fleeting nature. Only occasionally do two homosexuals remain in a relationship for an extended time.

Gay Marriage is a disgusting scene to most straight people.

Because most of those straight people are in-the-closet homosexuals.

It is unnatural and a perversion of God directed relationships of one man and one woman in marriage.

Homosexuality is practiced by 1,500 species on earth, including humans, so yes homosexuality is very natural and it is definitely not a perversion. It is, however, a perversion to use God to spread hate and prejudice for personal gain.

Even if you do not believe that homosexuality is a mortal sin, most Americans would prefer to not have it flaunted in their face.

If anything it's the heterosexuals who frequently flaunt their sexuality in people's faces.

I would like to see homosexuals exhibit some personal pride and not flaunt their perversion by demanding marriage.

I would like to see heterosexuals exhibit some personal pride and not flaught their perversions by Frenching and groping each other in public.

BTW, most homosexual relationships are of a temporary and fleeting nature.

Evidence?

Only occasionally do two homosexuals remain in a relationship for an extended time.

Source? Do you know any homosexuals personally? Because I know several who've been together in monogamous relationships for twenty years and longer.

Phantom: Read U.S. Supreme Court REYNOLDS v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878) regarding polygamy. You'll see the legal reasoning that the Court, citing a Professor Lieber, agreed that polygamous marriages are instances of the patriarchal principle, which were considered unequal, and therefore good to ban (which the territory of Utah had done, following the common law as derived from the time of King James I, upon which the law had been founded.)

Greek Prince - The Greeks used to really love their same sex relations back in the day...that must really make you want to self flagellate.

lmv77

Actually DUDE, is the USA, the GOVERNMENT gives us our laws, not God, and when you say God, which one are you referring too? Last time I checked, Christianity wasn't the only religion, and didn't own a word older than their religion.

You really should read my post again. I said NOTHING about laws. I spoke of RIGHTS. When you question my choice to use the word "GOD", I was simply referring to a descriptive word that most can relate to in relationship to their own religion. After all, other religions have their "GOD" as well. In either case, the bottom line is if "GOD" exists, then some people are gambling with their futures. Are we clear?

I for one am uncomfortable with the idea of government being involved regarding our own personal contracts with GOD. Separation of church and state is important.

Vicki wrote:

Mel, there's several problems with your post.

1) English monarchs don't belong to the Roman Catholic Church - they belong to the Church of England, which is basically equivalent to the Episcopal Church.

Right or wrong in my comment, this is not the point - the point is that both he and Princess Margaret were basically forced to choose between either their love or their duty to England. Princess Margaret chose to stay with duty, Edward love.

2) It was Edward VIII, not George VIII, that abdicated the throne.

I stand corrected, but again, my point is the same.

3) The abdication had nothing to do with religion. The Prime Ministers of the various parts of the British Empire felt that people would not accept a divorcee - and an American one at that - as queen. The British Prime Minister, and all government members of the same party, had threatened to resign if Edward married Mrs. Simpson. This would have led to a new general election, and would have cost Edward his political neutrality. Edward made the choice, for the sake of the country's well-being, to step down from the throne.

Again not the point - and as mentioned above, other royalty were fond of a couple of commoners who were divorced, and were told either marry them or do their duty.

I find it quite funny that the whole point is being missed here with my post - divorces can and do happen, and people are going to make choices based on love or duty.

BUT, I do find that the whole argument that heterosexual divorces also "break the sanctity of marriage" a bit ludicrous in the whole scheme of things because homosexual couples could also divorce for whatever reason.

My point is - if we're going to debate the issue... this logic is invalid.

Here is what I don't understand, the supporters that use religion to back the reasons that Homosexuality is a sin, why do you care? They don't affect your marriage or lack of one. And by your own argument, GOD will judge them, not you, and if they were an abomination to him than he will do what he sees fit. Again why do you care? You can only control your own actions, not the actions of others. And don't go quoting the bible, because which one are you using? Which translation, are you sure that it's correctly translated from the original aramaic? Then do you take it literally, or do you have your own interpretation of it? It's also not like even the holiest people (pedophile priests anyone?) didn't have their issues, and I don't think any one of them was gay.

As far as the civil union argument, I completely agree, but in WA state there was a referrendum that basically said it gave all the legal rights of marriage, so it was marriage in all but name. Guess what? People STILL were protesting against it! They won't be satisfied until they "convert" these poor souls, or better yet, put them in jail and let them rot.

Do any of you know who got married today and how it affected you? I'm sure some of you were at the wedding, but everyone else in the world, guess what? They had no idea you were getting married, they could probably care less, and it would have been less than a footnote to affect anything. So tell me the same exact thing happens, except between a woman and woman, or man and man. How would you know (unless you were part of it), how would it affect you, and your relationship to God? Here's the answer, IT DOESN'T!!

According to Christians we are all sinners, even that newborn baby there. If we are all sinners already, you are you to judge some other sinner, it's the pot calling the kettle black. So many people who tout that they are Christians don't even follow the teachings of Jesus, just quote stuff from the OLD Testament which is supposed to not be valid after the New Testament came out, yet the arguments are still being pulled from it. Does that mean you are Catholic or Jewish, not really Christian?

As long as no one is affecting you directly or indirectly, WHY DO YOU CARE? You live your life the way you want to live it, let others live theirs the way they want to live it.

I know it's natural when you follow a religion that yours is the correct one, the RIGHT one, and everyone else is wrong. Just keep in mind that every other religion thinks exactly the same thing. Just as an example, I know there are a lot of Chrisitians that believe Islam is an evil religion and should be fought (personally I think the way people HANDLE religion is evil) because they are encroaching, trying to change things to their viewpoint, using religious freedom as the argument that they have the rights to do such. Does that sound like anyone else we know? Trying to change people to another belief?? hmmmm....

And sorry, if there is a god, he made all of us, he's also supposed to know what we are going to do, so if someone is the way they are, god did it for a reason, maybe it IS a test for the faithful, and I seem to remember that Jesus hung out with the sick, the depraved, bottom dwellers to lift them up, so my guess is if it is a Test you are failing miserably. Either that or you have free choice and god gave everyone that, so who are you to say this person's choice isn't valid, it isn't your decision.

I know it says something about looking to your own sins instead of judging others on theirs, why don't you practice what you preach, and deal with your own house, this guys over here won't affect your house one bit.

@FelnGoodw/Christ

The age of consent (for legal contracts) is 18. However, many states have exceptions for marriage which lower this age. IIRC, some states allow you to marry at 14.

Oh really? So, if the Mosaic law of the Old Testament is no longer valid, I guess that means none of us have to follow those pesky Ten Commandments, right? Especially since they don't appear in the New Testament. Some Christians are so quick to use this "new covenant" argument - yet are happy to cherry-pick from the Old Testament to support their arguments.

Vicki-427762,

You misunderstand. I was referring to the rituals of blood sacrifice, diet, and the like. This does NOT mean that the entire old testament was done away with. Rather, it should be taken in light of the new testament. However, each of the ten commandments is alluded to in the New testament, which is a compelling argument to FOLLOW THEM.

On a side note, you seem to be misplacing anger here. The only time I even quoted the old testament was when I quoted Ecclesiastes. Besides, the bible is not about loopholes. It is the truth of GOD revealed to man, that we may love and serve the LORD and one another, and it brings GOD glory.

God is not against homosexuality. He is against male anal intercourse used to humiliation, for subjection, and/or revenge.

In Biblical times people did not know there is a third sexual orientation. God doesn't make a mistake and he made gay people.

For you education, please read Genesis 19 and Judges 19:22. See for yourself that in both scriptures, the men of the town, all the men of the town, young and old; a depraved lot, came to the houses that the quests were staying in and shouted at the owners to:

Bring us the man (men) that is (are) in your house so that we may intimate with him.

This is what God didn't like. Gang rape for the purpose of humiliation and subjection.

So many irrational people making absurd comments. How sad that history does seem to repeat and repeat. When inter-racial couples wanted the legal right to marry, irrational fools tried to equate the legalization of their unions as the first step to allowing humans to marry animals, etc. Marriage wasn't been a religious act from the beginning, but a legal contract required by men to ensure their property (wives and daughters) were bought and paid or to keep women 'pure' so heirs could be reasonably believed to be their children. Until recent history, men weren't even expected to stay monogomous, only the women. Sooooo, all of you who are so excited and irrational about allowing any two people who love each other to marry, to feel like equal members of society, would you be the same people who would have fought to deny inter-racial marriages, or how about Civil Rights? Just curious, since your arguments reek (as in stink) of intolerence.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, not two men or two women. If letting them get married means that we (I) won't have to see or listen to their gay pride parades and overly enthusiastic obnoxious behavior, then have at it. My question is, why do gay people want to get married so much?

@1.15

IF the laws against homosexuality are "unconstitutional" then so are the laws against pologamy. I do NOT believe in pologamy BUT there is by the Constitution a seperation of church and state, THEREFORE the US has NO right to stop a man from having 10 wives(as long as they are CONSENTING ADULTS 18+) or a woman from having 5 husbands because that is their religious beliefs.

Ben_Raines .... obviously, you haven't been following the case, or this discussion. Judge Walker struck down Prop 8 on the grounds of "equal protection." Unlike gays, polygamists are not denied EQUAL protection because no one is allowed multiple legal spouses. Polygamists might have other arguments, but relying on the equal protection clause, the heart of Judge Walker's ruling, won't work. The Judge didn't rule that gays have the right to marry merely because they're homosexual, they have the right to marry because heterosexuals have that right. A polygamist can't make that same argument.

John - lets not forget about insestual relationships as well.

LOL. Based on the spelling in this case you have to wonder if inbreeding was involved. LMFAO. Come on man, it's an easy word to spell. Geeeeez. Less time on forums and maybe some more time with a dictionary................................

If letting them get married means that we (I) won't have to see or listen to their gay pride parades and overly enthusiastic obnoxious behavior, then have at it.

And then the heterosexuals can stop it with their spring break shenanigans.

My question is, why do gay people want to get married so much?

Well golly gee, why do heterosexuals want to get married?

I find it quite funny that the whole point is being missed here with my post - divorces can and do happen, and people are going to make choices based on love or duty.

Well, maybe you shouldn't make your argument using inaccurate BS. The point is that if these people were so worried about the sanctity of marriage they would have been working just as hard to ban divorce as they do to ban Gay Marriage.

Willing.Sniper: Common sense dictates that the 9th Circuit agree with Judge Walker, because his ruling is in line with the interpretations and meaning of the Constitution and precedent law. You do not have a right to force your religion on other people.

Matt from CA: Were you dropped on your head, or have you always been this stupid and hateful? I've known the children of homosexual couples who are better understanding than those of heterosexual couples, and more responsible in their sexual practices as well. But the raising of a child has absolutely *nothing* to do with the gender of the parents. It has everything to do with how those parents act. For you two say that two loving parents of the same gender is worse than a mother who drinks and a father who beats his kids with a belt for making a peep is to show that you are a hateful little man who should not be permitted to breed to prevent your genetic code and "ethics" from spreading.

RE: Separation of Church and State.

As anyone who has actually read the Constitution knows, this phrase is not only not in it, nobody has said that that phrase is in it. What the phrase is is a description of what the 1st Amendment has to say about religion.

