Religion being used to oppress our population in the 21st century. Truly sad and quite sickening to think our nation can be so backwards in catering to apocalyptic despots.

There are many issues we (as a people) will never find unanimous consensus on. But, that all our citizens should have equal rights and protection under the law, is something I would think even the most desolate of unions could adhere. Are we not such a nation? If not, fine. I would just like to hear the ideologues finally surrender their false-pretense to patriotism.

I find it interesting that the people who most vociferously advocate for true democracy are the first to run to the courts when the will of the majority doesn't meet their needs.

"Since this all about "rights" what do you say to the man who wants to marry two women? If he loves them both, why can't he marry them both? If two homosexuals can marry, why can't one straight man marry two or three women? Please, a gay person, answer this question."

I'm not gay, but I'll answer anyway. I say... good question. Why can't they? Until someone can demonstrate how polygamy, in and of itself, is inherently harmful, I don't see a reason why it should remain illegal.

Ironically enough, the only examples of polygamy wreaking havoc is when it is done within the stranglehold constraints of religion, i.e. breakaway Mormon sects and Muslim countries selling their young females to older men.

The judiciary branch is part of democracy's checks and balances. YAY democracy!! (BTW, we are a representative democracy, not a 'true' democracy)

Timothy1Mil, I'm not gay, but I'll offer this observation. Multiple marriage is simply a different logical question, and under the law, it would require a lot more legislation to work out the particulars. Such as, if one couple are already married, and one of the partners marries a third person, is the original spouse automatically also married to the new spouse? Presuming a case of multiple consensual spouses, now that inheritance is not deterministic (that is, now that there's a legal fork in the road in determining who automatically gets inheritance rights over a deceased spouse's belongings), how does the law decide this? Same with custody of any children. Even more relevant, how do the tax liabilities break down? Adding more spouses with automatic spousal rights opens the door to more ways to game the system, which is where the contract's effects may actually affect other taxpayers. With two-person marriages of any kind, this can't happen.

Many people have no more objections to multiple marriages, but the fact is that it's simply a different question, and those like you who continually raise it appear to be doing two things: 1) deflecting attention from the specific issue at hand, which is only same-sex marriage, and 2) attempting to gin up Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt where there really is none. It's a slippery-slope fallacy.

If two homosexuals can marry, why can't one straight man marry two or three women?

Timothy, the Supreme Court has already ruled on the unconstitutionality of polygamy:

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

Reynolds v. US, 98 US 145 (1878)

I find it interesting that the people who most vociferously advocate for true democracy are the first to run to the courts when the will of the majority doesn't meet their needs.

Since we are not a "true democracy," but a constitutional republic, your statement is inaccurate as well as irrelevant. Furthermore, we are not a country of majority rule, as the tyranny of the majority is prohibited from denying rights to the minority -- which is why civil rights, such as those infringed upon in unconstitutional laws like Prop H8, cannot be voted on.

Timothy, I'm not gay, but I'll answer you anyway.

The government can impinge a civil right if the laws pass a strict scrutiny test. Thus a valid law limiting a civil right needs to 1) address a compelling governmental interest, and 2) be narrowly tailored to the interest.

No governmental interest exists for same sex marriage. However, for polygamy, you have a massive contractual mess that our laws are incapable of handling (imagine custody and alimony when one or more members of a polygamous marriage gets a divorce). Secondly, the vast majority of polygamous marriages today in the US are based upon abuse. Very young girls are coerced into marriages wth much older men, sometimes forced entirely.

If polygamy became an institution based upon mutual consent of all parties, and the legal ramifications of a multiparty marriage were addressed, then it would be comparable to same sex and interracial marriages.

If a straight judge ruled against gay marriage, would that also be a conflict of interest? I wonder if the supporters of Prop 8 are prepared to deal with that argument.

I find it interesting that the people who most vociferously advocate for true democracy are the first to run to the courts when the will of the majority doesn't meet their needs.

I find your lack of understanding in regards to human worth and decency interesting. Democracy has nothing to do with the majority oppressing a weaker minority.

But if it did, fine. Scrap it. I'd rather create a new nation devoted to the people that carry its banner and sing its patriotic hymns. I'd rather create a nation where "all men are truly created equal." When those words were first poured to page by white slave owners, they were hollow and self-serving ... signed with a wink and a nod. But that doesn't mean we haven't grown into a nation that respects and longs for that ideal.

Even if our founders had their own vices and mistakes, they were only human. As are we. The difference is, we can learn from our collective history. We have common, shared, human experience that we can use to create a more perfect union. But that only starts when we realize we are all equals under our children's eyes.

So, the will of the PEOPLE is possibly going to be overturned by a judge? To me, THAT is pathetic!

@Timothy- As a gay man, I am sick of this new response from the "Right". This is not about and never has been about polygamy. Stay focused. This is about two people. Not three, not four. I have been with my partner for a little over 4 years. In that time I have seen 3 straight friends of mine get married. Is it wrong that I want that for myself? No.

Should the government be able to stop you from getting divorced? If this is all about how important marriage is to the foundation of our society, then lets have laws saying you can't divorce. How fast would people stand up and scream that they can't do that.

If you are not gay, this does not effect you in any way. This has zero impact on your day to day life. Just like your marriage has zero impact on me. However, this will have a huge impact on me and mine.

So, the will of the PEOPLE is possibly going to be overturned by a judge? To me, THAT is pathetic!

I find it pathetic that you have obviously not attended a civics class: we are not a county of majority rule, and civil rights cannot be voted on.

One in five gay men currently has AIDS according to WebMD, so your putdown of polygamous marriages while implying that there is nothing wrong with being gay is ludicrous.

There are many lifestyles thay are bad for one's health. 1 in 10 gay med have AIDS. Gay marriage would have ZERO effect on that. If anything, longstanding monogamous marriages reduce the transmission of STDs. So this statistic should be in favor of same sex marriage.

Secondly, Caucasians are more likely than Asians to be obese. So white people shouldn't bet married. HIV infection rates are increasing the fastest in black females... so they shouldn't get married. Jewish people have a number of inheritable genetic diseases... they shouldn't be married either. I guess the only people who should get married are Asian lesbians, since they have such a low risk of genetic and acquired diseases. What utter hogwash.

The arguments of polygamy are currently sound. If in the future this changes I'd be open to agreeing with it. But as it currently stands there is a legal nightmare, and usually a lack of true consent in these relationships.

I would like to marry my dog and cat. Where do we draw the line?

Stop with the bull@!$%# slippery slope argument

It is bull@!$%# now and has always been so. Your argument has no basis in logic or reason

"Your answer is utter nonsense. One in five gay men currently has AIDS according to WebMD, so your putdown of polygamous marriages while implying that there is nothing wrong with being gay is ludicrous."

The only thing ludicrous around here is every single comment of yours. So now there's a stigma with having HIV/AIDS? First of all, being HIV positive does not bar anyone from civil marriage, genius. Secondly, black Americans made up 44% of all new HIV infections in 2009, according to the CDC. So is there something wrong with being black, too? What a loser. You're just a bigot with an ax to grind.

"I suspect that you are gay and working for the gay agenda"

Oh yeah, here we go...

"that insists that gays are: 10 percent of the population (false)"

I agree. I believe the percentage of LGBT is much higher than just 10%. A lot of people remain in the closet.

"born that way (false)"

So sexuality is not in-born? Really? If homosexuality is a choice, then why am I not gay? I would love nothing more than to be turned on by other women, but it just doesn't work that way.

"bullies its own individuals by outing them even when they request anonymity,"

Some do. That has less to do with actually being gay and more to do with being an a.s.s.hole.

or force them to bow to GLADD's standard lines even when they say something true, like Cynthia Nixon when she said she "chose" to be gay.

Actually, Cynthia Nixon self-identifies as bisexual. So saying that she is gay "by choice" is more in line with the fact that bisexual people often experience a fluctuation of their preference between men and women throughout their lifetime.

"I hope the judges have enough sense to see what is really going on, and that being gay id unhealthy, unclean and an abomination."

The only abomination is the willfully ignorant, like you.

I can already guess what arguments will be used in an attempt to justify the continuing of legal bigotry...

The polygamy/group marriage argument: Fails. There isn't enough public interest to support the complications surrounding accross the board legal polygamy. We would have to spend the time and money rewriting tax law, insurance law, family law, probate law, yada, yada, yada.

The pedophilia/inanimate object/besitality argument: Fails. Children, animals, and random objects lack recognized legal capacity under the law. They can't consent, they can't contract, they don't get to vote, yada, yada, yada. Continuing, homosexuality is not a mental illness, it's not listed in the DSM-IV and has no negative impact on society.

The marriage is religious argument: Fails. Marriage is a contractual property agreement predating all organized religion. You're thinking of Holy Matrimony. Nor is the public or society a party to the contract. The consideration is only between the two legal adults. That's why society doesn't get a share in everyone's divorce, we don't sign the lisense, we don't get the kids every other weekend.

The majority rules argument: Fails. We're a Republic, we don't vote on civil rights, and marriage is a civil right. SCOTUS has ruled in one 14 different times. This means you need a reason that passes strict scrutiny to prohibit marriage. None of the following are legal reasons... The Bible, your personal beliefs, Jesus, God, religion, your morals, unproven paranoia.

The state shouldn't place no religion, above religion: Fails. Nothing doesn't equal something. Overturning religious based legislation, in no way supports Athieism. Again I thank you Indie for this fantastic example... If you're pushing against a wall, and you stop, does that mean the wall is now pushing you? No. If a lack of religion constituted a support of Athieism, we would have to write disclaimers on every single, non religious, thing in the country.

The I don't want it in my face argument: Fails. Get over yourself. There are just as many people out there that don't want your relationship in their face either, does that mean you should live in a closet? No. Get over yourself. If you don't like something, don't pay attention. Not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringment on your freedoms. Call me when someone forces you to be gay or have gay friends, or like the gay lifestyle. Until than, get over yourselves.

Now, I'll just wait for someone to make a logical, legal argument, why same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed...

@Buck Naked Sr.- I would say then that as soon as your pet can sign a marriage then you guys can have at it. Oh wait...I think there is a law about bestiality being illegal. Or maybe it;s the whole species thing. I am not sure. Come on. How about you draw the line at human for starters.

Why are you people so keen on throwing animals into the mix? I think there is another issue going on here, Buck? Did you get your dog pregnant? That speaks volumes about your post. Wait! Does your dog have cancer and so you are wanting to leave it for your cat? What's next Buck? You are a horse on the side?

Do you hear how moronic your argument is?

I would like to marry my dog and cat.

If you can obtain legal consent from your dog or cat...

Buck Naked - can your dog or can give their legal consent and sign a marriage license? That is where we draw the line. That seems obvious to me.

Buck Naked Sr, the only problem with you wanting to marry your dog is that your dog is not capable of giving consent. Your dog can not sign the legal contract required in every state to in fact get married.

I think BuckNaked should not be allowed to have pets...

Sarah this is going to be a really long wait.

Civil marriage in this country was designed to protect the interests of consenting adult couples who want to build a life together that neither of them could build separately. Granting marriage rights to one couple of consenting adults because they're straight while denying them to another couple because they're gay is discrimination and illegal, which the SCOTUS will eventually bear out.

However, denying one person the right to marry more than one other person at a time is not discrimination, since everyone who engages in marriage is limited to one spouse at a time. Further, we can't choose our sexual orientation, but we can choose how many partners we take. This is the biggest distinction that makes bans on polygamy not discrimination. To deny people privileges or rights based on their choices isn't discrimination. Otherwise, to imprison criminals would be discrimination, because their freedoms are being curtailed for choosing to behave a certain way. Now, mind you, I'm not comparing polygamy to crime. I'm simply using criminal activity as an analogy. Our choices have consequences. But how we're born shouldn't.

If you're a straight man, you're free to marry one chosen partner at a time. If you're a gay man, though, you're not. If you're a straight man, you don't choose to feel attracted to and fall in love with women and more than a gay man chooses to feel attracted to or fall in love with men. But, beyond this, everything else to do with our respective relationships is completely a choice.

So, to recap.

Gay=not a choice, and, therefore, not to be used in determining what rights a person does or doesn't get any more than a person's race or gender is. If straight people can marry one partner of their choosing with whom they're deeply in love and in a committed relationship, then gay people should be given the same right.

Polygamy=a choice, and, therefore, not protected by antidiscrimination laws any more than a homeowners association member's choice of exterior paint color is. If all people are given the right to marry one partner of their choosing at a time, then it's not discrimination to tell others who try to marry more than their allotted one partner that they can't.

You see, these are the kinds of nuances that seem lost on pretty much every opponent of marriage equality I've come across. Like those who try to claim allowing same-sex marriage will open the door for people being allowed to marry their pets. They miss the fact that pets can't consent to such relationships.

I don't know if these people have just never been taught to do critical thinking (I don't think this is on the syllabi of most churches) or what, but hopefully those of us who've received such an education can help them better understand these issues. The challenge will be getting them to listen, since these tidbits of knowledge don't come with book titles, chapters and verses.

The level of ignorance and intolerance is astounding.

Erinnj - PETA is suing Sea World San Diego on behalf of the Orcas saying their Constitutional rights are violated, in particular the 13th Amendment (Slavery), and a Federal Judge is hearing the case, I suppose if it is ruled animals have rights they COULD in fact consent to marrying their human.

Barry,

Do you think I should stop holding my breath? Things are starting to get a bit fuzzy around the edges...

Buck Naked,

I'll just go ahead and call you out on your deliberate obtuseness. You know darn well why you can't marry a dog, and although you're making yourself sound incredibly ignorant with your petulent posts, I highly doubt you're not capable of grasping the concept of legal consent.

How about manning up, Buck Naked, and just admitting that you're prejudiced, instead of continuing to make illogical and ridiculous arguments in an attempt to hide it???

BuckNaked: after that sexist attack on the lady who obviously got under your very thin skin...I'm going to guess you don't have a lot of interest from either sex.

Very glad to see the intelligent proponents of equality are out in force to help combat idiocy on the boards. Bravo!

There's nothing wrong with same sex marriage just as long as no one is forced (legally) to participate.

AP,

He's probably still angry about the girl in highschool who shot him down. I'm guessing she shot him down because he's, well I don't want to get banned, but I'm sure you get it. He, however, probably blames her, because he's completely unaware of his own faults.

And Really, Buck, do you think you're the first "man" to attack me based on my appearance??? Like it's creative or original to patronize me like that? Like I don't deal with it everyday? At least come up with a tactic I don't face all the time.

And some advice... Insulting me isn't the answer to your problems. Viagra is.

Erin I would like to marry my dog and cat. Where do we draw the line?

Animals, like children, cannot give informed consent. Try again, bigot...

Erinnj - PETA is suing Sea World San Diego on behalf of the Orcas saying their Constitutional rights are violated, in particular the 13th Amendment (Slavery), and a Federal Judge is hearing the case, I suppose if it is ruled animals have rights they COULD in fact consent to marrying their human.

They can consent. So can children. But they cannot give INFORMED consent. Try again...

I apologize if I insulted you, but that was not my intention. You appear attractive and on your home page you mention "hag". Don't be so down on yourself. You appear happy and good natured in your photo and have a beautiful smile.

Sarah-3043284

You are deliberatlely avoiding the most pressing point of homosexuality - it is a sin and an abomination. First you cannot prove that it is not a choice to be gay so don't try. Being gay does not mean you are bad - it is just a cross you have to bear. Being gay in of itself is not a sin but to practice homosexuality is...just as the alcoholic gives into the temptation of drink or the man who sleeps with his friends wife - it is the commiting of the act that is sinful.

To allow gay marriage is to enable the sin to take place.

Well, thanks for the compliments and "psuedo" psych eval... I guess. I'm not down on myself, I'm saying tactics like yours are used a lot, not just against me, but women in general.

If you want to debate the issue, come at me with intellect. My smile doesn't make my arguments, my brain does.

There are two valid arguments here:

1. Keep gay marraige out of the Church, it's a civil/legal issue. I'm fine with people in committed relationships needing legal access to the other one- so I'm fine with a civil union statute. This does not imply that in any way I want "marriage" removed from the context of religion and gay marriage forced on the church. If a religion decides as a whole to change their doctrine to include gay marriage, let that be upon them. I am a staunch believer in the institute of religious marriage. I think people are too often using marriage as a symbolic commitment (and party) and quickly break their vows when the reality sets in that you have to work as a team and make sacrifices.

2. There is a reason for laws and the process of law- to apply requirements on society and change those on the books. In this case the people of California brought a measure to a vote legally and it was approved by the voters. The state (in it's infinite wisdom) decided that the people whom drafted the measure didn't really know what they were doing and said no. Similarly, the state (in it's infinite wisdom) tried to invoke gay marriage through a ballot measure, which was declined by the populous. The state again said that they know more that the residents so they'd take it on in other ways.

The biggest problem I have is the outright attempt to destroy religion in our country. Face it-we are bombarded with anti-religious commentary, images, and actions all the time. Religion is seen as the villain when it comes to a culture pushing for eveyone getting to do what ever they want, when they want, with no recourse for bad decisions. I'm sorry but if you don't want to get married, don't. If you don't want to practice religion, don't- but try to be reasonably tolerant of people with other beliefs than you. Don't allow some religions carte blanche while you tear down others as well.

Happy,

It's not a sin to me. It's not the most pressing point in anyone's book, except people who share your religious views, which I'm protected from, gay people are protected from, and anyone else who doesn't share your views are protected from.

Call it a sin all you want, that has no bearing in a legal argument or a discussion about civil rights.

10-15 years ago as this topic started to gain momentum I was against gay marriage. Today, I just don't care anymore. I have "no dog in the fight", and have grown so tired of the time consumed on said topic.

At the end of the day I do find it interesting that an appeal is filed AFTER the voters banned it; by a a judge who was gay. The 9th circuit court is the perfect setting. You just can't make this stuff up.

Joe,

The state shouldn't place no religion, above religion: Fails. Nothing doesn't equal something. Overturning religious based legislation, in no way supports Athieism. Again I thank you Indie for this fantastic example... If you're pushing against a wall, and you stop, does that mean the wall is now pushing you? No. If a lack of religion constituted a support of Athieism, we would have to write disclaimers on every single, non religious, thing in the country.

The marriage is religious argument: Fails. Marriage is a contractual property agreement predating all organized religion. You're thinking of Holy Matrimony. Nor is the public or society a party to the contract. The consideration is only between the two legal adults. That's why society doesn't get a share in everyone's divorce, we don't sign the lisense, we don't get the kids every other weekend.

The judge's sexuality plays no more of a part in this, than does a black judge's race when he's ruling about a case concerning a black defendant. Or a women judge when ruling on a case concerning a woman. Or an Asian judge when ruling on a case concerning an Asian.

That's grasping at straws, at best.

