If you mean Prop. 8 will be voted down and same-sex marriage will return to that state, well, gays and the rest of us who believe in equality of rights under the law will of course be excited and delighted. And the Court will vote at least 6-3 in favor of equality.

Why aren't there 10,000 comments already? Usually articles about gay rights are swamped with comments in seconds. Maybe its falling to the side in the light of more pressing issues.

I am as opposed to gay marriage as a legal issue as much as I am opposed to all marriage as a legal concept. We need to separate legal rights from commitment and the spiritual. My husband and I have no interest in marriage other than to get legal rights to inheritance, medical rights, divorce, etc.

How about we give the legal rights that now accrue to married couples to all couples, regardless of gender, who are willing to enter into a legal arrangement and register that with the state. Leave the spiritual stuff to churches. If your church will conduct a marriage for you, fine. If not, too bad, but you would still have all the legal rights.

I don't understand why this solution isn't acceptable to gays who say they are being denied legal rights and to gays who say that's what they want.

Yes, and who cares? We have Veterans in this country that don't get their due because we care about this crap. Don't plug up the system with your garbage and let's fix the things that matter.

Help the Veterans of this country and forget the gay crap!!!! There are real and important things to do here in the US and this does not include the queer stuff.

happy to have end in sight? they wrote that on purpose.

What most people are upset about is the Majority of Californians voted for Proposition 8 in 2008 only to have a judge overturn the will of the people. Same sex marriage was not what Californians wanted and a judge is overturning one of our fundamental rights: voting. Same sex marriage is a morality issue of perversion and not a civil right.

It's going to be awesome in a few short months when the Supreme Court rules it must become legal in all 50. Love to see churches lose all their hate money spent desperately trying to sway elections, and see divisive, backwards evangelicals have all this smashed in their faces, crushed and humiliated again.

Man of Steel, yes, 4 years ago, a modest majority of Calif. voters passed Prop. 8, 7 million to 6.4 million. And I doubt any well-informed political science mavens would argue that if it were on the ballot again now, it would be soundly defeated, because public opinion on the matter has evolved very quickly. Also, regardless of how many people voted for it, the question of whether it was an unconstitutional law remains to be decided. If people approve a law that conflicts with the US Constitution, that law gets thrown out.

Shipwrecked....I'm a gay veteran. You can kiss my backside. Your name is appropriate. You live on an a deserted island with only your hateful views.

The "end will be within their sight" when they meet their maker.

Next on the Progressive list will be marriage to multiple partners.

@Blanka Pez:

How about we give the legal rights that now accrue to married couples to all couples, regardless of gender, who are willing to enter into a legal arrangement and register that with the state

Actually, marriage is just that: a civil contract ("a legal arrangement registered with the state"). Any "spiritual" aspect of this the state doesn't recognize. There is no reazon to deny this contract to two persons of the same gender.

There was a day when SHAME actually meant something. That day is fading quickly into whatever you do, if it is right in your eyes, then it's o.k.

Oh, I doubt if Prop 8 will be voted down. The governor of Ohio 'came out' and led the way for Hillary Clinton to 'come out'. She has cast out her net out for the souls that have had their consciences seared with a hot iron.

@Man #2:

As the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia (1967), (right to enter a) marriage is a civil right. You cannot deny this civil right to a protected class, unless there is a legitimate government interest. So far the courts didn't see a legitimate government interests in denying that right.

Man of Steel. Not only does the judge have the right to over-rule the decision of the California voters in Prop8, the judge and now the SCOTUS has the responsibility to over-rule that vote, as the Constitution requires equal treatment under the law and we cannot by popular vote deny that. The judges are just doing their jobs.

EMDF9A: Then why was it even put up for a vote? It seems to me that when a vote goes against the lefty liberals. they want a judge to intervene to overrule the voice of the people. Same as the gun control ban. Obama said to put it up to a vote. The vote came back no. Now, you have Mayor Bloomberg prancing around with Bonehead Biden trying to overturn what was just voted on. Doesn't make any sense. Either we have a society that has their votes count, or we have a dictatorship that supersedes the will of the people. It's a waste of tax payers money to have the votes then have them overruled.

Randy, you are anything BUT rational. It was put to a vote because California has a citizen initiative process that allows ordinary folks to propose law. Those laws, if passed, still have to pass Constitutional muster. And thus far, this has not.

As for your comment about a dictatorship superceding the will of the people, please also remember that we are NOT a democracy where the will of the people is supreme, but rather a constitutional representative republic. ALL laws have to pass the Constitutional test if challanged. The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, was witten to protect the rights of the minority.

You can't legislate morality. Same sex marriage is a moral issue not a civil rights issue. proposition 8 was passed by a majority and no judge has the right to overrule the will of Californians who voted on this issue.

There is a fair degree of truth in your first sentence. On every other point, however, you are sadly, grievously mistaken.

Man of Steel#2

The judge has every right to do this, as the vote of a majority can not by statute of law be used to restrict the rights of a minority.

EMDF9A: I stand corrected, my bad. I did not realize that the voter's approved of gay marriage in 2008. If this was voted by the majority of the people, then it should stand. Again, if something is voted on by the majority of the citizens, the decision should stand. Otherwise, it should not be put to a vote at all.

Rational Randy, it doesn't matter what the voters decided, because being a citizen of the US and having equal rights under Constitutional laws, trumps voters who disagree with that right. Voters cannot and should not determine the civil rights afforded to individuals. Government by voter rule should *never* regulate an individual's civil rights.

Rational Randy

Read my comment above, that's why you are wrong.

We have this thing called the Constitution, which is there to protect the rights of the population and to be used to prevent the rights of the minority being removed by the majority. This is where the judges come into decide whether or not this has ocurred all with in the frame work of the Constitution.

Tommy and Krestov: Then why waste taxpayers money even having a vote? What if a mother wanted to marry her adult son? Two consenting adults making a decision. Do they have a right to do so? Are they infringing upon other people's rights if they wish to marry? Should the Constitution allow this because we don't want to infringe upon their rights?

Indeed Randy, there is nothing rational about you.

It was put to a vote by bigots who want to restrict peoples rights no matter what it cost the taxpayers.

Your slippery slope argument has no value. And you would see that if only you bother to look at thoses places that allow gay marriage.

Jo: I don't understand how my argument is a slippery slope that has no merit. In the same fashion that gays want equal rights, what is wrong with people who wish to marry their mother. Both are consenting adults. They have rights too. By you not allowing that, you are a bigot. Personally, I don't care if gays wish to marry; but by the same token, you cannot deprive others their civil rights to what they wish to, as long as they are not hurting others. I disagree with the idea of being allowed to marry your dog, because the dog is not a rational being, but two adults is a different story. What part of this argument has no merit?