Pretending otherwise doesn't make it so. It just means that you are making up an argument because you have no factual basis to dispute the separation.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Our forefathers understood the slippery slope of combining church and state. Give me one example of a country that has been civil, suceeded and thrived when a religion has lead them.

And since we are nitpicking the constitution, show me where God, Jesus, or Creator is mentioned in it.

Personally, I don't mind straight people as long as they act gay in public!

Do you have any idea how many times I have to see you public flaunt your sexuality? You're constantly talking about your discordant gender "spouse" and your kids (which are an obvious product of your sexuality). You're CONSTANTLY throwing it in our faces! For the love, you people even make out in public parks!

Keep your sexuality in the bedroom, and we'll do the same!

While the ACLU is celebrating in California, one must ponder what is the punishment under Sharia Law for being homosexual? They defend the building of the Mosque in NYC and Proposition 8, yet these 2 contradict each other.

Um...what does have to do with sharia law? Are you in support of the extremist Muslim groups now? Or only in support of their laws when it comes to homosexuality?

I am merely pointing out that they contradict each other and why is the ACLU supporting the mosque????

The president of Iran says there are no gays in his country. If you would like to go to a country where God's laws are strictly enforced, there are options...

Fed: This is because the proported purpose of the ACLU is to defend the civil liberties of all. By being against Prop 8 they are defending homosexual rights. By defending the mosque they are defending Muslim/religious rights.

So what do you do when Sharia Law trumps proposition 8? You cant have your cake and eat it too!

Why would Sharia Law ever be recognized as actual Law? Such recognition would be completely against the Constitution.

You're speaking nonsense now. Its very easy to support two potentially opposed groups' freedoms and rights without conflict. Because, by definition, you only have a right to do something till it infringes on the rights or health of another.

Oh, I don’t know, ask England?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

Ask the woman in New Jersey?

New Jersey Judge Rules Islamic Sharia Law Trumps U.S. Law

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/new-jersey-judge-rules-islamic-sharia-law-trumps-u-s-law/

Ask the man behind the Mosque near ground zero?

From page 111 of Feisal Abdul Rauf's book, "What's Right with Islam"

"It also would not be a violation of church-state separation to have a subsidiary entity within the judiciary that employs religious jurists from diverse religious backgrounds to comment on the compliance of certain decisions with their religious views and to provide guidance to their religious communities on how kosher or Shariah compliant these decisions are. ' - Feisal Abdul Rauf

Are you SURE you want this mosque????

Nonsense? Really?

if I were in prison for having had sex with a consenting minor you can damn well bet I would sue under the statute which gives credence to homosexuality as a genuine state of attraction deserving respect arguing the same criteria.

And the stupidest comment EVER on Newsvine award goes to Tigere comment 1.137, congratulations you hater!!! @IamDaniel: It's not Sunday morning, please quit preaching!

@vicki; You are right about Jesus doing away with the Kosher Laws. They were and still are tradition and man made, passed down though the generations by the pharisees and the teachers of the law. This does not mean that Jesus threw away God's Command as to what we can eat and can't eat. That command still exists. Jesus did come to abolish the law or the teachings of the Prophets, but to teach us how to live by them (To fulfill them).

Read Mark 7 for yourself. Jesus was teaching with a parable and not even his disciples understood it. The parable basically says: Nothing from the outside can make you unclean because it goes in one hole and out another-straight through. It is what is inside of a person and comes out that makes him unclean. These things are:

1. Evil Thoughts
2. Theft
3. Murder
4. malice
5. deceit
6. adultery
7. greed
8. lewdness
9. envy
10. slander
11. arrogance
12. folly.

From the Jewish Study Bible: comment on scriptures Levitcus 20:13 and 18:22

Biblical and ancient Near Eastern culture was not familiar with homosexuality in ther sense of sexual orientation or lifestyle

This being the case then we must look at scripture and see what was going on:

In Levitcus 19:4-5 We find that in Sodom

They had not yest lain down, when the townspeople, the men of Sodom, young and old - all the people to the last man - gathered about the House. And they shouted to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may be intimate with them."

You all know god, when He doesn't like something he will repeat it again. Does he repeat this again? You bet He does!

Judges 19:22 in Gibe-ah:

While they were enjoying themselves, the men of the town, a depraved lot, had gathere about the house and were pounding on the door. They called to the aged owner of the house, "Bring out the man who has come to your house, so that we can be intimate with him."

It is very clear from these two scriptures that God does not like male anal intercourse for the purpose of revenge, humiliation and/or subjection. This is what the ban is all about.

There is a difference in the outcome of these two scripture.

Again from the Jewish Study Bible:

the violence of the people of Gibe-ah is reminiscent of the Sodomites: Both try to break into the host's house and want to sodomize the guests. But while in Sodom the guests were angels, here they were ordinary human beings; hence the different results.

Just some important backgound on religion to think about and possibly read .

it looks like they were actually talking about the act of sodomy as humiliation and rape.

What the Bible says or doesn't say is irrelevant to this conversation concerning what rights a human being should have. The year is 2010, quit worrying about what other people do with their lives and go live your own!

Homosexuality = male sex organ + another man's colon (fecal matter).

Not even close.....

@vivki, I have to make a correction to what I wrote to you above:

Jesus did not remove God's ban of certain foods. It is still in existence today.

@soulchild: what the bible says is very relevant to this thread as many are basing their opinions on false teachings of the book. what the bible actually says and means needs to be shared so that there is a hope for everything else you said.

We live in a secular nation. We have individual free will (choice). This should be highly valued and respected.

@Fed: What a messed up twisting of the judge's ruling. You lack complete and utter understanding of the issues at hand.

The judge ruled that the man did not perform said acts with criminal malice because he believed them to be his duty as per his religious law. Do I agree with it? No. Will it stand up to appeal? Doubtful, if they change the wording around a bit. The judge focused on malice.

And yes, utter nonsense. The ACLU was supporting rights. It doesn't matter of the *group* whose rights they are supporting are against the other *group's* rights. They both still have rights.

the reason you wont find any reference to gays in the constitution is because the founding fathers allowed that people would possess morals,common sense, and not be a part of anything so disgusting,ridiculous, or shameful--had they but known of the rampant debauchery that this plague would infest the country with, they would have made strict laws to abolish such acts. BUT it was not a major concern so a loophole has been found, and now with a shallow voice the moral majority is being ridiculed, and slandered for not endorsing, a marriage, that threatens the sanctity of marriage and families. curious that so many other countries will not entertain the idea of gay marriage--finding it repulsive and immoral.. I guess the propaganda that the gays are spreading is actually the truth---they are right and the rest of the world is wrong--with a united states population of roughly 300 million and another rough estimate of 10% gay--IT only makes sense that 270 million americans are wrong in their thinking--would love to know the percentages for the world---7billion people and how many gay?--that would mean that roughly 6.3 billion are wrong, by procreating...-----WOW i had no idea.

the reason you wont find any reference to gays in the constitution is because the founding fathers used words like "all men". There are no exceptions to the word "all".

For our founding fathers, exceptions to the rules was part of what they rebelled against.

it wasnt so much an exception to the rule as it was an omission, for lack of evidence--gay marriage was never a consideration to the founding fathers..It was not a worry for them as gays were far and few between.

What's disgusting, ridiculous, and shameful is the amount of bigotry and lack of education on the subject that is routinely displayed throughout internet discussion boards on this topic.

it wasnt so much an exception to the rule as it was an omission, for lack of evidence--gay marriage was never a consideration to the founding fathers

Using this line of reasoning we can say that women do not have the Constitutional right to vote or own property since "all" does not mean "all" and women were not explicitly addressed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.

@Just an Observation: The truth is that very few got rights under the Constitution. The only ones that these rights applied to were the "elite." In the original constitution there are no right for the poor masses, the women. black and Indians. what rights we have now came from rebellion and the passage of amendments to the Constitution,

phantom - Okay, I'll bite (though this thread is old so you may not see my response).

Anyway, here goes:

1) Slippery slope - yeah, okay, so there's gay marriage. Isn't that, you know, kind of obvious? I mean, the 14th amendment does state that all people born in the US are automatically citizens and entitled to full rights and privileges of citizens of the US and of the state in which they are born. Since men and women are equal before the law, you cannot discriminate in who gets to marry whom. In other words, the marriage process (on the secular side) must be gender/sex blind. Whoever promised that gay marriage would never come, I'd have to say s/he was talking out of his/her @$$ at the time for political expediency. The fact is, since all states regulate and allow marriage between two people, gay couples could marry under the Constitution as they have the full rights and privileges of citizens.

The fact remains, however, that bestiality is recognized under the law as being a criminal act. The states have the right to do this under the Constitution. Aside from that, animals cannot give consent in any way, shape, or form as they don't speak or read our language. If you manage to create a super-animal that can do all this, I'd suggest applying for a Nobel Prize. Incest can also be regulated, not only because the states don't allow it (see above), but also because it poses much higher risk of allele concentration, particularly the whole double-recessive traits (look at the pictures of the past royal families). The states have an interest in spreading the gene pool, scientifically speaking, to prevent inherently dangerous genetic combinations. Besides, your bible isn't anywhere near as taboo against incest as society is today. Don't even bring it up, if you know what's good for you.

2) Polygamy - well, that's a bit of a different issue. Firstly, polygamy is actually advocated for in the bible. Look it up, Solomon had over 700 wives and over 900 mistresses? Guy must've been busy, even if most were one-nighters. Polygamy is seen as less desirable today because of cultural norms. Once again, this is a states rights issue. No state (even Utah, that I know of) allows polygamy. It is not the right of the Federal Government to force such an issue. Polygamy is dealt with on a state-by-state basis, same as bestiality and incest. If one state were to allow it, the other states wouldn't have to follow, though they should be forced to recognize the marriage per the transfer of rights and privileges for citizens in other states guaranteed in the Constitution (I realize that the DOMA challenge failed, in that Congress has the authority to regulate the transfer of privileges, though I feel that violates the spirit if not the letter). However, if you want to keep incest and bestiality and polygamy illegal, that's still there. Nobody, except maybe some sects in Utah, are looking at overturning those. The only incest case I've heard of recently was the Attorney General in (I believe) North Carolina announcing that first cousins could marry, only if they were living together and were past childbearing age or somehow unable to conceive. He stated that if they were merely seeking the benefits (and of course were of the opposite sex, which is still another issue), they could marry. Note, that's a nice bible-beating state, not your liberal demonized California.

The "founding fathers" were not "in" to micro-management... They were providing a foundation and a structure. The details are up to us as a society - and were always intended to change, grow, evolve to fit our ever changing, ever growing, ever evolving society. That's why they were visionaries, people, they saw past the limitations of their own time and conditions what they saw encouraged rather than scared them.

huskergal,

As history has shown, unfortunately, sometimes people need the word "all" spelled out and defined for them.

So true. All in the 1600 and 1700 and 1800 and into the 1900's were the wealthy white anglo-saxon man.

As history has shown, unfortunately, sometimes people need the word "all" spelled out and defined for them.