You are deliberatlely avoiding the most pressing point of homosexuality - it is a sin and an abomination.

And YOU are deliberately avoiding the most pressing fact: the US is a secular nation, not a theocracy; the bible does not make our laws.

First you cannot prove that it is not a choice to be gay so don't try.

It's already BEEN proven that sexual orientation -- whether homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or asexual -- is inborn. YOU cannot prove that it is a choice; but even if it WERE a choice, we are constitutionally protected in our choices, like which religion we follow, or whether we worship at all.

Being gay does not mean you are bad - it is just a cross you have to bear.

Actually, being an ignorant bigot is a cross YOU bear.

Hey Erin,

Different day, same tired arguments, huh? Keep fighting the good fight!

Epinnoia - Wait a minute, Roy ROGERS horse Trigger could say yes by stamping his hoof once and no by stamping his hoof twice. Who says animals can't give consent? Your turn.

I fail to see why Gays and Lesbians insist that they have the term 'Married' applied to their union, when it's easy to give them all of the same 'rights and privileges' by legislation that would not upset the majority of Californians.

They seem to be rather 'inflexible' on this issue.

As an atorney who specializes in family law I can tell you that an argument exists that a cat or dog implied consent to a relationship when they willfully live in your house. Also my daughter is 22. She can give consent to marrying her father!

What the majority wishes is irrelevant, as we are not a country of majority rule.

And the Supreme Court has already ruled that "separate" is not "equal".

People from both sides throwing out insults as if they are all knowing, what makes one right and the other wrong? Perspective. If someone believes in God and eternal life then one is against, if one does not believe in God one is for. I think both sides should show a little respect for the others views as there is no reason for all the name calling, it's not going to help either view. As a believer in God I'm against it, but it's not for me to judge. Whether or not they get married doesn't concern me as much as saving their souls.

Roy,

Not to mention, you're confusing marriage with Holy Matrimony. You already have a special, religious term for it. Marriage is the legal term for it.

Gay people may never get to enter into the sacrement of Holy Matrimony, Roy. They will, however, eventually get to marry.

Hail mary argument, at best.

WLEE,

You need to apply the "but for" test. But for certain people's bigotted views and comments full of judgment and scorn, and their attempts to use their religion to deny basic rights to our fellow citizens, most of us wouldn't have boo to say about anyone's religion.

There is no but for when it comes to illogical reasonings in defense of the denial of equal protection. Don't confuse tolerance and passivity.

One in five gay men currently has AIDS according to WebMD

WebMD?!? Are you serious? WebMD is the site that turns a common cold into a deadly disease that will kill you within the next 24 hours!

To happy, last I checked I didn't choose to be straight. I am straight. Just as gays don't choose to be gay. Also the constitution speciically states seperation of church and state. Meaning that religion and government shouldn't mix. That means my religious beliefs should not be force down societies throats. To Roy why is it such a problem to allow 2 consenting adults to marry. And the majority should not be allowed to opppress the minority when equality is taken away. Hell if you want marriage stripped from gays, why dont you strip marriage from people who don't want kids or people who are criminals, or the list can go on and on. Two consenting adults should marry. It doesn't affect anybodys daily life for gay marriages to take place.

As a believer in God I'm against it, but it's not for me to judge. Whether or not they get married doesn't concern me as much as saving their souls.

{Reads with a grin}

Religion is the darkest stain our souls have ever had to endure my friend.

It's only through man's self-inoculation of celestial power that we've created such a situation where man feels obliged to judge other men. Masking intolerance and hate through divine mandate may have been an argument for generations past ... but we've long awoken from such a slumber of ignorance.

Sodomy just like bestiality is illegal in many places here in the US. That kind of puts a damper on the issue. We do have the right to vote on civil rights and other similar issues. That's why we have a civil rights amendment.

As we can now fertilize human eggs and implant them in animals such as sheep to grow to term, it probably won't be too long before this comes up as an issue.

Bottom line - if it really is against God's will, He'll deal with it regardless of what I do. There's all kinds of things going on in the world that are a lot more important than this, and really, who cares?

Just remember when you get divorced, they get half of your stuff and they may also be entitled to half of your income and retirement savings.

Up Uranus,

Does this mean I might not have Ebola??? Whewwww, what a relief. WebMD told me I did like a week ago, and I figured I only had a couple more days until the the groin tumors started.

Sarah-3043284, you're my new best friend! :)

Sodomy just like bestiality is illegal in many places here in the US.

WRONG. The Supreme Court ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional in 2003; look up Lawrence v. Texas. Even if such laws are still on the books, they are unenforceable.

We are also not a country of majority rule, as we are a constitutional republic, not a true democracy.

Dan,

Sodomy just like bestiality is illegal in many places here in the US.

Wrong and wrong. Please find me some caselaw that's occurred within the last 25 years that strengthens and supports anti-sodomy laws.

We do have the right to vote on civil rights and other similar issues. That's why we have a civil rights amendment.

Even more wrong. If this were true why didn't we publically vote on desegregation??? This is fightening, that you actually believe this. The 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states. Kiss "majority vote" good bye, when it comes to civil rights.

As we can now fertilize human eggs and implant them in animals such as sheep to grow to term, it probably won't be too long before this comes up as an issue.

What does this have to do with gay marriage? We can also send men to the moon and have airplanes that fly themselves... Um, so???

Bottom line - if it really is against God's will, He'll deal with it regardless of what I do. There's all kinds of things going on in the world that are a lot more important than this, and really, who cares?

Obviously you do, if you posted about it. The part about God actually makes sense.

Up Uranus,

I like you too! Good name!

Wlee that is not a great argument, because I am christian and straight but 100% support the ability for gays to marry, as do several of my christian friends. I also know several atheists who are againt that same ability. It's all about peoples feelings. And these arguments against are way to similar to arguments against civil rights in the 50's and 60's. They are also very similar to arguments against interracial mariages back then also.

happy42xxx

We don't care what the bible says, welcome to a secular society.

Dan H

Sodomy is illegal based on decades old laws that have been ruled they cannot be used as sole charges, including in the military.

So I woke up this morning and realized I didn't have any of my own business to mind. So I decided to get involved in the private lives of other people. Right now, it seems I should be very concerned about homosexuals and their private lives.

Well dammit, I'm sick of people living their lives behind closed doors. I want to mind YOUR business. I'm tired of privacy rights.

After this, I want to move on to those damned uppity women who think they should control their own bodies. Right to privacy? BS. I'm going to form up a new chapter of the Vagina Vigilantes.

By the way, I think I've been hearing the voice of God lately. You Christians have it wrong. ALL WRONG. I'm coming after you next.

It's great not minding your own business.

Funny how Catholics are too busy interfering in the lives of homosexuals to stop the pedophiles in their churches from raping their children.

Just a week ago, the diocese here announced it gave a sh*tload of money to support a constitutional ban on same sex marriage in my state.

The irony and hypocrisy of the Church is overwhelming. I am ashamed to have been a part of that institution.

Sodomy just like bestiality is illegal in many places here in the US.

Nope. Supreme court already over ruled that possibility regarding sodomy being illegal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Sarah and others who have misinterpreted my comment, I'm not against gay marriage as who am I to determine that, as a Christian saving ones soul is job 1. Eric True, as a Christian you know Gods views, you can go his way or the ways of man. Jesus says love the man but hate the sin. Chad I'm not telling you to do anything it's my believe you can call me ignorant all you want I treat all people with respect till they lose it with there actions, should I call you names because you disagree with my views. I think not.

"I find your lack of understanding in regards to human worth and decency interesting. Democracy has nothing to do with the majority oppressing a weaker minority."

chad --
I'm interested to hear how you know anything about my views regarding human worth and decency, since my post neither said or implied anything about either of them. On the other hand, your comment about democracy is ill-informed at best. By definition, pure democracy means "one person, one vote" which, in turn, means the majority wins every time.

Linda M-311663, if the courts thought the way you do we would still have separate bathrooms, restaurants and bans on black and white marriage in the south. The MAJORITY of WHITE SOUTHERNERS wanted to keep blacks suppressed. They didn't want to be eating in the same place, using the same restroom or even allow them in their businesses. It took the COURTS to overrule the bigotry of the majority in the south. The same will be true of the bigotry from people against same sex marriage.

If your so precious majority rules idea were so true then black people would still be less than second class citizens in the south (in some ways they still are second class as whites are really good at being creative in their oppression).

The majority is usually very, very wrong when it comes to many things and that is why the framers of our constitution made three branches of government. It is to keep a check on the leaders AND the majority population.

Wise

You could spend your days rubbing yourself in fairy dust ... I don't care.

Just keep your beliefs, your "sins", and your "soul-saving" to yourself. Your religion is a small sect within a global force of human values. Values that are shaped and formed on secular principles of freedom. Human beings don't gain worth or salvation through their religions or their beliefs. We are all entitled to personal freedom and liberty defined through the human condition.

No one is telling you can't believe whatever you wish. But when you try to superimpose your beliefs on my individual liberties (and veil your intolerance through celestial indoctrination), you will be called out my friend. It really is as simple as that.

By definition, pure democracy means "one person, one vote" which, in turn, means the majority wins every time.

I should think you've answered your own question.

I'm still waiting on somebody to post that legal, logical argument... Anybody??? Come on, somebody's gotta have one, right????

Erin I would like to marry my dog and cat. Where do we draw the line?

As soon as your dog and cat become tax-paying US citizens, I'll pay for the reception and honeymoon. They can vote and serve in the military too.

David Walker

So I woke up this morning and realized I didn't have any of my own business to mind. So I decided to get involved in the private lives of other people. Right now, it seems I should be very concerned about homosexuals and their private lives.

Well dammit, I'm sick of people living their lives behind closed doors. I want to mind YOUR business. I'm tired of privacy rights.

After this, I want to move on to those damned uppity women who think they should control their own bodies. Right to privacy? BS. I'm going to form up a new chapter of the Vagina Vigilantes.

By the way, I think I've been hearing the voice of God lately. You Christians have it wrong. ALL WRONG. I'm coming after you next.

It's great not minding your own business.

BEST POST OF THE DAY!! lmao @ vagina vigilantes!

"A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 Tuesday that a lower court judge interpreted the U.S. Constitution correctly in 2010 when he declared the ban"

Let me guess - The 2 judges that voted for the gays were appointed by Democratic Presidents, and the 1 that voted against was appointed by a Republican President.

Chad Explain the electorial college to me please. You can win the majority of the votes and still lose an election. FYI

I still dont see a justification for govt to be involved in and provide benefits to ANYBODY's sleeping arrangements; straight or gay, until there's some kids in the picture.

The real story is why they determined that Prop 8 was unconstitutional:

"... the Constitution ... requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted ..."

There was no legitimate reason to treat different classes of people differently. Personal antipathy for another class of people is no justification for persecuting them.

It simply isn't.

If you are unwilling to have "them" dictate how to live to "you", then don't "you" presume to dictate to "them" how they should live.

Post, post update: Proposition 8 has been held as unconstitutional, thus paving the way for a Supreme Court ruling. And it is very likely that the Supreme Court, too, shall find that Proposition 8 is unlawful. And that is fair, reasonable, and right.

Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

It never fails to surprise me....the number of people that cannot seem to understand "Equal protection under the Law." It's really very simple, straightforward, and very adequate a concept.

Now. Wouldn't all of you have better spent your California time going after something that is illegal, and flaunted in front of you daily, and by criminals? Like...Illegal Immigration.

Timothy1Mil - Since you are adamant regarding the supposition that homosexuality is a choice, I then must assume there was a point in your life when you considered "going gay" and ultimately decided against it for one reason or another. Maybe someday you might change your mind, huh?

Me? I have never been attracted to members of my on gender, but it's okay if you do. You don't even have to admit it if you do. Its okay. ;-)

There's actually not a thing wrong with what allswell wrote. Mob rule was deemed to be the most perverse aspect of democracy, and is the strongest reason to establish nations as constitutional republics (which is what the United States is) instead of democracies.

For those that ask, where do we draw the line-

human + 18 or older + consenting = not your business or mine

The 9th Circuit Court of appeals is the most liberal in the entire country. Does this really surprise anyone?

Roy/Duane,

Activist judges are a myth, put forth by politicians who know that the legislation they support/pass in order to pander to their base is unconsitutional. If they can convince the base that the judge has some secret agenda in denying that legislation, they don't have to worry about the legality of it, or telling their base that their position is wrong, thus allowing them to continue to pander.

Give it up, you have no legal basis anti-same sex marriage people. Just own your unjustified dislike of gay people for what it is, bigotry, and stop making assinine arguments.

"Tyranny of the majority"?? I thought it was called democracy? So a majority vote is tyranny?? Down with tyrannical democracy--is that it?

I can already guess what arguments will be used in an attempt to justify the continuing of legal bigotry...

The polygamy/group marriage argument: Fails. There isn't enough public interest to support the complications surrounding accross the board legal polygamy. We would have to spend the time and money rewriting tax law, insurance law, family law, probate law, yada, yada, yada.

The pedophilia/inanimate object/besitality argument: Fails. Children, animals, and random objects lack recognized legal capacity under the law. They can't consent, they can't contract, they don't get to vote, yada, yada, yada. Continuing, homosexuality is not a mental illness, it's not listed in the DSM-IV and has no negative impact on society.

The marriage is religious argument: Fails. Marriage is a contractual property agreement predating all organized religion. You're thinking of Holy Matrimony. Nor is the public or society a party to the contract. The consideration is only between the two legal adults. That's why society doesn't get a share in everyone's divorce, we don't sign the lisense, we don't get the kids every other weekend.

The majority rules argument: Fails. We're a Republic, we don't vote on civil rights, and marriage is a civil right. SCOTUS has ruled in one 14 different times. This means you need a reason that passes strict scrutiny to prohibit marriage. None of the following are legal reasons... The Bible, your personal beliefs, Jesus, God, religion, your morals, unproven paranoia.

The state shouldn't place no religion, above religion: Fails. Nothing doesn't equal something. Overturning religious based legislation, in no way supports Athieism. Again I thank you Indie for this fantastic example... If you're pushing against a wall, and you stop, does that mean the wall is now pushing you? No. If a lack of religion constituted a support of Athieism, we would have to write disclaimers on every single, non religious, thing in the country.

The I don't want it in my face argument: Fails. Get over yourself. There are just as many people out there that don't want your relationship in their face either, does that mean you should live in a closet? No. Get over yourself. If you don't like something, don't pay attention. Not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringment on your freedoms. Call me when someone forces you to be gay or have gay friends, or like the gay lifestyle. Until than, get over yourselves.

Now, I'll just wait for someone to make a logical, legal argument, why same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed...

This basically sums it up... and bears repeating.

Great Job, Sarah.

"I should think you've answered your own question."

chad--
If you look very carefully, you will see that none of the four sentences I have posted on this thread have a question mark at the end. I suppose it is too much to ask that you actually read AND understand a post before you fire off your "rebuttal."

WaltDIS-There's actually not a thing wrong with what allswell wrote.

But you believe that Al Gore actually beat George Bush, right?

"Since this all about "rights" what do you say to the man who wants to marry two women? If he loves them both, why can't he marry them both? If two homosexuals can marry, why can't one straight man marry two or three women? Please, a gay person, answer this question."

Tell me, where in the US Constitution does government have to right to define what is marriage and what is not, or to recognize one form of marriage but not another?

If the voters in South Carolinia voted to disallow marriages between two different races for "religious reasons", I'm sure you wouldn't be offended in any way, am I right?

As long as its consentual, I really couldn't care less what type of marriage it is, be it stright, homosexual, polygamy, or whatnot.

Sarah-3043284

I can already guess what arguments will be used in an attempt to justify the continuing of legal bigotry...

And you are doing so well in this thread, I'll just sit back and enjoy rather than arguing!!

Timothy1Mil...How do you know that all those homosexuals became HIV pos because of their sexual orientation?

You can contract the disease by blood transfusions, or coming into contact with the infected blood by way of an open wound...so please, stop being so homophobic.

No one is hurting you...just like you being straight isn't hurting anyone else.

Bible experts out there-please explain something to me.

The story of sodom and gomorrah goes basically as follows...

The men in the town wanted to have sex with the 2 male guests of Lot. These male guests did not want to have sex with them. To stop them, Lot offered up his daughters. God got mad. Destroyed the town. Told them not to look back. God turned Lot's wife to salt because she did look back. Lot's daughters tried to get him drunk so he would get them pregnant.

How is the moral of that story that gay marriage is wrong? How is that story even about homosexuality? As the 2 guests did not want to have sex with these men from the town-that would be gang rape. I believe that all gay activists would say that gang rape is wrong-gay or straight. There was no consentual adult sex mentioned as any part of this story.

Please...someone explain to me-how can anyone with reading comprehension skills use this story to bash homosexuality or gay marriage?

If we recognize women have the right to vote, what's next?

Giving children the right to vote?!?

Giving ANIMALS the right to vote?!?!?

Giving people MULTIPLE VOTES?!?!?!? Crazy!!

I guess women shouldn't have voting rights!!

...any homophobes out there still see the logical problem with your slippery slope argument?

I would ask that you show the proof that it ISN"T a choice and there is a positively identified "gay" gene...waiting.

Allsell-Huntz Hall and the Bowery Boys would be proud of you for your malaprop. It's majority rule and the tyranny of the minority, nice try but you got it wrong

I'm still waiting on somebody to post that legal, logical argument... Anybody??? Come on, somebody's gotta have one, right????

No, Sarah, you can stop waiting. There cannot possibly BE a counter-argument to basic equality, except the drivel based on fear, ignorance, and, of course, narrowly-interpreted religion.

Thanks for making such wonderful, detailed arguments of your own - saved me a lot of time writing up mine!

The Appeals court got it right :-)

Though I'm left leaning, personally I believe gays can have equal rights via civil unions...with that said, I'm glad to see Cali's Prop 8 being shot down if for no other reason than teaching a lesson about all the outside influence brought in.

Outside influence by groups like the Mormons (right Romney?), which violates their tax-exempt status as a non-political organization. May the IRS pursue this further, and continued preaching of politics from the pulpit and block voting! IRS -- stop this now!

Rather than repost everything that Sarah has posted-I will just say that she is right. The government has no right to legislate who among consenting human adults capable of making informed decisions can enter the legal state of marriage.

@Sarah
I agree with you. I fully support the right of homosexuals to be as miserable as heterosexuals.

If the voters in South Carolinia voted to disallow marriages between two different races for "religious reasons", I'm sure you wouldn't be offended in any way, am I right?

Don't give them any ideas. I'm sure if Santorum ever becomes president and implements sharia law, there will be a lot of ridiculous laws in place.

California places numerous issues on their ballot at every election - unlike most other states.

The law does clearly violate California's State Constitution since it would ban one group from receiving a privilege granted by the State that is denied other groups, but California also has bigamy laws.