I think the Supreme Court should throw in the argument people should be able to have multiple spouses. Why should a man not have many wives if he and they all agree? Women too, gays should have multiple partners also if they chose. What right does the government have determining who you marry?

Remember the biggest supporters of marriage are the divorce attorneys.

Did I miss Clint Eastwood bringing up gay marriage with the chair routine or is he just another closet Republican?

Randy,

i.e Mother marrying her son aka gay marriage will allow for incest marriage.

Incest is illegal. Homosexual relationships are not illegal. That's the first hurdle that has to be overcome in your argument. Incest relationships are illegal in all states and that would have to be repealed before they would be allowed to marry. Gay relationships are not illegal. Reaching for ridiculous claims of harm as a reason to not allow groups to access civil rights does not work. IF you want to do that, then you have to go back and say when women were included in the decision on whom they married as the seminal event that changed traditional marriage. Marriage was a construct of arrangement and not of choice for thousands of years. The idea that women were able to participate in choosing their mate is a relatively new concept in history. (Unless you were Celt, but that's another discussion.) Then came interfaith marriage. Then came interracial marriage. Marriage is constantly changing and representing the age of social conscious. There are some studies that show the early church gave blessings to same sex unions, but then it disappeared.

For those that argue this is the way it has been done through out history, I have this to say to you. America, and its Constitution, have not been around through history and our Constitution guarantees certain rights and privileges to its people. You can argue morality until the sun goes down, but, our country was not founded on the principle of religious government as they were leaving a country they felt had no religious freedom. As their ideas and feelings on religion did not always match, the founding fathers of this country left religion out of the governmental make up and left it to the people to choose their own religion and practices. In other words, what one man finds moral is not what another man can find moral and must not be represented in the government. For example: A Baptist believes they are correct in their salvation message while a Catholic believes he/she is correct in their salvation message. The Baptist cannot make a law that will restrict the freedoms and rights of the Catholic based on religious pretext simply because the Baptist is in power. Furthermore, simply because the Catholic and Baptist agree that the Mormon is wrong cannot join forces to make laws that limit the rights of the Mormon. Simply because the Baptist, the Catholic, and the Mormon agree they don't like something doesn't give them the right to legislate the laws to keep civil rights out of the hands of gays. Do you see my point?

As far as California's legislative process, I would like to point out that some time back Colorado passed a law that being a homosexual was illegal. The people voted on it and it was found unconstitutional and was repealed. In our country we have freedom of speech and certain states allow voter initiatives to be included in their voting process. Simply because it's popular, or even misunderstood, does not mean it doesn't have to pass the same standards as any other legislative initiative.

randi - are you REALLY as stupid as you appear to be? I fail to see how a mother-son relationship can be a gay union (unless he has had the addacracktome or she had had the addadicktome operation) Now screw your head on straight (it appears to be cross threaded right now) I assume that you think that what others do affects your ability to do something else?

Aren't gays always happy to have ends in sight? Isn't that their thing?

rossj503 - An up vote wasn't enough - I also wanted to say "great comment"!

put a fork in it:

if you would place your focus on what I said and not on name calling you would see I never said a mother son marriage is a gay marriage. If you can read basic English, I said that if rights are granted to gays to marry, which personally I don't care if they do or not; (I have far too many other important issues to be concerned with) , then if a mother wants to marry her son, they should be granted a right to do so.

Rossj 503: your whole argument validates what I have been saying. Marriage has been constantly changing to suit the needs of those wishing to wed. Morality should not play a part of it. Incest is considered morally wrong. But 30 years ago, homosexuality was considered morally wrong. Who's to say whats right and whats wrong, whats moral and whats not moral. Everyone has a right to acceptance. Who knows, in the future maybe incest will be considered not only normal, but accepted as a rite of passage. Maybe they will change the laws and make it legal for a mother to marry her son.

Randy, perhaps you are from a state that does not have the initiative process. (The majority of states dont) so you do not understand how the process works.

Any citizen can file an initiative with the state (provided they pay the fee) and then they must gather X number of signatures. If they gather the required number of signatures it is placed on the ballot. Please note that the Constitutionality of a PROPOSED law in the initiative cannot be challanged BEFORE the law is enacted. So IF it is approved by the voters, then and only then can someone challange it in court as unconstitutional. And that is exactly the process followed by Prop8 in California. It is how it is SUPPOSED to work: Judicial Review AFTER the fact.

Now of course, EVERY court that has examined the issue has found it to be unconstitutional. EVERY court. So, I'm prety confident that even with the RWNJs on SCOTUS they too will find it unconstitutional, and re-instate California's previosu statute allowing same sex marriage.

@Ross, your argument is not sound. Prop 8 made it illegal to have a homosexual marriage. This may be unconstitutional and the judges can strike it down as such. In the same vein, a law that makes incest illegal may also be unconstitutional as well and a judge can also strike it down. Marriage equality means that anybody can marry anybody, including having multiple spouses, as long as those anybody's are consenting adults of sound mind. Any other restrictions on marriage should be deemed unconstitutional including a ban on gay marriage, a ban on incest marriage, or a ban on polygamy.

ManofSteel,

You're completely wrong.

Marriage is a legal contract, ergo it falls under the umbrella of equal protection.

First, there are certain "protected classes" laid out in the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Two of them are race and gender. In the Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia, SCOTUS ruled that,

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Now this case was based on race, BUT to support gay marriage, all you have to do is change race to GENDER, another protected class. PLUS, the 14th Amendment has a little something called the "Privileges and Immunities" clause. Which means, you can't deny the citizens, their privileges, or immunities, based on those classes. In this case, that'd be gender.

So, since marriage is a legal (that means law) contract, that comes with PRIVILEGES, you can't deny citizens, without a damn good, already been shown to exist, reason, from entering it based on gender, among other things. So, if the state can't prove a reason, to deny privileges to people based on gender, they can't make that particular law.Now, put it together. If two gay people want to enter a contract, and the state tells them they can't, because of the gender of one of the parties, THAT'S A BIG NO NO. And YES, this is about gender and not sexuality, that's why DOMA would allow a gay man and gay woman to marry, but not two straight men.

Also, the logic that gay people are free to marry, just as you are, i.e they're free to marry one of the opposite sex, is the EXACT same defense that Virginia used in their defense, again just turn gender to race.

The court ruled, AGAINST that logic.

Second, you have an implied right to privacy, mostly through the 9th and 4th Amendments. In a the SCOTUS case Lawrence v Texas, the court said this...

The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Third, AGAIN, marriage is a civil contract, that comes with over 1,000 benefits granted by the state. Most of these benefits deal with property, insurance, tax and probate law. Civil unions, do NOT grant equivalent benefits. In order to enter a legal contract, the parties have to have LEGAL CAPACITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT.