True. Which is why so many are into the Bible. They cannot think for themselves and need an instruction book. Not that they follow it. But boy...they sure want other people to.

so John Adams

And, it will not be too long before human/animal sexual relationships are no longer frowned upon

which animal will you be marrying? a jack-ass!

You have to question the mental stability of those that bring up the bestiality argument.

Animals cannot consent. The bestiality argument is just as invalid as the pedophilia argument when talking about homosexuality.

A basic fundamental right as citizens is to make or do away with laws passed by legislative action or by referendum. The supreme courts have the right to revue legislative passed laws for constitutional issues.

The courts do not have the constitutional right to revue laws mandated or approved by referendum and passed by the voters. The will of the people is final and upheld by the Constitution and cannot be violated by the courts, legislatures, Congress or the President.

When they do, we the citizens in this Country as a whole or in the individual States have the right to take whatever action is necessary to end the practice.

The problem is we have to many ignorant and yellow backed citizens. You complain about other nations and religions violating peoples rights, but you are two much of a pansy to do anything about it in this country. The squeekiest wheel always gets the lubrication and we the great majority should always be the most vocal and responsive. Only ignorant citizens listen to stupid requests by minorities.

A nation where the governments don't fear the voting majority, isn't much of a free nation.

allswell, couldn't agree with you more!

Well I think if you look at some non-religious countries like China, Russia, Japan and many others that are not Christian oriented I think you will find they dont even entertain this idea. I think it's pretty simple that we Christian and a great Majority of people in the USA feel Marriage is between a man and a woman. We are not telling you how to live your lives. You are the one imposing your lifestyle ideas onto the majority of this nation. Oh and its supposed to be a nation governed by the people not by the few people. You can go to bed be united with whomever you chose you will answer to God not to me when its all said and done. Right now you are trying to redefine what the word "Marriage" has meant since the begining of time. So who is imposing who again?? Oh and we had better apologize to the Mormons then because that is a moral judgement we have been imposing on them for years. Are you going to stand with them as well?

One last thing where are gays refered to in the Constitution?? I cant find it anywhere?

the same place straights are referred to in the Constitution

Protection of the miority from tyranny of the majority, the 14th Amendment.

I won't answer to God for anything b/c it doesn't exist. We are a SECULAR nation, so I don't care if you and the majority of people believe that little green men from Jupiter created us and imposed a moral standard for it's believers, your personal lifestyle choice of being religious doesn't mean you can manipulate laws to force people into following your lifestyle.

Oh, and marriage is the union between two people, including homosexual couples into that doesn't affect heterosexual couples marriages or your lifestyle, in fact, it doesn't affect you at all.

Quoting:

Rachel-1865616

Actually, the Supreme Court defined marriage as a right in their ruling on "Loving v Virginia" in 1967:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. "

Richard where tell me what amendment where in the Bill of rights becuase I dont see where who you have intimate relations with expressed anywhere. So tell me exactly? Homosexuality is a sin just like fornication is. Im not going to try and control someone's personal life in either situation. Why do you feel the need to have your unions called Marriage? Marriage between a man and a woman has been around way before Christians. Christianity is only 2k yrs old and "Marriage" has never been with same sex couples. Sounds like you are trying to imose your views on us?

I find it amusing this idea that marriage has meant the same thing since "the beginning of time" (booming, echoed voice for emphasis). Are you kidding me?! It used to be more about property than anything - including the wife being thought of that way. Multiple wives and concubines - and that's your old testament. Arranged child marriages that still go on today. Please - and we won't even discuss how screwed up straight marriages can be.

The case was about proving how gay marriage harms ANYONE - and they couldn't. Ya all need to get over it.

Feelngoodw/christ

You are the only one here trying to impose your will on other people. You claim that you are not but your comments clearly show that you believe the bible to be fact. Homosexuality and fournication are only sins for YOU! It is not morally wrong to anyone who doesnt try to butt into other peoples lives. This country was built on freedoms. The freedoms to choose religion or ignore it. You cannot put religious beliefs into law becasue not everyone follows your cult.

FeelnGoodw/Christ you said "You are the one imposing your lifestyle ideas onto the majority of this nation." That is complete BS. YOU are imposing your belief on everyone else who does not share your same belief. NO ONE is forcing you to do anything. No one is forcing you to marry same sex couples, no one is forcing you to be gay, no one is forcing you to watch the Bird Cage movie every Friday night. If you don't want to marry gay couples in your church, then don't! But don't impose YOU'RE belief on others that don't share your belief. This country is supposed to have freedom of/from religion, its why many people left Europe to come here, so that they didn't have to live with the state enforced religion. Quit trying to bring that back! It upsets me when religious zealots claim that gays are trying to "impose" their lifestyle on others. Its not about that...its about being treated equally, its about people living their own lives in a way that makes their own conscience clear. Its about having the same rights as everyone else. Stop trying to impose YOUR beliefs on everyone else!

My lifestyle?! I'm heterosexual. And yes, we ARE a secular nation. We have NO, count it ZERO, STATE RELIGION.

You mean the fact that our founding fathers were critical of religiously run nations? And most were Deists? Nope, I seem to understand that quite well.

We shouldn't have the Bible in our courts, in regards to our money and the Pledge of Allegiance: Christianity doesn't own the terms "creator" or "god", therefore they have no claim in stating that either term refers to the Christian God or creator. And, that phrase was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the in 1950s.

One last thing where are gays refered to in the Constitution?? I cant find it anywhere?

Christianity, god, Jesus, and other religions are not referred to in the Constitution, either -- except where it says that no one shall be required to take a religious oath to hold public office (which means that one does not have to say "so help me god" or put one's hand on a bible to take an oath, legally), and the First Amendment, which provides for freedom OF and FROM religion. Oh, and the last paragraph of the document, where it says "...in the year of our lord" just to indicate in what year it was signed.

How does allowing gay marriage impose their lifestyles on the rest of the country? Will the rest of the country be forced to marry partners of the same sex, or "become" homosexual? Or will the rest of the country be forced to accept and like gay marriage?

The truth is that none of those things will happen, and you don't have a leg to stand on.

Imv77 lives in a strange world. the world I live in specifically states that marrage is a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. Not two individuals, persons, perverts, or any other wording. I have no idea why you think you can say that and have it be true but you have. Why do you have to have the word marrage be there. What is wrong with union, joined, life partner, companion. Anything else but Marrage. That is the big mess. you can have all the rights and privilages between you that a married couple have but you are not man and woman so I have a problem with the term Married. As always Gays are trying to force equal un-judged acceptance of them onto the majority.

Solarus - because calling it something different is not EQUAL. It still stigmatizes people and puts them in a different class.

B/c Solarus, separate but equal is illegal in the USA. So if you want in your church a marriage performed fine, and you want to deny homosexual couples marriage, then your state recognized union should no longer be referred to as a marriage but a civil union.

FeelnGoodw/Christ -- I just read a couple of dictionaries and can't seem to find where marriage is "defined" to be between a man and a woman. Maybe my dictionaries have disappearing ink? You're a little crazy and not too bright.

Solarus10 - Why aren't you mad at the government for stealing the term marriage in the first place?

And no one is forcing anyone to accept marriages between gay couples. I never accepted the traditional marriage between Anna Nicole Smith and that rich old skeleton. I refuse to view the union of two attention whores from The Bachelor as sacred. I didn't write Congress in an outrage when a married woman in an open relationship tried to seduce me right in front of her husband. You are and will remain to be free to personally reject any marriage you feel is a sham. You just can't force that belief on others.

FeelnGoodw/Christ - I'm biracial. Should I defend traditional marriage as currently defined or as defined 50 years ago when the marriage that produced me was considered immoral and against your god's plan?

CW...So all of life is being "Equal" I dont have the same pay and Im not in the same economic class as my boss. There are rich people, poor people, fat people,skinny people, some with hair some with out..Should I live in the same house as LeBron James.If its about being equal. You can have a union and let states decide if you get the same economic privledges as Married couples get. But no its not really about economic or classes its about getting backa t the Religion you hate isnt it? I get stimgmitized and put into a class being a Christian? Sois it also how other people look at me??Dont think so..There will always be people who hate or look at you funny. Christians....we dont hate homosexuals.

FeelnGoodw/aBigMyth - because you are specially targeting out people and not giving them an equal opportunity. You are oppressing a specific class of citizens.

FeelnGoodw/Christ - It is about equal opportunity. I don't make as much as my boss, but no one has the right to vote away my right to try to make as much. I have put on some weight in the past couple years. I have the right to work hard to lose that weight, but not to force others to gain to keep up with me.

And I will fight with equal tenacity any attempt to punish you for your worship of your god. You have the right to your lifestyle choice just as I have my right to mine.

I don't hate religion, what I hate is when people use it to impose their beliefs on others. Go ahead and belief in what ever myth you want to. Allow me the same courtesy of believing what makes sense to me.

Right now you are trying to redefine what the word "Marriage" has meant since the begining of time.

Oh yes, the beginning of time argument.

In many cultures, especially Judeo/Christian (read your Bible) a man paid a woman’s father for exclusive sexual access. Of course the result is men knew who their offspring were.

Since we are going back to the beginning of marriage, does that mean I can sell my daughter to the highest bidder. She’s blonde with blue eyes, I bet I could get a good price. Jabob worked 7 years...I have several projects...

Hasnt marriage always been with a Man and a woman??

From Wikipedia:

"There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.^[43] It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome,^[43] some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history."

@FeelnGoodw/Christ

Secular Nation...HMMMM..Have you seen the entrance to the Supreme Court?Are you totaling deceiving yourself about our heritage and founding fathers?

Apart from a meaningless anti-commie motto like "in god we trust", please name a single US law which cites the bible or any specific religious doctrine as precedent. Any law. Or cite any US law which calls your invisible friend an authority.

Hey, FeelInGoodw/Christ,

How do you explain the Bible's allowance of incest? Of concubines numbering in the hundreds (Solomon)? Of going off to murder your enemies and steal their wives and daughters for your bed?

Yeah, right. Alright, I'll leave marriage alone (oh yeah, I'm straight moron), so long as we take every instance of the word marriage out of every single US law and replace it with "legally recognized civil union".

FeelnGoodw/Christ, please show me where in the Constitution the words, "God, Jesus, Christianity, Bible, etc." appear. Our Founding Fathers DELIBERATELY left those words out to avoid having a state controlled by religion (or vice versa). Furthermore, the Treaty of Tripoli signed in 1797 by President John Adams and ratified unanimously by the Senate specifically states that the United States is NOT a Christian nation. Most of the members of the Senate at the time of ratification had either signed the Constitution or been present at the Constitutional Convention. Also, the Fourtheenth Amendment specifically states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Prohibiting gay marriage denies homosexuals equal protection under the law and takes away their right to marry without due process. The same arguments that are being against gay marriage were used against interracial marriage in the 1960s, yet the Supreme Court struck down those laws in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. If you are so opposed to gay marriage, then do not marry someone of your own gender. But do not presume to impose YOUR belief system upon those who don't share your views on gay marriage by banning it out right. Try following the OFFICIAL motto of the United States which is "Live and Let Live." (Note: "In God We Trust" is NOT the motto fo the United States.) Finally, do not presume to speak for me or Christians in general about the morality of homosexuality. I attend church regularly. My church worships God, believes in Jesus, and prays. We also ordains gay clergy and perfrms same-sex marriage. Your radical, fundaMENTAList interpretation of Christianity and the Bible in no way speaks for Christianity in general or Christians as a whole. Christianity is NOT a monolith and many of us do not go along with the beliefs and teachings of the religious right (which is neither).