So either the State has the right to regulate marriage, or they don't. I guess we'll see what the SCOTUS has to say.

I have gay friends who weren't allowed to visit their partner in the hospital because they weren't 'related.' Now, they had been together for over twenty-five years. So, I say if two consenting adults of whatever sex want to get married, so be it. If the Church objects then the Church doesn't have to recognise said marriages, from a civil law standpoint, all the legalities incurred in being married should apply. I imagine the divorce lawyers are currently rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of more potential clients:)

Sarah-3043284

So why is it necessary for Gays to insist that it be called 'Marriage', when 'Civil Union' could ensure the same legal rights and privileges?

No one has been able to answer that simple question.

I suspect that you will say 'Why Not' because you can't find a reason.

I find that most homophobes are merely insecure in their own sexuality; thus, they are afraid that they MAY be gay when they aren't. So, in order to denigrate that feeling, they become so anti-gay that it's ridiculous!! I'm not gay, but I have friends who are. They are all extremely intelligent, hard workers, and great friends. If any of them wanted to get married...I'd be there in a New York minute. Of course, I'm secure in my sexuality, I don't worry about anyone else's because it certainly doesn't affect me in the least!! Guys, put on your big boy panties and deal with it!!! You can't limit civil rights to specific groups.....if we ALL have civil rights; then that means ALL. The government does not have the right to discriminate!!

This country dedicates so much effort to policy how people should live, even when their behavior doesn't even affects the well-being of those who oppose it.

You can marry a horse if you wish, as long as you don't bring it inside my house, it is OK with me.

So why is it necessary for Gays to insist that it be called 'Marriage', when 'Civil Union' could ensure the same legal rights and privileges?

No one has been able to answer that simple question.

Actually-many people have answered it, but I will do so again.

It is about equality. For the same reasons that "separate but equal" was wrong-not allowing homosexuals to call their union the same thing is wrong. To call it a civil union is saying that it is not a marriage-it is less than a marriage in the eyes of the public and the law. It is a second class status-not equal to that of a true marriage. That is not acceptable.

Onemore,

"Tyranny of the majority"?? I thought it was called democracy? So a majority vote is tyranny?? Down with tyrannical democracy--is that it?

You though wrong. It's called a Republic, which means we don't vote on civil rights. Remember desegregation??? I mean, heck, I wasn't even alive yet, but I know enough that if you let "majority rule" determine who gets civil rights, you screw any chance for equality under the law.

Thank you everyone!

Hopefully, someday, Americans will finally grasp that a plurality is not the same as a majority. And when a plurality of motivated voters attempt to deny equal rights to another group of citizens, it is not the exercise of democracy, but is rather a shameful display of mass bigotry.

How about this, lets go by a book that has guided civilization for thousands of years: and it says between a man and a woman. Question: what makes this generation so much smarter than the hundred generations before it who have followed this old book, Bible.

Someone said that it would not hurt society. As soon as you make one move away from the human operational manual (bible) then where does it stop? Because nothing in that book is relevant anymore. It has worked for a long time, why should I take a chance on changing just for your convenience. It is called sodom for a reason.

Tim1mil personaly I could care less how many willing women a guy wants to marry because its not really my business. if she willing chooses to become part of a harem than that is her perogative. yes I am gay so there is your answer

It never fails to surprise me....the number of people that cannot seem to understand "Equal protection under the Law." It's really very simple, straightforward, and very adequate a concept.

Oh, they understand it. They just don't think it should apply to people they disapprove of. And they hate that it does.

Thank you UC...

But Roy, one more time...

Separate isn't equal.

And again, you already have a special religious term. Holy Matrimony. Religion stole "marriage" from the law and you are the ones with the issues. The onus is therefore on you, to separate yourself through the use of Holy Matrimony. It is not on the law to conitnue to make exceptions to civil rights in order to protect your delicate sensibilities.

Dav,

So you advocate for a theocrasy?

Beez,

You're paranoid. The end.

Way to rock - Sarah!

And why would one man want more than one wife? Crap, it's bad enough when one hits the PMS button, but to have two or more doing a "tag team" Holy Crap.

Bezelbubb- Homosexuals and pedophiles are not the same thing. The 2 have nothing to do with each other.

A man does not rape a littl boy because he is gay anymore than a man rapes a little girl because he is straight.

If you are too slow to grasp that-not sure what else I can say.

A perfect example of tyranny by the minority.

I ignore all the "This will lead to polygamy!" and "This is against God's will!" shouting.

When African Americans gained civil rights legislation, there were similar shouts of "They will marry all the white women and ruin the white race!" scare tactics.

America will only survive if we support equality.

ROY WILSON-336103

Sarah-3043284

So why is it necessary for Gays to insist that it be called 'Marriage', when'Civil Union' could ensure the same legal rights and privileges?

No one has been able to answer that simple question.

Roy, the answer is so simple that even you may be able to understand it.

In order to be married, you need a licenses issued by the State.

The California State Constitution prohibits denying a right or privilege to one group that is given to another group.

Do you undertand or is that too complex for you?

When homo marriages will start ending in messy divorces, like normal marriages often do, THEN the homos should be asked if they got what they asked for.

Be careful what you wish for...

Dav1bg

So happy you mentioned Sodom! Can you please see my post above and answer it! No one has even tried yet! #1.96

Can't wait to hear your response!

I would ask that you show the proof that it ISN"T a choice and there is a positively identified "gay" gene...waiting.

Simple.

Being "gay" deals with attraction... as homosexuality is the attraction to the same sex, and heterosexuality is the attraction to the opposite sex. Attraction defines your sexual preference, not the act. For example: Were you defined as heterosexual as a child? I bet you will say yes. Why? Were you having sex? I hope not... but you still classified yourself as straight, because you were attracted to the opposite sex. Thus, sexual preference deals with attraction.

Now, attraction is NOT a choice. Attraction is the result of chemicals within your brain, primarily dopamine and serotonin, being released due to external triggers. These chemicals cause your eyes to dilate, an increased blood flow to the skin (called "blushing" in laymen terms), pleasant and happy feelings, as well as a number of subconscious actions.

So, can you control the release of dopamine and serotonin in your brain? Go on, try it. Nope. How about increasing blood flow to your skin? Maybe you can try to dilate your eyes on command. Nope, none of that happens. Why? Because it is not a choice. You do not "choose" who you are attracted to, you just find yourself attracted to certain people. Thus, not a choice.

This really is not a difficult concept. Hell, for years we have heard sayings like: "Love at first sight". Or you hear people say: "There is just something about her/him". We accept these as natural occurrences, because we have all experienced this kind of unidentifiable attraction. This is no different.

Homosexuals experience the release of chemicals the same way you do, only their external triggers are same-sex, while yours is opposite-sex. They have no more "choice" in the release of chemicals than you do.

So, as you can see... not a choice.

Denver

See post 1.111 if you still don't "understand" why I took issue with your post.

pure democracy means "one person, one vote" which, in turn, means the majority wins every time.

Your "vote" has nothing to do with my human sovereignty, my human rights, or my human freedoms.

Get it yet?*

*By the way, I'm a straight man

Tim1mil why ask the question if you don't want an answer?

Whats next letting homosexuals own property? Letting them vote? When will this end? Time to start making them pay takes since the courts are recognizing them as human beings.

Sarah-3043284 "Thank you UC...But Roy, one more time...Separate isn't equal."

Nonsense. You say that it is a 'legal' issue, but legislation saying that a 'Civil Union' shall have the same rights and privileges as a "Marriage" solves any such issue.

"Separate but Equal" was struck down primarily because nothing was 'separate but equal'. Besides, how are Gays being 'separated'?

You'll have to try harder.

When did any of the people saying it was not a choice "decide" to be straight?

Did you have a choice? I did not (and I am straight.)

Why would someone who is naturally attracted to members of the opposite sex "choose" to have relations for the same sex-to whom they are not attracted-for the benefit of being ridiculed and tormented.

Half of teenagers who commit suicide are gay. Why would someone kill themselves if they could just "choose" to not be gay?

You want proof? I want proof-because your "choice" scenerio is far more out there than the natural one!

You know it used to be a black person could not marry a white or wait that was any colored person could not marry a white. While I am not trying to make this a race issue. There is a valid point.

Many racists used religion pretense to discriminate against interacial marriage. If one does not believe in interracial marraige dont marry outside of your race. Its easy.

If you dont want to marry a Gay or lesbian person (don't) real easy. I find it ironic that some of our citizens would attempt to limit the freedoms of some. While they demand freedoms like Gun control.

I happen to think we have the right to carry a gun. And I happen to think there is no room for one religions beliefs to trump that of the rest of the Nations citizens rights.

Please lets get religion out of our Government. There is supposed to be a separation. I am not Gay. And yet I find it insane to think that my personal beliefs should trump their rights.

“I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Ghandi

I honestly think GOD gives a dam about our sex lives. Unless it is causing harm to another. That is where sin comes in.

Job tip...become a divorce lawyer in Ca.....the market will skyrocket in the comming years!

... Sarah-3043284 your most likel a good person and not intentially " Lying or repeating the Progressive Marxist Liberal Commi Pig Lie "

But when the Civil Rights Amendment was voted on, 83% of the Republicans voted for it .... and only 60% of the Democrats voted for it.

Here is another fact ... the Civil rights Amendment was Shelved by Democrats for 10 years ... that's right the Democrats delay the Civil Rights Act for 10 years. Can you imagine having to put up with SEGREGATION for 10 additional years because Democrats ... another fact MLK was a life long Republican ... another fact the Ku Klux Klan is a Democratic faternity.

Just when you thought the court system got it right, you come to Newsvine to renew your faith in mankind's stupidity.

I personally don’t care one way or another. If the twinks want to get married and play house, go ahead. It doesn’t bother me at all and if I lived next to such a married pair, it still wouldn’t bother me.

Having said that, I can’t understand the logic of ruling thusly for one type of unconventional marriage without having the decision apply equally to other types, such as polygamy, as an example.

I would think proponents of other variations of unconventional unions could then argue they are being denied equal treatment under the law.

ROY WILSON-336103

I'm going to say that you can have all of the rights as a citizen-but you can not call yourself a citizen. Are you ok with that?

Why not? You have all the same rights and benefits? What does it matter what you are called?

The same applies here-it is not equal. It is second class status.

Why does someone with an opinion that goes against the liberal cause celebre get labeled with a perjorative term. If you don't agree with gay marriage you are labeled a homophobe and if you disagree with the annointed one you are labeled racist.

"Tyranny of the majority"?? I thought it was called democracy? So a majority vote is tyranny?? Down with tyrannical democracy--is that it?

I hope you don't vote. There should be a civics test so people this uninformed would not be allowed.

For the last time!!

We are NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!

We are a Democratic Republic.

America WAS FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

THE FOUNDING FATHERS SOUGHT TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL FROM "THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY".

The founding fathers would have applauded today's court decision because it keeps a vocal majority from impinging on the rights of the individual. Just like the constitution guarantees. Exactly as the founding fathers planned.

Yay America, the greatest country on earth.

"A perfect example of the tyranny of the majority when it was passed.

I look foward to this law being shot down at every level."

Tyranny of the majority?!? You lefty libs are always screaming democracy this and democracy that, as long as its voting in your favor. But as soon as something happens you don't like, you call it tyranny of the majority.

Let me get this right, the majority vote doesn't count unless it pleases the leftist ideals?

One last thing. Tyranny usually happens when a minority feels it has the right to impose its ideals on the majority.

Legalize gay marriage and abortions. We need to move onto bigger issues like China, nukes in Iran and North Korea, a national debt nearing $20T? What is the limit? $50T? $100 Trillion? Everyone is focused on SEX! Lets move the conversation out of the bedroom and into what affects us ALL!

Nonsense. You say that it is a 'legal' issue, but legislation saying that a 'Civil Union' shall have the same rights and privileges as a "Marriage" solves any such issue.

Really, Roy?

So this all comes down to a word? The use of "marriage" in defining a union.

Seriously? This is what YOUR life has come down to? Arguing that certain people should not be able to use a word. Your life is so bleak and empty that you now spend your time arguing over a WORD. Can you see how sad and pathetic that is?

We have gone from "A rose by any other name..." by Shakespeare, to a group of people wasting money and time on who gets to use a WORD.

Here is my personal opinion: There is no reason in our nation that gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to have a legal marriage.

Here is what will happen: The US Supreme Court will eventually rule on this, first deciding what really wealthy people and corporations want, and then vote based on that. They'll then wrap themselves up in the Constitution and make some arguement as if they ever considered the Constitution at all in their ruling.

Roy,

No I don't. Separate is fine, in religion. You have the issue, separate yourself from it with the use of Holy Matrimony. Separate is not fine under the law.

Marriage is a legal contractual, property agreement. Why should the law change, to suit your whims??? Marriage is marriage, is marriage, is marriage. Mortgages, are mortgages, are mortgages. Contracts are contracts are contracts.

You can restate your illogical point in many different ways Roy, what you aren't doing is adding any logic to it.

Still waiting for ONE single person who likes to use the phrase "sodomy" to respond to #1.96. One bible expert. There seem to be so many on here-yet none can answer a simple question about a story which they cite so often.

I stand by my original statement, GulfVet.

The purpose of the Constitutional Republic is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That is exactly what is happening now.

aliveinsd--YAY for you! Amazing how the righteous right wink and encourage illegals, and want to oppress other's?

And to all you idiots who claim that polygamy is the same as gay marriage--I notice in ALL your posts, not one of you defined polygamy as one WOMAN marrying two MEN.

Nor do any of the groups of religious nuts that advocate it--they all just want the power vested in MEN. And that is one good reason why polygamy is bad for society.

To zavier weed--if your daughter can give consent to marrying you, society has a VERY good reason to deny that--genetic flaws are much more likely to be passed on when they are concentrated by two people with common genes.

David Walker--

Thanks for my laugh of the day!!! ;-}

Hey Roy,

Creating something equal in purpose but seperate in identity would be unconstitution imo. I said many years ago when my conservative friends were supporting civil unions as a way to get out of being opposed to homosexual marriage that to be for those unions would ultimately give us the marriages they opposed.

Sarah,

The simple legal argument is that marriage is a public act with a public purpose. It isn't for those who oppose homosexual marriage to make a case why so much as the duty is on those who support homosexual marriage to show how society benefits. This is not about holy matrimony. Vaughn Walker's opinion was amazing. He argued there that when the California constitution was written, for instance, that the framers of it had intended all along that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. It was not about what the constitution said, or meant, but what Mr. Walker wanted it to become. This is a very bad quality in a judge. You might be happy that you "won" this round, but someday another judge might use the same jurisprudential logic to rule on something you oppose, and you will have nothing to support you.

Anyhow, as an atheist I did not vote for Proposition 8 on religious grounds. I frankly don't much care if homosexuals are allowed to marry, but the concept of changing the law simply because we want to, and based entirely on the idea that someone claims to love someone else, is a bad way to do it. The better argument is what does homosexual marriage do to advance the interests of society, but in the context of whether or not there is another method by which to achieve the same result.

The logic behind homosexual marriage, at least in my state, is that X loves Y, and so should be able to do what he wants. Far up above some people tried to explain why X loves Y and loves Z doesn't work the same way, but this is a completely fatuous argument. We still have awkward child custody issues with homosexual couples (specifically because no homosexual couple can procreate within that union), and we have other problems, like SS benefits and the like. So the claim that the tax code, of all stupid reasons, is why we can allow two people, but not more than two people, to marry, is just dumb. We are reduced to altering the law based upon a person's emotional claim, and no more. This is a VERY bad way to run a constituitional republic.

We are not a democratic republic; we are a constitutional republic, as we are governed by a constitution, not by the majority.

Beez,

You need to take a history class. During the civil rights movement, the ideologies of the parties did 180's. "Dixiecrats" became republicans because they disapproved the the 1964 Civil Rights Amendment, and Republicans became Democrats because they dissaproved of Republicans.

GulfVet,

You need to apply the "but for" test. But for certain people's bigotted views and comments full of judgment and scorn, and their attempts to use their religion to deny basic rights to our fellow citizens, most of us wouldn't have boo to say about anyone's religion.

There is no but for when it comes to illogical reasonings in defense of the denial of equal protection. Don't confuse tolerance and passivity.

John,

Literally, read the post directly above yours.

Win one for the Constitution!

Lets hope that the Supreme court is as logical as Sarah here.

Well, Indie, you can be a victim of whatever impulse or chemical runs across your mind, me however, I am a man of choice, and not just in matters of attraction. I am in control of my choices, I am in control of my body, I am in control of the path I chose in life. Sure, my body will fight me, because it was engineered to desire things that I deprive it of, but I learn that through conditioning I can overcome these things and become a better person.

Now I know to you it's oppressive to 'condition' a homosexual in anything, and that's your belief. However, no matter how hard you try, you cannot deny that we have the power of conditioning. This is the factor all the 'gay activist' ignore or leave out. But I believe in conditioning, because without it we devolve as a society. If we choose no to condition ourselves, we become impulsive, out of control animals. I personally prefer a society ruled by level heads, and not impulse.

Wake up now! Spot on

A lot of posters claim that marriage is a religious institution. Does that mean you are also against Atheist marriage? That an opposite sex Atheist couple can't marry, but must form a "civil union?" What about all the states that recognise "common law" marriage. They don't even have to get a licence to be considered legally married. By insisting that marriage is an institution owned by religion, you are essentially attempting to invalidate the marriages of anyone not married through your church. Your faith does not own the word "marriage."

It's just too complicated for Roy to comprehend.

You can't fix dumb.

Rich,

Fail. Marriage is not a public act. I already addressed that in my first post...

Nor is the public or society a party to the contract. The consideration is only between the two legal adults. That's why society doesn't get a share in everyone's divorce, we don't sign the lisense, we don't get the kids every other weekend.

What consideration on society's part is brought into a marriage between two people? What do they offer, in exchange for what from the couple??? How is that exchange concrete consideration that can be enforced? How does society as a whole have the capacity to contract as an entire entity? How does society breach a marriage agreement between two people? How does the couple breach it with society? How does the court, when ruling on a divorce, weight society's share?

We "changed the law simply because we wanted to" to pass DOMA, which is clearly unconstitutional. If anything this is returning the law to secularism, after a ridiculous foray into religion.

ROY WILSON-336103

Civil Union may not comply by definition for companies' benefit programs and the definition tends to be interpreted on a company by company basis.

Furthermore, whether married or by civil union, gay couples cannot file a federal return as married filing jointly. Nor can they secure federal benefits based upon their spouse.

Since I don't prepare any returns for anyone that is opening gay, I never really followed that aspect of the tax code. Interestingly enough the law was enacted under Clinton, not junior. The law that defined marriage as between male and female.