Furthermore, marriages are NOT religious, that's Holy Matrimony, which a church can NEVER be forced to perform against its dogma, due to protections in the 1st Amendment. This is why people can, and do, get married any day without ever stepping foot in a church.

Also, marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. After all, we let people have kids OUTSIDE of marriage, and NOT have kids while married.

Finally, there are very few limited reasons for the government to discriminate in law, against one of these protected classes, and in order to do so, the government has to pass the test of strict scrutiny, which is that compelling state interest mentioned in Lawrence v Texas.

So....

The real question, those making the case for continuing the gender based discrimination of DOMA is, what is that compelling state interest? And before we start talking about marrying appliances, nephews, sheep, or dead people...

The reasonings as to why incest, beastiality, et. al are illegal is tied in no ay to either homosexuality or marriage. That's why when we ceased to uphold "sodomy" laws they didn't magically become legal.

But regardless, it's STILL not valid, because the slippery slope doesn't apply to expansion of rights, it applies to the contraction of rights. It's applicable to the government. Ergo, the legal and logical way to apply the slippery slope to THIS situation would be to say, "Allowing the GOVERNMENT the power to ban marriage based on gender, which is a PROTECTED CLASS, could lead to the GOVERNMENT claiming they have the power to ban marriage based on OTHER PROTECTED CLASSES, like RACE or RELIGION (which by the way is a CHOICE, just like I'm sure you're about to claim sexual orientation is)".

And then, ask yourself this...

Why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to any of that?

And technically, the burden of proof is on those limiting rights, (the anti-marriage equality folks), so you all should really be making the case, not us.

Also, you have to look at the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution. That says that the legal matters of one state must be upheld by other states. Right now, DOMA attempts to circumvent that and allows states to NOT acknowledge the marriage contracts of other states.

And NO, this isn't a states rights issue, that's why previous marriage cases, i.e Loving, made it to SCOTUS and was ruled on.

And OF COURSE, marriage isn't in the Constitution, because the Constitution doesn't govern the actions of citizens. It limits and enumerates the power of the government. The only time a constitutional amendment applied to the behavior of citizens was prohibition, and tell me how THAT worked out, please.

Anilof - Your argument is the one that is not sound. Trying to argue that allowing gay marriage requires allowing polygamy or incest is just nonsense. The court can strike down this law as unconstitutional the same way they did for laws banning interracial marriages.

hey - I just call 'em as I SEE 'em

EMDF9A: you are correct. New York does not have the initiative process. Thank you for the education.

I'm glad NY doesn't have this, it seems to be a huge waste of taxpayers dollars. I hope they shoot the Prop 8 down, I don't think it should have even come to fruition.

You are welcome. It CAN be a huge waste of taxpayer dollars (Here in Washington our local TP initiative guru Timmy Eyeman has just had several of his latest initiatives ruled unconstitutional AGAIN) and it has cost us Washintonians millions in court costs & wasted man hours alone.

BUT it can also be a positive experience. Again here in WA because of the initiative process we now have legalized (and tax) Marijuana. Paving the way fro other states and eventually the Federal government to follow suit.

Sally,

Thank you!

Randy,

We don't have to look at why something is moral or not to see if it should or should not be something that is included. I'm not saying incest is moral or not. Scientific data does show that there are biological reasons why incest is not a good match with genetics being what they are. Also, many don't understand this, but, incest relationships already hold a great deal of legal clout simply because they are blood relatives. When it comes to matter of wealth and enterprise, a blood bond holds up in court without the need for marriage. This has proven the case in inheritance cases where a partner is denied inheritance and estates being awarded to blood family because they are "blood" family. Gays and lesbians don't have this system built in, neither do heterosexual couples.

Polyamorous families already enjoy the ability to marry one spouse and leave the legal framework for surviving members. Poly families will have a hard time passing muster for legality not because of morality, but because of money. Poly families traditionally end up using public resources as one man cannot support say three wives and fifteen kids. Also, these types of unions are usually religious based and have their roots in a church. They will be married into Holy Matrimony by the officiant. They already exist and enjoy protections from the first marriage. There are no laws stating how many children a man can father through x number of women. Or how many children a woman can have by any number of men. But even still, they enjoy more legal protections than a gay or lesbian family.

While on the subject, you wont see people able to marry their animals. Our laws are such that an animal, or a child, cannot enter into a legal contract because they do not have the understanding nor the capability to sign any legal contract.

Will the social conscious change in the next 50-100 years? It could, certainly. I doubt it however. What I do know is that you cannot deny gays and lesbians the rights now based on a "what if" argument into the future. Leaving morality out of the equation shows that gays and lesbians are the most unprotected legal family structure in our country to date.

This is what I know. Gays and lesbians would have been plenty happy to have been recognized and have their relationships solidified with a Union 20 years ago. Instead, what gays and lesbians were met with was violence and being told they didn't matter and that their voices weren't worth listening to. It's only after decades of persistence and fighting for basic civil rights that protect them that gays and lesbians have been able to reach the point they are at now. Now, some people are clamoring for Civil Unions simply because they don't want the word marriage used. They aren't offering it out of a sense of right, but simply because they do not want to concede that they are losing their own personal wars. Is it a wonder that gays and lesbians have learned that fighting for total inclusion is the only way that they will be treated like a total American? Can anyone not see the fear of, "We only serve married couples," types of slogans? "We don't recognize Civil Unions," will be the rally and cry of certain businesses. Also, some argue that Civil Unions should be open to any two people, period. In Oregon, for example, any two people can be in a Domestic Partnership. That means the dreaded incest is already legally recognized. Gays and lesbians aren't happy having their relationships compared to "any two people" and can you blame them? Our relationships are being compared to "shaking up" with whomever, when in fact, we are creating life long bonds of family, raising children, and amassing wealth like every other family in America. So why should we have to accept something less than and fraught with the peril of being seen as less than and discriminated against?

Truth is that incest couples already enjoy a level of legal protection.

Polygamy families already enjoy a level of legal protection.

Gays and lesbians are the only couples that have little to no protection and is easily overturned.

Sarah,

I remember the news reports that the time of judge wes walker ruling was said to be 'extremely narrow' and any higher courts ruling would only apply to prop-8. That said, could scotus just send this down to district level again, or say its only for the state courts to decide?

Rat-Ran., #1.38,

Yes, so much better to have the politicians waste the taxpayers money..that is the professional duty of a politician after all, is it not.

New York does not have the initiative process.

I'm glad NY doesn't have this, it seems to be a huge waste of taxpayers dollars.

MY own: that certainly seems to be the case, especially with Mayor Bloomberg wasting tax payers dollars dictating the size of a soda you can drink or where you can place your cigarettes.