Hey Hippo, Don't you ever use Wikipedia as a source for info. Did you know anyone can change the information in that stupid site? To me that site is in no way a reliable source of information.

However, to humor you I will go with your statement about ancient history. Why do you suppose history looks down on the Roman empire as corrupt and decedent. Might have been their extreme low standard of values. Do we want to use that time as an argument?

I think you totally trashed your argument with that example.

hehehe I win.

Solarus10 - He cites three civilizations. You toss insults at one of three and the entire argument is defeated?

Well it's like this Paul, The china one is way defunct long ago so I guess that one is irrelivent. By his own statement, the time frame for all this is Ancient. I kinda like to stay in the somewhat present when I am talking about this subject. EVERYTHING back then was not like today. lets see, Rome, catholic church, Gay. NOPE, they don't go together. I guess that example didn't hold up. Gays in China? Not with that population. Though maybe gay marrage might help them out on their population explosion problem. lets see what's left, OH YAH! Europe Don't get me started on the French.

And lets not forget, he got his info from Wiki. Might just as well have made it up himself.

Yah I think were done with that one Paul.

Do we want to use that time as an argument?

You mean the time of Christ? Maybe you are right, that was a corrupt time.

Solarus10 - If you bothered to read you would see that he brought up ancient cultures to directly refute the notion that marriage has ALWAYS been between a man a woman.

And I do find it interesting that you attack his source as being no better than made up when you give nothing but opinion. I give nothing but opinion, but I don't discount yours for being nothing but opinion. I do so because you seem to rely on trying to sound clever rather than any sound logic.

Cw - Way to go!

FeelnGoodw/Christ – I’ve been married for 15 yrs and in not one of them do I ever feel threatened by two people of the same sex having relations/sex with one another. Live and let live. Why do you care so much? I know….You are a homophobe hiding behind the bible. You should be lucky that Jesus is forgiving, so if you are a Chistian…live like one.

You are the one imposing your lifestyle ideas onto the majority of this nation.

If I told you the only person you could marry was someone of the same sex then I would be imposing my lifestyle on you (I'll let you finish the logic here.) You're whining because you own a cool car and I want one too.

Here in the USA as Written in the Constitution, our rights are given to us by God. Which ever God you choose, Our Founding fathers were wise in putting this into the Constitution they knew that if Govt Gave us our rights then those Rights could be Taken away from us by that same Govt.. the same reason they put in the Separation of Church and State, Meaning that Govt shall make No laws reguarding Religion,

You obviously haven't actually read the Constitution, have you. No gods of any sort are there, nor any "god given rights". (hint, it's the "Declaration of Independence" that has the "endowed by their creator" bit, but creator could refer to any deity or even reproductive biology, and that Declaration is not in the Constitution either. ) And religious freedom means we can choose any or no religion, and are not bound by the religious rules of other.

However, to humor you I will go with your statement about ancient history. Why do you suppose history looks down on the Roman empire as corrupt and decedent. Might have been their extreme low standard of values. Do we want to use that time as an argument?

The Roman Empire was at its peak at the time of Christ, and the decline started with the rise of Christianity. After several centuries, what was left of the Empire, having lost Rome itself, adopted Christianity as the "Holy Roman Empire" (neither holy, nor roman, nor an empire) and slowly faded away until nothing was left but the Christianity. If that history is any guide, our nations "fall" would start with becoming officially Christian. So, do you really want to use that as a counter-example?

Besides, the "corruption and decadence" in the Roman Empire came from greed, intolerance, and barbaric practices used as entertainment in the Colosseum , not "gay marriage". Perhaps you should be complaining about the barbaric entertainment of "professional wrestling" instead.

Am I trying to be clever? I thought I was giving a different slant to this subject. I have some strong opinions on this subject for good reasons.

And so now we come full circle in this discussion. We have Laws. Those laws were put into place to protect. Who are they protecting? Why all of us of course. However some laws were put into effect to protect some from others. That in itself is discrimination. For the better good mind you but it is still discrimination. That pervert can't molest that little girl because there is a law against that sort of thing. The pervert does not have freedom of choice. Why did we take away his freedom of choice? He was harming others with his choices. Good law. Now back to subject. The gay guy decides to have a relationship with the guy in the bunk beside me. I have to listen to their grunting and groaning all night when I have to be on duty at 05:00. Base commander finds out about the relationship and boots both guys out of the service. I get a good nights sleep. Good rule or not? I thought it was.

Now we go to the schools. My son comes home with a pamplet. This pamplet is full of propaganda about Johnny. Johnny has two moms. "Why does johnny have two moms Daddy?" What am I going to say to a 7 year old about that? More important is why should I have to say anything about that????? What are they doing in my son's school handing out literature promoting their gay life style? Should I have been angry about that? Weather you think I should or not does not matter. This is MY son. How dare they make that kind of choice for me. If I decide my little doggy is cute and want to marry her should I make up pamplets and hand them out supporting my cause in the schools?

When I was a kid and all the way till I was in my 20's, there was no such word as Gay. I had no idea that gay's even existed. It was unheard of. I even had a gay cousin and didn't even know it. we called him a sissy. That's what they were. We had no idea they did what they do. Back then it was illegal to perform such an act. But that has changed. It was illegal for a reason. Now it is legal for a diffrent reason. Waffling on morals does not mean it is ok now when it was not before. Making claims that they can't help how they are got them a long way with their cause. I don't buy it.

My part in this discussion is simple. My moral standards say that being Gay is revolting to ME. Just like it was revolting to most of the people in my town, state, and country back in 1960. Making it not a crime to perform those acts does not make it right. A law is something that the times waffles on according to the flow of the loudest voices. In this case the loudest voice has been the ones in power. the movie industry. they have controlled what we watch and who we get to watch for a very long time.

Where does this perversion all end??

hopefully not with me saying "I DO" to my puppy.

There I go being clever again.

Solarus10- the difference between the pervert molesting the little girl and the two gay men is that adult gay people enter into relationships in the same way adult straight people do- voluntarily. They each found something attractive about each other, and chose to start seeing each other. The little girl does not have the capacity to enter into such a relationship. She did not have a choice. That is rape, and any rape is wrong.

Straight people seem to suffer the delusion that gay people can choose who they are attracted to. Think about your significant other. When you first looked at them, would you have been attracted to them if they were 500 pounds? A different race? Physically deformed? Perhaps you are one of those people who can look at their mate and their souls are instantly connected despite physical appearance, but there's a good chance that you have a physical preference as to what kind of aesthetic features you desire in a mate. Can you explain why some people are attracted to blondes, but not brunettes? Why some people prefer the super-skinny while others prefer curvy? Or why some prefer DD cups, while others like B? If you cannot tell me why you would look at one person and feel an attraction, but not another, despite both those people being the same sex, why do we hold homosexuals to a different standard? Why do we tell them they have to like someone with different plumbing when that is what they are not attracted to? No one is telling you that you have to prefer someone with the same plumbing because that is what's 'right'. If I tell you to go look at a 500 pound person, and that you must find them attractive, you'll laugh in my face. Don't hold others to a higher standard than you would hold yourself.

Solarus10 - The two guys going at in the bunk next to you are a problem because they are rude, not because they are gay. The pamphlet from the school is a problem because schools have become more about indoctrination and less about teaching children how to think.

If you want to pass laws that target those activities, I will support you. If you want to pass a law that strengthens your right to insulate yourself from the outside world, I support you. But that isn't what we are talking about. The slogans were about protecting one group, but the actual law was about hurting another group. That I can NOT support.

And you hit the nail on the head when you talked about YOUR moral standards. They are YOURS. There are things that I find revolting but I am not going to stand on a soap box and tell you that you have to play by my rules. My cousins wanting to marry their partners has absolutely nothing to do with you. You can call them revolting. You can keep them out of your place of worship. Those only affect them if they choose to allow you affect them. Denying them equal marriage rights is different. They can't choose to ignore that.

Perversion? As I brought up in an earlier post, I was hit on by a married woman in front of her husband. They have an open marriage, so he was fine with it. He had his eye on another woman at the party. Where is the campaign against perversion here? Why aren't the defenders of tradition and family writing laws that deny these "perverts" marriage rights?

Its the same reason they aren't trying to change how marriage is taught in school. Those aren't their real targets. It isn't about protecting marriage. It isn't about the kids. Its about fear and bigotry. Sometimes they dress it in a language of love, but it is a condescending "we know better than you" love.

You can't redefine the Constitution to read that everyone but the people YOU don't like get equal protection under the law. THAT is perversion. Where will it end?

Hopefully the people I love and other gay and lesbian couples getting the same marriage rights as the rest of us.

Putin in Russia already said that the decline & problem with America is that it is filled with homosexuals. He said it would be our undoing and the beginning of the end to us. He's probably more right than he knows.

Secular Nation...HMMMM..Have you seen the entrance to the Supreme Court?

You mean the one designed like an ancient Roman temple? Does that mean they worship Jupiter or Apollo in there? Jeez, you're confusing Architecture with The Law, they aren't the same thing.

Are you totaling deceiving yourself about our heritage and founding fathers? Why do we put our hands on the....Bible when we take on oath in court or when Political figures are sworn in..How about on our Money. What our pledge of alligiance?

There is no legal requirement to put a hand on any book when swearing the oath of office or giving testimony in court, the "bible" thing and "so help me God" are personal choices, neither required or banned by law. BTW, one congressman swore his oath of office on a copy of the Koran, a copy that had been owned by founding father Thomas Jefferson.

Please dont kid yourself because of your hatred of how the Bible sheds light onto your lifestyle. I know where all the Liberals want to take us under the guise of tolerance..Its being tolerant to all your beliefs.

You think we hate a book? LOL! No, we just dislike how some people use select scriptures to justify their own evil actions. The bible had been used to justify slavery, genocide, killing disobedient children, concubinage, polygamy, banning interracial marriage, and torturing old widows to death for fun and profit. Denying marriage rights based solely on scriptures fits right in.

I don't care if you say "My scriptures says its a sin and you shouldn't do it", it's your religion and your religion doesn't rule me. But when you start saying "you're a sinner, you should be persecuted and denied rights" I must object.

When to cite sources: The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to information about living persons: unsourced contentious or negative material about living persons must be removed immediately. When an image is uploaded, the uploader must state where the image came from, and its copyright status. If the image comes from an online site, a link to the source page is normally provided.

How to write citations: While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters is that you add your source—provide enough information to identify the source, and others will improve the formatting if needed. Each article should use the same citation method throughout. If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus before changing it.

In the event of a contradiction between this page and the sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, the policy takes priority, and this page should be updated to reflect it.

Solarus 10 - Click the 43 superscript in what Hippo posted. You don't NEED to read the Wikipedia version if you don't trust it. Just click on the direct source that Wikipedia cited, it says the same thing. So what argument did you strike down again?