Wlee,said: "Jesus says love the man but hate the sin"

Hi Wlee,

It was Gandhi, and not Jesus who said "hate the sin and love the sinner" It is disheartening to see so many things being attributed to bible quotes that were never even put into the bible.

Sarah. I read the post above mine (before you even told me to), and the post was a response to an argument that was much weaker than mine.

Did you read and understand my argument? Not likely if your gonna lump it with some lame outburst by some other poster.

Indie

Now, attraction is NOT a choice.

Wrong. Attraction is a choice - you choose weather to respond or not to respond to the stimulus and in what way you choose to respond. Somewhere in your life, you decided to respond in particular way because you decided the stimulus was pleasurable and want pleasureable experience to continue.

John,

This has been said everyway but Tuesday, however apparently you need Tuesday...

Let me get this right, the majority vote doesn't count unless it pleases the leftist ideals?

No, the majority vote doesn't count on matters pertaining to civil rights and equal protection.

If it did, we'd still have segregated schools in Mississippi, and abortion would be illegal in red states.

We're a Republic, we don't vote on civil rights.

We're a Republic, we don't vote on civil rights.

We're a Republic, we don't vote on civil rights.

DB,

Action is a choice, attraction is not.

On the Civil Union vs. Marriage argument,

Why not have all "marriages" be called civil unions. Everyone has to go to the courthouse and get their paper signed. Then they have a civil union. Then if they desire, they can go to their church/synagogue/hall whatever and get "married" if they so desire.

The Pro-Gay marriage people will be satisfied because they will have their equal rights because everybody has to get a civil union (prior to a church ceremony). The Anti Gay marriage people will be satisfied because it is not called "marriage." The Anti-religion people would be satisfied because it removes power from the "priests/reverends/etc." to perform a civil act.

Then it would be up to each church to decide whether they want to accept gay marriage or not.

What say you to that?

Sure, my body will fight me, because it was engineered to desire things that I deprive it of, but I learn that through conditioning I can overcome these things and become a better person.

Wow, I've never heard such an articulate statement about why the Right has such pent-up, sexual frustration and aggression before ... thank you for that. The next step is to finally admit the closeted feelings you've been displacing.

John, all kidding aside, this has nothing to do with sexual perversions of "choice", and everything to do with sheer blindness to science. Have you ever heard of Triple-X syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, XYY syndrome, or Turner syndrome?

These are all human chromosome abnormalities ... and they say nothing of "choice". Nature can't even get "nature" right some of the time, and you (and people like you) are going to sit here and tell us about people "choosing" their sexuality?

What of the groups I mention above ... do they not have the right to marry in your world as well?

Sarah

Marriage is not a public act

FAIL

If it wasn't then, you would not be required to register with the government. Marriage has both public and private implications.

I'm late to the discussion, but it is fun to see all the Trolls out in fine force.

Nothing gets the trolls out like a good discussion of homosexual rights, other than anti-abortion, anti-women.

The trolls always come out when they have an opportunity to take some rights away from other people. Whether its the right to live free from being shot, the right to control your own body, to breath clean air, to drink clean water, or to have the same rights as anyone else.

That being said: some people have said why not accept civil unions as the same as marriage, they are not the same. The rights and privileges historically granted to a spouse do not attach to a person in a civil union. DOMA does not defend marriage, it simply takes rights away.

And in what way does granting the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage to a same sex couple diminish those rights, privileges and responsibilities from a heterosexual couple ?

Sarah not only has a great smile but she can debate with the best of them. Are you an attorney?

You again failed to grasp my argument.

Or you have missed former issues with posts from many lefty libs. Again, as I said, they are always crying "democracy this, democracy that" meaning they are the ones crying about what the majority wants.

However, when they disagree with the majority they suddenly become educated about the issue and accept the government as it is. Again they only do this when it falls in line with their ideals.

I am pointing out their error, and you keep telling me something I already agree with. Again, I'm sorry you fail the grasp the full extent of my argument, but you wouldn't be the first.

Sarah, .....

You again failed to grasp my argument.

Or you have missed former issues with posts from many lefty libs. Again, as I said, they are always crying "democracy this, democracy that" meaning they are the ones crying about what the majority wants.

However, when they disagree with the majority they suddenly become educated about the issue and accept the government as it is. Again they only do this when it falls in line with their ideals.

I am pointing out their error, and you keep telling me something I already agree with. Again, I'm sorry you fail the grasp the full extent of my argument, but you wouldn't be the first.

The problem with the term "marriage" is the lack of legal description. The assumption by the far majority of people for thousands of year is that the term meant between a man and a woman. We live in a day where people want to take terms and define them to their own personal meaning.

The forefathers failed to see this reality and so have left a gaping whole in our system.

"Attraction is a choice"

It is? So when my body reacts to stimuli, that's my choice? When a man gets an erection from seeing something he finds stimulating, that's his choice?

Wow, I didn't know that's how physiology worked.

"you choose weather to respond or not to respond to the stimulus and in what way you choose to respond."

You clearly can't tell the difference between physiological responses and willful behavior. Arguments from ignorance are an automatic fail.

Buck, if you wanna hit on MILF's go to a dating website.

DB,

You register your car with the government, does that make it a public vehicle. You register your gun with the government, does that make it a public gun? Marriage is a contract.

From above...

Fail. Marriage is not a public act. I already addressed that in my first post...

Nor is the public or society a party to the contract. The consideration is only between the two legal adults. That's why society doesn't get a share in everyone's divorce, we don't sign the lisense, we don't get the kids every other weekend.

What consideration on society's part is brought into a marriage between two people? What do they offer, in exchange for what from the couple??? How is that exchange concrete consideration that can be enforced? How does society as a whole have the capacity to contract as an entire entity? How does society breach a marriage agreement between two people? How does the couple breach it with society? How does the court, when ruling on a divorce, weight society's share?

John Doe,

You are mixing the "choice" of ACTIONS with the "choice" of ATTRACTION. Two completely different things.

But you have confirmed that ATTRACTION, as a result of chemicals, is not a choice. But the ACTION to act on that attraction IS a choice. So, what you are saying is that being attracted to the same sex is NOT a choice, but acting on said attraction is a choice. That is correct, as all actions are a choice, but the underlying attraction for these particular actions are not.

Of course, at this point you try to alter the original discussion and inject a notion of superiority with the line: "I am in control of my choices, I am in control of my body, I am in control of the path I chose in life." Do you feel better about yourself now? Do you feel like a big man? Good for you... here, let me get you a cookie.

You are now arguing that heterosexuals have the right to CHOOSE to act on their attractions, but homosexuals do not. This, once again, gets into the realm of denying certain classes of people the right to make their own decisions. You obviously suffer from a superiority complex over other people, specifically homosexuals, and thus you feel deserving of rights that they should not have. You are making the claim that heterosexuals have the right to "choose" to act on their attractions, but homosexuals should not have this same right, because you believe it is wrong. On top of that, you want to "condition" them to live the life that YOU dictate.

Both of these notions directly oppose the concept of freedom, because you are denying freedom to those people. You are actually saying that they should not have the same freedom as you... that they are not free to act on their attraction, but you are. Furthermore, you justify this denial of freedom with the notion that society will "devolve" if they are allowed to make choices based on their attractions, the same way you do.

Now we come to the real issue. If you want to dictate how people live, and deny them the same freedoms you yourself enjoy, you must make the argument as to WHY their choices would be detrimental to society. How will society suffer from their choices? How will society be worse off, if they are allowed to marry? Because if you are going to deny a certain class of people the same rights you enjoy, there must be an overarching benefit to society that justifies this denial of freedom.

Oh... and make sure to provide factual evidence to support your claims. You know, facts that actually prove a detrimental effect... not the incoherent ramblings of bigoted opinions.

John,

Than you should address those you see doing so in a specific manner. Generalizing about "libbies" gets you know where.

John Doe: above you state that you are a man of choice. Hmmmm. I have ABSOLUTELY NO control over the chemical, physical, and hydraulic activities occurring right this minute in my liver. Why should I believe I have any more control over those exact same processes when they occur in my brain?

I have never seen one single valid argument for why same-sex marriage should not be allowed.

"Its always been that way" is no more valid than "because I said so" as any child under the age of 18 can attest.

"Marriage is meant for procreation" is not valid as there is no procreation requirement.

"God meant marriage for one man and one woman" is not valid as any reference to the bible would require polygamy.

In short, there really is no valid reason to take a right away from someone.

Sarah,

Thank you. Keep it up.

I just don't understand why so many people cannot see exact correlation between this issue and the civil rights issue. Great women and men fought this fight before, have we forgotten? It is actually sad that gay marriage is even an issue. This is one of those inalienable rights the right wing loves to hark back to.

Can anyone answer me this, the last line of the article says that they are now pushing for a November vote in Cali to repeal the Amendment. Why? If it is unconstitutional, which there is no doubt it is a blatant civil rights violation and unconstitutional, why must they wait to vote on it. Just overturn it.

@David Walker:

You're just bored because Raymond C post was not so interesting today.

Sarah

We're a Republic, we don't vote on civil rights.

Wrong or then the 1964 civil rights act should be never have happened. We are supposed to be a nation of laws - not legal decisions. Laws, including all rights are to be legislated appropriately. The whole point of the Bill of rights was to make it difficult for the Federal government to trample on the citizens "god given" rights.

Today is to use the courts to re-define what is right and wrong. That is activism.

Wrong. Attraction is a choice - you choose weather to respond or not to respond to the stimulus and in what way you choose to respond.

DB

WRONG. You DO NOT choose whether or not dopamine and serotonin are released in your brain. You DO NOT choose whether or not the blood flow to your skin is increased, or if your eyes dilate.

You are mixing the "response" to this attraction with the attraction itself. The response and resulting ACTIONS you take are a choice. The initial chemical reaction that causes attraction is NOT a choice.

A pretty girl that you find attractive comes up and talks to you. You find her attractive, this is NOT a choice. But you CHOOSE how you act, talk, or interact with this girl. The attraction you feel is NOT a choice, the resulting actions you choose ARE the choice.

Jesus Christ, this is not a difficult concept. I am pretty sure that basic human physiology is taught in high school. You did graduate high school, right?

Hi Sarah,

The fact we are arguing about whether the state can be allowed to deny homosexuals the ability to marry ought to be significant evidence to you that this is a public act. But I thank you for your reply, and here is why. Your claim that marriage is NOT a public act means that you can have absolutely no argument against anyone possessing the ability to offer consent from marrying whoever they want, or into whatever group they want. Which is exactly one of the fears that some people have about the logic attached to your side of the debate.

Using your logic we must allow every other coupling (or more) so long as those involved can consent to the agreement. Civil rights must trump tax code provisions, don't you think?

woot! freedom 1, religious lunatics 0!

dslsca,

By stating that (1.176), you are allowing pedofilia, murder, etc. Are you stating that they are ok to do because they are "natural urges."

I do believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, and that belief allows me to "choose" to not follow those instincts. But if someone else "chooses" to follow those instincts, I will not prohibit them. The difference is that a majority of people (rightfully so) believe that pedofilia is wrong and murder is wrong. Therefore that "choice" is a bad choice and must be suppressed.

IndieParty "Really, Roy? So this all comes down to a word? The use of "marriage" in defining a union."

Apparently so, since Gays seem to have such an aversion to using the term 'Civil Union' instead of 'Marriage'. If they have the same legal rights and privileges, why the 'fixation'. A majority of the citizens have a problem with Gays using the term 'Marriage', but would have no problem with the term 'Civil Union.

Nobody has come up with a logical argument for why the use of the 'term' Marriage is essential for Gays, when Civil Union accomplishes the same legal goal - without all of the controversy.

Sarah,

If it occurs 100% of the time, its not a generalization. This is the first article, literally the first article where I've seen Lefties agree that the majority vote doesn't have ultimate authority.

Indie,

You fail to see that even heterosexuals -> ARE <- expected to control their attractions to the opposite sex. Especially in religion. You ever heard of no sex before marriage? Oh, I will agree most heterosexuals don't make it to marriage celibate, but I'm not praising that. Yes, homosexuals, and heterosexuals should be expected to control their sexual impulses.

It's not oppression to have clear definition of what marriage is.

The only argument gay activist have is that of "They can't help it". They have to be gay, and they have to marry someone of the same sex to be happy. This is a lie. Conditioning. We are all expected to condition ourselves in one way or another, whether your gay or not.

Being "gay" deals with attraction... as homosexuality is the attraction to the same sex, and heterosexuality is the attraction to the opposite sex. Attraction defines your sexual preference, not the act. For example: Were you defined as heterosexual as a child? I bet you will say yes. Why? Were you having sex? I hope not... but you still classified yourself as straight, because you were attracted to the opposite sex. Thus, sexual preference deals with attraction.

Now, attraction is NOT a choice. Attraction is the result of chemicals within your brain, primarily dopamine and serotonin, being released due to external triggers. These chemicals cause your eyes to dilate, an increased blood flow to the skin (called "blushing" in laymen terms), pleasant and happy feelings, as well as a number of subconscious actions.

So, can you control the release of dopamine and serotonin in your brain? Go on, try it. Nope. How about increasing blood flow to your skin? Maybe you can try to dilate your eyes on command. Nope, none of that happens. Why? Because it is not a choice. You do not "choose" who you are attracted to, you just find yourself attracted to certain people. Thus, not a choice.

This really is not a difficult concept. Hell, for years we have heard sayings like: "Love at first sight". Or you hear people say: "There is just something about her/him". We accept these as natural occurrences, because we have all experienced this kind of unidentifiable attraction. This is no different.

Homosexuals experience the release of chemicals the same way you do, only their external triggers are same-sex, while yours is opposite-sex. They have no more "choice" in the release of chemicals than you do.

So, as you can see... not a choice.

Are you kidding me?Do you think that just because to people that happen to be gay are automatically attracted to each other? Ah... No! Attraction is a choice, people Choose who they want to love everyday. Some people have a type of person they are attracted to and some people don't. So your statements don't make since in the justification of homosexuality. I know of too many stories of men and women that got married, had children and got up one day and said I'm gay. If being gay was a choice then no gay person could ever have sex with someone of the opposite sex, but it happens all the time.

Sarah, since you believe that Jesus, the bible, and so on or unproven, can you prove that being gay is not a choice, with something other than your opinion?

DB,

CONGRESS voted on the civil rights act, which was necessary to ensure that... wait for it... SOUTHERN STATES NO LONGER ALLOWED CIVIL RIGHTS TO BE VOTED ON!!!

It guarenteed equal application of the 14th Amendment, with guarenteed equal application of the Bill of Rights. What was going on before we passed the civil rights act was once again... VOTING ON CIVIL RIGHTS and leaving them in the hands of states.

Did anyone just hear that thunk, because it was my head hitting the desk.

John,

Stop making excuses. No it doesn't, get over it and argue on the subtantive elements of the article.

Polygamy was made illegal in America as a direct attack on Mormonism, look it up! I am not a Mormon, and I have been married to one man for 40 years, BUT I see nothing wrong with religiously based polygamy as long as it's between consenting adults. But using the bugaboo of polygamy as a argument against gay marriage is specious. Facts about polygamy in U.S. :

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormon faith is formally known, practiced polygamy before the Civil War and then banned it in 1890 when the federal government threatened to deny statehood to Utah.

* In 1879, the Supreme Court said the First Amendment did not protect polygamy. In Reynolds v. United States, Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote "Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people."

JayCFO-3768452 "ROY WILSON-336103 Civil Union may not comply by definition for companies' benefit programs and the definition tends to be interpreted on a company by company basis."

You're missing the whole point of the discussion. That issue could be easily resolved by legislation.

The issue is "Why do Gays insist on using the term 'Marriage', when the term 'Civil Union' could accomplish the same goal - without all of the controversy."

I couldn't bear to read through all the comments (as some of them were just so...lol), but has anyone even addressed the governmental involvement in marriage?

Consider that in every culture, a union between a man and woman was considered to be a 'sacred' or 'religious' (on some level or other) event, centuries if not decades ago.

Why the involvement from the government? Why the need to dictate this area of a person's life? What happened to Separation between 'Church' and 'State'?

Ken,

I don't have to prove anything. My belief is that this is a matter of indiviual liberty and civil rights. I only have to prove something if I'm trying to infringe upon that liberty and those rights, i.e. banning gay people from marrying.

RoyWilson

Nobody has come up with a logical argument for why the use of the 'term' Marriage is essential for Gays, when Civil Union accomplishes the same legal goal - without all of the controversy.

Here's an idea. Allow each church to define which "holy matrimony" unions they are willing to sanction and refuse to perform weddings at their discretion. Oh ...... they already do that, don't they? Then what is the problem?

The term "marriage" already has several definitions, the number depending on which dictionary you consult. Language is in a constant state of flux and there is no reason to hold the definition of marriage constant just so that you can continue to justify denying Constitutional rights to a segment of our society.

Dav1bg

How about this, lets go by a book that has guided civilization for thousands of years: and it says between a man and a woman. Question: what makes this generation so much smarter than the hundred generations before it who have followed this old book, Bible....

Funny cause knowing the Bible like I do I'm pretty sure it authorizes marriage between a man and multiple women. I'm pretty sure it also authorizes having mistresses along with slaves. I am also not sure what civilization the Bible ever ran. Israel? That was under the Torah and it was a pretty genocidal and brutal country in its own right. Rome worked the same under the Holy Roman Empire as it did under Rome proper. With the possible exception that Rome took what it wanted while the Holy Romans took what it wanted during Jihad.

Anywayz, leave these people alone. There is zero reason for discrimination against any peaceable citizen. Regardless of a judge being appointed by a Democrat or Republican the judges job is the enforce the Constitution and the Constitution doesn't authorize discrimination. Equality before the law.

Anytime a majority gets together to vote away a minorities rights it is every judges responsibility to put a stop to that. And if the courts won't do it then armed citizens should.

Mind your own damn business and the world would be a much better place. BTW all you control freaks I want to know how much of my tax dollars do you get to support yourselves, your kids and your families? Until you can honestly answer zero you are too damn irresponsible to tell anyone else what to do.

Hi army,

I think on both sides of this debate in California there is a high level of distrust in our system. Those who supported Prop 8, like me, don't understand why the District judge made the claim the proposition was unfair because it was religious. In my case I don't get Mr. Walker simply because I'm an atheist. For others I think the argument they might make is that they want to prevent a change to civil marriage.

On the other side I think those happy that the 9th Circuit ruled this way don't have much faith that the USSC will follow the same path. I don't know how they will decide the future case, but I would doubt they would accept Judge Walker's opinion as written. So both sides will continue to fight, but those opposed must get this on the ballot so that no matter what the USSC does, assuming they succeed at the ballot box, the issue will be dead.