RatRan.,

You misunderstand, they were labeled 'High capacity assault sodas', Bloomie had no choice but to ban them.

if it's equal "rights" for all, why aren't you lauding marriage rights for siblings, polygamy, or parent-child?

After all, if they're "consenting adults", why are they "deprived?"

All the modern liberal haters of marriage being a man and a woman (years of undermining marriage with the societal demand and acceptance of divorce, so now society is so lax to think marrying same sex is just fine...)?

Gimme-

The article is about same sex couples...nothing to do with or requesting marriage
between siblings, polygamy, or parent-child etc.

Your exaggerating doesn't really make a point.
How has the marriage of a same sex couple so negatively affected you to be against it?

Gimme

Explain to me what it is that makes you believe homosexuals getting married is unacceptable...

Is it that little storybook you keep in your nightstand?

Greg, just guessing, but I suspect that those most vehemently opposed to equality under the law were brainwashed as children by mythology peddlers and have yet to recover.

I think its absurd that the gay-rights activist are forced to result to childish attacks against a persons religion and beliefs in order to defend their social agenda. But since they have the supposed "moral high ground" they have every right to act like children. So how dare we question them.

Childish acts such as "taking a case to the US Supreme Court to defend their constitutional rights?" Yeah, how childish...

cory, very simple answer, marriage has always been something to legitimize a relationship between a man and a woman perpetuating the continuation of the our population. Most of us that are against same sex marriage are only against it because no matter what side of the issue you are on, it is completely different. Call it unions or anything else you want to. Give them the same rights as traditional couples, but let's not ignore the fact that they can never be the same. In the rush for those who want to become something other than what they are just so they can say they are equal to what they can never really be equal to, we must change the definition of marriage. Why? It's really that simple.

Lanikai, the definition of marriage has been changed many times throughout the course of human history.

Cope.

Toasty, nothing in the constitution can be construed to recognize that marriage between a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman is a civil right or in anyway can be equal. They will never and were never meant to be the same. It's physically impossible.

Misscreant, I'm coping quite well thank you. You don't see me trying to change what cannot be changed by just calling it something it is not.

How many times since our constitution was written has the definition of marriage changed? Give us just one example.

Lanikai, uh, when our Constitution was written, marriage was legally defined as marriage between one man and one woman of the SAME RACE.

I believe we have changed that.

You are correct, but at least a man and a woman of any race are capable of naturally creating a living human being and same sex couples are not. The intent of entering into a marriage has never changed and never will be able to change unless you change the definition of marriage. Your argument is ridiculous, but don't let the facts of life get in your way.

Lanikai

Facts? Really? Where does it say that the sole purpose of marriage is to "procreate?

Lanikai

Facts? Really? Where does it say that the sole purpose of marriage is to "procreate?

You wouldn't know where, because I doubt you ever did any research on the matter. You just believe what the media tells you.

If the sole reason for marriage was procreation, it would be illegal for those who are infertile, or those that are past the capability to bear children, to marry.

Until recently, marriage was a business arrangement, often not arranged by those entering into the marriage, especially for the woman.

Lanikai:

1. Marriage is not required to procreate.
2. Procreation is not required to marry.

Your argument is invalid. Next?

Lanikai, the ability or desire to procreate is not now nor ever has been a prerequsite for obtaining a civil marriage license in any state of the USA.

Lanikai Ron

The definition of marriage in the United States has been refined, changed and added to no less that 16 times since the signing of the constitution, and not one of these changes have required children to be part of marriage.

However anyone can adopt.

Lanikai,

While I'm sure you've done a dandy job offending all the infertile people reading this, I feel the need to inform you that gay men's sperm and gay woman's eggs still work.

If you're really concerned about procreation in marriage, it would be more on point for you to protest against "infertile" or "too old to have kids" marriage.

Except that sexual lust and consummation between those of the same sex is a taboo, forbidden, sinful, disgusting and socially unacceptable.

Why do you hate the fact that homosexual acts are legitimately regarded as unacceptable behavior?

'Legitimately' by religious crackpots that preach sections of the Bible but forget that a) you claim your God is kind and loving, yet somehow hates certain people and b) that God is apparently omnipotent and created us in His image yet is willing to stand by and do nothing to stop this 'horrible sin'

Saying homosexuality is a sin is no different than saying black people deserve to be slaves and we own this country instead of the Native Americans who were here before us

No hate here.

Just a demand that decent human beings receive the respect they deserve.

Just because YOU find them unacceptable doesn't mean they are. Also why do all the anti gay marriage focus on the sex part? How about the right to make medical decisions for your soul mate? Being able to put them on your medical insurance? Make end of life decisions? Claim them as a tax deduction? Or any of the 2,000 of things that your spouse can do. Remember that the majority of heterosexual couples engage in the same sex acts as homosexual one do. So I guess sex is a taboo, forbidden, sinful, disgusting and socially unacceptable unless it is done in the missionary position according to your hateful book.

Do any of you dolts have reading comprehension? He says he supports gay marriage.

Are you taking about legal rights or a spiritual state of commitment and love? How about giving them the legal rights and not calling it marriage? Do the same for hetero couples. Want to get married? Go find a church that will perform a marriage for you. That way everyone is treated exactly the same

What if there was NO marriage for ANYONE? No rights to make medical decisions. No right to any children birthed by your mate. No tax deductions for them or their children. No provision for putting them on your insurance. No right to inheritance of property. (If you bought a house together and one of you passed, blood relatives could either force you to buy their half, buy your half or just reimburse you for what you could PROVE you paid toward the house). You couldn't take anything that you couldn't prove that you had paid 100% for if you broke up or one died. You couldn't visit them in intensive care or decide where, when or how their body would be dealt with after death. You couldn't decide to donate their organs. You couldn't sign for life-saving measures if they were unresponsive. If you weren't a blood relative, you would have NO say over ANYTHING. How would you feel if these rights were denied you? Would you march, lobby or protest. Try to get laws passed giving you these rights? Or would you just roll over and leave your soft underbelly exposed to vulturous blood relatives. Would you see everything go to an estranged brother instead of you, who worked for it, built it, shared it? How would you feel then, Hater?? How would you feel?

The spiritual state is holy matrimony and that is entirely up to each church; however, marriage is a contractual agreement between two adults. All adults should be able to enter that contractual relationship with any competent adult they wish to be so bound to.

Greg 123,I agree and excellent comments.Banning gay couples from being able to marry should not have been a voter issue in the first place.I am a California native and am ashamed that this even passed.