First, many here assume that the only arguments against it are coming from religious zealots who are trying to impose their beliefs. That isn't the case in the mainstream, although folks do have a respect for their religious concerns. The pro-homo crowd expects a large portion of the population to dissociate their moral standing, religious beliefs, and common sense from the issue. They argue that we are trying to legislate morality, and yet, find it completely appropriate to legislate against it. I find it amusing that when it's really boiled down, the pro-homo pleas amount to nothing more than asking rational beings to turn the other cheek....We (pro) know it's a ridiculous position, we (pro) know you (anti) know it's wrong, but how is it going to affect you (anti)? See what I mean? The whole argument FOR gay marriage is nonsensical, and everybody knows it. The pro crowd uses some pretty fancy words, but even that doesn't hide their dumbed down, pop culture intellect.

The intellectual dishonesty that is rampant with supporters of gay marriage is overwhelming. It is disgusting to say the least. They promote a false interpretation of the Constitution, even though they hide behind original intent when it suits them. They consistently mangle the meaning of separation of church and state. They promote a secular humanism while making moral relativist arguments to qualify their empty character. They attempt to promote through science, even though science has not even come close to validating their claims. They attempt to promote the idea that sexuality is an immutable trait, but ignore the simple fact that it is not. They mock those who compare homosexuality to pedophilia or polygamy, while ignoring the fact that, regardless of the act itself, the mechanism is essentially the same....

So, for all of you pro-homo degenerates on here who mock, belittle, and insult those with a religious objection to gay marriage, how about you put forward more than emotional rants, ignorant interpretations, and proof that God does not exist. That would be a good start. As it is though, your arguments amount to nothing more than brutal dishonesty, empty facts, and a touch of Rules for Radicals for good measure. Your position is no better informed, or superior, to those with a simple religious argument. Funny thing about it is, all of you know it.

Good point Carl. The other thing to point out is that, in this country, the promotion of sexual perversion was led from the start by communist subversives.

the bill of rights states " all men are created equal".

So since it doesn't specifically mention women, you can deny them the same rights as "men"?

Basically, protecting the rights of two consenting adults(hetero-homo) to marry each other, is necessary. Especially since the US(world) is full of many who want to force everyone to do as THEY want and what THEY interpret to be right or wrong.

Most people believe in some higher power. Wise people recognize that no person who ever lived(including the writers of the bible/torah/koran) truly know what "God" is and wants.

If you believe that God spoke to a special messiah and only gave THEM the plan for everyone, then you might as well as accept the notion that "God" still talks to people.

Anyone can start a new religion or following by claiming "God" spoke to only THEM, and only gave THEM the rules for everyone else to follow.

If you recognize human nature, you understand that humans use religion to control and consider themselves above others. Why else are most religions based on a "please the Lord/emperor or be punished" style of worship. Most are based on their followers being subjects or subservient, to an invisible but male emperor-style deity, who will punish everyone for not obeying HIS wishes. Or the notion that church leaders know more or are more righteous, than those they preach to.

Rachel, there are some people that DO change their sexuality all the time. Bi-sexual people change depending on what mood they are in. Anne Heche was straight, then Bi and was with Ellen, and then straight, got married had a kid and I am just waiting to see what happens next.

Your argument that people can't change their sexuality has flaws.

the Supreme Court defined marriage as a right in their ruling on "Loving v Virginia" in 1967:

Ahhhh, but in that case legal "marriage" was DEFINED as a union of one man and one woman.

You lose.

It is interesting that a ruling by a federal judge in a federal court does NOT bind the federal government. Gays in California still can NOT legally file a joint federal income tax return or collect spousal social security benefits, among other things. It will be real interesting to see how this plays out. Allowing spousal social security benefits and joint tax returns could be very costly to the fed. Wonder what they'll do?

Feelinggood what does being Mormon have to do with marrying a 14 year old? They are the only people that do this??? LOL Please don't confuse the Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints as Mormon, they are two different churchs with two different beliefs. The FLDS are not the same as the commonly known Mormons. Mormons follow the laws of the land.

USMC22-1499212 - You say "I find it amusing that when it's really boiled down, the pro-homo pleas amount to nothing more than asking rational beings to turn the other cheek."

Are you arguing that your face belongs in their business? Your argument boils down to "I don't like gay people."

You rail against intellectual dishonesty, which I agree with. But you are yourself intellectually dishonest when you ignore that it runs rampant on BOTH sides of the issue.

How is interpreting the 14th Amendment to mean that gays deserve equal rights false?

Your "arguments" in favor of sexuality as a choice and homosexuality as the equivalent to pedophilia and polygamy are nothing more than saying "Its a fact."

I agree that too often these debates fall back on emotional outbursts. I can't say I haven't ever fallen victim to emotion. This is about the law. The law is logical, or at least it should be. Perhaps you are only reading the emotional arguments. Perhaps you are choosing to ignore the logical arguments.

So here is the argument I have made from the start. Man and woman are equal in the eyes of the law. Therefore, they should be interchangeable with respect to their pairing for the purposes of marriage.

All arguments against equality that are based on the notion of raising children are to be dismissed until we straight people have a requirement to have and raise children to be married. Nevermind the studies which you are either unaware of or choose to ignore that state that there is no proof that gay couples are good at parenting as straight couples. Until both hetero and homosexual couples are required to have children as a condition of marriage, gays can't be denied on that basis.

USMC-22 Thanks To You For Your Service To My Nation

& Thanks For the Rational Points You Made.

This whole Topic Boils down to The Deviants Trying to force there way of life apon the rest on Normal People!! Being Gay Is a Choice end of story You Homos made a choice in life to be a DEVIANT and not conform to the norm,s of respectable sociaty.

Civil Unions give Gays same rights as Normal Married Plp They Just dont get the Title of Marrage.

But they want the Title For no other reason but to force Plp to accept them as normal.

They have rights lilke all others Just Not the Titles that normal People Get

GOD MADE ADAM & EVE ------- NOT ADAM & STEVE

I could care less Who you Sleep With as long as its not hurting anyone, But Don't expect to be givin the same titles. HOMOS HAVE RIGHT TO CIVIL UNIONS

The Norms of American Sociaity have been Distroyed By Hollywood Liberal Homos Forceing there Ideals or lack there of on Us For the last twenty years . Trun on the TV and See What your Kids are watching HOMO TV & Movies About Two Men rasieing a child ITS A PHUCKING DISGRACE>

USMC22-1499212...Right on man! Rather than go into a lengthy statement, I will agree with USMC and add that This promotion of perversion needs to stop eating up tax payer money. Homosexuals are perverted, sorry, it's true. You are better off keeping your twisted sexual views to yourselves. Just like I don't want to picture a dog getting hit by a car or a terrorist cutting a victims head off, I don't want to picture two guys going at it...awww....sickkkkk...awww, there it is again...nooooo...get out of my head you sick....oh my god, I'm going to blow grits!

That is what happens every time I have to hear or read about you poor perverts wanting to act like your average citizens. You are not. Accept that and please stay out of the news...oh no, not again...oh, that is sick!

I love how you use the term 'normal people'. Are you saying everyone who does not think and act the way you do is somehow not normal? Thats a very subjective term to use. You could care lessw who people sleep with as long as it's not hurting anyone right? So it's not hurting anyone, so save your religious hatred for someone else, because you could care less, right?

I have seen several comments asking where does being gay or lesbian affect heterosexuals...that is exactly the problem...it does affect us. Number one, I am sick and tired of seeing it on TV because a minority thinks it is normal and okay. Number two, I will never vote to change the laws, wording of etc. to accommodate a minority, and don't try the equal rights thing...in a democracy, the majority DOES rule. Number three, by saying it has no affect on my marriage and heterosexual relationship means I agree that it is okay to have to watch out in public. Sex should be left behind closed doors; I don't even like seeing a man and woman make out in public...much less two of the same sex. And as I have said before, it is not always a religious thing...even if I weren't, I wouldn't agree with it. I NEVER will. Get over it...you will never be able to turn all of us!!!!!

Good comments USMC22

A shameful day indeed for our country. A country who once held up that which is right, now confirms to the rest of the world our perverted and shameful nature. It is now impossible to justify and convince other nations of our good nature, while we go about and flaunt such pervertedness.

Is it any wonder why the Muslim nations see us as such an evil influence? There is no way they would ever see us differently now.

Mary Jo:

First, this is not technically a direct democracy, and as such, the majority does not rule directly. The majority cannot vote to take away the rights of a minority no matter how much they want to. Think of it this way, if the majority of people in this country were atheists do you think they should be able to vote to deny Christians, Muslims and Jews the right to get married?

As for the rest of your post, you are not forced to watch TV, you choose to. If you don't like seeing people kissing in public, don't watch. Public space is public space, and again, you can't take away people's rights.

You don't have to like homosexuality, it's not my favorite thing either, but you simply don't have the right to deny homosexuals equal rights.

I always find it amazing how I see people that are Christians, use the seven sins instead of the seven virtues to see something. So for all of you “Christians, or people of faith (and yes even if you have no faith this is in real life a great outlook), let’s see how we should look at gay couples and all of their wants and desires.

For you that love to tell how full of sin they are (my goodness, you know these people are reprobates and their sin sickens me) if you are picking up a stone to throw, look and see if how you are looking at them is with pride (I may have sinned, but never like that!), toss you stone you are full of Pride. Now for you that state you do not have this problem, what about how you feel about the nice truck, or toys that someone has that you want; you have Envy, you better lose your stone. Gluttony, geese I wonder how many Americans have this problem, a vast majority, that is why we are so fat (myself included), if you can take a second and look over your rolls, you need to drop your stone also. Contrary to what we have been trying to convince ourselves of, Lust does not leave after we are teenagers, we just learn to hide it better, so put down your Playboy and lose that rock also. Anger, I know a lot of you are going to state that you do not have this, but have you ever been wronged by someone and from then on just the sight of them disgust you and makes you ticked off, yes you, toss your stone and go to a anger management class. Then there is Greed; I want it, I want it all and I want it now. Guilty toss that stone you greedy bast#$%). And last there is Sloth, get off you fat but, put down the remote and do something for once in your life, lose the stone. Anyone else - didn’t think so.

I am not stating that I agree with homosexuality, what I am stating is that before we judge –we should love, and if we truly learned to love then judgment would be left to God.

But with this being said, I do not believe in activist judges, they need to follow the law and the will of their constituents (I do believe that this issue was voted on). If congress is not going to stop this then we need to vote in people that will. But please keep in mind that the Declaration of Independence does state that all men (and women) are created equal and all should have an equal chance of happiness. I just wonder if gay men and women are allowed to marry, how this affects any of us in any way.

noneya-2008492

Rachel, there are some people that DO change their sexuality all the time. Bi-sexual people change depending on what mood they are in.

I'm actually insulted by this. You obviously don't understand bisexuality.

