Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

California Judge Reverses Prop 8, Opens Doors To Gay Marriage Legalization

August 10, 2010 by  

California judge reverses Prop 8, opens doors to gay marriage legalizationA Federal judge in California has ruled that voter-approved proposition 8—which banned same-sex marriage—is unconstitutional and should be struck down.

United States District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco ruled that the ban violates homosexuals’ rights to equal protection under the law and, as such, violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In addition to gay rights organizations, the decision was welcomed by a range of civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Anti-Defamation League and Amnesty International. The latter issued a statement saying that the ruling affirmed that any form of discrimination is unacceptable.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also expressed her satisfaction, stating that “Proposition 8 has taken away individual rights and freedoms, and is a stain upon the California Constitution.”

On the opposite side of the issue, Catholic bishops and organizations such as Family Research Council have condemned the decision.

According to Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “It is tragic that a Federal judge would overturn the clear and expressed will of the people in their support for the institution of marriage.”

He added that “No court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.”

The ruling was a first step in what is expected to be a lengthy battle that commentators believe will be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19920504-ADNFCR

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “California Judge Reverses Prop 8, Opens Doors To Gay Marriage Legalization”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • s c

    If anybody knows anything about how to stain the California constitution, it’s Nancy P. When it comes to using THE Constitution for toilet paper, Nancy P knows how to do that, too.
    As for the judge whose omniscience told him that mere mortals need not bother to vote, I have to wonder if he and the judge in Arizona share a bond that smacks of social justice on steroids.
    I’d like to think that a single judge can’t wield this much unbridled power. If he or she can, then a new day is here in America, and Americans need to give knee-jerk judges reasons to retire early and disappear.

    • hflashman

      LOL … so if a ruling goes against a TP platform…it’s against the will of the “People” (defined as the wacked ideas of a fringe group being controlled, manipulated and led by monied interests). And if a ruling supports a view espoused by this same fringe group…even though the majority think it’s nuts…why it’s “upholding the intent o the Founding Fathers” or “strict interpretation of the Constitution (which applies only as far as their wacked dieas are supported. If not, then it’s time to change the “intent’ of the Founding fathers by doing away with the 14th Amendment, the 1st Amendement, the 17th Amendement, etc etc or calling for a new amendment..)

      • Brad

        Hey hflashman,

        Are homosexual’s and heterosexual’s similar conditions? If “NO” then homosexual’s have no legs to stand on under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It states word for word, prohibits states from denying any person within it’s jusrisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. IMHO you and your gay federal judge subverted the law giving one distinct group power over another distinct group. By the way, the 14th Amendment was to protect freed slaves at the end of the Civil War, it should’ve been repealed ages ago and or updated as the times changed.

        • Doc Sarvis

          You posed the question; “Are homosexual’s and heterosexual’s similar conditions?”. I would say YES they are.

          • Brad

            Define similar conditions, because they aren’t similar due to one group loves the same sex the other loves the opposit. They are not similar conditions

          • Doc Sarvis

            Two adults who love each other and are attracted to each other and want to spend their lives in support of each other. Sounds like similar conditions to me; that occurs in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

          • txjim

            So why does it have to be to adults. Are we discriminating against age? We should marry 2 and 3 year olds too if they love each other. Or how about an older teacher who falls in love with her student?

          • Crystal

            Do you know how babies are made? You must have missed every single sex education and science class given, while you were in school. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are only the same in that everybody has two legs and two arms (technically that can be argued, but let’s keep it simple). The two groups have nothing in common and never will. This will be argued and fought the same way abortion was forced upon America.

          • txjim

            We have to draw the line somewhere! If the issue is rights then it should be legal for polygamy?

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/if-gay-marriage-wins_b_676365.html

            “Now, gay rights activists may take exception to this, because gays have long fought against any suggestion that other sexual arrangements (like polygamy) have nothing to do with them, or with the fight they’re fighting. This is understandable, because when gay rights were first being championed a few decades back, their first opposition painted with a very broad brush — lumping all “sexual deviants” (as they put it) together: homosexuals, pedophiles, polygamists, bestiality, incest, and anything else they could think up to smear those calling for gay rights. So let me be as clear as I can here: I’m not trying to “equate” being gay with polygamy in any way. I’m looking at this from a legal and societal standpoint. The two groups don’t have much (if anything) in common, really. Except from a legal standpoint — if (and only if) Perry v. Schwarzenegger stands.”

          • Doc Sarvis

            I believe the age of consent is in place for good reason.

            If you want to make the argument against a legal age of consent I am sure a lot of church people and law enforcement people would be interested in what you have to say. Probably any of your neighbors who have children would be interested as well.

          • txjim

            Doc,
            I am not trying to pass that. I am just trying to illustrate how stupid this ruling is. We cant allow this and then not allow others, which opens up the door to many horrible things like I posted.

          • Brad

            Homosexuals can’t make babies where as heterolsexuals can make babies, so they are not similar conditions.

          • Doc Sarvis

            Not all heterosexuals can make babies. So if a heterosexual is infertile should they be treated as homosexuals?

          • Denniso

            50 or 60 yrs ago,a vote in most of the south would have supported the ban on Blacks marrying Whites…would any of the rightwingers decrying the recent ruling on gay marriage want to keep inter racial marriage outlawed? People afraid of gay marriage are insecure in their own identity and culture. Gays have the same constitutional rights as any redneck or pedophile priest.

          • Cameron

            What about grown men w/ little boys or little girls? What about one man or woman w/multiple spouses? The ONLY reason queers want the “right” to marry (marrying is a privilege, not a right) is to get spousal benefits (inheritance, insurance, etc). If companies would grant these to “gay” people (I don’t see anything so happy about being funny as a football bat) then the question of marriage “rights” would disappear.

          • 45caliber

            Cam:
            You missed one important thing. If they wanted civil rights equal to those hetro people who are married, they could get them with a little work. But what they REALLY want is to get everyone to admire them. As one stated awhile back, “We will give up pushing our (gay) agenda when a boy comes home from highschool and tells his parents he is going to the prom with another boy and his parents like it.”

            Their real mission with marriage is to force all religions to accept them. Their argument is that all religion is man-made and man-designed so it can be changed as times change. There is no real God. But I have to disagree with that.

          • Smilee

            They are both Human Beings, I think that is a similar condition

          • http://naver Samurai

            Doc and frownlee, they are human beings. The problem is that they are wrong in their hearts and mind. Being straight is the way God wants us and that’s the way we should be.

          • Denniso

            It’s comforting that you seem to know the mind of god so well. I’ve always thought that religious leaders have told us repeatedly that ‘we can’t know the mind of god’….????

          • http://naver Sook Young

            Read your Bible, duhniso!

          • Denniso

            Your religion is so full of contradictions it’s not funny…the bible was written by men. On one hand you are told that you can’t know the mind of god when terrible things happen, and then you guys think that just by reading a little book you actually can know everything that an all knowing and all powerful god ‘thinks’ or wants for us…

        • Average Joe

          Cameron says: ,

          So in your opinion, the ability to love someone and make a commitment to them in front of witnesses is a privledge and not a right? So , now you have relegated “Love” to a priveledge in all of your infinate wisdom…with all due respet, I disagree with you thought proccess. As for the benifits, what authority does the government have to not apply the laws and rights of human beings equally across the full spectrum? What’s next? Hispanics get one set of rules, Whites get another, womenget anther, man get another, children get yet another…and on and on until there are differnt “rules” for every single human in the nation….”All men are created equal”…than means that the laws must be applied equally as well.