Earth to Greg: Here's the real deal on marriage: Whether one believes in God or not, it is an undeniable fact that tens of millions of years of evolution have devised sexuality for the purposes of pro-creation. Nature is a very harsh mistress, as those who study the natural world can readily attest. Therefore, we can, with all honesty, call a homosexual devolutionary; an individual whom nature, for reasons that may always remain obscure to us, did not intend to reproduce. Under normal circumstances, that is, in a sound and happy marriage, there is no more natural affection as that shown between a husband and wife, and between parent and child. In response to what we can call the naturalness of marriage, it is incumbent upon both citizen and public official to continue to recognize the centrality of marriage and to maintain that centrality in law, and to reject all attempts to abolish it or legalize so-called alternatives. Traditional marriage was created to safeguard the welfare of, and to establish responsibility for, any offspring ensuing from heterosexual activities, and not to give legal and social approval to unrestrained and irresponsible sexual activity.

Let the members of the demimonde live out their lives and conduct their private business privately, far from the public eye and with no control over public institutions.

Nature may have given us sexuality for pleasure and procreation, but marriage has, until recently, been a business arrangement.

I agree with you. Let them be seen as actual human beings, do not judge them by their sexual orientation, they work, they pay bills and their taxes....no one deserves to not have rights to get married. That is how I feel and how I view this...they have as much right to get married as us heteros, thank you

Except that sexual lust and consummation between those of the same sex is a taboo, forbidden, sinful, disgusting and socially unacceptable

Well, let's deconstruct your stupid little list, shall we?

Taboo: nope, not in 21st century America

Forbidden: totally not; the Supreme Court already ruled on that one. Thanks for playing, though.

Sinful: no such thing as sin, it's an artificial construct of weak-minded religious people who believe in invisible, nonexistent beings.

Disgusting: not to the people who enjoy it; as for you personally, if you find it disgusting, don't engage in it. No problem.

Socially unacceptable: nobody is crusading for laws to make being gay socially acceptable; that's happening all on its own... people are fighting for legal equality. Hope the distinction is clear to you.

To those who keep coming back in here saying let's have civil union and let marriage to the church.

Once again, and read slowly to try to comprehend :

There is already such a thing as civil unions, it's called marriage. And there is a religious rite, it's called holy matrimony.

Once again, marriage IS a civil contract. And it never belonged to any religion.

Nature is a very harsh mistress

God, nature, whatever. Gays have been with us since the beginning of time and will be here until we wipe ourselves off the face of the earth. Now, why would that be true if it were so "unnatural"? Personally, I think God created gays to force certain rigid minds to reach a higher spiritual understanding of the real meaning of love -- but I'd never ask anyone to vote on that.

Thinkforyourself,

Sinful: no such thing as sin, it's an artificial construct of weak-minded religious people who believe in invisible, nonexistent beings.

Don't you think you could make a reasonable argument without disparaging all religious people. You religion-o-phobes are as bad as the homophobes.

religion is the opium of the people - a placebo for those to poor to afford the real thing.

The churches are in the business of BRAINWASHING and increasing their herd to get more $$

I don't "fear" religion but I DO "detest" it

I don't fear religion nor do I detest it in all its incarnations, but I definitely think that none of them have any passable evidence for their supernatural claims.

I used to think like you. But as human beings, we have standards and protocol and norms. It's not natural for same sex people to know each other sexually. It's a sin. You don't pass a law approving a sin for the sake of "equality" or "fairness." There are people out there who want to marry animals and have sex with animals too. Do you approve that? This generation is deceived by the constant bombardment from Hollywood movies and TV shows into thinking homosexuality is not abominable. What we call "tolerance," God calls it "approval for wickedness." Don't be scared to stand up for what's true. Deep down you know homosexuality is top class wickedness--not only in the eye of religious people but even among secular pagan people (Even Nazi Germany persecuted gays based on non-religious views.) It's only until recently, when the homosexuals tried to influence public opinion through movies and TV shows, that we started to think like you think now. They're smart. They started it the social programming on a smaller scale. Best way of boiling a frog is to slowly increase the temprature of the water. If you drop a frog into a boiling water, it will jump out.

From which I get the argument that the fairer solution is to give legal rights to any couple who wants it and leave the "marriage" to the churches or other organizations. Marriage then has no legal status and everyone has the same rights as a couple. Stop confusing law with religion.

Blanca, marriage IS the legal term. The word marriage is written into our laws. We would have to rewrite thousands of laws to do as you are suggesting.

I believe it is you who are confusing law and religion.

"It's not natural for same sex people to know each other sexually. It's a sin."

It is natural since it occur in nature, close to 1500 species display homosexual behavior, and the list is growing.

No I am not advocating infanticide (to the morons who always come back and say : well duh infanticide occur in nature ! Are you saying we should do that ?) I'm just responding to the unnatural claim.

And Blanca, there is already such a thing, it's called marriage, the church engage in holy matrimony, not marriage. Let marriage to EVERYONE and the church can keep their rite.

Ethioboy:

You have a few interesting statements in your diatribe there, “secular pagan people” stuck me as the most curious.... I need to deconstruct this… so, bear with me for a moment.

Secular (Adjective) Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis: "secular buildings"

Pagan (Noun) A person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions.

Well, see, there’s your trouble… you’ve confused paganism with secularism. “Secular pagan people,” is in fact, an oxymoronic statement (think wise fool). OK, I’m good now… continuing on.

As for the other point(s) of your post, I just find it amusing that almost everything you stated was said almost 50 years ago (Loving v. Virginia), and during the women’s suffrage movement, and during a time when slavery was being questioned.

"It's a sin to allow a black man and a white woman to know each other sexually."

"A woman's place is in the home... it is sinful to allow a woman to work..."

"To deny a man the right to own slaves is, in fact, a sin against the very nature of G-d"...

Blah blah blah...

Any time our society (and by that I mean American society) is faced with something that goes against our prim Puritan roots, people like yourself make it a point to scream from the rafters that the sky is falling.

And on your point of people lining up at the local court house to marry their basset hound, the main issue I have with that statement is that animals cannot enter into a legal contract in this country... they can be part of it, but marriage, in this country, is a legal contract between two consenting adults... So the "dogs marrying cats and the women running wilds in the street" argument is moot.

Lastly, what I find most amusing is that people like you, those who use the Bible to justify their biases, oft forget one of the most important lessons in the Bible; Matthew 7:1.

I wish you more peace than you’ve had thus far, on the rest of your journey.

@ ShirleyJ~

Excellent post! Thanks :-)

Shirley: You are incredibly wrong. The Old Testament, according to the Bible, is replaced by the new Testament. Yes, you can eat shellfish, no, slavery is NOT allowed, but yes, homosexuality is STILL an abomination in the New Testament. Stop making a fool out of yourself by posting old rules for Israel as new rules for the U.S. and the rest of the world. Homosexuality is a sin.

Only in the eye of the religious as sin is only in the eye of religion. Sin is not a secular word.