I consider myself omnisexual, as I recognize there are those who are not defined by their plumbing. To me, what's between the ears is much more important than what's beneath them. But just because I am currently in a relationship with a man does not mean I turned off my attraction to other people. I still find women physically attractive. It's not dormant because I'm not with a woman. When I was seeing my girlfriend a few years back, I still found men attractive. I went to see an all-male show and enjoyed the view. Despite the fact that I was with a woman, I still found men attractive. There's no 'switching' based on who I so happen to be dating at the moment. I don't get 'cravings' for one sex over the other. I may switch back and forth when it relates to which gender I'm dating, but that doesn't mean I'm not attracted to only one side of the gender spectrum at a time. And before I get called easy or something, I am not the only one who appreciates an attractive person I'm not attatched to while in a relationship. I have never strayed/cheated/whatever you want to call it. The only time I've ever had someone cheat on me was when I was seeing a straight man, so please don't use my argument to say that bisexuals are cheating bed-hoppers who can't make up their minds. I've been with my current partner seven years and, surprise surprise, I married him.

cksgal,

So why should you not be able to marry both a male and a female since you enjoy being with both? I don't see why society should limit the choice of bi or onmi, as you put it, to only marry 1 person.

Solarus,

No, you are not being clever.

Your comment about laws protecting "perverts" has no merit because the laws protect from harm. The "pervert" you refer to is harming another, thus he/she has no protection. That is why the judge asked for PROOF on how gay marriage will harm anyone. So far, no one can PROVE that gay marriage will harm anyone. The two key elements here are HARM and PROOF . . . and the conservative right has failed to come up with either.

Your son coming home with a pamphlet from school is hardly considered harmful, and this is what is called "living in the real world." By being a member of the real world, your son will come to learn things. If you do not want him to, then you should look into home schooling, private schooling, and a plastic bubble. No one forced you to have a child, it was your CHOICE. You entered into this choice knowing full well what your child would experience in this world. You made the decision to bring a child into this world, and now you expect the world to change for YOUR family. Unfortunately, you and your family are not that important. You should have remained child-less.

Referring to how things were in your "20s" bears no merit to how things are now. Many things legal and illegal in the past have changed, including inter-racial marriage and slavery. Going back to the past will not help society.

You may consider being gay as "revolting", but many people would also consider your hatred towards other humans as revolting. Lucky for you, your right to hate is not illegal. However, your reference to bestiality shows a severe lack of intelligence. When your puppy can legally consent and sign a contract, then we can talk about your right to marry.

I have a five year old child, and I do have a problem if the schools are teaching him a morality that is not mine. My right is to protect and raise my family, and if the government decides that they have the right to teach morality to my child and I do not then it is time to overthrow this government by whatever means are necessary. The problem I have with Cali's statement is that he/she seems to feel that I am not living in the real world if my view's do not agree with his/hers. The question is; How would you feel if the schools taught that your ideas were not. I have seen people that were discriminated because of race, sex, religious, or sexual preference that were the object of hate, when they have stopped the hate then they seem to return the same hate that they were fighting against. We need to teach our children tolerance, but this is our (parents) duty and not the governments.

School should educate not teach morality, this is the responsibility and the right of every parent. We have allowed the government to take this away from us and now it needs to be stopped.

And before everyone gets into an uproar, I am not stating that I am against gay marriage, but if I am, it is my right to teach this to my child until they are old enough to make a decision for themselves. We are on a slippery slope when we think the government has the right to dictate morality to us.

Tbenton,

The problem with your statement is that, by your reasoning, all racists should "overthrow" the government because the state schools teach tolerance. So your moral compass may point to homosexuality as wrong, but another man's moral compass may point to racism. Do you believe that a white supremacist has the right to "protect their family" from the idea of inter-racial marriage? Would you stand by him to overthrow the government?

You are absolutely right that it is your right to teach your offspring whatever you want. And you can do that . . . home school them. But don't be so foolish as to think you can protect your child while at school. Regardless of this decision, they will learn about sex, homosexuality, curse words, and everything else, on the playground. Other kids will tell them, I guarantee it.

I would like to point out one thing. For those that think Marriage is a religion thing. Such Unions were held in China, and Japan long before Christianity every tainted their lands.

Also if you’re a history buff. You can find evidence of gay intimacy and relations, found throughout history. I think even one warlike society, thought by sharing your body with another man. Would be like sharing their strength.

John Adams said the Constitution is for a moral and upright people totally inadequate for the governing of any other.

John Hancock "The very existence of the Republic..depends much upon the public institutions of religion."

John Witherspoon, signer, member of the Continental Congress, President of Princeton University "Whoever is an avowed enemy of God; I scruple not to call him an enemy of his country."

Noah Webster "Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion."

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian. -- Richmond v. Moore, Illinois Supreme Court, 1883)

So then a father can marry his 10 year old daughter by using this same logic !

And if this stands then we must allow ALL marriages or we are denying rights !

Equal Protection then must apply to ALL couples, brother and bother, mother and son, mother and duaghter, cousin and cousin, father and daughter, man and woman and woman and woman and woman and woman and so on !

FACT... if gay marriage is a right then so are Incestual Marriages and Poligimy !

Mary Jo,

in a democracy, the majority DOES rule

The U.S. is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. You should learn the difference between those two. It's not a mob rule free for all out there. If it were, you still wouldn't have the right to vote!

by saying it has no affect on my marriage and heterosexual relationship means I agree that it is okay to have to watch out in public. Sex should be left behind closed doors

Who's talking sex? We are talking about people having their rights to pass their property to who they marry, collecting survivorship benefits, spousal privileges in courtrooms, and all the other 1134 rights that go with a marriage license that you either don't know about or just take for granted. As far as making out in public goes, one need not be married to do that so this issue is moot.

I NEVER will. Get over it...you will never be able to turn all of us!!!!!

Turn all of you? Is that what you think the goal is? If you want to wallow in bigotry until the sun explodes fine by us. Black people don't try and "turn" KKK members. They just go on with their lives and ignore all the haters in the world. We'll do the same.

Nobody is being forced to go to hell. Humans willingly go there with their continuous disobedience to the will of our God. Who is your God? Do you praise the God of the bible but use the same tongue to praise immorality?

allswell

Finally, a judge who actually holds to the Constitution instead of some bogus religious system. We're a secular government, people, get used to it! The Freedom of Religion also means we have a Freedom FROM Religion being forced on us.

I respect your religious beliefs and will defend to the death your ability to express them, but I will not be forced to follow them.

Great post and well said... :)

Religious people have invaded our homes and lives with their beliefs and feel the need to tell others how they should live. I tell them to go and live your life your way, and I'll live mine my way. My home is my home and you are not invited into it, and you have no need to know what goes on in my bedroom either.

@FeelInGoodW/Christ - Obviously you're talking out your backside with your comment about "non-religious" countries like Russia, China and Japan because they're not "christian" countries.

They all have religions there that pre-date Christianity as well have a number of citizens in each of those countries that call themselves Christians. BTW, the only "religious" countries I know of are countries that have a "State Religion" and the United States does NOT have a state religion (the first ammendment to the Constitution forbids this). Here's the actual text:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Establishment_of_religion

You need to get yourself an education and learn to think for yourself and STOP listening to the people who are feeding you foolish things to say.

Christian principles brought over by the settlers and legal until victims started fighting back -

Raping your wife and Spousal abuse - was legal -it wasn't until the 1950s when it started losing ground

Child abuse- was legal

This Christian principle was based on the fact that the man's wife and children are property and he is responsible for their behavior therefore it is proper that he should beat them.

Marrying and having sex with young girls - was legal

Because as property it was dad's right to give her away to whomever he chose.

Killing people of a different color - was legal

People of color were also property. Something some Christians seemed to have no issues with and fought hard to maintain the right to keep.

Abortion - was legal

This one was only changed because the white guys started fearing that other races were going to make them a minority so they decided to turn white women into white-race baby factories.

Christian views didn't start to change until the people being mistreated by them started fighting for their rights.

And here we are once again.

We are not telling you how to live your lives. You are the one imposing your lifestyle ideas onto the majority of this nation.

How are gays "imposing...lifestyle ideas" by wanting to get married? If laws are passed that allow gay marriage, no one is going to be forcing you, or any other straight individual, to be involved in a gay marriage. Conversely, by making gay marriage illegal, people like you ARE forcing your RELIGIOUS ideas on millions of other American citizens. And yes, you ARE trying to tell gays how to live their lives - by telling them that they can't get married.

So, for all of you pro-homo degenerates on here who mock, belittle, and insult those with a religious objection to gay marriage, how about you put forward more than emotional rants, ignorant interpretations, and proof that God does not exist.

Tell you what - when the ANTI-gay marriage people start putting forward more than emotional rants and ignorant interpretations, and provide proof that God DOES exist, then we'll talk. You can have all the religious objections to gay marriage you want - just don't force them on the rest of us.

@TK67,

Civil unions DON'T confer the same rights and privledges as marriage. That's the whole point of gay marriage.

And to all you whackjob Christians out there (you know who you are Solaris, FeelingGood, etc.)...I don't know how to say this nicely, so I won't. Your religion is repugnant and insipid. Fortunately it has no bearing on the laws of this country and is dying. Gay marriage is the wave of the future; the very near future. I hope it makes you all miserable. Especially when your very own kids and grandkids accept it as normal.

Putin in Russia already said that the decline & problem with America is that it is filled with homosexuals.

Nikita Khrushchev once said about the West "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will dig you in" (often mistranslated as "We will bury you"). But, the Soviet Union is long gone while the US and its allies are still here. Russians don't seem to be great fortune-tellers.

But Viktor Choban, 27, a opponent of same-sex marriage, responded: "God's Holy law has been trampled on by one person.

yeah let the government deny rights to citizens because of the christian god's laws. give a grant to repair that big christian cross on that mountain top, its historical. and dont foget the faith based initiative.

oh and as a gesture of peace, lets give immanl a big chunk for his mosque at ground zero. finance his trip to the mideast to 'let his fellow immans know how americans treat muslims if it passes, it will be historical too. one of their top 100 'most sacred places' in the whole muslim world. how nice.

dont christians realize that ANY laws or monies or anything they 'get over on us', that favors their god and religion for any reason, will be used in the near future when muslims become the next brown 'super minority.' and demand to practice their religious laws. then demand that we all practice them too. be afraid, be very afraid.

tax the churches

aunty

USMC: While I appreciate your service (if you are/were indeed in), you are not performing it. You swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, the same document which states we will not take away the rights of the minority. As it has been shown, marriage has been declared a legal right. It does not matter if that court declared marriage is only a man and woman, because this court has proven that to be a violation of their rights. I do not care what your religion is. We are a secular, integrated nation and we protect the rights of both the majority and the minority. Try and prove how this damages YOUR rights. Please, I look forward to reading it (if I can find it in all this mess of posts).

TK67: First off, civil unions do not have the same rights and priveledges as marriages. Please do you research. Secondly, God made Adam and Lilith first as a single being fused at the spine such that they could never copulate. If you want to get into demonology I'd be happy to educate.

Allan: You poor sad fool. You don't know what you're saying. You cannot marry a child, as they cannot give legal consent (state/fed law). You cannot marry multiple people, as that is also a law designed for the way the system is established (spousal rights are granted to a single person). You cannot marry your pet, as they cannot understand the agreement and therefore not make knowledgable consent.