Ah, but the Bush supreme court will rule against the lower courts; just watch. Roe vs Wade is in danger with the current court. They have ruled that corporations have the rights of humans and it isn't going to stop there. The almighty dollar rules the highest court in the land. The Catholic Church has to pay for birth control pills, oh, but wait, they can fire anyone for not being fit to provide their religious message. Would you take the chance of asking for anything the Church doesn't approve of?

Sarah,

I'm not making excuses, just highlighting what I see that others will blatantly ignore.

Just one more comment to add.

Why a man would want to get married is a mystery.

Why a man would want to get married to more than one person is a bigamystery.

Sarah,

Great comments as usual! Keep up the fine work. I like the way you think.

Roy,

Civil Unions do not equal marriage. Now if there were law stating they were exactly the same thing that would be fine and then both gay married couples and heterosexual married couples could use the two terms equally as being totally synonymous. But I don't think that's what your suggesting. Seems like you want a different term for the "gay type" of marriage. Not the same thing then is it?

Wlee,

You seem to assume that one who believes in God has to be against homosexuality and gay marriage. Not so. Lots of living proof. Now it may be true with your particular religious view of God, but all of us who believe in a God don't believe in the same things. I don't know, but I suspect that many gays believe in God, but probably have some problems with particular religions who cast them in some evil light.

For believers. God made all of us. Did he make some mistakes with some who happen to be gay? For most versions of God, that wouldn't be possible because he/she doesn't make mistakes. I've seen and heard enough evidence to be convinced that sexual preference is not some execution of free will. It is what it is. Now I might be willing to buy that there are some people who may actually have no real preference who may indeed choose to be gay, but I think that is purely an outcome of being bi-sexual. It could potentially go either way. Some studies suggest that we are all bi-sexual to some degree but that most of us a highly weighted one way or the other. If you think about it, that's kind of what sexual preference means. The wide acceptance of that term actually implies that we all really subconsciously know that. We don't talk about sexual mandates.

Bottom line is that for all you against gay marriage, it really has zero impact on you. It may make you queasy or disgusted or whatever, but that isn't a real impact on your life. You can choose to ignore it. However, allowing gay marriage does have a real impact on the lives of gay couples who desire it, both legally and spiritually. It just isn't right to deny them of that because you don't like it.

Personally, I think we live in a world that has far too much hate. Marriage can be an expression of loving commitment. That's a good thing, and I'm fine with a married couple being just two people with no restrictions on the sex of those two people. I do understand that some people are hesitant to accept this. Change isn't always easy to accept. But this is change that is long overdue. Let it happen and move on, before long you may grow used to it and even possibly see the value in it. I personally am into heterosexual relationships, but I don't view gays as my enemies or in any way a threat to my identity. I think they have every right to have the same choices that I do and I'm not about to pass judgement on them based upon who they chose to love or what they do to express it. That is up to them.

Ken,

I don't have to prove anything. My belief is that this is a matter of indiviual liberty and civil rights. I only have to prove something if I'm trying to infringe upon that liberty and those rights.

Way to side step the question there.

Indie,

You fail to see that even heterosexuals -> ARE <- expected to control their attractions to the opposite sex. Especially in religion. You ever heard of no sex before marriage? Oh, I will agree most heterosexuals don't make it to marriage celibate, but I'm not praising that. Yes, homosexuals, and heterosexuals should be expected to control their sexual impulses.

It's not oppression to have clear definition of what marriage is.

Religious expectations to control your attractions are NOT LAWS.

There are no LAWS that say it is illegal for heterosexuals to have premarital sex. There are no LAWS that say heterosexuals must uphold the sanctity of marriage. There are no LAWS that make it illegal to get a divorce. No one goes to jail if they give in to their attractions and cheat. No one goes to jail if they give in to their impulses and have a threesome.

Your religious expectation ARE NOT LAWS! THAT is the difference.

You want to live by your religious expectations, fine. No one is stopping you. But you CAN NOT make laws that force other people to live by these same rules.

Why is it so difficult for you to MIND YOUR OWN F***ING BUSINESS? Live and let live. Why is that so difficult? You live your own religious life, let other people live their life.

Seriously? What the f*** is so horrible about your own life that you have to consume yourself with the lives of others? I seriously want to know why you can not mind your own God-damn business?

BTW... latest survey I read found that over 90% of people have premarital sex. So how is that religious-based "control" working out for you?

"Since this all about "rights" what do you say to the man who wants to marry two women? If he loves them both, why can't he marry them both? If two homosexuals can marry, why can't one straight man marry two or three women? Please, a gay person, answer this question."

I am not gay but I will answer this as well. Since a man and woman can legally marry, why can't a man marry two women? Why can't a women marry three men? Hey, it's all about rights, right? Let's just take every "right" and extrapolate it out to the extreme to make it seem illogical. Just brilliant.

This is a pathetic and ridiculous argument. It is very similar to the argument posed by Rick Santorum which helped to create his Google problem.

"You fail to see that even heterosexuals -> ARE <- expected to control their attractions to the opposite sex. Especially in religion. You ever heard of no sex before marriage?"

That is not controlling one's attraction. That's controlling one's ACTIONS. You seriously don't understand the difference? Being celibate means actively refraining from sex. It doesn't mean that a person is no longer attracted to anyone; in fact, the term comes with the implication that attraction is very much still present. That's what sets it apart from asexuality.

"Oh, I will agree most heterosexuals don't make it to marriage celibate, but I'm not praising that. Yes, homosexuals, and heterosexuals should be expected to control their sexual impulses."

As humans, we all exercise control over our sexual urges. That's why you don't see people screwing and masturbating in the streets.

"The only argument gay activist have is that of "They can't help it"."

Okay, nobody who argues for same-sex marriage says this. Your mind is so twisted against the prospect of homosexuality being a normal aspect of human sexuality that this is how you perceive an argument to be. The argument is that homosexuality, like all sexuality, is IN-BORN, unchangeable, and harmless.

The truth is, none of you can form a valid argument against why same-sex marriage should remain illegal. None of you! There's no good reason. You cite morality, religion, procreation, and it's all crap. None of your reasons fall only with homosexual people; they end up restricting other heterosexuals from being able to marry as well: atheists, infertile people, post-menopausal women, and people who just don't want kids. Bring us something new, or shut up.

Sarah-3043284 "Roy, You can restate your illogical point in many different ways Roy, what you aren't doing is adding any logic to it."

You have yet to answer my basic question;

"Why do Gays insist on using the term 'Marriage' when 'Civil Unions' could accomplish the same goal - without the controversy."

There is no meaningful 'separate but equal' argument that applies, since they would not be denied any legal rights or 'separated' in any meaningful way.

I think this is why the US is the laughing stock of the world. One of THE most expensive campaigns in the United States of America wasn't for building homes, or getting Banks to pay for what they did to the United States economy, or trying to get our rights as both consumers and human beings back... it was jumping into the personal lives of guys who like guys and girls who like girls, and telling them they can't wed. Really?

Is it REALLY that important? Is it really more important to SMITE the homosexuals than to get a roof back over the heads of families, or straightening out our screwed up economy? Or maybe putting all this money forth to put food in the mouths of starving, homeless children? THIS is what the "moral majority" fought for? People like this make me sad I'm part of the human race. The sheer ignorance and stupidity is mind warping.

STOP PRETENDING TO BE A CONSERVATIVE BY CALLING OTHERS LIBBIES

Really, you are all about big government, as long as it is big government that does what you want. Therefore, you aren't a conservative as far as law is concerned, only as far as religion. And you probably pretend to not like the Catholic Church.....

Legal Conservatives and most liberals I know already are done with this arguement. The only people left are those who want religion in government, and people who can't think long enough to actually change their mind. That will be handled over the years as they die off and their kids grow up in a world that makes a bit more sense.

IF YOU DON'T WANT GAY MARRIAGE, DON'T GET GAY MARRIED.

So basically if you want something to pass just live in a state that has a majority of likeminded people...please people! We are taking about California...one of the most liberal states anywhere. What should be bothering ALL of us is that if we get enough people in one state that believe in murder, rape, pedophelia etc. as being okay then look out America because it will somehow become socially acceptable and there will be nothing we can do to stop it! By the way, to all the ignorant that state they know the Bible...polygamy may have happened back then but it was not condoned by God just as MANY things happen now that are not condoned by God.

Buck Naked Sr

I doubt your dog or cat would want to marry you. Homosexuality is well documented in the rest of the animal kingdom, so I doubt your dog or cat is interested in being with a bigot.

And we're back to the beginning...

Rich,

This is why your argument fails, in every single way you can possibly try to argue it. It was also my first post, which you obviously didn't read...

The polygamy/group marriage argument: Fails. There isn't enough public interest to support the complications surrounding accross the board legal polygamy. We would have to spend the time and money rewriting tax law, insurance law, family law, probate law, yada, yada, yada.

The pedophilia/inanimate object/besitality argument: Fails. Children, animals, and random objects lack recognized legal capacity under the law. They can't consent, they can't contract, they don't get to vote, yada, yada, yada. Continuing, homosexuality is not a mental illness, it's not listed in the DSM-IV and has no negative impact on society.

The incest argument: Incest is based on abuse, power, and control. Show me two immediate family members, who had healthy, non-abusive upbringings, know that they're related, and still want to marry, and I'll say go for it.

The marriage is religious argument: Fails. Marriage is a contractual property agreement predating all organized religion. You're thinking of Holy Matrimony. Nor is the public or society a party to the contract. The consideration is only between the two legal adults. That's why society doesn't get a share in everyone's divorce, we don't sign the lisense, we don't get the kids every other weekend.

The majority rules argument: Fails. We're a Republic, we don't vote on civil rights, and marriage is a civil right. SCOTUS has ruled in one 14 different times. This means you need a reason that passes strict scrutiny to prohibit marriage. None of the following are legal reasons... The Bible, your personal beliefs, Jesus, God, religion, your morals, unproven paranoia.

The state shouldn't place no religion, above religion: Fails. Nothing doesn't equal something. Overturning religious based legislation, in no way supports Athieism. Again I thank you Indie for this fantastic example... If you're pushing against a wall, and you stop, does that mean the wall is now pushing you? No. If a lack of religion constituted a support of Athieism, we would have to write disclaimers on every single, non religious, thing in the country.

The I don't want it in my face argument: Fails. Get over yourself. There are just as many people out there that don't want your relationship in their face either, does that mean you should live in a closet? No. Get over yourself. If you don't like something, don't pay attention. Not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringment on your freedoms. Call me when someone forces you to be gay or have gay friends, or like the gay lifestyle. Until than, get over yourselves.

Roy,

I did answer, you just don't like my answer. Simply restating the question or saying I didn't answer doesn't make that the truth. It's been answered. Move on, buddy.

Sarah-3043284 "Roy/Duane, Activist judges are a myth,"

I guess that explains why Appeals/Supreme Court decisions are always unanimous, right?

Give me a break.

Indie,

Thank you for proving your desperation with your excessive profanity.

However, in response, if there were laws against sex before marriage I would not find them oppressive. I would understand that ultimately it would serve this nation to demand people control themselves.

There used to be a ban on alcohol, but it was repealed when it was impossible to enforce. The nation was too out of control to not drink Alcohol. There can be no law banning marriage before sex because it would be impossible to enforce.

But why accelerate the collapse of the legal system Indie? My question to you is why do you care so much about gay marriage? If your not gay, maybe you are, but if your not how would gay marriage benefit you?

Come down off your soap box and stop hiding behind your supposed moral superiority. What is the real reason you expend so much energy trying to force homosexuality on society?

Erin I would like to marry my dog and cat. Where do we draw the line?

Animals, like children, cannot give informed consent. Try again, bigot...

"Now, I'll just wait for someone to make a logical, legal argument, why same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed..."

Sarah, don't hold your breath; you're in for a LOOONNG wait. I've issued this exact same challenge many times. The challenge is either ignored or responded to in one of two ways:

IT'S AGAINST THE BIBLE. All well & good, but what about those who don't choose to live their lives according to a book of fairy tales?

IF EVERYBODY WAS GAY, THE HUMAN RACE WOULD DIE OUT. Maybe so. But leaving aside the question of whether or not that would be a good thing, everybody is NOT gay, nor are they likely to be. If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.

Company I worked for (9 yrs ago) informed me that my"application for a civil union" was denied, and my partner and I could not share benefits. All I wanted was what everyone else was getting, benefits for my SO. Kind of feels like I was discriminated against.

Ken,

That's how our law and government works. If you aren't doing anything illegal, or trying to pass something that infringes or could infringe on someone's rights, you don't have to prove anything to the government.

That's civics 101. The burden of proof. I don't have to make your case for you. You want the action taken and the government involved, via a ban on gay marriage, you have to make the case.

It's frightening that you don't know that.

Roy,

Was that sarcasm? They're not always unanimous, you know that right? And they do right, dissenting opinions, and the court is also check by the other two branches.

Jeez, when did I become a high school teacher?

Telling someone else what to do is what people against gay marriage want. And the joke is they pretend as if they are for things like freedom of speech, small government, and individual rights.

Same crowd is always dragging its knuckles when it comes to human rights.

Peach,

So you do admit that homosexuals can control their impulses and be happy.

If homosexuals don't have to marry a same sex partner to be happy, then why is the rest of society morally obligated to accept homosexual marriage?

If they are homosexual and can marry a partner of the opposite sex, and still be happy then how are we oppressing them by banning same sex marriage?

Eh, let em be as miserable as everyone else.

When the polygamists demand their "rights," what will we do?

When the first person demands the "right" to marry their horse, cow, cat or dog, what will we do?

While I am neither gay, nor married, I do enjoy watching the laws of unintended consequences play themselves out.

This ruling, if it stands the Supreme Court, and most from the 9th don't, will have profound consequences, so let's enjoy the show. A show with everything but Yul Brynner!!

Soon all churches that believe same-sex couples should be able to get married will be able to fulfill their sacremental mission; allowing God's lesbian and gay children to join into formalized covenant relationships with the person they love.

@Buck Naked Sr in reply to:

"Erin I would like to marry my dog and cat. Where do we draw the line?"

You are aware that you are comparing a human to a dog/cat, right? So, are you suggesting that same sex marriage is on the same ground as a human marrying a different species? That is extremely insulting. Why is it so important for you to oppose and insult men and women who want to get married regardless of their sexual orientation? Yay, you're religious, good for you! How bout practice what you preach by not judging others.

No thoughts then on why the government is involved in the union between two individuals, in the first place?

Hmm..looks like a lot of people don't mind being sheep. Friendly advice: if you're going to be a sheep, at least follow a shepherd you trust.

"Now, I'll just wait for someone to make a logical, legal argument, why same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed..."

Can someone give me the logical argument, why same sex marriage should be allowed, since no one can prove that homosexuality is anything other than a choice.

Then what about those men who were raped as boys, during which they had a sexual response, and now believe they are gay. What about them? Did the pedo just bring out the gayness in them? I think not!

Roy,

It is not equal. Even if Civil Unions were the exact same in what they allowed to marriage, they would be different in name. Having a difference is telling an entire class of people they are less. They are not equal.

Same as in the Civil Rights fights, separate but equal, was in no way equal. It could never be.

However, in response, if there were laws against sex before marriage I would not find them oppressive. I would understand that ultimately it would serve this nation to demand people control themselves.

So the truth comes out. You want to control people based on YOUR religious doctrine. You want to control how people live, and what they do, imposing religious fascism.

You want to take away the freedom for people to make their own decisions, because you feel that you know better than the rest. You want to strip personal freedom from society, based on your religious law.

How American of you (note the sarcasm)

I noticed you did not answer my question... but I will answer yours.

Why do I care? Because I care about equality and freedom. I see a class of society who is trying extremely hard to impose their religious law on this nation. I see a class of society who are trying to turn America into a fascist regime, controlled by their church. I see a population trying to strip us of our basic freedoms, all in the name of a God they have lost touch with. I see a group of people who will not stop with homosexuals, but will eventually come for us all (as evident in your anti-premarital sex claims). I see people like you, trying to control and oppress your fellow man, while holding up a book to justify your hatred. I see a threat to freedom. I see a threat to basic human rights. And I will stand up against these oppressors. I will stand against those who will impose their religious control on society. I will stand against those who will strip away our freedoms in the name religion. I stand for freedom against people like YOU who would take it all away from us. THAT is why I care.

There is a famous quote:

"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Consider me "speaking out".

"So you do admit that homosexuals can control their impulses and be happy."

By NOT f*cking in the streets? Yeah, I guess so...

What the hell are you talking about? Do you have that hard of a time with reading comprehension?

"If homosexuals don't have to marry a same sex partner to be happy, then why is the rest of society morally obligated to accept homosexual marriage?"

What?! Seriously? That's your argument?

I could just so easily flip this back on you. If heterosexual people don't have to marry someone of the opposite sex to be happy, then why should there be any marriages at all?

Because some people want to get married, you simpleton! Gays, straights... we all deserve the right to marry the person whom we love.

"If they are homosexual and can marry a partner of the opposite sex, and still be happy then how are we oppressing them by banning same sex marriage?"

Okay, I didn't realize I was talking to a three-year-old.

I can't believe I actually have to spell this one out. Would you marry someone you didn't love? Would you marry someone you weren't attracted to, and be happy? Could you do that? No, right? Because you wouldn't want to bind your life to someone you didn't love, so why would a gay person want to do that, too? Gay people are gay because they are attracted to members of their own sex. Insisting that they just go ahead and marry someone of the opposite sex if they really want to get married at all is just RETARDED. You are not only advocating sham marriages (so much for the sanctity of marriage BS), but you're also advocating straight people to marry someone who can never fulfill their needs as a partner.

You're a fail. Remove yourself from the discussion.

Civil Union isn't the same as marriage.

When politicians say they support civil unions but not marriage for people of the same sex, what do they mean? We find three main differences between civil unions and marriage as it's traditionally viewed:

• The right to federal benefits. States that allow some type of same-sex union are able to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.
• Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.
• Terminology. "Marriage" is a term that conveys societal and cultural meaning, important to both gay rights activists and those who don't believe gays should marry.

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

Then you throw issues of medical coverage, wills and estate, who hospitals allow to visit in critical care. It's not the same.

Seperate but equal, is not the same. As one will always be lesser than the other.

For those who are of a religious persuasion:

Leviticus:

"A man shall not lie with a man as (while) he lies with a woman."

The operative word there is 'as'. This is CLEARLY a prohibition against a particular sex act -- namely a threesome of a particular type. It's not a passage against MFF threesomes, but a passage against MMF theesomes.

It really is quite simple -- if you are man, and are laying with another male AND female, then you are engaged in a MMF threesome. In such a threesome, the father of any resultant children would have been indeterminate. And given that this passage was for the LEVITES, it makes even more sense -- since they were a priestly CASTE which follows its linage across the MALE line.