Sorry Tim, but you can't have it both ways. Either all of the Torah laws still apply, or none of them. Pick a side, kiddo.

There you go thinking. This country is actually a democratic republic NOT a democracy. A true democracy would be a very bad place to live unless you were in the majority. Don't like red heads ? Pass a law to imprison them. Don't like Jews? Do the same thing. This country has a saying of life,liberty and justice for ALL!! not the people that fit your personal ideal of proper. Also This country doesn't care what a man in a funny hat in Italy says. We also have a separation of church and state to prevent archaic laws being applied with no means to change them in place.

Civil rights in this country are not put to a vote.

red9086,The will of bigoted people is not acceptable to me.I am a native Californian.If you're not then your opinion is moot.

The Pope said it best, "The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where out environment is concerned, now becomes man's fundamental choice where he himself is concerned."

I'm sorry, but pretty much nothing any pope has ever said would remotely be considered to be "the best." There's a reason why pope quotations have never really taken off. When was the last time you saw a "Pope Quote" book, or even a bumper sticker.

If that's the best underpinning you have to "strengthen" your argument, you're in bad shape.

P.S. You're also wrong about the whole "democracy" thing, but you've already been roundly schooled on that point, so I'll ease off.

Then how can we deny men motherhood? or maternity leave? or abortion rights?

Why are intelligent people under the age of 18 denied the right to alcoholic beverages or the right to vote?

There are just as many "rights" denied anyone who is single (not married) -- so why must it be rammed into public thought that it's only about "gay rights?"

Comparing gay "rights" to that of the civil rights that blacks truly were denied pre-1964 is a slap in the face.

If Prop 8 is unconstitutional, so is any and every law defining who/when/why/where anyone can get married (or how many you wed, or if you must wed only a human). Dangerous and laughable argument that same-sex couples have a "right" to be wed.

A lot of countries man DO get maternity leave to spend time with their new baby.

The minute a man can get pregnant then he has abortion rights. Instead of a bunch of old men trying to tell a woman that she has no abortion rights

We protect children in this country. Unlike muslim countries we make sure they are adults before making adult decisions.

The one thing no one has ever been able to explain is how allowing 2 adults of the same sex to marry will harm you personally. Love how the haters can never explain that with out falling back on the bible quotes.

I wonder how you would feel if your spouse was in the hospital and their family refused to allow you to see them or make medical decisions? That happens all the time to gay couples. But I guess you think that because you find their life style disgusting that is ok.

when did deviant behavior become a right. It is not bigotry to have values and morals.

It is against the law to press YOUR morals on some one else unless what they are doing harms another member of society. There are muslims that think you allow your wife to walk down the street with her face uncovered and unescorted by a male relative is deviant behavior. Why shouldn't his ideas of deviant behavior weigh as much as yours? There are large groups that think eating animal flesh is gross and disgusting. Why shouldn't they be able to force their beliefs on you also? Where do we draw the line on what is deviant or not? How about if it doesn't harm someone else it isn't deviant? OH that's right, that means you can't force your beliefs on the rest of the country.

To keep it short: Not remotely comparable example.

Blanca, you can keep it even shorter next time.

Unlike muslim countries we make sure they are adults before making adult decisions.

Muslim countries that allow or force early marriage on girls are doing so for cultural reasons, not religious reasons. Not all Muslim countries live like that.

It is not bigotry to have values and morals.

But it is bigotry to force your beliefs on others, including those of the same religion who disagree with you, bu using the force of law in a country with a Constitution that purports to treat everyone equally. Go take your bigotry back to the closet.

hey gimmee - IF you grab your ears and pull, you may be able to cure your condition of cranium in anal orifice...

This country was founded on a Freedom of Religion. Freedom to practice your religion as you see fit, provided it causes no direct harm to any other citizen. This also includes a freedom to practice NO religion. Just because something is morally wrong to some does not mean it should be made into law.

Some morality-based laws make sense because they have some amount of scientific base to support that law (such as molesting small children). There is no scientific basis for saying homosexuality has negative affects on anyone other than outside observers who choose to thrust their noses into others' lives. The only reason homosexuals are 'ashamed' of who they are is because of other people's judgement, not because the acts themselves are harmful.

Hey Gimme: You know what's more detrimental to society: Heterosexuals having children out of wedlock and skyrocketing divorce rates which teach our children that marriage is a flimsy institution at best. Funny how your kind doesn't lead a crusade to fight that - you want to focus on things that will have no impact on you whatsoever. Two men or women getting married and being allowed rights and protections under marriage will have NO EFFECT on your life - NONE! But kids from unwed parents and 1 parent homes do affect you every day - you pay for that. So get your head out of your ass, stop letting the media anger you (they love to anger you for ratings) - and learn to focus on the real issues. The subject at hand isn't about sex or even marriage for that matter, it's about human decency. Oh, and to answer your moronic questions about polygamists etc: Those are not being challenged as a class of people - those would be illegal activities. You don't see discrimination based on illegal activity (homosexuality is not illegal). To spell it out for you, your employer might have language that says we don't discriminate based on race, sex, or sexual orientation. You're not going to see we don't discriminate based on polygomy or wanting to wed your children - those are illegal situations. To further spell it out, when this passes everyone, including homosexuals, can only marry 1 person, not 3 or 4. Polygomist rules would applye to EVERYONE. Are we learning yet?

Gimme, absolutely! And there is no such as left-handed people, only immoral perverted sinful deviants who insist on writing with their left hands! Damn them!

@Justme:

I've heard that as recently as in 1960s, nuns in Catholic schools punished lefties for using the "sinister" hand.

Normally when something gets on a ballot to be voted on, the outcome of the vote stands, but in this case the outcome is being appealed. If the appeal process overturns the outcome of the vote, this will mean that any issue on a ballot voted on, could be appeal if someone does not like the outcome. What is the use of voting on an issue if the results of the vote could be appealed? Wouldn't it be better if we just had a society ruled by a dictator if voters voices are not to be heard anyway? The gays could of got married in another state and came back to CA to live. In the state of CA individuals sharing the same residence are allowed to be claimed on each other's benefits, just the same as a married couple.

I went to public school starting in 1969 and I can't tell you how many times I got SMACKED with a ruler for writing with my left hand.

I got bloody knuckles for using the devils hand to write with in the 70s in a public school from a substitute teacher in Stlouis County. Teacher got a bloody lip and the principal taught the class for the rest of the day after I showed him my hand.

d in arizona,

My son, who is now 42, knew all my gay friends and they went to his Little League games and gave him tips when he was in highschool on how to ask a girl on a date , one of them was a gifted musician and taught him guitar and piano another one taught him to drive (I was not too good at that) He is now married , to a woman. He was never approached in away inappropriately by any of these people and remains in touch with most of them..some of them were there for my grandson's christening. I only wish the adoption rules had been easier forty years ago because most of them would have been great parents.