          • kate8

            Gays already have the same rights. They can marry someone of the opposite sex if they so choose. Or, they can commit to someone of the same sex, but that is not “marriage”.

            Marriage, by definition, is the union of opposites, usually for creative purposes.

            The term “marriage” has been distorted and misconstrued to mean something it doesn’t. It has become a legal issue, when it shouldn’t be.

            I say, take the institution of marriage completely out of government jurisdiction. It never used to be a legal union, but a religious and personal one. The state took it over in order to lay claim to any children.

            What a mess we’ve made.

          • Smilee

            Kate

            Marriage under Constitutional law has no definition of marriage laws only, only in common law and the 14th amendment forbids making laws that discriminate in any way within any law, marriage can be defined as between two adults but it cannot be defined as only including some adults and not all adults. That is what the 14th amendment says and that is how this judge interpreted it and the decision is consistent with what the 14th amendment actually says. Your definition is simply your own, you are against freedom for those with whom you disagree but I;ll bet you want it for yourself.

          • Average Joe

            Hi Kate,

            The term “marriage” has been distorted and misconstrued to mean something it doesn’t. It has become a legal issue, when it shouldn’t be.

            You and me usually hold very close to the same views on topics..and for the most part we agree here…with one exception. It almost appears that you are arguing about the word “marriage” ..as in “marriage is defined as”. Please try to remember that it is only a word which was not always a word…over the centuries it has has been many names in many languages “marriage” is just the current version of a constantly evolving “word”.What these people are trying obtain is not the word ,but rather the spousal right’s which heterosexuals enjoy without question. It isn’t about their sex lives or what they want to call themselves (married)…it is simpy to be seen under the law as equals in spousal rights…to be recognized legally as the next of kin in the event of a accident etc. To be able to make decisions for their loved ones (who would better know them better than their spouse?), to have the same survivor benefits afforded to heterosexual couples, the same tax laws afforded to heterosexual married couples. We are free to like them or not….free hang with out with them or not…free to accept them or not, but that isn’t the issue…it is simply about basic human rights…the same rights afforded heterosexuals…nothing more, nothing less. At this point, they have the “Union of Marriage”…without the legal recognition given to heterosexuals.
            A name is a name is a name is a………just saying.

          • http://naver Samurai

            Sorry frownlee, but you are wrong. One of your lib heroes, Clinton, passed the defense of marriage act which states that a marriage is between a man and a woman. This is the law of the land so get over it. I remember Obama bin Laden saying he was going to overturn it, but hasn’t had the guts to do so. They’re also fighting over the don’t ask don’t tell with the military. Neither one will Obama bin Laden end up winning, because the people are against him on these matters. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • David D

            But the law no is broken into groups. the black panthers get on verdict while tea party get the other. Women who live with a muslim man are granted shira law not our law, so rape you wive is not rape, and ethic violation are not violantion as long as you are a democrate from chicago

        • Bob

          Homosexuals are neither man nor woman so Equal under the law doesn’t apply.If a man has sex with a man he is therefore not a man because a man has sex with a woman. Same goes for women.

          • Stewart

            WHAT?!?

          • Smilee

            Sober up Bob

        • Kinetic1

          Oh, come on 45,
          Sure, we all want to be excepted. No one wants to be afraid of how their friends and family will treat them. It is unrealistic to think that homosexuals would not be working towards acceptance, but this has nothing to do with forcing “all religions to accept them.”

          I attend a Christian Church. My church is all inclusive and that is how I like it. In the last town I lived in we had to choose between Catholic, Lutheran (ELCA) and Lutheran (Missouri synod). It’s hard to accept Catholicism if you were not raised Catholic, and Missouri Synod did not allow Women into the priesthood, so ELCA was the answer. The choice is the same for gays. You attend the church where you are accepted, the number of which is growing all the time.

          This is a question of fairness and equality. Many heterosexual couples marry without any intension of having children. Yes, they may be capable, but so what. Homosexual couples want the same recognition of their commitment to each other. They also want to be seen as a couple under the law. Yes, to some extent this has to do with insurance and such (and why should they be forced to pay for separate insurance?) but also with spousal rights. Should a gay man be forced to die without his partner at his side? Many hospitals will only allow family to accompany a seriously ill patient, so gay partners are shut out. How cruel is that? If one partner works and another stays home, shouldn’t the home mate receive any pension or insurance that a housewife would receive? It has noting to do with sex, since a house husband has these rights in marriage, so why are homosexuals excluded?

          As to the other questions, children are deemed unable to make educated decisions for themselves, and no parent should be allowed to force a child into a relationship, so kids can’t marry. Animals are pets, not equals. Polygamy is a tough one. The only reason it is not allowed is moral, and morals are not shared by all. I may be cutting my throat here, but I would support polygamy as long as all participants are aware and of age. I can’t imagine having more than 1 wife, or sharing my wife with another man, but that’s just me. According to diaries and historical writings I’ve read, it seems many Mormon women appreciated the support of other wives in their marriage. In some cases it allowed for those who wanted children to have and care for them while those who wanted to work ran shops and such. As long as no one is forced to live this way against their will, who are we to condemn them? If it is proven that most cases of Polygamy include women who are forced to enter or stay in the relationship, then I’ll reconsider my stand. Likewise, I can’t abide by anyone who has another mate in secret. Such deception is wrong as the unknowing mates have not made a choice.

          • Smilee

            Kinetic

            Your totally missing the point, how churches treat marriage and gays has no bearing on legal marriage which is licensed by the state and it is the state that cannot make laws that discriminate, the state cannot dictate that to any religion or church and this ruling does not change that. The church can choose to marry gays or not marry gays that is their right but the no state has that right and that is what this ruling addressees, so quit your spinning!!

          • Kinetic1

            Smilee,
            This was one of those times when our posts were separated in error. I was responding to 45′s claim that this is all about trying to to “force all religions to accept them. [Gays]” Once I addressed his point, I moved on to others that were posted at the time and made the point that,
            1) Aside from religious beliefs, there is no reason that a homosexual couple should be denied the rights of a heterosexual couple.
            2) Homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia or bestiality. As such, it is ridiculous to suggest that allowing the first will lead to acceptance of the others.
            3) Polygamy is another issue that, as far I understand it is only illegal because it offends accepted religious norms. There seem to be no real reasons why it should not be allowed.

            As to government and religion, of course they have no power here. It would be the most blatant violation of the Constitution ever were they to try and force any Church to accept homosexuality. Yes, the state CAN grant a license to marry, and they can even perform a civil marriage if they want, but they can’t require even 1 single congregation to accept gay marriage. That, I agree is how it should be.

          • Christin

            Kinetic1,
            YOU choose a church that is based on the teachings of the Bible and the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son… Jesus, and God the Holy Spirit; and the TRUTH of the death (payment for our sins past, present & future) and resurrection of Jesus Christ who sits on the right hand side of God in Heaven.

            YOU DON”T choose a church because you are accepted… lame… sorry brother.

      • 45caliber

        flash:
        If you’re right about the majority supporting you and your boyfriend, why did so many vote against you? Are you willing to take the vote nationwide? I doubt it!!