The word 'sodomy' has been used against homosexuals for quite a while now, and for very political (ie. not theological) reasons. The Bible itself tells us what the Sin of Sodom was: Inhospitality.

"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

Ezekiel 16:49

Yet how many of these Bible-thumpers even KNOW about this passage in Ezekiel? Not many. Not many at all...

dirp101

I'm late to the discussion, but it is fun to see all the Trolls out in fine force.

Nothing gets the trolls out like a good discussion of homosexual rights, other than anti-abortion, anti-women.

The trolls always come out when they have an opportunity to take some rights away from other people. Whether its the right to live free from being shot, the right to control your own body, to breath clean air, to drink clean water, or to have the same rights as anyone else.

Take what rights ? They have every right I have. When i marry someone of the opposite sex , but they want special rights to marry the same sex. Then I want the right to marry my dogs, or perhaps my sister.. Can i have those rights ? who are you to judge me if I do with that ? Would you be a troll to oppose that ? Would you be a troll for thinking it disgusting ? Its a two edged sword sir.

John Doe,

Civil Rights are not about benefiting us. They are about standing up for what is right. White people marched in Selma. White people sat at lunch counters in Carolina. Discrimination is wrong.

To call anyone who supports gay marriage, well, gay, is not even an argument. Some of us actually care about our fellow humans. That caring for others is what makes us, well, human.

Sarah-3043284 "Roy, Was that sarcasm? They're not always unanimous, you know that right? And they do right, dissenting opinions, and the court is also check by the other two branches."

Yes, it was sarcasm. Isn't it interesting that the same block of Justices seem to come down on the same side in many, if not most decisions? Your claim that 'activist judges are a myth' lacks credibility.

You claim to have answered the question "Why do Gays insist on using the term 'Marriage' when 'Civil Unions' could accomplish the same goal - without the controversy.", but I have yet to see a logical, coherent argument that makes sense. I have no problem with Gays forming legal civil unions, and such unions having equal legal rights (and responsibilities) - I just don't see their insistence on using the term 'Marriage'.

ROY,

so you believe "seperate but equal" should have been the last word on segregation?

Indie,

Have you heard the expression, don't make a mountain out of a molehill? Simply blowing your argument to epic proportions does not make it epic.

Again, your moral high horse has been revealed indie. Your projecting your personal issues onto me. I don't agree with you, so I'm a horrible human being, is that what your trying to say?

Your quote about people coming for the communist and trade unions only makes you sound paranoid.

Peach,

If marriage were banned under law, I would be obligated to respect that. However in no society ever know in history has heterosexual marriage been banned. Why? your simple mind may ask. Well, because it is undeniably beneficial to society.

Stop thinking with moral indignation (because that's how religious fanatics think) and start thinking practically.

I see the fury that seethes from your comments and I can see I've reveled the true nature of both of you, but alas my rampage of terror on your one track minds must come to a close, because I have pressing responsibilities at the moment. So my words and reputation will be at the mercy of your likely bitter responses. Still, its been fun.

Yet how many of these Bible-thumpers even KNOW about this passage in Ezekiel? Not many. Not many at all...

Epinnoia,

Unfortunately there are very few Bible-thumpers that know anything about their own religious writings. They pick and choose the passages they like, and ignore the rest.

Even in Leviticus, they have admittedly ignored EVERY OTHER LAW in that book, except the one they use against homosexuals. Apparently they are "allowed" to throw out Old Testament laws they do not like, but they can still follow the ones they do like.

It gets even more interesting when you look at the life of Jesus, and realize he preached peace, love and acceptance. I believe Ghandi said it best: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Truer words were never spoken.

Gays should be allowed to marry each other so long as infertile heterosexuals are allowed to marry. Neither marriage has a hope-in-hell of bearing children, yet we permit one, and not the other. It is clearly discriminatory, and against the principles of equal protection.

You can't argue that 'marriage is there for the sake of children', yet permit 50 and 60+ year old women to (re-)marry. Once that last egg drops, that argument drops right along with it.

"If marriage were banned under law, I would be obligated to respect that."

Yeah, if you have no spine. That's all I have to say about obeying obviously unjust laws.

"However in no society ever know in history has heterosexual marriage been banned."

Nor should it be. I was merely pointing out how ridiculous your argument was.

"Stop thinking with moral indignation (because that's how religious fanatics think) and start thinking practically."

Oh, do school me, wise one. Please explain how impractical it would be to stop denying gays the right to marry each other as straight people do.

Sarah, You don't know anything about me or what I want! I asked a very basic question that you don't seem to have the ability to answer. If you weren't trying to convience somone or prove something you wouldn't have spend so much time on this site in the first place.

I know that much!

Sorry but, I'm not the one that needs a civics lesson.

Sally:

If you do some checking, I think you'll find that Buck Naked is a re-reg. He's a potty mouth and can't help himself.

All the rest of you guys. Sarah lotsanumbers is my friend. Eat your hearts out.

John Doe,

That was a famous quote, specific to a time period, but relevant to a vast many issues. The fact that you are unaware of this quote and it's meaning is a testament to your intelligence... or lack-thereof.

I am sure that the fight for civil rights was also a simple "mountain out of a molehill" for you. Luckily, there are good people of this world who think differently.

But don't worry, we are not "seething" over here. Quite the contrary. I rather enjoy putting people like you in a corner, where you are forced to desperately change the subject instead of answer the questions posed. It's an indication of weakness, and your inability to apply logic and reason to your position. The more you deflect, the more I know I am right. Sometimes you conservatives make it too easy.

Detroit-Storm "ROY, so you believe "seperate but equal" should have been the last word on segregation?"

Silly question. The Supreme Court struck down the concept of 'separate but equal' in segregation because it was clearly not 'equal' as required by the Constitution's Equal Protection clause. In what way would affording Gays the right to have a Civil Union with all of the rights and responsibilities of a Marriage (just not the term) deny them any legal rights?

Can someone give me the logical argument, why same sex marriage should be allowed, since no one can prove that homosexuality is anything other than a choice.

You appear to be intellectually lazy. You refuse to read through these pages to find the answer, because you think you are entitled to one-on-one treatment -- the answer was already given.

Homosexuality is not a choice. The sexual attraction is not chosen. The only thing that is chosen is whether or not to ACT on that attraction.

Now, please tell us why you think infertile heterosexuals should be permitted to marry, yet homosexuals shouldn't be... It's a glaring hole in your thought process that needs to be addressed....ahem.

Ken,

I've provided a very logical defense against the argument that they shouldn't be allowed to marry. Again, this is a civil rights/legal question, the party trying to infringe on the right has the burden of proof. Present your logical/legal argument in support of your position, but first, read my posts, I've probably already shot it down.

Your argument about men raping boys has no truth to it. Provide credible sources if it does. Men who rape boys don't do it out of homosexuality anymore when men who rape girls do it out of heterosexuality. Nor does pedophilia turn the victims gay. Otherwise, please explain all the victims of childhood sexual abuse who grow up to be straight.

God, enough! If you want to be a bigot, fine, but just own the bigotry.

Everyone Else,

I suggest we stop playing into Roy's hands. The question of civil union vs. marriage has been answered logically and truthfully numerous times. He just seems to believe that if he says it hasn't, that somehow makes it so.

When i marry someone of the opposite sex , but they want special rights to marry the same sex. Then I want the right to marry my dogs, or perhaps my sister.. Can i have those rights ? who are you to judge me if I do with that ? Would you be a troll to oppose that ? Would you be a troll for thinking it disgusting ? Its a two edged sword sir.

More nonsense. Animals cannot give informed consent any more than children can. You have no valid argument.

You're all still arguing about what does or does not constitute a lawful marriage according to the laws and statutes of our great nation...

Why don't you first address why the government has jurisdiction over the union between two individuals?

Debating 101: If you're going to argue something, start from the beginning (fundamentals).

Sodomy may not be illegal but did y'all know there's poop in there? Yuk!

Sarah, what about my argument for civil unions. Everyone would be equal. Civil union would be the legal contract. Marriage would be the religious contract. Then all religions can choose whether or not they will allow gay marriages.

The pro and anti gay marriage people would be satisfied.

Espinnoia

You can't argue that 'marriage is there for the sake of children', yet permit 50 and 60+ year old women to (re-)marry.

FAIL

Women over age 50 have conceived and born successfully - it is difficult and not the best medical advice to follow.

I think another fail is the failure to recognize marriage was also a natural way of avoiding the spreading of STD's.

I believe that also can be an argument for gay marriage too.

Bohnman,

Civil unions aren't equal and there's nothing religious about marriage. The religious folks already have a special term, it's Holy Matrimony.

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2432.htm

This is the same logic segregationists used, "They can have their own bathrooms and water fountains, and than everyone will be happy."

DB,

I think another fail is the failure to recognize marriage was also a natural way of avoiding the spreading of STD's.

So are antibiotics and condoms.

Marriage isn't about pro-creation. It isn't even about sex. If the argument against gay marriage, is based on having children, than we can logically argue that anyone who doesn't want children can't get married, that anyone who can't have children can't get married, and contraception is illegal for anyone who is married. We could say any sexual act that doesn't lead to procreation is banned within marriages, and God help you if you masturbate. To say nothing of the implications that would than accompany children born out of wedlock.

The argument based on having kids doesn't work.

Epinnoia "For those who are of a religious persuasion"

While you're rewriting the Bible, why not just write that God loves that homosexuals engage in same sex acts - or do homosexuals have their own version of the Bible?

No reputable Bible scholar would imply that God approved of homosexual acts, nor would they try to twist any scripture to make it seem so. In fact, 1Corinthians 6: 9-11 (NIV and many other sources) clearly indicates that such people will not inherit God's Kingdom.

Shot it down? Within your own mind. You think your beliefs and opinions, are right and everyone else is wrong? Really? Seriously? You might want look at that first sentence again. The question I asked is fundamental to the argument. Look I live in a State where the are no gay marriage laws on the book and in a nation where Gay marriage is not is not law. The people who are advocating for gay marriage are the ones who have the burden of proof. I wasn't referring to the rapist, but ones who were raped. I KNOW that story, men don't share that story, but it out there. Why don't you research it for yourself, that's the only way you'd really get it, or would you rather believe a lie than admit that you may be wrong about something. Between you and me, the only bigot here is you.

Sarah-3043284 "I suggest we stop playing into Roy's hands. The question of civil union vs. marriage has been answered logically and truthfully numerous times."

Give me one post that is clear and logical - if you can.

clearly indicates that such people will not inherit God's Kingdom.

ROY,

Don't forget that according to your Bible, the ONLY way to get into "God's kingdom" is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

That means that the millions, upon millions, upon millions of people that God put on this planet, in areas that Christianity had not reached, were doomed from the start. Nice thought, huh? Basically, you are "saved" because you are lucky. If you were born in the exact same place 2000 years ago, you would have never heard about Jesus, and thus would be doomed to hell from the start. You would not even have a chance.

Even now there are millions born in areas that Christianity has not spread to, they will NEVER hear of Christianity in their lifetime, and an "all knowing God" knows this... but he still puts them there, "knowing" they are doomed to hell.

So instead of worrying about gay people "not inheriting the kingdom", maybe you should focus on the millions upon millions who were put here with no chance of hearing about Jesus. These people are doomed before they are even born, with no chance at salvation.

If God knowingly puts people here, KNOWING they will never hear about him and are thus doomed to hell... does that still make him "good"?

Ken,

Wrong, DOMA was put on the books specifically to ban gay marriage. This isn't a case of putting anything else on the books, it's a case about taking something off. DOMA is an infringement on rights and individual liberty, taking it off the books, is logically the opposite of that. A move towards greater freedom, and therefore I don't have to show you that "gay" is a choice.

Neither does it matter, because, again, marriage is a private contract between two consenting adults with legal capacity, without the capability of harming a single person outside of the marriage.

Again, your "rapist" claims are invalid until you show them to be credible. You haven't. You can't.

Also, again...

To determine bigotry you need to apply the "but for" test. But for certain people's bigotted views and comments full of judgment and scorn, and their attempts to use their religion to deny basic rights to our fellow citizens, most of us wouldn't have boo to say about anyone's religion or any point of view you have.

There is no but for when it comes to illogical reasonings in defense of the denial of equal protection. Don't confuse tolerance and passivity.

But sarah,

What I proposed would mean that everyone (gays, straights, etc) would get a civil union. Then after the civil union, if the couple desired, they could get "married in a church. So basically the civil union would take the place of the marriage license. Therefore it would not be a "separate but equal" issue. Everyone would be equal.

In my opinion, this would be a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides.

The pro gay marriage group get their rights (which they deserve) and the anti gay marriage group get to keep the word "marriage. If the pro gay marriage group isn't willing to make a compromise that would be satisfactory to both parties, how can they expect to reach an agreement. Even if gay marriage (as it stands) passes, there will be about half the country (or so) that vehemently disagrees with it. In the interest of both sides, a compromise is the only way to go, but it has to be acceptable to both sides.

Saying "civil unions should be enough for you if it has all the same benefits, why do you need to call it 'marriage'?" seems a lot like imagining someone during the civil rights era saying "if we give blacks all the same rights as whites, they should be happy, why do they need to be called 'people'?" It's not equal if you're saying they shouldn't be allowed to use your name for it.

Bohnman,

That, while sounding great on paper, is placating bigots and pointless. As I explained above they already have a special term. Civil rights aren't to be compromised on. They are to be upheld equally.

What you suggest is the start of the slippery slope.

Roy Wilson:

Stop with the nonsense. That's Paul's letter to the Corinthians. That's Paul talking, not some sort of god. You are going to need something better for a defense of marriage than a book that has been edited, redacted, translated umpty-ump times, and revised to suit to desires of those who wanted it changed. (For starters you might want to check the motivation of King James.)

The state has no business in marriage. None. If you have the need for some sort of validation, then go to some clergy-type, give him/her money, and they'll give you their blessing.

By the way, Sarah lotsanumbers has laid a masterful fanny-flogging on you. You aren't going to be able to sit for a month.

IndieParty

clearly indicates that such people will not inherit God's Kingdom.

ROY,

Don't forget that according to your Bible, the ONLY way to get into "God's kingdom" is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

That means that the millions, upon millions, upon millions of people that God put on this planet, in areas that Christianity had not reached, were doomed from the start. Nice thought, huh? Basically, you are "saved" because you are lucky. If you were born in the exact same place 2000 years ago, you would have never heard about Jesus, and thus would be doomed to hell from the start. You would not even have a chance.

Even now there are millions born in areas that Christianity has not spread to, they will NEVER hear of Christianity in their lifetime, and an "all knowing God" knows this... but he still puts them there, "knowing" they are doomed to hell.

So instead of worrying about gay people "not inheriting the kingdom", maybe you should focus on the millions upon millions who were put here with no chance of hearing about Jesus. These people are doomed before they are even born, with no chance at salvation.

If God knowingly puts people here, KNOWING they will never hear about him and are thus doomed to hell... does that still make him "good"?

According to Romans 4:3 Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him as righteousness. Old Testament saints were saved by faith, not works. The sacrifices of animals in the O.T. was merely a foreshadowing of the work of Christ on the cross. These sacrifices pointed to Christ’s work. They were like ‘reserve tickets’ for the final atonement, the completed work of Christ on the cross.

read about old testament salvation

bible.org/article/old-testament-salvation

IndieParty "ROY, Don't forget that according to your Bible, the ONLY way to get into "God's kingdom" is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior."

Show me a scripture that says that is the ONLY way to get into God's Kingdom.

If that were true then what happens to faithful men and women who died before Jesus was born, like Moses, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, David, Noah, etc.

But do bigots have their rights to believe as they wish as well?

What I suggested applys to everyone equally and gives everyone the same rights and priveleges.

If a law applies to everyone equally and gives everyone the same rights and priveleges, how is it unfair?

I agree that civil rights are not to be compromised on. What the civil rights being prohibited. We hear alot about civil rights, but what are they exactly?

Although many people claim to understand our form of government, including many bloggers above, very few actually seem to understand. The United States is a representative democracy. Except in places like California, where individuals can vote on issues put directly on a ballot called a referendum, only the votes of representatives are counted when laws are enacted. Voters can remove from office those representatives who are believed to have failed to represent the majority's best interests when they voted.

The United States is also a constitutional democracy, which means that it has a Constitution, a document that mainly establishes the structure of the federal government. Our Constitution may be amended occasionally if 2/3 of the states ratify an amendment proposed in Congress. The Bill of Rights is a term that's been given to the first eight amendments of the United States Constitution, those that protect certain individual rights or liberties against infringement by government itself. These include the right to assemble, the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the right to worship freely, the right to bear arms, the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures by governmental agents, the right to due process of law and to reasonable compensation for property seized by the government through eminent domain, the right to a trial in criminal cases, the right to be represented by an attorney at criminal trials, and the right not to suffer cruel and unusual punishment.

These amendments initially only applied to the federal government, but their power to override public laws or public actions was extended to apply to the individual states by a United States Supreme Court ruling. When a state law is passed, if it violates one of the Bill of Rights, it is subject to being struck down because it is unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was a referendum passed by a majority of the voters. In a constitutional democracy, however, the fact that a majority or even a super-majority favors some the law passed may be overridden and struck down when it conflicts with a constitutionally protected right. Thus, we are a democracy, where the passage of laws is assumed to reflect the majority's will, but the Constitution trumps all other laws. The US Constitution is often called the highest law of the land.

The challengers to homosexual marriage, which had been ruled unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court, got Prop 8 passed by 52% of the voters. However, the Ninth Circuit has now decided that Prop 8 infringes on gay people's right of equal protection of the laws. Where recognized racial minorities (because of race, religion, national origin) are involved, the state government would have to show that the challenged law/act was narrowly tailored to accomplish a compelling state interest to justify the discriminatory act. This is called the "strict scrutiny test." For non-racial minorities, the test is whether there is a rational basis for believing that the challenged law/act serves a legitimate public purpose. The trial judge and now a 3-member panel of the Ninth Circuit have held that there is no rational basis for believing that Prop 8 serves a legitimate public purpose. Implied in the 9th Circuit's decision is that gays and straights are "similarly situated" because equal protection only applies to those who are "similarly situation." No comparing apples to oranges.

I imagine that the supporters of Prop 8 will seek another hearing in the Ninth Circuit Court called an en banc hearing, where all Ninth Circuit Appellate Judges are asked to rule on the issue. If the en banc panel does not set aside the 3-judge panel's decision, Prop 8's proponents will seek a different ruling from the US Supreme Court. Given its current composition, SCOTUS may overturn the 9th Ciruit's ruling by finding that gays and straights are not similarly situated or that there is a "rational basis" for believing that Prop 8 serves a legitimate governmental end.

Bohnman,

Of course they do. That's why no one is telling them they have to be happy about gay marriage, or go to a gay marriage, or get gay married. No one is telling any church they have to marry two gay people, or recognize it.