Guess when the Supreme court ruled that discrimination against blacks was illegal your parents thought the same thing. Remember majority rule is mob rule. We don't live in a democracy we live in a democratic republic were the majority cannot deny the rights of the minority. If the supreme court does rule that gays have no rights you will be happy. Wonder how you will feel when that same court denies you the rights every one else has.

I guess you think that heterosexual couples do such a great job raising children that none of them ever rape, abuse, neglect or even murder their children either. Right?

One of the main objectives of the Constitution was to protect people and minorities from popular rule. I hate to ask this lame question that we see over and over, but if the MAJORITY voted for SLAVERY then according to your brilliant analysis that should be legal under our court system. Wrong. Don't be dumb.

d in Arizona,you worry about Arizona.I'm a native Californian,a Republican to boot, and I want gay couples to have the same rights as hetero couples.This proposition was funded and put on the ballot by the Christian community which turns out is not so Christian after all.

The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 respectively raised $39.0 million and $44.1 million. They become the year's highest-funded campaigns on any state ballot and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest.

The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $39.0 million and $44.1 million, respectively, from over 64,000 people in all 50 states and more than 20 foreign countries, setting a new record nationally for a social policy initiative and more than for every other race in the country in spending except the presidential contest. Contributions were much greater than those of previous same-sex marriage initiatives.

In 2010, the California Fair Political Practices Commission fined the LDS church for failing to follow campaign disclosure policies during the last two weeks leading up to the election, which amounted to $37,000 in non-monetary contributions. They were fined $5,538.

========================================================

Excerpt DIRECT from Wikipedia - YES, the CROOKED Christians who claim God wants us to us to love one another as neighbor spent TAX-FREE DOLLARS across state lines to fund anti-gay initiatives. Regardless of the outcome as you all should have read in previous posts the Supreme Court MUST throw out this law as UNCONSTITUTIONAL as it unfairly disenfranchises a minority from enjoying marriage which cannot be proven to harm the majority and is therefore INVALID. ENJOY! ;>)

kippy-

Why don't you quit speaking from the bible and give us your own thoughts.

Do you know any homosexuals? Have you had any experience that has given you
reason to believe they are a threat to society?

I know plenty of heterosexuals who are horrible parents and doing plenty to destroy mankind. If anything the homosexuals are a dot on the radar screen considering the vast majority of the world is heterosexual. dumb dumb dumb.

Kippy,

Your theocratic beliefs do not govern our secular government, thankfully.

Yeah Satan wrote the Bible....

Mike: Only 1.1 percent of men are homosexual according to a 2012 Stanford review, and even fewer, 0.7 are lesbians. They are few, but their strategy is to make a LOT of noise, little a little yelping toy dog that pees on everyone's leg for attention.

WHAT fuc king CREATOR dipso? You mean the mythical supreme entity?

Go back to being brainwashed - there is no hope for your MIND at all.

grab your ears and pull - you can cure cranium in anal orifice syndrome

What is your comment based on...please quote proven statistics. None of my friends were molested...at least not my gay friends, but my step father made a few advances toward me...straight male pillar of his Catholic church community well known San Francisco advertising, PR man.

Roger do some fact searching. Most child abusers are heterosexuals by a HUGE majority (90%+). It is not about sex but control. Child abusers seek out children for sex because they can control them. Also most child abusers are people the child knows. Most often family members or close friends.

Most homosexuals were molested!!?? LOL!! Really? Where do you get your data. As a gay guy i have tons of gay friends and there isn't a correlation there. Sure a couple were, and so were several of my straight friends. What in God's name are you talking about!!?? And to answer your last question, Roger: Why should you not have to testify against your wife in a court of law but 2 men or woman in a committed relationship who don't have access to marriage have to do so? No, the 1,400 laws afforded with marriage make us extremely unequal until gays are afforded those rights. Are people like you for real?

Roger,do you have raw data to back up that claim? Homosexuals are not pedophiles.

Raw data for Roger:

11 straight for every 1 gay pedophile...

Translating into 9% of gay men would be pedophiles whereas 91% of straight men are pedophiles... but, that's only one study. 97% of pedophiles are family members and/or people well known to victims (i.e. priests). Who would've thought it??! LOL

Yes, Nacio, it's the bright light at the end of the tunnel. Don't step out of your ride before it's over. Enjoy!

No one has ever suggested that churches should be forced to marry gays. Unless you believe the dribble from anti gay hate groups. That is a proven fact. We have separation of state and church in this country. Just as a priest can't tell the government what to do the government cant tell a priest what to do either. Churches can continue to practice the right of holy matrimony om those they chose to and gays can get married by the judges or religious groups that don't discriminate.

" If Gays were willing to concede that one point it would be a done deal."

They conceded that point long ago. Most laws now explicitly state it.

We concede!! There are you happy? We don't want to get married in your disgusting un-Godly money-grubbing child molesting f-d up church anyways!!!!!!!

Wow, amazing how dense the bigots are.

NO ONE EVER SAID CHURCHES WOULD BE FORCED TO PERFORM GAY MARRIAGE.

ANY church that abides by God would not allow this sin in their church.

And no one is asking churches to marry anyone that they don't want to, be it man/woman, man/man, woman/woman.

Now try it in english.

Less Is More?? REALLY?? Well why don't you shut your dirty pie hole and all those other dirty holes you keep spouting stupidity from and close that Webster's Dicktionary on that nasty tongue that's been goddess knows where!

How do you know gays aren't already in charge of Webster's and you're about to be cut off? From the way you express yourself and try try try to spell you sure as sh.t don't use it except to hold up your sagging parts.

Marry who you want and everybody else IS going to marry who they want so get used to it, old lady.

hey less - I'm a guy and I enjoy clit licking until the woman squirms with delight in her orgasm. It's more fun for me to get off after I get her off FIRST

EMDF9A,Excellent and educated comments to boot.The best comments that I have ever read on this subject.

That was over 4 years ago, most of those people have turned gay by now.

Marriage is a civil right in this country, and we don't vote on giving people civil rights.

We dont put people's civil rights up to a public vote. Seriously, given the option dont you think that some Southern Rednecks would vote to return non-white people to slavery?

EMDF9A,Excellent comments.

Can we vote to ban Mormons then?

so let's say that California had passed a constitutional amendment that gave Anglo Californians the right to "own" undocumented Mexican immigrants as "slaves" with the rights of property and ownership.

One "law" or another - what would be the DIFFERENCE? I'm not Mexican, so I would be "exempt" from being "owned" but I could "own" other people...