        I suppose you must be taking the Army’s motto and changing it a little. Instead of “An Army of One”, your motto must be “A Majority of One”. In other words, everyone should take your opinion as gospel and ingnore everyone else’s ideas.

      • Warrior
        • Smilee

          Pure Garbage!!

        • Average Joe

          Your link article has nothing to do with facts or research, it is simply opinion rendered by the writer and as such has no validity.

    • Cameron

      Read your Constitution. No judge has the power to write laws, only to enforce them AS WRITTEN. What the judge has done is unconstitutional.

      • Average Joe

        They do however have the right and the obligation to the people to judge whether or not the LAW is constitutional or not (which BTW, this judge did as required by…other laws).

        • Bob

          Duh Now I can see why you are average.

          • 45caliber

            He is an average Joe when you consider all the other people on welfare with no real education.

      • hflashman

        Read Madison v Marbury…

        Educate yourself. Helps prevent people from knowing you’re a robotic fooli easily led and manipulated.

        • Average Joe

          You mean this one?

          (1803) First decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, thus establishing the doctrine of judicial review. In 1801 newly elected Pres. Thomas Jefferson ordered Secretary of State James Madison to withhold from William Marbury the commission of his appointment by former Pres. John Adams as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. Marbury then requested that the Supreme Court compel Madison to deliver his commission. In denying his request, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the section of the Judiciary Act passed by Congress in 1789 that authorized the Court to issue such a writ was unconstitutional and thus invalid. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the Court, declared that the Constitution must always take precedence in any conflict between it and a law passed by Congress.
          This case was concerning something that the president did in violation of the Constituion (as the court stated).
          The issue we are talking about here, involves whether or not the “Constituional Amendment” (by vote) to a states’ Constituion is in fact Constitutional when held up against the National Constituion…”the Supreme Law of the land”. The judge ruled that is was in violation. I have no doubt that this will be appealed all the way to the SCOTUS…until a ruling is made there, it remains unsettled law.
          Maybe you are the one in need of an education.

      • joe casa

        YOU ARE right whats going on in our country people even told me now judges can make laws and take them away come on and some churches say gay marriage is wrong.

      • Kinetic1

        So any law, no matter how unconstitutional must be upheld by our judges? It would appear that you are simply expressing your uneducated opinion and not instructing us with your vast legal expertise.

    • Debra

      You hit the nail on the head with your comment. Pelosi is a big stain on America. She is a Catholic in name only.

      • 45caliber

        Debra:
        She is a “cafeteria” Catholic. In other words, she chooses which parts of it she believes and ignores the rest of it. Such as no abortions.

    • H.Maine

      Perfect statement. This country is going nuts. One major reason the Roman Empire folded. Are we next under the guidance of the White House occupant? A major concern for all normal tinking people of this
      great nation.

  • Centaur

    Wow, some people have no idea what judges do: they interpret the constitution and the law.

    Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. FF 76, 79-80; Romer, 517 US at 634 (“[L]aws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.”). Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

    http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/2010/08/04/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL.pdf?tsp=1

    “In a court of law you’ve got to come in and you’ve got to support those opinions, you’ve got to stand up under oath and cross-examination,” Boies said. “And what we saw at trial is that it’s very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens of the right to vote [sic] to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature, or in debates where they can’t be cross-examined.

    “But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that’s what happened here. There simply wasn’t any evidence, there weren’t any of those studies. There weren’t any empirical studies. That’s just made up. That’s junk science. It’s easy to say that on television. But a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court you can’t do that.

    “That’s what we proved: We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost,” Boies said.

    • Palin12

      Centaur, you are a moron. The judge is gay and should have recused himself. One man does not have the right to overthrow the will of the majority of the state’s voters. Otherwise, why should we bother to vote at all?

      • Kinetic1

        And what if the judge were heterosexual? Could we then accuse him of being biased against gays? Neither can be proven to reap any benefit from the judgment. It’s not like he was a southern judge with major oil company holdings deciding whether deep water drilling should be allowed. There you can find a clear conflict of interest.

        Don’t forget, judge Walker was a Bush 1 appointee who was chosen by Reagan. The only reason it took so long to seat him was that congress found him too conservative.

      • hflashman

        Hmmm..so if a Republican appointed fed judge being gay is enough to recuse himself from hearing the case…would that same analogy also not apply to a hetero judge?

        • Bob

          Heterosexuals don’t have an agenda. When did you ever see any marching proclaiming that they are straight.

          • Average Joe

            Actually , everyone on the planet has some agenda…..just saying.

          • Palin12

            That gives me an idea. Let’s have a Straight Pride parade.

          • http://naver Sook Young

            I agree with you Palin12. Gays are not what our founding fathers wanted in this country and they won’t be allowed to enter heaven. Why don’t they just give up, because their immoral and unethical lifestyle will never be accepted in this country.

      • Stewart

        You’re the one who appears to be a moron! Your comments rarely sound as if it’s coming from someone with any brains. Is the 12 in your name your age?

        • Palin12

          Aha, a real tea bagger is here today.

          • 45caliber

            tea bagging is a homosexual term. Are you calling someone who’s writing says he is hetro a homo?

          • Stewart

            What is tea bagging? Is that something like your overdose of ‘the koolaid’.

          • Stewart

            I guess I can’t really expect too much from someone with Palin in their name. You probably think it’s a good thing that Sara Palin ran for Governor, won, served a half term and then quit. I wouldn’t want to be associated with a moronic quitter like that! Palin 2012?!? Not a frickin’ change in Hell!

          • 45caliber

            Stewart:
            It depends entirely on who is running against her. For instance, would you vote for Oblama over her? I wouldn’t!

          • Palin12

            Stewart
            Read some history. Andrew Jackson once resigned from the US House, got away from politics for awhile, and then went on to become US President. More recently, your beloved Andy Stern resigned as president of SEIU. So what? Sarah has bigger fish to fry, and I’d sure as hell rather have her for President than Hillary!

        • Average Joe

          I believe that the 12 is IQ and yhat Palin is (His/Her) God.

    • slickporsche

      It is simply not an issue of fear or Prejudice. It is a moral, and a unnatural act that we are against, and proves how far our society as disintegrated. It is an issue that is so rediculous it should be thrown you of court. It does not belong in a court of law. If you do not know that it is immoral, and indifferent to the laws of nature, THen you are a complete idiot. Our constitution and our amenments have again been twisted in the interest of PERVERSION! The judge is also perverted, and I would like to tell him that to his face.

      We are talking about a very serious mental disease, that is treatable and should be seen as just that, and mental disease. Also if you believe that two men, or two women, should be able to cavort around in public view, and kiss, and then raise children, YOU are as mentally deranged as they are. The queers, simply want more rights than the rest of us. In addition to all this, Marraige is an institution of GOD, and not the courts. Oh yes, I forgot there is no God, and we all go to church just for the ceremony of it.

      • Karolyn

        I have a very intelligent, Christian, conservative friend who is 100% more mentally able than you. The “mental illness” scenario has been disproved over and over. Why can’t you just live and let live. Why do you care so much? It isn’t catchy.

        • 45caliber

          It has been ‘proved’ that homosexualism is NOT a mental illness? Really? Can you provide the ‘proof’? I’ve not seen any that can stand the scientific study. Everything I’ve seen is – well, it is some times but not othertimes. So we are certain it is. And all those “studies” that “prove” anything are generally done by a homosexual.

          I still think it is a mental illness. And I suspect most of you do too, particularly when you protest church groups that help others get away from it.