We're telling them they can no longer deny rights to citizens without good cause. I'm saying to those people out there, your days of fallacy in your arguments are over. I have no problem if they want to be bigoted, I have a problem when they attempt to hide it behind illogical arguments in order to justify the continuation of unequal protection.

If a law applies equally, it's not unfair, that's what legalizing gay marriage is about. Applying the contractual law of marriage equally. That's also why this is a civil rights issue. Equal protection, in addition to privacy, freedom from religion, and SCOTUS ruling over 14 times that marriage is a civil right.

David,

Thanks, buddy! You make me laugh with your posts everyday!

bigotted views and comments full of judgment and scorn, and their attempts to use their religion to deny basic rights to our fellow citizens, most of us wouldn't have boo to say about anyone's religion....

I have not enaged in any of the foremention action above...

DOMA, I stand corrected, you can thank Bill Clinton for that.

Since this all about "rights" what do you say to the man who wants to marry two women? If he loves them both, why can't he marry them both? If two homosexuals can marry, why can't one straight man marry two or three women? Please, a gay person, answer this question.

OK. A man cannot marry just any woman, both man and woman must give free and fully informed consent before they can marry. So if 3 people want to get married, and all give free and fully informed consent to that triad union, then it should be allowed. BTW, coerced "consent" doesn't count, nor does consent without understanding, that would rule out forced polygamy or cases where one partner didn't know there were others involved.

Erin I would like to marry my dog and cat. Where do we draw the line?

Neither dogs nor cats can give "informed consent" as they have no idea what "marriage" means.

By the way, I'm just glad I haven't seen you, Buck Naked, something tells me I wouldn't like what I saw...

Wait a minute, Roy ROGERS horse Trigger could say yes by stamping his hoof once and no by stamping his hoof twice. Who says animals can't give consent?

Informed and uncoerced. I really doubt Trigger understands a thing about marriage, or even the bit about "yes" and "no" - Trigger was trained to stomp his hoof in response to a signal from his trainer, and didn't really associate any meaning to it.

You are deliberatlely avoiding the most pressing point of homosexuality - it is a sin and an abomination. To allow gay marriage is to enable the sin to take place.

Eating any seafood without fins and scales (clams, oysters, crabs, calimari, etc.) is also "an abomination" according to the same Bible, and that "seafood abomination" is mentioned more times than the "man lies with man abomination". So should we outlaw clam chowder? In a religiously free nation, your religious rules don't apply to anyone outside your religion.

You also seem to have the delusion that marriage is a "license to have sex" - it isn't and never has been. People have sex regardless of marital status, gays have sex regardless of rules on "same sex marriage". Allowing same sex marriage won't increase gay sexual activity - but it might reduce promiscuity!

Marriage has never been restricted to those free of sin, we allow pimps, prostitutes, swingers and pornographers to get married as well as wife-swapping swingers - one needs to have a wife to be a "wife swapper". Indeed, it would be silly to prohibit sinners from marriage, and the church even encourages some sinners to "get married and stop living in sin".

Bear Cat "ROY WILSON-336103 says "So why is it necessary for Gays to insist that it be called 'Marriage', when'Civil Union' could ensure the same legal rights and privileges? No one has been able to answer that simple question...............Roy, the answer is so simple that even you may be able to understand it. In order to be married, you need a licenses issued by the State. The California State Constitution prohibits denying a right or privilege to one group that is given to another group."

So have a 'Civil Union' license issued by the State.

Since 'the California State Constitution prohibits denying a right or privilege to one group that is given to another group', can I qualify for all 'Affirmative Action' set-asides and college admission quotas, even though I'm White?

ROY,

John 14:6 "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." Modern Christianity has used this verse to preach that ONLY through Jesus can you reach Heaven. Thus was born the notion that accepting Jesus into your heart will earn you a place in heaven.

Of course, there are a million different forms of Christianity, all claiming to be the "right and only one". A good portion of people think it is faith through Jesus, which excludes millions of people as we have already discussed. Others think it is through good deeds, some worship Mary, some pray to saints, and still others subscribe to all the "rules" that you find in the Bible... including the barbaric Old Testament.

Fun fact: Did you know the Westboro Baptist Church follows a strict interpretation of the Bible, word for word. Spare the rod, spoil the child is taken literally, and the children there are beat with rods (the kids who escaped have written about this). But hey, they are just following Christianity, word for word, just like God intended.

Then there is the historical life of Jesus where he personally said NOTHING about homosexuality. In fact, Jesus told you to love each other, help the poor and needy, mend the sick, all that evil socialist stuff... but you don't like any of those teachings, do you? No, those are liberal ideas. Instead you prefer to pick and choose the passages you follow, and the ones you ignore. That way you can justify your hatred, while still feeling like you are "saved".

It must be nice to have a religion that you can easily bend and mold to fit your own personal preferences.

Carl We - I think in the last Presidental election Animals DID vote and some people DID cast multiple votes, in fact some DEAD people even voted.

right on, homosexuals in the Catholic Church worked out so well ... oopps, that's right, we got tens of thousands of child molestation.

The Catholic Church is virulently anti-gay, and that suppression of the natural sex drive has caused many of their problems. Also, a substantial number of those Priest molested children were girls.

homosexual Teachers in our public schools worked out ... oopps ... thousand of child molestations ...

And almost all of those "teacher molesters" were men molesting girls, and women molesting boys. Gay teachers are actually less likely to molest. Should we insist that all teachers be spayed or neutered? Of course not, we try to weed out any potential molesters, straight or gay, and keep an eye on the classrooms to inhibit any misbehavior of those that might slip through the screening process.

will homosexuals in the AMRY is going to be great ... oopps we're already starting to see homosexual sexual harassment lawsuits ...

Most of those "homosexual sexual harassment lawsuits" were lesbians filing suits against men harassing them, indeed almost all the "sexual harassment" lawsuits in the military were filed by women being harassed by men. Allowing Gays to serve openly in the military doesn't make sexual harassment of any kind legal or permissible.

wait until homosexuals can marry and adopt children, that's going to be really good ... they're just going buy a child to molest ...

Adoption isn't "buying a child", potential adopters are screened to see if they are capable of being good parents and will not abuse their children in any way. That would apply to both straight and gay couples looking to adopt. Ironically, biological parents are usually not screened for abusive tendencies, thus most cases of child abuse involve biological parents and not adopters.

BTW, many forms of child abuse don't involve sex at all, and I can think of several recent cases of children being abused to death by their religiously zealous parents.

IndieParty "ROY, In fact, Jesus told you to love each other, help the poor and needy, mend the sick, all that evil socialist stuff... but you don't like any of those teachings, do you?"

Actually, I consider myself a Christian, and try to live by ALL of his commandments - although I admit to my imperfections. I don't consider that 'socialist', just compassion and love.

You didn't answer the part of the question " If that were true then what happens to faithful men and women who died before Jesus was born, like Moses, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, David, Noah, etc. "?

@ken:

DOMA was veto-proof. Clinton could NOT not sign it.

bohnmann "What I suggested applys to everyone equally and gives everyone the same rights and priveleges."

Actually, what you suggested make a lot of sense.

Roy,

Let me show you how ridiculous your position is. I will paraphrase:

"I'm OK with giving them the same legal rights, but they just can't call it marriage. They need to have a special term for it because even though they would be legally equal, they would degrade my marriage by using the same term."

That's what it boils down to isn't it? You're OK with them being equal, to a point. They can be otherwise equal, but you aren't willing to let them use the same term you do to describe their union. And you see this as "solving the problem"? If they are equal, but must have a separate term for it, they aren't really equal are they? That is "separate but equal", a concept shot down a long time ago.

Bohnman, Civil unions aren't equal and there's nothing religious about marriage. The religious folks already have a special term, it's Holy Matrimony.

But Sarah, what I proposed would mean that everyone (gays, straights, etc) would get a civil union. Then after the civil union, if the couple desired, they could get "married in a church. So basically the civil union would take the place of the marriage license. Therefore it would not be a "separate but equal" issue. Everyone would be equal.

He's got a point - if all the rights of marriage were assigned to "Civil Union" and the State stops issuing "marriage licenses" and instead issues only "Civil Unions", then it's no longer a "separate but unequal" issue.

But Sarah is also right, under the current system, "Civil Unions" are not now legally equivalent to "marriage".

Personally, I wouldn't object at all to Civil Unions legally replacing Marriage, and Marriage being exclusively a religious ceremony that doesn't grant any special legal rights. Logically, that should satisfy both sides in the debate. Unfortunately, the anti-marriage side isn't thinking logically, they're even opposed to "Civil Unions" for gays, and they really just want to persecute "sinners" by denying them rights.

David Walker "Roy Wilson: That's Paul's letter to the Corinthians. That's Paul talking, not some sort of god. You are going to need something better for a defense of marriage than a book (the Bible).....The state has no business in marriage."

Yes, it was written by Paul, but 2 Timothy 3:16 says that 'all scripture is inspired of God', so most Christians consider it "God's word, not man's". Obviously, quoting from the Bible has no effect on someone like yourself that doesn't believe in the Bible, but it does constitute a moral guide for billions of people.

If "The state has no business in marriage", then why should they issue licenses?

Actually, I consider myself a Christian, and try to live by ALL of his commandments - although I admit to my imperfections. I don't consider that 'socialist', just compassion and love.

ROY,

LOL... damn you are funny. You know how many posts I have read where you attack the poor and the needy, blame them for our economy, complain about entitlements and welfare, complain about health care.

And now YOU want to claim that YOU have "compassion and love"? Bwaahahahahaha. You are one funny mother f***er, Roy. One funny mother f***er. "Compassion" Ha!... You are about as compassionate as Eric Cantor. LOL

Oh, and why would I answer your question when that was MY whole point? (it's called reading comprehension, look into it) Modern Christian belief dooms a great number of people from "salvation." Of course those Old Testament guys all had their own set of rules, including sacrifices and whatnot. And remember, you don't follow Old Testament rules... except the one about homosexuality, THAT one is golden. You hang on to that like it's the holy grail... like I said, pick and choose what you follow.

CM,

One clarification, Marriage (under what I proposed) wouldn't have to be solely a religious ceremony. It could be for any group or the person could still go to the justice of the peace if they desired. The Civil Union would be the legal part, the ceremony part would be left up to each couple. That is how it was in Venezuela in 1998 when I was there. The couples were married by the government in what amounted to a signing party, then the couple could go to the church or wherever and have a reception or ceremony.

Sarah,

Just curious how you feel about Obama forcing religious employers to provide birth control. Is that not their religious right to not provide it to their employees?

"You also seem to have the delusion that marriage is a "license to have sex" - it isn't and never has been"

Ain't that the truth. As many men have found out to their sorrow.

IndieParty "ROY, LOL... damn you are funny. You know how many posts I have read where you attack the poor and the needy, blame them for our economy, complain about entitlements and welfare, complain about health care."

When did I 'attack the poor and the needy, blame them for our economy, complain about entitlements and welfare, complain about health care."?

I suspect that's your 'interpretation' of what I said. Any complaints I've made have been about the WAY THEY ARE RUN, not whether a 'safety net' is warranted.

In any event, this thread is getting long, and old.

Bye.

Just curious how you feel about Obama forcing religious employers to provide birth control. Is that not their religious right to not provide it to their employees?

bohnmann,

There is a problem with this that people are over-looking. There was a recent court ruling (forgot which state) where a Christian "religious" organization fired a woman based on her disability. This was an obvious violation of the Americans with Disabilities act, and blatant discrimination, but they did it anyway. The judge ruled that because they are a religious institution, and separation of church and state applies, the government has no right to infringe on their business. Basically, this gave religious institutions free reign to discriminate in any way they wanted.

Christians around the country cheered and called this a win for the church. Fox News had a whole segment on it. Now the government can not stop them from discrimination, or anything else they do. Religious institutions are free to run their business in any way they want.

So this applies to your question about Obama forcing Catholic institutions to provide appropriate health care. Maybe you are Catholic or Christian, and you love the idea of the church having free reign to do whatever they want without interference. Right? I'm guessing you are against the government interfering with church business.

Problem: What about other churches and religions... like, oh I don't know... Islam and the laws they want to follow and implement? You still cool with the government staying out? Or should the government be allowed to step in and stop something like... oh, let's say... sharia law?

People seem to forget that if you give one religion free reign, you have to do the same for all religions.

So in the essence of protecting people from the evils of religions... whether that be discrimination, withholding health care, or sharia law... I support the government stepping in and making sure they treat people right. Because doing so will set the precedent that certain religious law will NOT be tolerated here. History has shown us all what religions are capable of, when given free reign... there is a trail of blood as proof. So there needs to be some way to keep these zealots at bay, that includes ALL religions. But that is just my personal opinion.

Wlee,

I agree with you 100% on walking in gods path, and love the sinner and hate the sin. However I disagree in forcing religious argument into an equal rights argument. Regardless of my or your religious beliefs, we should not take away equal rights of our fellow american citizens. I firmly believe in the seperation of church and state, and keeping my religius views out of the laws of the land as long as those laws do not harm anyone.

Now 2 constenting adults marrying does absolutely zero harm to anyone. It is fair and equal to every adult in this great nation. I don't see how walking in gods path gives anybody the right to force inequality into our laws and lives.

Bohnman,

I think it's a very tricky thing, the whole Catholic institution/birth control issue, that is. There's a lot of conflicting rights...

This is not an attack on religion, it is nothing so simple as that. This is an attempt to find a balance between a woman's right to choice/privacy and religious freedom. Catholic hospitals employ thousands of workers and they aren't all Catholics, let alone devout Catholics. Why should those women who work for them be denied access to contraception? And please don't say, "They can go get another job". Get real, it's not that easy.

These establishments have a year to figure out how they are going to do this. They don't even have to be the ones that offer the contraception. They can refer their workers to other services. This is about access, not force. No one will be forced to take a Plan B pill, or use any other form of contraception they don't believe in, they just can't hold the jobs of their workers as collateral in an attempt to block their access. It's also, already in place in 23 states.

It's definitely a delicate and complicated issue.

Sarah...you are my hero...I wish I could write half as well as you do.

NOW..

Here it is in simpler terms for those who just don't get it...

Guess what!! To all the homophobes out there...not every gay man wants you, no more than every straight man wants me! That is just ridiculous...and very arrogant. With some of the bigoted remarks on here, I would assume a lot of the straight guys on here don't get many dates either way.

OH OH!! Here's another one! You can't catch gay!! No..really...you can't. Why? Because it's not a disease!

It's not a choice, either. Just like the fact that I love a man in a firefighter's outfit, or Pepsi instead of Coke. Not a choice! I just...like it!

Here's another surprise...it's none of your business what someone does in their bedroom, just like it's no one's business what you do in yours. And no, no one is throwing their life style in front of your face. If everything was equal, without all the bull@!$%# you homophobes like to bring up, no one would really hear about anything.

Besides, I really doubt you would know a homosexual if he or she stood right next to you.

Unfortunately, some like to say how God says it's a sin (and claim to love God...who in turn loves us ALL). Try to remember that the Bible is the opinions and supposed actions of people from many, many years ago...you know, when there was slavery and religious persecution (by religious people), and, if I remember correctly, by men who seemed to rule over their women.

No one knows what God's plan is...no one knows if God is really pissed about what sexual orientation someone happens to be, or if He is just happy that someone loves instead of hates.

How about we take all that hateful energy and put it toward things that really need it...

Thanks Blue Panther!

Sarah, I you were a lesbian and I was a lesbian I would buy you a 5 ct pure white and get down on one knee...lol

Since we are not, I will say this, GO GET'EM.... got to love smart women.

Panther you rock too.

All men are created equal and entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No single man, religion, or entity should have the right to stop another citizen of the U.S. from the pursuit of these rights.

A couple of responses. Thanks for the non hate filled conversations sarah, indie, etc. It gives me hope that we can overcome our differences.

Indie,

As to your question about the person with the disability that was fired, I don't know any of the details about that case. If it was proven that they were fired because of the disability, then, yes the employer (church) should be fined. If it can't be proven legally, then while it sucks that she was fired, unfortunately there is no redress. I could claim that I was fired because I was a tall skinny white nerd, but unless it was proven, I wouldn't get any compensation.

As for your other comments about Islam and Sharia, I don't really care what a church believes as long as it doesn't force it's beliefs on others (with a weapon), and does not require human sacrifice or requires minors to participate in an unnatural way (i.e. Warren Jeffs type).

Sarah,

What you don't see as an attack on religion, I see as a slippery slope. Forcing a religion to provide something that they do not believe in could end up in forcing a religion to give up a belief.

The people involved still have access to contraception, but it is not provided by the employer. And that in my opinion is the employer's right. Employers are not required to provide health care, but to attract the best employees, they do. The employees at the Catholic institutions knew going into it that they were not going to be provided with contraception. It wasn't like it was a surprise. I think it would be best to hear what those on the plans think and not what a bunch of outsiders like myself think.

I also believe that it is a delicate issue.

And one more comment on the gay marriage issue. If getting married is a civil right and everyone is entitled to it, then why can't a brother and sister get married? It isn't that they want to have children, they love each other. I personally agree that it is wrong, but if it is a civil right for two men or two women then it also has to be a civil right for any two people. The same would have to apply to people wanting to get married to more than one person. I have contracts on three houses. So why could I not have marital contracts with three people? I would have a will and my inheritance would be split between my survivors equally.

I agree that there are a lot of instances where multiple marriages would be a nightmare, but just throwing it out there.

ROY WILSON-336103

IndieParty "ROY, Don't forget that according to your Bible, the ONLY way to get into "God's kingdom" is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior."

Show me a scripture that says that is the ONLY way to get into God's Kingdom.

If that were true then what happens to faithful men and women who died before Jesus was born, like Moses, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, David, Noah, etc.

Jesus said it clearly that no one gets into heaven except through him. And if you want to know how people before jesus got into heaven.. then read what i said above

According to Romans 4:3 Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him as righteousness. Old Testament saints were saved by faith, not works. The sacrifices of animals in the O.T. was merely a foreshadowing of the work of Christ on the cross. These sacrifices pointed to Christ’s work. They were like ‘reserve tickets’ for the final atonement, the completed work of Christ on the cross.

read about old testament salvation

bible.org/article/old-testament-salvation

bohnman,

I can be argued that sibling marriage should be legal, and on a purely legal basis I would agree, so long as both are able to make informed consent.

As to polygamy, I can't recall the case's details but it was ruled illegal for some reason. I do know the tax code would need to be revised to allow for multiple spouses, but the tax code could use an overhaul anyway...

bohnman - I have to disagree with you on the brother/sister marriage issue. Even if they say they don't want to have children, accidents do happen.