NAH lets just vote to outlaw Sciencetologist. The Mormons have a great family tree help site. ;-)

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was not connected to homosexuality until the fifteenth century.

flint, did you know that Sodom and Gomorrah were actually suburbs of Atlantis? It's true. Must be, as it's in this book I have here, Motorists' Guide to Mythical Places.

Justme: So the Bible is a mythical book? Well, you can go with that idea if it justifies your beliefs.

Sexual perversions is only one of many societal ills our culture has in common with S&G.

flint creek,this issue has nothing to do with morals.It is about giving all people equal rights in the United States of America.Our country touts liberty and justice for all.

Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. —Ezekiel 16:49-50

Right from scripture. Notice that it says NOTHING about homosexuality.

Nonsense. Leftist nonsense.

OldKingBlog, your posts are just nonsense period.

The Bible is moral decay.....

the buy-bull is a collection of dogmatic assertions - ramblings of stone/ bronze age peoples about the mythical supreme entity

no no no - the buy-bull is not a mythical book - the buy-bull is a book of MYTHOLOGY and tall tales.
the BOOK (although very stupid in most of its nature) is real - it exists - you can touch it and read it (what it's worth, though...)

The "latest Polls" show 51% support ofr denying civil rights? Who;s polls? The Family Research Council? ALL CREDIBLE Polls such as NYT/WSJ/Gallup show at a MINIMUM a 58% support FOR same sex marriage, and when the poll is taken solely of peopl under 30 years of age, that figure jumps to 83%.

Sorry, Eroc, but the polls you may have read are either outdated or biased/imaccurate.

FORWARD!

Wow, EMD, I'm not the only person that muddled through that semi-coherent, ignorant wall of text.

EMDF9A,I am happy to see somebody so passionate on this issue.Most of these bigoted posters can't see beyond their noses.They only want equal rights applied to them.

Eroctheone

In our Republic, our founding fathers were wise enough to put into place measures to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Even were a majority to be against a civil right, majority vote does not rule. Example: Slavery is prohibited, even were a majority to vote in favor of it.

They're angry because their heterosexual 'normalcy' has failed to gratify them, so they try to take it out on gays. Lame.

Earth to Doug: Your post is mere leftist nonsense.

whatever, make you reply rightie :-D

TL;DR

#18.6 repeated here for your edification

so let's say that California had passed a constitutional amendment that gave Anglo Californians the right to "own" undocumented Mexican immigrants as "slaves" with the rights of property and ownership.

One "law" or another - what would be the DIFFERENCE? I'm not Mexican, so I would be "exempt" from being "owned" but I could "own" other people...

Eroctheone maybe you should go back to school and actually learn what type of government this country actually has. It is not a Democracy!!! It is a Democratic Republic. A true Democracy is mob rule which is a very bad thing. Don't like Jews? Round them up in camps. Don't like black? Make them all slaves again. Don't like gays do the same to them. Protestants don't like Catholics? Round them up into death camps also. Sooner or later under mob rule the mob will come for you. Under a Democratic Republic no majority can pass a law that discriminates against a minority. This law clearly denies a minority the benefits enjoyed by the majority. Unless you can show how gay marriage hurts some one else then you have no right in this country to outlaw it.

Well where is the New Testament passage that states homosexuality is an abomination.

Of course that is moot as your belief system in an unproven God really has no business in other peoples lives.

get your head out of your book of dogmatic assertions

while you are at it grab your ears and pull - you CAN cure that cranium in anal orifice syndrome

Thank you for the compliment, but I dont think you understood my post. I was making the point that scripture itself states in Ezekiel what the sins of Sodom were,and it clearly does NOT say anything about homosexuality. In fact jewish tradition (and scripture) hold that Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed fro exactly what Ezekiel says... Failure to be hospitable to strangers and treating the poor and needy with contempt. (To me, that sounds much more like current GOP/TP folks than libersls)

Guess you follow all the other laws in the old testament also don't you 3momof? Never eaten pork, Never worn mixed fiber clothing, never have you eaten any kind of shellfish, never done any sort of work on the Sabbath. Until you can say that you have followed ALL the laws of the bible, not just the ONE you wish to make a stink about may I remind you of this other saying in that same book. Let those amongst you without sin cast the first stone.

You can believe whatever you want. You can not, however, use your beliefs to make laws and deny people rights.

oh, you mean those 'legitimate' rights you make up in your head everyday, and try to shove down our throats?.

I would never call you a bigot because you choose not to accept homosxuality as "everyday" life. But the minute you use your personal religious beliefs as justification to impose those beliefs on others who do not share your religious views, and in doing so deny American citizens equal rights, I WILL call you what you are, you profess and demonstrate to be.. a BIGOT!

Don't be a bigot and peoples won't call you a bigot.

Most of us really don't care if you are a bigot or not, actually. But you WILL get your boot off our necks. Count on that.

so davy - does homosexuality affect your daily life? Are you forced to perform sex acts with gay whatevers?

IF SO, then MOVE. If NOT then exactly WHY are you bitching so much?

Because your brainwashing TOLD YOU TO BITCH? That's an invalid reason

OH - now I understand - you want to WATCH... THAT'S IT!!

Them that CAN, DO; them that CAN'T, TEACH; them that CAN'T TEACH BECOME CRITICS

EXCELLENT POST, Kevin! RWNJs, Serial killers, Rapists, Criminals are all allowed to marry heterosexually and even allowed conjugal rights!!!! Where's the outrage from the bible beaters and all the deniers of equal rights?? It's using religion as a shield to feel superior "because 'god' said so." Well are you all going to deny marriage to fornicators, adulterers (divorce), shellfish eaters, mixed fabric wearers, those who work on Sunday... etcetera??? DOUBLE STANDARD. Those people are all listed in leviticus with your "men lying with men" sin so get off your high horse or get in line to give up your marriage license... HYPOCRITES!

Your cat can't give consent. You gay bashers need to stop using this argument. It does not work.

If you want the right to marry your cat go ahead and lobby for it. The subject is same sex marriage....do try to stay on track

The subject is what kind of perversion will soon become the norm.

Well gay marriage has been legal where I live since 2004.

And no one, I repeat NO ONE has asked to be allowed to marry their cat or toaster. Or maybe there has been some but we don't hear about them cause they are locked away in mental institutions.

The slippery slope argument is just plain dumb.

When can I marry my cat?

As soon as Mr. Pussy can give legal consent.

hmmm - marry a toaster... I can imagine marrying a toilet, but a toaster... a hot time in the old town tonight?

LMAO x 2 ;>)

Paste this in You tube for fun. /watch?v=oZgT1SRcrKE

Just a little link to reality that shows the history of all world religions and their identical FRAUD. Enjoy!

well, malinda - remember - it was THEIR idea... (horny little sluts...)