          • Karolyn

            Oh, puleeese! The only studies that come out saying being gay is not a mental illness are done by homosexuals? What planet are you from? The only studies saying it is a mental illness are done by Christian universities.

          • http://naver Samurai

            Sorry, Karolyn, but being gay is not in one’s DNA. It comes from the heart. The place where satan has come into and makes them a perversion of what God had created. Your friend may be smart, nice looking, etc., but what is so important about that when he is very dark and dead on the inside? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • Karolyn

          I left out he’s gay and very attractive.

    • Crystal

      A homosexual judge overturns Proposition 8 based on his beliefs.

    • Cameron

      Everyone, gay or straight, pedophile or not, black or white, has the SAME rights, & not one right more or special. I don’t care if someone is homosexual, bi-sexual, heterosexual, or asexual, I just don’t think anyone has a right to force their beliefs on me. Seeing two men, or two women, kiss makes me want to puke. I DO have the right to health, welfare, & the pursuit of happiness also, or don’t I? By the way, “gay & lesbian” is redundant. Lesbians ARE “gay”!

      • Average Joe

        I DO have the right to health, welfare,…
        Really? which Constitutional amendments were those…I must have missed those when I read the document…hmmm…invisible ink maybe? Or was the fine print that can only be seen under an electron microscope?
        Actually the last time I read the Constitution it had a list of things that the government can and cannot do Art. 1 sec 8 )…which “rights” it cannot violate (Bill of Rights)…. Established State rights aqmendment 10),but I don’t recall one word that indicated what rights that we as citzens have have been given.
        However in the Declaration of Independence, I do recall these words:

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

        • 45caliber

          He does have the right to health and welfare – as long as he pays for it himself.

          • Average Joe

            Agreed, just pointing out that “we” are not a party to the Constitution as we were not the signers of the document. It is a document spelling out the government’s role and limitations under the document (contract). Unalienable rights come from our creator and not from government.

          • http://naver Samurai

            Sorry Joe, but being gay isn’t a right, it is a choice. A choice to be on the dark side instead of in the light of God. Gays shouldn’t be given any special rights. You can’t reward a person at work for their immoral and or unethical behavior, so why reward them for it? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • Average Joe

          Samurai,

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

          Did you miss the part about ALL men are created equal? Sorry no points awarded for your comment. One point removed for personal bias.

      • Bob

        Any laws made specifically for one group is unconstitutional.

        • 45caliber

          Definately!

        • Average Joe

          So, by your own train of thought, any law against one group of people is also…unconstitutional. Equal rights for all…under the law.

    • malibusue

      Bravo Centaur, well said.

    • Question?

      Three things seem apparent to me, first, the main thing folks object to is the sexual aspect of GL relationships. Second, the word marriage defines a commitment between a man and a woman with the usual goal of procreating. Third and most onerous to me is the fact that GL want to force society to accept their lifestyle as normal.
      “Me thinks thou protest too much”

  • Palin12

    What’s with Arnie?? I thought he didn’t like girly men!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUzUbtIptqQ

    • MsAmericanPatriot

      I agree. I thought he didnt like girlie men either. Boy are we wrong.

      • Bob

        I guess all the steroids wore off.

    • Crystal

      I’ll personally boycott all of his movies from this point on.

  • Glen

    Since when is the will of the people unconstitutional? It was the people who enshrined our constitution. We have the right to change the law. The 14th amendment had nothing to do with homosexuality. It was simply an attempt to protect the rights of freed slaves. Homosexuality was then and still is an abomination and the people have the right and responsibility to say so.

    • MsAmericanPatriot

      Yes they do and yes it is an abomination.

    • Cameron

      I write a weekly Conservative column for a small newspaper & have said in print for years that every law passed should have an automatic “sunset clause” so it will die if not re-enacted. This way well-intentioned laws w/bad consequences can be refined or removed. It will also keep Congress & our State Legislatures so busy repairing bad laws that they will have little time to pass new bad laws.

    • Average Joe

      Since when is the will of the people unconstitutional?

      When it violates the “National Constitution”.

  • BABUSHSKA

    Centaur:
    If moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians, then why stop with that group? Let’s allow all types of immoral and deviant behavior protection under the constitution…outside their right to a fair trial. Why shouldn’t exhibitionists, pedophiles, addicts, nudists, child pornographers, and on and on — receive special legislation to protect their lifestyles? Why? Because if society doesn’t identify and adhere to a norm of defined standards of decency in behavior and morality, it breaks down. We already are seeing an erosion of standards in our country, and acceptablity and loss of outrage to these groups who push a counterfeit “tolerance” down our throats by trying to isolate and marginalize those of us who oppose their lifestyle. As much as the gays want to convince everyone that theirs is a normal alternative lifestyle, it is not! I stand by God’s standards, and homosexuality is
    not of God.

    • Stewart

      Your post – “then why stop with that group? Let’s allow all types of immoral and deviant behavior protection under the constitution…outside their right to a fair trial. Why shouldn’t exhibitionists, pedophiles, addicts, nudists, child pornographers, and on and on — receive special legislation to protect their lifestyles?”

      What a stupid thing to say. Why don’t you just go back to the dark ages. By the way, there is nothing wrong, immoral, or being against God being a nudist. That the way God created us…without clothes.

      • txjim

        You are right God did create us!!!!!!!!
        But we still cant have nudist running around due to teenage drivers and car accidents. :)

        • Cameron

          Unless you live in Oregon where public nudity is allowed.

          • Average Joe

            People in Oregon don’t tan…they rust….it only rains there 345 days a year 8)

      • 45caliber

        It is dark ages thinking that all these things are bad? Or do you mean that they are bad and will never be made legal as they are making homosexualism? Or what?

    • Crystal

      Well put.

      • Stewart

        Thank you! I appreciate that.

  • clearlyirked

    The worst possible thing that could happen would be to allow government to redefine marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Anything else is not marriage. Society in general, not government, has made this definition for thousands of years. Violators of the definition might have a right to do their own thing, but they shouldn’t call their aberrations marriage. If we let government get away with changing the definition of marriage, then they can change the definition of anything, and laws mean nothing; tyranny by arbitrary edict will reign.

    • slickporsche

      We are seeing the rebirth of tyranny now as we excist today. WE have reached a point in time when the government is not interested in our wishes. The minorities have more rights than the rest of us,”the majority”,and that is because of the civil right laws that were passed in the 60′s and should be repealed.

      • txjim

        That is where you are wrong. There is nothing immoral with being a certain color.
        Morality is the key issue here and its a slippery slope when you start letting any kind of immorality in our legal or civil system. I have gay friends and they are really bent on their sexuality. This is no different than a pedifile who has a child fall in love with them. Just because they both agree to married does not mean its alright.

        • 45caliber

          Being a different color is not immoral – you are born that way. Being gay is immoral because you choose to be gay. No one is FORCING you to be a gay, sexually active person. You can always be celibate if you don’t like women.

          • Karolyn

            As I just wrote below, I know people in their 50s, 60s and older who knew they were gay when they were little. Where did that come from? It wasn’t taught to them! Do you think people choose to be something that is ridiculed and discriminated against. I sure wouldn’t want to be in their shoes. And there are more straight pedophiles than gay. Think about all the old men that love little girls. I would bet they are a larger group than gay pedophiles. You certainly hear a lot more about them.