Cali,

In regards to your post; how is it that you are comparing my beliefs to White Supremest (being of Hebrew blood I find them and their hatred disgusting). As for my child being exposed to different Idea's or lifestyles, I not only know that this will happen, but would find that teaching my son about acceptance of someone that may not see life the same as you is the humane thing to do. He will be taught that problems do not start with people that have a different view that what I or he will have, but the problems start when we decide that we do not need to respect this individuals right to believe or practice a different lifestyle then we do.

Eris; stating that some Christians (and by association, all Christians) think that we all feel the same way that a few narrow minded people do is no different then judging all Muslim's by a few radical followers that do evil things in the name of Allah.

Also, I seem to remember that the late senator Byrd started his political life as a racist (even though he change his mind and fought against this for the rest of his political life), that all demicrates are racist?

@ allswell

First, the Constitution is nothing more than a restraint on government. Get that? Government, not society. While it was intended that our government remain secular, our society was not. Second, the Constitution is not a license for anything goes. Our NATURAL rights are clearly stated, those granted by our CREATOR, but nowhere is it ever implied that the abohrrent, criminal, or deviant could turn to the Constitution to justify, or find protection for, their behavior in society. I know the purpose of the Constitution, and the intent. The gay marriage debate, activist judges, and an ignorant culture make a mockery of it.

As you find it fair to question my service based on my position, I find it only reasonable to question your intellect as narrow when you ask "how does it damage my rights". It doesn't start and end with butt sex or rug munching, friend. The issue is not separate from society, and society is not separate from government. What is a society? A society is a group of individuals gathered in a community (state, nation) who share in culture, heritage, tradition, morals, values, religion, political and economic beliefs, etc. Now to answer your question on how this "damages my rights". If a society is stripped of its culture, morals, values, religion, heritage, etc., we cease to exist as a society. When we have a political movement in this country that intentionally, or unintentionally, seeks to undermine, or destroy, those virtues that make a society what it is, we cease to be united in kind, and we become tribalistic. Since government is no more than an extention of society, it will reflect the values which are found in that broken society. The government will cease (already has) to exist and operate for a united and moral people under law, and end up representing the very worst of the tribal (special interest) groups without any consideration for the law of the land, or its intent. Gay marriage, and the debate, is a new phenomenon, and only possible because of the unprecedented, and rapid, social decline. THAT is how it ultimately endangers and threatens my rights. It is also important to point out that the blind faith in multiculturalism and diversity serves as a catalyst to that decline, and poses a significant danger for this country in the future.

The debate over gay marriage is ridiculous. Only in morally bankrupt, or dumbed down, society could this even be taken seriously. The whole thing is an insult to innate intelligence. They have the same rights under the law as you or I do. What they seek is special privelage, and special protection, which is not equality under the law.

@ Vicky

I never once put forth a religious argument against gay marriage. I did say that not everybody who is against it does so because of religious standing. I would venture to guess that your position is based on a bandwagon, pop culture, emotional ride, and not on any relevant facts or truth.

Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Based on the definition of faith itself, I would say that the burden of proof is on you, and those like you, to prove that God does not exist. If you say you have faith that he does not, than you are expressing a belief no different in context than those you despise, and your arguments against God, and for gay marriage, are no more qualified than those you detest. While idiots like yourself like to focus on things like logical proof in your case against God, you've never been able to put forward any logical proof that he does not exist.

There is ignorance on both sides of the argument on gay marriage, I'll admit, but the majority of those arguments fall with the pro side. It is the willful ignorance, and the ability to defy all common sense that makes it so. The fact is, aside from those who try to invoke the Constitution with an open interpretation, the rest of you have nothing but emotional rants. Those rants being the product of a dumbed down intellect, and the desire to fit in with your peers. And because of your dumbed down intellect, and your willful ignorance, your emotional rants amount to idiocy.

They have the same rights under the law as you or I do. What they seek is special privelage, and special protection, which is not equality under the law.

Your're full of crap. You're "you have the same rights" argument didn't fly when people told people in interracial relationships that they could go marry someone of the same race and that argument doesn't fly now 40+ years later either.

It's you that is trying to have the special privilege. When gays have the right to marry the same sex, so will you. It is at THAT time there there will be equality under the law. But not until then.

@ Greg&Jeff,

Get off it already! Comparing the gay movement to that of the civil rights movement is one of the most intellectually dishonest positions to take. Sexuality is NOT an absolute...race is. The FACT is that they do have the same rights. The FACT is, they want to redefine those "rights" to extend to unnatural "orientations". They're not even rights, they're privileges. Single people, regardless of "orientation", are exempted from those privilges. Do you really care about equality under the law, or are you more concerned about promoting queer propaganda?

Can nudists run around naked? Technically, they are not hurting anybody or violating the civil rights of others, but we have laws against it. And, for being indecent of all things. Now, who decided that nudity was indecent? It was most likely the position of an unjust society. After all, there is no such thing as moral or immoral, right or wrong, real or imagined, right? You want an anything goes, free-for-all, and your ignorant, nihilist position makes that very clear. Unfortunately, your ignorance prevents you from understanding just that.

You don't even have an argument. You regurgitate the talking point, leftist, trash you picked up in your Weekly Reader. You should do the gay community a favor, and not make arguments on their behalf.

@usmc: and you should do us the same favor and not make comments for us.

Nudists may not be able to run around naked (other than in designated areas, see how that works?) but they are free to marry each other if they choose to...

Can we stop comparing apples to oranges and work on the logical standpoint of the issue here?

Get off it already! Comparing the gay movement to that of the civil rights movement is one of the most intellectually dishonest positions to take.

You get off it. You are the one being intellectually dishonest.

The FACT is that they do have the same rights.

There's Lie #1

They're not even rights, they're privileges.

There's Lie #2. How about you stop lying and learn actual facts and case law on things?

Can nudists run around naked?

ALL nudist and ALL people cannot run around naked. Not just some of them. Therein is the difference. Your comparison is flawed. Just like your other arguments.

so youre saying that we have not yet evolved??

WOW!!!

PebblesDropped once again demonstrates that he/she does not possess even a high school level understanding of basic scientific concepts.

@USMC: You are correct, its a restraint on the Government. But the Government is what controls marriage now. Whether you like it or not, its an industry regulated by the Government, or we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

If civil unions had the same rights and priviledges as marriages, there'd be no issue. But look it up sometime...they don't.

As to the creator comment, you presume everybody's creator is your creator. This is just plain false. The creator I believe in certainly does not think homosexuality is immoral or deviant. Just another piece of diversity in humanity.

The fact that you believe that these rulings will degrade society shows a limited viewpoint regarding the actual reprecussions. Society must evolve or consume itself in its stagnation. Look at the Middle East. They haven't evolved in almost a century (or more). Warlords, religious law, caste systems...a veritable Dark Age.

I also have to ask you why homosexuality is such a deviant thing, when eating shellfish is not. Shellfish is banned as deviant and unnatural twice in the same texts as homosexuality, does this not make it a worse sin? In addition, the interpretations of homosexuality from the Bible have been shown to be inconsistent with the original meanings. How do you reconcile that?

@Pebbles: No, we are not yet evolved.

@Pebbles: No, we are not yet evolved.

Correct!

The human species still eats to live, has sex for both pleasure and procreation, breathes air, grows old and dies. Nope we haven't evolved too far beyond most animals.

In some ways you can say we are less evolved such as the way we treat members of our own species.

Actually, ourselves and every organism on this planet are equally 'evolved'. Evolution does not have a goal or a direction, it is a state of change. People confuse the word evolution with increased complexity or distance from what they perceive to be lower animals all the time. And yes, we are still evolving - the frequency of alleles within populations still change despite how many of us there are on this planet.

Actually, ourselves and every organism on this planet are equally 'evolved'

We actually know this Eric, we are just ridiculing Pebbles statements with equally ridiculous counters.

Ah sorry, that's the problem with the net, I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or genuine.

Every time Pebbles posts it is nothing but hateful and uneducated blabber. Trying to have a discussion with him/her/it is like trying to argue with a rock - except that at least the rock is internally consistent with its logic, since it never actually responds to you.

allswell,

When we say common sense, we are not talking about the 20 cents in your pocket. But evidently you are.

chatter,

Marriage is a religous ceremony that the government has decided to control and redefine. This is not the freedom bell ringing.

The judge says: "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions," Walker wrote. "Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners."

The same could be said of incestual couples, or polygamist groups. Should we include them in the ruling?

Yea Only Factsmatter. Free Warren Jeffs now!

Marriage is a legally binding secular agreement that tends to the sharing of property and defines certain rights within the community. The sacrament of marriage is the blessing by the Church of what has already been done, or is being done at the time of the sacrament. Two different things. This confusion over the difference is what allows many to claim that churches will be forced to perform marriages outside their stated canons. It's a lie that is often foisted upon those who don't stop to think before opening their mouths. In order for the Church to have jurisdiction over creating partnerships that include property ownership and basic rights is to take us back to before the Reformation. If it were possible to legally bind the Church to perform marriages outside her canons there would be lots of interfaith marriages and marriages of couples who aren't baptized within the Catholic church. As for couples of incest or bestiality, perhaps we will need to address those issues when and if they arise, but to date I'm not aware of anyone filing a case to marry a goat. Further, it is presently legal in many states including California for one to marry a first cousin, but not a person of the same gender. You don't have to watch out for the goat lovers, just the cousin f---ers.

bob5ford,

If your serious, you missed my point. If you don't agree with my point, refute it. Anyone can make fun of someone else. It takes no thought whatsoever.

If you want to be serious, tell me why you think that gay couples should insist on having the government grant them a religous ceremony.

Let Freedom Ring...somewhere else. We must take our country back!!!! This country has allowed freedom to ring so far that now it is working against us! And this does not pertain just to gays and lesbians.

No Mo W,

Obtaining a marriage license does not make you married. People become married at the marriage ceremony. It is traditionally a religous ceremony.

Marriage licenses issued by the government are not part of the tradition and are relatively new when compared to the origins of marriage.

I am for freedom and for letting people choose their own morals, but the logic behind the decision to issue gay marriage licenses is no different than issuing female bar mitzvah licenses.

All of the property rights and civil rules can be granted to gay couples without redefining a religous ceremony.

Only Factsmatter,

Marriage as a ceremony predates todays extant religions and has been very different at different periods in history, allowing in various places and various times marriage between persons of the same sex (including in the early Christian church!) or of multiple persons. It was and to a large extent still is an issue of property foremost. Today's religions cannot claim ownership of marriage, to do so is dishonest to its long history.

Regardless, if the government is issuing "marriage" licences, they have no right to deny them to any consenting citizens. It's as simple as that.

I should note that my comment above about same sex marriage in the early Christian church is of course debatable. Some scholars believe in it, some don't. However it should also be noted that marriage was not one of the sacraments of the church until the 12th century, over 1,000 years after the death of Jesus!

Dave,

What extant religions does marriage as a ceremony predate?

Um...a marriage license is all that is needed to be legally married. The religious ceremony is just that...a ceremony.

I will agree that marriage licenses are relatively new in the history of marriage, but when a marriage license wasn't required, it was the community that held the two people, who were married, to their contract and they were afforded all the rights and privileges of a married couple.

And a marriage ceremony is conducted a myriad of ways through out the world and cultures...I'll grant that. However, here in the United States...and in the state of California, the only thing I need to marry the person of my choosing (who, by the way, is wonderful woman) is a marriage license...not the religious ceremony.