Far as polygamy: Isn't the damn tax code complicated enough? Do we really need to make more lawyers rich(er)?

Stone,

I agree that brother/sister marriage is wrong, but if it is a civil right to get married for everyone, then any two people should be allowed to get married.

As far as the tax code, yes. It is too complicated. But once again, if it is a civil right, then it is a civil right for everyone.

Sound medical evidence has already been provided to show why such close consanguineous marriages (like brother/sister) are illegal. Such marriages can cause severe genetic defects and/or congenital afflictions in any offspring.

But Erin,

I thought it wasn't about being able to have children. If it is a civil right to get married, then why is there a license/application to get married? If a brother and sister want to get married, they should be able to get married.

john who is hitting on who?

where do we draw the line? I can't remember who asked me about my dog and cat above and where did I mention religion in all of this?

Erin, give it up...when these bigots can't answer for their hatred, then they go for the incest and bestiality bull@!$%#...

bluepanther20

Erin, give it up...when these bigots can't answer for their hatred, then they go for the incest and bestiality bull@!$%#...

Now your showing your ignorance and being a bigot for not respecting the people who do really want to marry their sister , daughter, brother mother, or their family dog. Who are you to judge what marriage is between to beings that love each other ? It can be a two edged sword.

Panther,

My question was a legitimate one. I had a co-worker that had a mother that was disabled and in poor health. Her health costs were expensive. If she could have "married" her mother, then she would have had less of a medical burden.

I agree that animals/children can't truly give their common consent and would never support them being allowed to marry except with parental consent as it stands on the books.

They gloss over the longstanding, never-changing true definition and purpose of marriage, which is PROCREATION.

And yet procreation is not a requirement for modern marriages. And further, beyond mere procreation, marriage was a way to ensure orderly inheritance more than anything.

Thousands of years of common law and tradition have established the fact that marriage is a religious sacrament between a man and a woman - not just Form 99 on your tax return.

Ummm, marriage was originally a civil function and contractual relationship that was eventually hijacked by the church. Please get your facts straight.

But to completely redefine marriage, and to throw over thousands of years of established tradition is an entirely different matter. Don't try to cheapen the marriage argument by claiming that it is only about "rights".

Exactly the same arguments made against interracial and interfaith marriages in the past. We continually have evolved the meaning or marriage over time. Today it is a relationship between equals. Two hundred years ago women were property to their husbands.

well good thing your religion means nothing as far as government goes, even if you get married ina church you still have to register with the state for the benefits .You can define marriage anyway you want to as far as your specific religion. other religions include SSM, no religious freedoms for them? Only YOUR religion, right.

LOL to your procreation argument. lesbians can have babies, so marriage for them only? you didnt say natural procreation, so does that mean the straights that need technology to procreate are not married??

If marriage is not about rights. I CHALLENGE you to go to the state office, file for divorce and give up your government given married rights! You'll still be married by the church, which is what you think is most important. Give up your governmental and civil benefits. put your marriage argument where your mouth is!!

K. Kammeye, your arguments are not only false, but also misleading. If procreation is the purpose of marriage then why do we allow heterosexual couples over the age of 60 to marry? What about heterosexual couples who are incapable of having children? According to your argument they too should be banned from marriage. The Supreme Court ruled in the 1980's that marriage is a RIGHT afforded to all Americans. And so long as you have two legal, consenting adults, there are no logical arguments against SSM. And stop referring to the history of marriage. It just goes to show that you have no idea about the history of marriage. The definition has changed in the past and will continue to change. Furthermore, marriage stopped being about religion as soon as it was ingrained into the laws of this secular nation.

You need to do some real research re: marraige, Sir. Marraige has been redifined over the thousands of years of established tradition you speak of. Also the original purpose of the legal institution of marraige was about protection NOT procreation. This, I would think, would be obvious to one as smart as yourself.

Do some research on this...

The people speak in their vote and a court shoots them down. Then they want to appeal and they are told that only the state can appeal - and the state flunkies refuse.. Now a court finally gives them the right to appeal this affront on Democracy and the 9th circuit will decide - the most liberal appeals court in America that has been overturned more than any other circuit. And somethow the rights of these people are not seen to be under attack? Democracy used to be about votes and the will of the people - not the whim of state legislators and unelected biased judges. If the people of a state do not have the right to even define something as basic as marriage, what rights are left to them? California is turning into a true left wing fascist state where the minority uses courts rather than the ballot box.

It always comes back to civil rights and benefits, because that's all the legal contract that is civil marriage, is capable of granting. The religious side of the argument is simply irrelevant, because the government has no place in determining what's sacred. That's what church marriage is for. They are two separate things, you know. You can get either one without the other. Even if you want the government to suddenly start assessing sacredness on some quantitative scale, it's already built into the Constitution via the First Amendment and extensive case law, that the government can't favor one religion's definition of sacred over any others. And - here's the kicker - some churches and religions already recognize same sex marriage. By your own claims, the government would already be violating the equal protection clause by favoring some religions' interpretations over others.

And you'd do well to read up on the different definitions of marriage under different religions, before you claim that any such definition is eternal and unchanging. Marriage has been used to determine property rights, to obligate a man to take care of multiple wives, so many et ceteras that I don't have the time to type them.

Here's another fact: After SSM is recognized, there will still be precise equality of the type you mention, because every adult will have the right to marry another adult of the same sex. Equality. Not special rights. You perceive that such a right is useless to you? Bingo. That's the point.

"They gloss over the longstanding, never-changing true definition and purpose of marriage, which is PROCREATION. For obvious reasons, that option is not open to them."

Is that so? Despite the fact that gay people do have children (and yes, they even have biological children), if the "never-changing true definition and purpose of marriage" is procreation, then why is the prospect of having offspring NOT a requirement for civil marriage in this country? If it was, then many people would not be eligible for marriage, including post-menopausal women, women who have had hysterectomies, people who have sterilized themselves (i.e. vasectomies, tube-tied, etc.), and couples who just plain don't want babies.

Sorry, but no dice. If procreation is not a prerequisite for heterosexual marriage, then it can't be a prerequisite for same-sex marriage, either.

"Thousands of years of common law and tradition have established the fact that marriage is a religious sacrament between a man and a woman "

Actually, the most common form of marriage in the history of humanity has always been between a man and several women.

"Civil laws were enacted to recognize the sacred, religious nature of marriage"

Uh no. Civil laws were enacted SEPARATELY from religious doctrine. Because the government is not allowed to mediate religious matters, civil law must remain secular. Churches can exclude whomever they want from their marriage ceremonies, but civil law cannot be influenced by that. Otherwise, freedom of religion would be violated against millions of people who don't give a @!$%# what churches preach.

"Whatever your sexual persuasion may be, you still have all the rights that "straight" people have - ALL of them."

Except the right to marry the consenting adult of his/her choice.

"The "exclusivity" you speak of is a phantom argument. Whatever your sexual persuasion may be, you still have all the rights that "straight" people have - ALL of them one is denying you the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, if you so choose."

Now, this is just a douchebag argument, and you know it. I could just as easily flip this around. When same-sex marriage becomes legal everywhere, then EVERYONE will have the right to marry either sex, and nobody will be denying you the right to marry someone of the opposite sex OR the same sex. Everyone really will have the same rights. So what's the problem here?

"Thousands of years"? Get a grip. Marriage in its current form, with romantic love as a basis, has only existed since the early 19th century. Polygamy, harems, concubines -- these are all FAR more prevalent throughout human history than what you see today in America as marriage. And procreation? That argument is completely invalid, or all married couples would be required to breed. All marriages incapable of producing a child would be dissolved. So... back to the drawing board with you.

Besides, with seven billion people on the planet, I don't think procreation is a valid argument at all, anyway.

@Watermoon: you say

California is turning into a true left wing fascist state where the minority uses courts rather than the ballot box

Get yourself an education. Specifically research the definition of Fascism. You obviously have no idea what your are writing about.

They gloss over the longstanding, never-changing true definition and purpose of marriage, which is PROCREATION. For obvious reasons, that option is not open to them.

My wife can no longer have children, and I really don't want any at my age. Should we have been denied the right to marry? Our church performed the marriage, so obviously they didn't see a problem with it.

K

Sorry, but your version of history is wrong. Marriage was initially a contract. The concept has existed in every culture. It was used as a means to guarentee that a man's property would be inherited only by his offspring. This is where adultery came in also, because the men wanted to be sure only their sons (since women usually, but not always could not own property). Only later did it become a religious function. And even into modern times marriage was used to solidify political ties (European royalty for instance).

Even today two people may marry in a civil ceremony. The government licenses the marriage. The government has allowed churches to perform the ceremonies. You can be legally married in a civil ceremony without church approval but you cannot legally be married in a church without government approval.

Marriage is simply a legal contract between two people that confers specific legal and medical rights to the spouse. The religious part is optional.

I have yet to see a marriage equality opponent who claims marriage is for procreation actually come back to further justify his stance once it's pointed out that straight people who can't or simply have no intention of procreating are allowed to marry. Funny, isn't it, that every time they posit the same old tired, untrue arguments against same-sex marriage, they shut up and don't bother trying to clarify how the seriously flawed logic they tried to use at first might actually hold up, because it doesn't, and they know that.

But damned if that stops them from using the same old argument over and over with different people, hoping someone will be dumb enough to believe them. That's really all these people are: predators. They're preying on those even dumber than themselves to drum up support for their fallacious ideas/ideals.

That's why Republicans are so anti-education these days. They know that their wants and desires for our country (including passing legislation specifically denying gays equal rights) are completely untenable in a free and democratic society, and they know that the only way they'll ever get enough support to actually plunge us into an anti-Constitutional existence is to prey on the ignorant, and the best way to do that is to make sure the masses aren't given the choice to be anything but.

To those claiming "the will of the people is being subverted", you don't know how your own country is founded. We are a Constitutional Republic, which means that the majority cannot @!$%# on the rights of the minority.

The idea that homosexual marriage will not be shoved down the throats of the heterosexuals is incorrect. Do you have a family health insurance policy through your job? Well if the gay "families" can get a policy like that, everyone's costs will go up, especially considering that gays are more prone to irresponsible activities that are bad for their health. Can you imagine the court costs? The first gay couple in the US to have "married" has already divorced, and many more will follow suit. The hidden costs to the people will be tremendous.

This will be an even bigger problem when it reaches the federal level. You think the social security fight is a mess now? Just wait until your taxes are going to support some old lesbian "widow."

Besides that, this is not a civil right. No gay person is having the law applied to them differently. The law says a man and woman can get married. If they want to do that, go for it. That's not discrimination. Discrimination would be saying that since they're gay they can't get married at all.

Actually, gays work and pay taxes, and pay for their own insurance policies -- just like the rest of us.

The current rate of divorce among gays is approximately 5%, while the heterosexual divorce rate is above 50%. The divorce rate in the state of Massachusetts has actually decreased since gay marriage was legalized seven years ago.

And the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right," and their word trumps yours. DOMA has already been found unconstitutional by several federal judges as it is discriminatory -- and again, their word trumps yours.

I live in MA and am against same sex marriages. But the voting public voted for it, and it is law. That's life.

The CA public voted against it, and now some court says what they voted for is wrong.

What good are our votes if they can be overturned by the feds? I think the vote should stand. The Feds have no business getting in individual state laws.

If you don't like the law, campaign for a revote.

Erin I would like to marry my dog and cat. Where do we draw the line?

I choose to be heterosexual after I did not like my homosexual relationship.

Buck naked...can we deduce from your two statements that at least you'd like to marry a straight dog and cat (because anything else would be weird!)?

HaHa! Take that Mormons!! Way to waste all your money by using it to hate gays in California!! A-holes.

AmericanSoutherner, I hope your ignorance is not indicative of southerners in general, but I suspect it is.

COMMON SENSE ruling from the Court of Appeals!! It's about time to put this American Taliban movement of right wing nuts to rest and restore REAL American values. Now with up to 3 possible Supreme Court appointments by President Obama in his second term, we can really put this attempt to legislate from the bible to rest.

Mike - ditto! Let the Mormons and any other special interest group that thinks what Californians do is their business our collective behinds! California - welcome to the 21st Century where everyone is equal under the law!

AmericanSoutherner, as Erin has already pointed out, gays are taxpayers, and the current situation has them paying disproportionately for benefits for others that they themselves can't access. That should really end the refutation right there, but I've never been accused of sparing words,...

Your use of inflammatory language like claiming the hidden costs to taxpayers (which, again, already includes gays) of same-sex divorce will be "tremendous," is just,... quizzical. First, how were any of these costs you refer to hidden in the first place? Was it not assumed that some same-sex couples would divorce, just as some opposite-sex couples do? (By the way, I'm pretty sure the percentage of divorce so far is much lower than for opposite-sex marriages; more time will tell if they reach the same rate eventually.)

Second, by what measure are these costs "tremendous"? The anti-crowd is fond of claiming that gays comprise only 2% or so of the US population. Even if more objective sources are closer to the truth, and the proportion is around 6%, do you really mean to say that the divorce rate of whatever subset of that 6% get married and then divorced will be tremendous relative to the other 90-some% of the population?

Third, and I've said this plenty of other places - most people that Henry Ford was being glib and at least a little bit facetious when he said (paraphrased) 'people can get a Model T in any color they want, as long as it's black.' But your argument is really the same thing. Thing is, no one is asking for same-sex marriage to be made available only to gay couples. When SSM is legally recognized, every adult citizen will be allowed to marry another adult of the same sex. You perceive that that right is useless to you personally? Bingo - you're halfway there. Full recognition of same-sex marriage does not create any new inequalities or "special rights" - it only evens out the playing field.

Erin does your school board know you are using your business computer at work to access non work websites during the school work day?

The guy on the ad married his hamburger so I guess we live in a world where "everything goes" when it comes to marriage. California is a sick state in many ways. Whatever the people vote for is shot down so why vote? As teachers, we are now required to teach famous gay inventors. No way will I do that. I have no desire to have gay marriage flaunted in my face. We live in a sick, sick world. I know one thing . .. I am leaving California for a small midwest town that still has a semblance of morality.

I realize I will be collapsed by the same people who are thrilled to bring immorality into every aspect of our lives. I guess that is one way they get their thrills.

Gay / Lesbian people live together, sleep together, eat, kiss, file taxes etc... if we are allowing them to do all of this! why not get married?

The Gov. is playing games that goes around and around and around! but we know what they do and we're okay with it so marriage

The sin Lesbian and Gay people commit will not change if they get married, it s the same sin that s going to end them up in Hell one way or another

For some reason, the pro-SSM crowd's argument always comes back to "Rights and benefits". Why is this? Because that's all they have

Excellent point. Only you should have rights.

What good are our votes if they can be overturned by the feds? I think the vote should stand. The Feds have no business getting in individual state laws.

So you'd agree if a state, let's say, Alabama, held a referendum to allow the re-establishment of slavery, for example? You'd be OK with that, right?

Since so many people on here are so willing to cave in so as not to offend people, I will take a stand. GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG! PLURAL MARRIAGE IS WRONG! BESTIALITY IS WRONG! Unfortunately, we live in a world where wrong is now the new right. Sick world. Maranatha!

The current rate of divorce among gays is approximately 5%, while the heterosexual divorce rate is above 50%. The divorce rate in the state of Massachusetts has actually decreased since gay marriage was legalized seven years ago.

This is quantitatively inaccurate due to your statistics being culminated around a small fraction of a population that just inherited marriage rights in only a few states. I can almost bet, based on the longevity of the majority of most homosexual relationships that these numbers will drastically change in the next decade. The new numbers will almost certainly reveal a divorce rate that is either on par or that far surpasses heterosexuals who often remain married out of a religious premise or due to a large number of offspring.

If marriage is so sacred, then divorce should not be allowed.

An American Southerner...I am originally from Illinois, and moved to Alabama over a year ago. I love it here. People are nicer (except when they drive), and I have family here, too. I also have family in Mississippi.

So please, don't embarrass me by claiming to be from the South if you are going to be homophobic and make ridiculous comments. The South has enough problems with people thinking bad things about us (yes, I consider myself a Southerner, now).

So, what's your point, Riley? Hetrosexual divorce rates are over 50%. What effect does the divorce rate have on you?

Samantha : I agree with you 100% God Bless you for that! someone is making since now, I feel good and I am 100% men and I love women and I never seen what so good about the sh i t they do is nasty and big sin to God and Hell is their place if they dont quite!

I am 37 born in African but bright skin live in LA

AL--YES!!

And as a side note--ALL the world's so called 'great religions' were founded by MEN whose main goal was to insure that they and other like minded, similar looking MEN got to be the ones in charge and NO one else got any rights unless THEY said so.

The procreation argument is a simple one. From exactly zero homosexual unions can a single child be born. Yes, obviously, lesbians can go outside of that union and get pregnant and then raise the child inside the union. The opposite, however, is true for the vast majority of heterosexual unions. Yes, there are cases where inside the union no child can be created, but these are the exception, not the rule. So, please, stop being obtuse in arguing your case.

Make the case for homosexual marriage, if you can, on how society in general will benefit. That is the point, after all, of heterosexual marriage--society in general is thought to benefit.

Civil marriage is not sacred. Religious marriage might be. This isn't about religion, at least not with this atheist. So let's quit with the quips about how since one thing is allowed all things must be allowed. Even you leftists don't believe that kind of garbage. Don't believe me? Fine. Look at how you live your own lives, raise your own kids, run your own affairs. Just because one person does something different, or possibly even wrong, you don't run around claiming everyone should be allowed to be just as different or wrong. Geesus I can't believe someone has to point out the obvious to you.

Im all for gays having equal civil union rights, they shoudl be allowed to have the same rights as any other man and woman who can file jointly, or get on each others insurance. With that being said, I still am in favor and support the holy marriage of Man and woman to be married. Marriage is something that existed long before we were here in the united states, and way before our constitution.

The guideline / Boundaries need to be set for marriage, well have already been set. If we change them to allow gays to be married, then we open the door for marriages of all kinds to happen. As in , people marrying their livestock / animals, brother marrying sister, father marrying daughter, a man marrying many wives.

Even with the supreme court already making their stance on polygamy , or sodomy, ect ect ... who are they to decide, what marriage is ? It need sto be left alone.

Hi LadyC,

More divorces, all things being equal, means more children in homes without a mom and dad present. And that means, if you believe in correlation between NOT having a father in the home and lower school performance and greater social pathologies, that we will spend more on remediation efforts, or substance abuse programs, or incarceration, or whatever. I'm not arguing we should make divorce illegal, just that there are massive social costs associated with it.

We vote our Presidential Candidates into office by a Majority vote and no one not even a Judge can overturn it but maybe these Judges will find a way to do that.

Craig John: the courts absolutely overruled the majority vote in Bush v. Gore 2000.

Craig John,

You realize they were trying to with the natural born citizen deal on Obama, right?