          • 45caliber

            THere are more straight pedifiles than gay pedifiles – but there are more straight people than gay people too. However there is a MUCH larger percentage of gay people who are pedifiles when compared againt all gay than there are Straight pedifiles when compared against straight people. Odd, isn’t it?

    • hflashman

      That’s YOUR definition of marriage…as you decided in conjunction with your personal and religious beliefs. And that makes it right to impose your beliefs on others?

      Really?

      • Crystal

        The origin of marriage comes out of the Bible. It was created by God and defined by God.

      • alpha-lemming

        Wow!! I don’t believe I just read that!!
        There’s only one group IMPOSING their views on everyone and it ain’t Christians. The tyrannical minority (<1% biologically based…. the rest merely doubling their chances of "gettin' lucky" on any given night) has/deserves the perks of marriage based on CA Union Laws. But that's not good enough….. we have to call it marriage?? NEVER!! Talk about IMPOSING!! The Bible, (actually a VERY good psychology book…. to achieve the BEST society and the OPTIMUM conditions to child rearing progressing to responsible adulthood) based on millenia of observation, created marriage for something a little bigger than "gettin' your yayas off". With… THEM… there is nothing bigger than that. AND once again the Godless KNOWS there's nothing more important in the universe than their "yayas" and them!!

    • 45caliber

      clearlyirked:
      You are right. And they are doing it. When they raided the Davidian group at Waco during Clinton’s term, it was pointed out that we had freedom of religion where the government couldn’t interfere.

      Their answer was classic: “We only raid cults. We do not bother religions. And the government determines what is a cult and what is a religion.”

  • Average Joe

    My problem with this whole issue is this:
    What business does the government have concerning marriage at all? Is not the institution of marriage supposed to be a covenant between God and man? I believe that the government and the courts have no “business” (licensing is nothing more than a revenue source) being involved whatsoever. If your pastor,priest,minister or whatever is willing perfom the ceremony, then what does it matter to anyone else? Just because some of us don’t agree with Gay marriage on moral grounds, does not matter in the least. I am sure that all of us have done things in our lives that others might consider immoral…should we now allow the government to legislate everything we do? If the government can legislate the covenant of marriage (the most personal of freedoms..the right to love who you choose), what then are they not allowed to legislate? Government should have no place in legislating moral law…it is not their job.
    People can only be divided into two groups, those who wish to control others and those who have no such desire.

    I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
    Robert A. Heinlein

    • Karolyn

      BRAVO! Right on the money!!

    • Crystal

      So you feel it’s alright for homosexuals to put their lifestyle on school children?

      • Average Joe

        Excuse me? Do you just pull comments like that out of thin air (between your ears)? That would be considered infringment upon another persons rights. Consensual love between two adults is what we are discussing here…not child molesting.
        Let’s consider that statiscally most child molesters are usually heterosexual males…or the recent rash of heterosexual female teachers accosting male students. Hmmmm, maybe we should ban all teahers and just home school our children. Or maybe you would perfer that our teachers espouse bigotry and hatred as part of their cirriculum? Get a grip on life and the disscussion at hand.
        I am not a homosexual,nor do I agree with it morally. I do however agree that they have a basic right to choose to live their lives as they see fit…so long as they do not infringe upon the rights or force their views upon another human being.Everyone’s life choices are strictly between themselves and their creator.You do not answer to your creator for the sins of others.
        Matt 7:2-5
        For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

        “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

        I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

        • 45caliber

          The real problem here is that they don’t want to be morally responsible for themselves. They want everyone else to insist they are. So they want to train the youth to believe they are. (It also means an increase in possible lovers.) Marriage is considered moral; therefore they want to have gay marriages for the same reason.

          Besides, everyone knows there is no God and that all religion is a myth. So what is the problem with changing it as desired?

          • Average Joe

            Where did we gain the right to adjust there morals? I can only be responsible for my morals, just as are you the only one that may adjust yours. When we start adjusting one groups’ morals (through force of law), where does it end? Maybe next it will be your specific morals that are attacked. Since you have already stated that “they don’t want to be morally responsible for themselves” and that somehow we must help them…then you have given up your right to protest that your morals are now under attack. It is a very slippery slope we are on. Just an observation.
            They came and took the local butcher away and I said nothing.
            They came and took my neighbors away and I said nothing.
            They came to take me away and there was no one left to speak for me.

          • 45caliber

            I have no interest in adjusting their morals. As long as they do it privately, I don’t care. (I do pray for them, though.) But I don’t want them to try to adjust MY morals either! And that is what they are trying to do to me, my chruch, and my children.

        • http://naver Samurai

          Look in the mirror and read that verse. You might wake up from this kool ade induced sleep that you are having now.

      • Karolyn

        Of course. Children are exposed to a lot worse things – like war and violence – and that coming from their own parents. I’ve known gay people who knew they were gay (as in knowing they were different and liked kids of the same sex) in grammar school and didn’t even know what it was. How do you explain that? These are older people who were never taught about homosexuality.

    • alpha-lemming

      I’ll agree to the point….. Marriage is a “rite” not a “right”. Hetero couples married outside the church should be considered a civil union as well. And until gays can establish a church (?? The Holy Sepulcher of the Big Brown Eye??) AND maintain it… civil unions should be the end of it. Standing on the (imaginary) obelisk of “Seperation of Church and State”… The church had purview over marriage before the state did. So…. does the state have no business in the marriage business or is this another one of those prog/commie/lib/Marxist double standards where imposing/separation is a one-way street??

      • Average Joe

        Well stated.

      • 45caliber

        Alpha:
        You are right. The only reason the government got involved is because they can tax it (called a “marriage license”.) They want more children so they give tax breaks to encourage it and encourage the civil part of it. Now they don’t want marriage, so they pay the single women to have children outside marriage.

      • Karolyn

        Wow – Your name suits you!

  • http://facebook vsop4u

    since the beginning of recorded history, marriage between a man and a woman has been recognized as a legal arrangement to protect the property of offspring. ie. children; and serve as a model for protecting and molding the roles of men and women, this is why marrigages were arranged by families, not to formalize romantic attachments. so any union that cannot generate children is not a marriage, regardless of what any court says. anyone want to guess how long it will be before a polygamist, or threesome, or some other perversion is suing to have their union codified, because they love each other. i haven’t heard or read one comment that isn’t based on the legality, ie. the constitution; or morality, ie. the bible. that saddens me more than the hue and cry over this irrelevant diversion. western civilization is surely falling into a morass of relevatism and irrationality.

    • 45caliber

      There has already been a court case filed over polygamy in the NE somewhere. And they are quoting the gay rights people as to why it should be allowed.

  • Dagney

    There is also the logic that gay people already can marry. However, they don’t want someone of the opposite sex. So, laws have already been made in California to give them benefits through civil union and still THAT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THEM. No, they must REDIFINE marriage and do all they can to destroy the California Constitution. We now live in Tyranny, my friends. When 7,000,000 people vote one way and ONE JUDGE can strike it down, there is no rule of law anymore. Once that happens often enough, when will the good people of this state and country become lynch mobs?

    • Doc Sarvis

      At one time in our country the majority would have voted in favor of slavery. That does not make it right.

      • Brad

        Keep up with the times Doc, it’s not 1865 it’s 2010 and your comment isn’t relevant!

        • Doc Sarvis

          I guess you like to believe there is no injustice in the world.