The logic behind the decision to strike down the law and allow gay marriages to resume again...because all men (and that includes women, straight people, gay people, etc.) are created equal....it is that it harms no one, except gay people.

Therefore the law was wrong and a judge rightfully recinded it and then reinstated something that should never have been voted away.

Sign me,

1 of the 18,000 couples

Factsmatter: All of them.

WhoDoesThisHarm,

If you don't need a marriage ceremony, then why do you need it to be a marriage license? Why not a civil union? Why take a ceremony away from a religion?

The question seems silly, but I am asking it the same way that I would ask it about any religous ceremony that the government might decide to license.

Dave,

Teach me. What is your source?

Polygamists should be allowed to marry. As long as it is consenting adults and not 12 yr old girls. And no incest couples should not be allowed to marry because of the risk of having a deformed child. See that would be actually hurting somebody. If Joe and Steve up the street want to get married how does that hurt me? It doesn't not one bit.

Why take a ceremony away from a religion?

Who's taken anything away? Religious ceremonies will go on as they always have. Only now, the religions that want to marry gay people (and they are out there) will be able to practice THEIR religion freely.

jbled,

So if the 2 related people (incest) don't want to have any children there it would seem your concern is moot. What if the 2 people were gay? Then there would be no children. So it seems that there is no legal reason for people who are related to not be able to marry. After all "who does it hurt"?

One of the posters said men and women are equal under the law and should be interchangable with regard to marriage. If that is so why can't I shower in the ladies area at the city pool and vise versa.

If you want to be serious, tell me why you think that gay couples should insist on having the government grant them a religous ceremony.

Gay couples are not insisting on any such thing. In this country, marriage is a SECULAR institution. If you don't think that's true, try having a religious ceremony without having a STATE-ISSUED marriage license, and see if you can claim the legal rights of marriage. No gays are trying to force any church to conduct a religious ceremony for them if the church doesn't want to. All they are asking is to have the same right to a LEGAL ceremony that straight people have.

Also - if marriage was solely a "religious ceremony", it would mean that anyone who did not get married in a church, synagogue, etc. would not be legally married - and I'm sure even YOU can see how absurd that is. Face it - in this country, marriage is a CIVIL institution, not a religious one.

OnlyFacts: Obtaining a marriage license and having it signed by one of the many people who can sign it (which does not always have to be a priest) DOES *legally* make you married. In addition, incest between two consenting adults is *technically* legal, but frowned upon because of proven genetic reprecussions to possible children as well as the "power over" argument, which states that a parent has "power over" their children and can force them into a union.

Mikey: Do you even have a point?

Actionman: Because you would be infringing on the right to privacy of the persons showering in there. Simple. Man and woman are interchangable within the context of written law, with exceptions made for gender (not sexuality) specific matters. This is because we have differen physiologies which may at times have different requirements.

I stand corrected regarding the need for a cereomony. As has been pointed out to me, you are legally married when you recieve a license from the government. Because of this, Vicki is correct that marriage is now a secular institution.

I was trying to make two points in my earlier posts.

First, the origin of marriage is not secular, it is religous. Religous texts are the earliest written history, everything prior to that is speculation. Even if you argue this point, the earliest marrriages in our country were religous ceremonies, not secular licenses. The government began licensing marriage long after the first marriage in our country. When the government decided to license marriage, they took a religous ceremony and now it is being redefined in a way that is objectionable to many of the religions concepts.

Second, if you are going to follow the judges criteria for marriage, you cannot argue against other forms of marriages including age, quantity, kinship, species, or whatever. Read the judges ruling again if you think I am wrong. As far as a ceremony goes, I agree with Greg and Jeff that some religion somewhere will perform a wedding regardless of the type of union. Once marriage is opened up this way, it will become a very different thing than was ever considered originally.

Last night I watched the news and there were many gay couples featured. It is interesting that the point of most news stories focused on the couples desire to get a license so that they could have a wedding ceremony. My observation is that the gay community doesn't just want to sign a piece of paper in order to have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. What they want is to have a wedding ceremony and feel justified by the religous community like traditional couples do. They want the Christians, and others, to accept them as moral and often they label Christians as bigots if they speak against homosexual marriage, even if it is strictly from a religous perspective and not a legal rights perspective. It seems possible to me that government will eventually tell religions that they must accept other forms of marriage and the judges ruling may be moving us that direction.

Factsmatter: For instance, in Hammurabi's code, which pre-dates the modern religions, there is a law concerning marriage ("If a man takes a woman to wife, but has no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him"). The fact that he felt compelled to make a law about it suggests that it had already been around for a long time.

Dave,

You said:

"Marriage as a ceremony predates todays extant religions and has been very different at different periods in history, allowing in various places and various times marriage between persons of the same sex (including in the early Christian church!) or of multiple persons."

If I understand your point, it is to say that secular marriage ceremonies predate religous ceremonies. I presume this because you were responding to my statement that the opposite was true.

Hammurabi's law about a man and a woman not being married unless they consumate has nothing to do with your claim that secular marriage as a ceremony predates religous marriage as a ceremony. The law only addresses consumation but it also makes a point that marriage is between and man and a woman and provides a precedent that any ceremony would have only included a man and a woman.

You still haven't substantiated your original statement.

You should also provide a source for your claim that the early Christian church allowed gay marriage.

Factsmatter: As for the early Christian church allowing same sex marriages, see my comment above about that being an issue under historical debate. I make no claims to know if it is true or not, it has not been proven beyond doubt yet. If you'd like more info on that debate, you can use google. It's not really material to my point.

My point was that marriage predates extant religions; I have shown that to be true. The mention of marriage in Hammurabi's code is that proof. I'm not sure what you don't understand. The Code predates today's religions, and the Code mentions marriage. Therefore, marriage predates today's religions. The point is that no religion can lay claim to the definition of marriage or its origin, as marriage existed before said religions.

Love may be divine, but marriage is a "people thing".

Dave,

I started with the statement that "Marriage is a religous ceremony that the government has decided to control and redefine." and you countered with the statement "Marriage as a ceremony predates todays extant religions...".

I presumed that your point was that marriage began as a secular, not religous concept.

As you point out, Hammurabi mentions marriage. That does not mean that the marriage he mentions is secular. It only means that he is making a law concerning married people.

To infer that marriage cannot possibly have religous origins prior to Hammarubi is not any more valid than to say this is first secular interference into what had always been a religous ceremony. Neither of us can proof our version with the written record. I did not try to, you did.

My original statement concerned our government and and our country. You took the argument back to the beginning of time. It is your whole premise and line of thinking that I don't understand.

If marriage is truly a religious concept then it doesn't have any place in US law because it's inclusion violates the constitution. If it is not a Religious concept then it shouldn't be governed by Religious doctrine and as long as it does not violate some other law, like incest or polygamy laws, then it should be available.

Finally while many here generalize the Christian community, it's important to realize that not all of the Christian community is against Gay Marriage. There have been many that have been very helpful and accepting of the Gay community and have even helped some to cope with the inevitable problems coming out. I have heard both hateful and godless words spoken by Christians and I have also heard some that were truly amazing and inspirational. It's those I hold on to when I hear some of the comments. It keeps me focused on the fact that one does not speak for all.

Factsmatter: Are you intentionally misunderstanding? I'm not making a point about secular vs. religious marriage. I'm making a point that the religions of today have no claim over the origin or definition of marriage. Marriage existed before them, in both a religious and secular context. In this case, as Hammurabbi's code is a set of secular laws, the context is secular (it is unknown if he is referring to religious or secular marriage, or both). I make no claim about whether the "original marriage" was religious or secular. I suspect it predates both those concepts.

The point, one more time: Today's religions can make no claim of ownership over the definition of marriage, as marriage predates them.

I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

Dave,

With all due respect, I understand your point but your statement is false.

You have only proved that marriage predates Hammurabi's code. That does not exclude todays religions from existing prior to that, or claiming marriage. Why would it? Your logic relies on the premise that nothing existed unless there is a written record. You do not know that "marriage predates them". Your statement doesn't hold water.

Christianity claims its origins at Adam and Eve. I think they will claim that their religion was around before Hammurabi and that they had a marriage or two before Hammurabi. With all due respect, I am not intentionally misunderstanding. I just disagree.

My point(s), one more time:

1) From my original post "Marriage is a religous ceremony that the government has decided to control and redefine". I stand by my statement that marriage in our country was a religous ceremony before the government began controlling it. Now it is being redefined.

2)From my original post (paraphrased) The judges ruling will open the door for marriages of all types of unions that have never existed before. I stand by this statement also.

I hope that helps you understand my objection to your post.

Factsmatter: I understand your point. If you believe in Adam & Eve as literal fact there can be no real debate on the issue of the origin of marriage, as that position is terminal. Fair enough.

Good, Cali needs the revenue....and this is a good time to be anywhere near the wedding business in Cali...

Hopefully we can legalize weed in the November and get our State out of debt.

The only way california is going to get out of debt is to get rid of all the politicians in office right now and get rid of the loonies (the list of them is too long to go into here)

With regards to the decision. I didn't vote on Prop 8 (I'm a military out of state resident). The passing or not passing of it back in 08, as well as the current situation, really doesn't affect me. To be honest, I just don't care if gays can marry or not. Go out and have a good time, just stop blocking traffic with your parades ok?

Stally, in post 2.34, likened this to us having a cool car and they want to be able to get one too. Fine with me. Knock yourself out, but don't try to make me pay for it.

If you want to believe in some "god" or superbeing, have fun with that. Just like the gay argument, I don't care. Practice any religion you like, just stop knocking on my door and telling me I have to play too. I'm an athiest. To me there is no such thing as "god" and no argument from those who believe are going to change my mind. If, after I die, I'm proven wrong, then you can spend eternity giving me crap about it.

The religous argument is irrelevent in this case simply because you are doing nothing but trying to put your beliefs on others. How would you like it if I came into your church and started telling everyone that there was no god?

Mary Jo proud military brat

Let Freedom Ring...somewhere else. We must take our country back!!!! This country has allowed freedom to ring so far that now it is working against us! And this does not pertain just to gays and lesbians.

Who's country? This country that has allowed freedom to ring is our country yes yours too! There is no need for alarm (drama as it is now called) we will still have our freedoms. I am total against give up our constitutional freedoms for more security that you and others on this thread are willing to give up in the name of justice. That type of thinking led to fascism and communism. Think back to the early to mid part of the Twentieth Century it wasn’t a pretty picture with the millions who died in the name of the law and order and so called justice of the people.

Those pesky judges(and the ACLU) if they would just listen to us instead of following the Constitution our country would be a much better place to live!Do you see how that sounds? It sounds pretty foolish. Our Country is great because of our freedoms and the Constitution that protects those rights we all love and cherish, yes even you. So when the Neonuts and the Tea Bagger crowd start bashing our country and people who have a different point of view, religion or life style than they do we must all stand up for the rights of those in the minority. Why? It’s because the diversity of the people in this country is what makes this a Great Nation! That is why most of us love our country and will never let the extreme wackos of the right or left destroy it.

So enough already with the “we have to take back our country” nonsense and get a grip!