        • Stewart

          I agree with Doc’s point, which is the point of this particular forum. Having laws that exclude a segment of the population without any basis is just wrong.

          • Dagney

            You and Doc Sarvis still don’t get it do you? There is no discrimination when there’s no reason that gay people cannot marry. What’s “right and wrong” has to do with the BEHAVIORS and that is beside the point of this ruling. The definition of marriage for thousands of years is being changed here for what reason? To exert power over people. I will say this again, this is tyranny. If you don’t understand our nation’s founding and concepts like the “rule of law”, maybe you ought to think about going back to school.

          • Doc Sarvis

            Dagney
            As I stated below; “They want to be treated the same under the law. Yes they can get married but there are many important issues under the law that they are excluded from.”

          • 45caliber

            Doc:
            Then get those issues resolves. They won’t be resolved if “marriage” is redefined. It just means you anger a large part of the population.

        • Cameron

          The War Between The States was fought because the “free” States wanted to force any new States being admitted to the Union to be “free”, or anti-slave. The Southern or “slave” States thought this was wrong. It should be up to the Territory applying for Statehood as to whether or not it would be “free” or “slave”. The institution of slavery was dying out slowly, & if the War had never happened slavery would not be in existence today, & we probably would not have the racial animosity we have, thanks to one side forcing their beliefs on the other at the point of a gun.

          • Hugh Jordin

            I guess you don’t believe in the Holocaust either.

          • Bob

            The civil war wasn’t about slavery but states rights. There were still slaves in the North.

          • 45caliber

            Cam:
            I disagree about the reason the Civil War started. The South left the Union because the North insisted that states had no authority. Whatever the feds wanted was the law – and the South disagreed.

            The NORTH went to war over the slave issue. The South did not. There were about 1200 slave owners at the start of the Civil War. Over 300,000 Southern men died due to the war. Do you honestly believe that those dead men really cared if 1200 men got rich on slave labor or not? No, they were upset because the North was telling them what they could and couldn’t do.

          • Hugh Jordin

            hose men died in an attempt to let the rich keep their slaves and were deluded by the rich slave owners in power that they were fighting for states rights. The rich Southern aristocracy manipulated their patriotism to fight to maintain the status quo of the plantation life style.

            The same way Muslim mullahs delude patriotic followers of Islam to blow themselves up for Allah when what they are really doing is dying to enhance the power of the elite.

            It’s the same in every war. The average man dies to help the rich and powerful stay rich and powerful.

            I left a lot of dead friends in Viet Nam and now it’s a tourist attraction, we buy products from there, all is chummy between the two countries, but my friends are still dead and many others are permanently freaked out. We could have avoided that conflict and all those deaths if the ruling elite on both sides did what was right for the people and not their egos.

          • http://naver Samurai

            Doc, here is a true story from Tennessee in 1862-1863:

            General Grant and Sherman were sitting under a big shade tree and they had a Confederate POW brought to them. The prisoner, a sergeant, stood in front of them and they began to ask him questions.

            General Grant asked: “Why are you fighting this war, son? Do you own any slaves?”

            The sergeant replied: “No, sir. No, sir. I don’t own any slaves, sir.”

            General Sherman asked: “Really? Then are you fighting because you believe that a person has a right to own slaves?”

            The sergeant replied: “No, sir. No, sir. I don’t believe that someone should own someone or force them to do something against their will, sir.”

            General Grant finally asked: “Well, son, you don’t own any slaves. You don’t believe in owning slaves. Then why are you fighting against us?”

            The sergeant turned and pointed and a group of soldiers nearby and said: “Because ya’ll is down here!”

            The sergeant was fighting for his country, family, and we call that being a patriot. Most of the soldiers in the Confederate ranks were poor dirt farmers and small business owners. Some of them came from foreign countries. Thousands of them came from Canada alone to help the South fight for it’s freedom.

            The main point for the North was preservation of the Union. Lincoln wanted to fight to free the slaves, but couldn’t do it. Why? Lincoln received many letters from soldiers lower ranking than sergeant, saying that if they are fighting to free the slaves, then they will pack up and go home. 90% of these soldiers would go home. If you were in a fight and had ten friends with you to fight another ten people, suddenly nine of them just go home, would you win that fight? Think about that hard. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • Average Joe

          Dagney says:

          To exert power over people?…Is someone forcing you to marry a person of the same sex against your will? Is someone forcing you under threat to accept their beliefs? Are you being forced at gunpoint to to accept them and hang out with them?…hmmmm…I fail to see where anyone is exerting their power over you. Unless you are gay or lesbian, I fail to see where this affects you in any way shape or form. If you have a problem with G’s/L’s, don’t associate with them…that is your right. I would bet that if you leave them alone, they will leave you alone.

      • Dagney

        Doc Sarvis, do you have trouble comprehending English? Gays can already marry. This is about POWER, TYRANNY, and changing the definition of a word. When ONE JUDGE can overturn the votes of 7 MILLION, that is tyranny.

        • Doc Sarvis

          So if 7 million people voted to allow slavery they would be correct and the one person who said that is NOT RIGHT would be wrong? I know slavery is not the issue here but judging right and wrong is the issue.

          • Dagney

            To equate changing the definition of a word to slavery is an ignorant assertion. I’m sure people of color really appreciate your stance….NOT.

          • Cameron

            In the Dred Scott Case the Supreme Court upheld the LAW & ruled that slavery was legal, not that it was right. That is exactly what the courts are SUPPOSED to do, follow the law & not write it.

        • Doc Sarvis

          Homosexuals are not after POWER as you put it. They want to be treated the same under the law. Yes they can get married but there are many important issues under the law that they are excluded from.

          • Cameron

            Like WHAT? If they can have civil unions then they have all the rights of married heterosexuals, so why the big push to “marry”? It’s simply to spit in the face of the rest of the world.

          • Bob

            When you are different you are treated different.

          • 45caliber

            Despite what Doc says, the gay agenda is NOT about collecting all the civil rights that a married couple has. They can get that by convincing the government to give it to them.

            What their real agenda is, is to convince everyone in the world that their lifestyle is just as good and acceptable as any married couple’s lifestyle is. And I can’t really see that happening despite what they want to do in courts to religions. A religion is decided by God as to what laws they obey – but the gays insist there is no God, only man.

            What I really think is funny is the gay support of Islam. The only reason I would like to see Islam take over would be to see the looks on the faces of the gays who supported them when the Muslims come to execute them.

          • Average Joe

            Bob says:
            August 10, 2010 at 3:37 pm
            When you are different you are treated different.

            Collectivist? Resistance is futile…you will be assimilated! I suppose you would just as well throw out the Constituion and live under a “New World Order”…where you get privledges rather than having rights afforded to you by your creator? I kind of like being an individual..with my own thoughts and beliefs…not a Zombie that follows orders blindly.
            Tomorrow’s dress shall be…pink shoes, green hair and a yellow plaid outfit..that is all…Violators will be shot on sight…sieg heil!

          • http://naver Samurai

            We are a nation of laws and do not reward those who exhibit immoral and unethical behavior.

        • Stewart

          This is actually the opposite of tyranny. Prop 8 is a laws of oppression. If one is a heterosexual homosapien person (we’re all homos), Prop 8 has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with their life.

          • Dagney

            One man’s opinion over the voices of 7 million is tyranny, not the opposite. You obviously are agreeing with the one man’s opinion. You, sir or madam, are a tyrant in waiting.

          • Average Joe

            Dagney says:

            7 million people’s “morality amendment” over basic “unalienable rights’ is tyranny.
            Again, this is a Republic…not a Democracy… as some would have us believe.

          • 45caliber

            Joe,
            If a majority vote is “Tyranny” then there is a problem with the democratic system. “The majority rules.”

            So, what type of government do you think we should have? Socialism/Communism where the Elite Rule? A monarchy where the King Rules? You can’t declare a majority vote a form of tyranny otherwise. Actually, all voting is a form of tyranny as far as the minority is concerned. And so is the reverse when the minority rules the majority. Does it make it right? Perhaps not; but freedom is safer when all have some of it than when only a few do.

          • Average Joe

            Joe,
            If a majority vote is “Tyranny” then there is a problem with the democratic system. “The majority rules.”
            Uh..this is a Republic…not a Democracy….there is no majority rules in a Republic. The only thing that is Democratic in this nation…is the way with which we elect our representatives.

            Article IV Section 4
            The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

            AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
            QUOTATION: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

            “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

          • 45caliber

            Joe:
            I agree, it is a republic. But there is very little difference as long as the representatives listen and do what their constituents want them to do. One of our problems with our government is that our representatives go their own way as soon as they are elected and consider it an insult if we object to what they do. So it really doesn’t make any difference if it is a democracy or a republic when it comes to minorities, does it?

      • Average Joe

        Doc,
        Believe it or not…. I agree with you on this issue. Since we usually do not agree, I hope that I have not caused you any undue distress.

        • Doc Sarvis

          I’m fine, thanks.

      • Crystal

        Why is it that homosexuals always have to drag Black people down into their filth? We are not you.

        • Doc Sarvis

          What ARE you talking about? Slavery in this world has not been restricted to black people.

        • Stewart

          The point they were making is that black people were once considered by law a second class citizens. I consider all people equal. But since you choose to live a life of ignorance and closed mindedness, that’s far more filthy than anything you could say.

          • Average Joe

            Agreed, I always remember the saying:
            “Minds are like parachutes, they work best when they are open.”
            Some of these people are going to hit the ground hard.

        • Cameron

          Blacks are not necessarily queer & vice versa. Ditto pedophiles, polygamists, Catholics, Baptists, or any other pigeon-hole compartment into which we put people. By the way, I am white, w/ancestry that includes Seminole Indian blood. Freed & runaway slaves in Southern GA &LA (Lower Alabama) often sought refuge w/them & were accepted into the tribe & intermarried w/them, so it’s possible this mutt has a dab of damn nera everything coursing through my veins.

          • Cameron

            On that same side of my family some possible kin from the early 1800′s were captured & enslaved by Cherokee Indians in TN. Slavery knows no bounds when it comes to either the slaver or the slave, skin color or religion, or any other exclusionary reason. There simply ain’t one. Slavery is still practiced today in AFRICA of all places, & other Middle Eastern countries that practice Muslim law. If you ain’t a slave, be vigilant in for whom you vote!

  • James

    I agree with Palin 12, There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to regulate such matters within the States. Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker, who struck down Proposition 8 (which was overwhelmingly adopted by Californians) is a Republican who once came under fire for his membership in a powerful all-male club (the Olympic Club). Rumors had circulated for months that Judge Walker is a gay activist. A San Francisco Chronicle (SFC) column stated his sexual orientation was an “open secret” in gay activism circles. The SFC article quoted Maggie Galgagher (chairwoman of The National Organization for Marriage, a group that helped fund Prop. 8) who stated: “Here we have an openly gay federal judge substituting his ideology for those of the American People and of our Founding Fathers who, I promise you, would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution.”
    Judge Walker should be impeached for not recusing himself from a case in which his own personal sexual proclivities uttery compromised his ability to make an impartial ruling. Write your congressmen and request it.

    • Cameron

      James, et al, there is no such animal as a “chairwoman”. She is the chairMAN. A chairman is a person, male or female, who MAN”S the chair, that is RUNS or OPERATES the chair. Feminism can kiss my male chauvinistic rear. So can the PC crowd.

  • slickporsche

    What is now needed in this country is what I have said many times,A revolution. The timing is right, the issues are there, and the government has failed its duties, and does not follow the constitution. It only twists and bends the constitution, to meet its needs, and desires. Yes it was voted on, and the voters struck it down.That is the end of it. What this judge has done is a real wack job. You all want your country back?? THen arm youselves and lets get er done.

    • VMCox

      You are an idiot….

    • Hugh Jordin

      slick Porsche – you think like an old Volkswagon.

  • Karolyn

    Bravo! Who cares who marries? As the judge said, it is a moral issue. If it’s a moral issue, it cannot be legislated. the will of the people had nothing to do with it.

    • Crystal

      …because marriage comes from the Bible. If you had been keeping up with the entire homosexual agenda, you would have seen homosexuality presently being taught to kids in school as early as Kindergarten, you would have seen homosexuals sue E-Harmony because this Christian owned business didn’t bow down to homosexuals (this means you can now go to Baskin Robbins and sue them because they didn’t sell you lettuce in an ice cream cone), you would have seen a college student just last week being kicked out of the Counseling program at her University because she doesn’t believe in homosexuality and they tried to force her to go to their parades, etc., you would have seen a University here in California that won’t share Federal given funds to a Christian club because they don’t allow homosexuals or any other individuals who don’t follow Christian principles such as sex before marriage (but all the other clubs on campus are allow to have their own personal interest including homosexual clubs), you would have seen many times where the homosexual movement is forcefully removing God from schools in order to put themselves in His place, you would have seen where homosexuals are presently a protected class from anyone who believes in God, and the list goes on and on. Most of all you would have seen a homosexual judge destroy and take away one of the most basic rights of the American Citizen. THE RIGHT TO VOTE!!!

      • Palin12

        I agree Crystal. There was also a wedding photographer that was sued $7K because he did not want to photograph a gay wedding. Whatever happened to “we reserve the right to deny service to anyone”? As a former wedding videographer for 10 years, I soon learned you have to be choosey about your customers, or some of them will turn your business into a nightmare.

      • Bob

        The Boy Scouts of America were kicked out of public meeting places because they omitted Homosexuals.

      • Karolyn

        Homosexuals are a minority; and are protected as such under the law.

      • Karolyn

        Blah, blah, blah, Bible, blah, blah, blah, God, blah, blah, blah, Bible, blah, blah, blah, God…………………………….

        • http://naver Samurai

          Be careful Karolyn. Your atheism is showing. Don’t attack the basic foundations of this country. Patriots don’t attack God and our founding fathers, they go buy their ways. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • http://naver Samurai

            Being called proud american, you sure don’t sound like one. That’s coming from a patriot that has served this country for 20 years.

          • ProudAmerican

            Proud and American! This country is great! You however, are questionable.

  • atlas reborn

    to all the idoits out there that think that gay marriage is ok I want you to figure out marriage was instituted by God for man to take a wife. for over 4000 years religion was between a man and a woman period. when gay idiots decided they wanted marriage civil unions were made to accomadete these idiots. when they wanted more california put a ballot measure on the ballot defining marriage as between a man and a woman. if you can not understand that then your edcucation shows how stupid they both are. the judge is a simpleton idiot

    • Stewart

      blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…blah blah blah idiots…

      • Cameron

        I am AMAZED by your command of the English language & your quick wit in debating!

      • Bob

        Rejoice Stewart, I found your medication.

      • http://naver Samurai

        Did we drink too much kool ade today, hmmm..?

        • ProudAmerican

          Why don’t you just go back to your trailer park and give your sister/wife a big kiss. Or would that be your 1st cousin/wife? Your trash talk is soooooo laughable!

          • libertytrain

            You are sounding a bit racist -

          • http://naver Samurai

            Sorry dude, but your wife just left my house a lot happier than with you. Since you think you know soooooo much about the subject, would you care to state your sources? If you do, I’ll look them up and if you are right, I’ll concede defeat. For being called a proud american, your overtones are a bit racial and lib to be called that.

    • txjim

      I agree Atlas,

      If they gay community wants equal rights to those of married couple then I have to problem with that as long as there is no marriage involved. Marriage is two people making a pact before God and God does not ordain homosexual relations. God loves every person but can hate the sin that we do. How can you ask God to bless a marriage he does not approve of? And if all these people want is a contract binding them together then draw up a contract, but lets give them all the rights of a married couple like surviorship, health benefits and all that go with it. I dont want to deny their rights, but this is a religious and moral matter.

      • Average Joe

        “Marriage is two people making a pact before God and God does not ordain homosexual relations.”
        Ok…so let God deal with them…is that such a difficult concept to fathom? Or did God appoint you to be his(or her) personl adjudicator of his law?
        Each and every one of us will answer to God for our own sins on judgement day. Unless they are trying to force you into their bedrooms and sexual relationship, it shouldn’t concern you or me…it is soley their (your) sins that God will judge them (you) on.

        • txjim

          Wow Joe,
          Deep insight yet again!
          How about you answer something of worth. If they gay community wants equal rights and we give them all the legal equality of a partnership with health benefits, surviorship, etc., but dont allow marriage. What would the big deal be? There are many people who just make vows to each other and never include God or the legal system because its just important for them to make that committment to each other. Is it just to piss people off or is it legal rights of partnership we are talking about.

          • Average Joe

            How about….individual rights of supposedly sovereign citizens? You have no more right to impose your morality over me than I have to impose mine over you. I no no desire to impose my morals on anyone else, you on the other hand feel that you should do so… through the legal system and “democracy” (though the vote). The last time I checked, this nation was a Republic (with a democratic vote…to elect our representitives)….not a Democracy. All of us are granted certain inalienable rights “by the God of nature and natures law”. Maybe you should try reading the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United (states) and the Federalist Papers, in order to understand the fundamental principals this nation was founded upon….and not your opinion as to how things should work.

        • Cameron

          And if you’re living as if there is no God then you better be praying that you’re right.

          • Average Joe

            On that statement, we can agree.

    • Crystal

      The judge is a homosexual himself. What did you expect? The Right to Vote in this country is now in danger. This has now set a precedence that anything the American citizen votes on can now be destroyed by a worthless judge.

    • slickporsche

      The civil rights laws that were passed in the 60′s created a nightmare for us all. Without those laws, there would not be all these issues.Biggest mistake this country has ever made.Obama is the second biggest, and never would have been an issue if it were not for the civil rights laws, that have brought this country to its knees.What did WE gain?? Answer:Never ending problems.

      • Hugh Jordin

        I bet you believe that it was ok to keep “them darkies” out of restaurants and in the back of the bus. Sad.

        You need to do some traveling and see the rest of the world. There are lots of different types of people and we share this lovely and precious planet that the Supreme Being created for ALL of us.

  • Otto

    How is it the Gays always seem to be able to get their agenda in front of a Kweer judge such as Judge Vaughn Walker”

    • Average Joe

      The same way that BIGOTS like you are allowed to post their ignorant rants on this board.

  • Phoenix

    Marriage is not a right!!!
    People need to get a license, granted by the state,
    in order to marry. This means that people have to ‘
    qualify to marry. Brothers and sisters aren’t allowed
    to marry, first cousins aren’t allowed to marry in most
    all states and countries of the world because of the
    possibility that genetic defects can occur due to these
    relationships.
    If we can allow gay people to marry because it violates
    their rights as citizens, then we must not violate the
    rights of others, like blood relatives to marry, polygamists
    to marry, etc. Their (rights) to marry regardless of the
    consequences are being violated.
    The reason that marriage has been only between a man
    and woman, is because it is a healthier, relationship
    for the community, the nation, and the world overall.
    Gays, by the way aren’t denied the (right) to marry.
    Gay people have an easier time getting a marriage
    license, (as long as they marry someone of the opposite
    sex), than many other oppressed groups, such as polygamists
    and blood relatives.
    Gay (rights) aren’t being violated at all.
    Their right to engage in perverse relationships are
    being violated though.

  • EdinNola

    The most obvious comment here is that there is a Federal Judge who demands impeachment, I could care less who appointed him, so don’t bring that into the conversation. The 14th amendment does NOT give any rights except to say that States cannot make laws to remove existing rights. Just exactly where, ANYWHERE, has a right been given to a person to marry another of the same sex. These ARE State laws and the Constitution DOES NOT properly exert any jurisdiction over these laws. Marriage as an institution has existed long before the Constitution. It was created by “society” for the purpose of the continuation of society and is part of what he call becoming civilized. Marriage was created for the protection, short term and long term of CHILDREN and their future, not the prurient interests of adults. There is NO justification in civilization, let alone this country for polluting the institution of marriage by permitting same sex marriage.

    • Brad

      EdinNola,

      Seems to me you have hit the nail on the head. My question is why is a federal judge interfearing in a states case? Beacause the 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government.

    • Cameron

      EdinNola, where in the Constitution does it say abortion is a right? It doesn’t, but it does depend on what your definition of the word “is” is. If judges would use the definitions & meanings of words in vogue when the Constitution & its Amendments were passed there would be far fewer problems. The trouble is with selfish people who want their way w/o regards to anything else.

  • John Despard

    Unless we are going to criminalize homosexuality they should have equal rights. I don’t see where the Bible supports it in any way but many disagree with me. To me Christians should live like Christ and try to lead others to him by example not by trying to legislate their morality. I feel that the banker who by his greed dispossesses many of us who are less fortunate than he is a far greater sinner than homosexuals who simply want to live a different lifestyle and not be discriminated against. This is just another wedge the rich elite use to keep lower classes from uniting. For years discriminatory laws have kept people apart. Now we are finally starting to come together through modern communication and most of us are realizing we need to work together to survive. Unfortunately, too many of our “Christian” leaders are themselves succumbing to the temptations of this world and picking and choosing what Biblical laws need to be followed and what don’t. The rest of us are simply sheep often following the wrong shepherd.

    • slickporsche

      Well if you are going to live like Christ, then you better take a stand against, queers,and abortion. The bible states that abominations like queers are to be punished by death. Is that not why God created the great flood? To try and rid the earth of this kind of filth is the reason.

      If you want to shove your pecker into another mans ass end, that is not ok. It is sick, and so are you.

      If you are a woman and want to have a love affair with another woman, and lick each others boobs, and vagina, or use a strap on pecker, that is not ok. You are seriously fked up.

      For two people to become married that are of the same sex is just plain wrong. It is unreasonable to even argue about it. Leave God and the Bible out of it. Involve Mother Nature if you will, and the answer is clear. Queer is queer. It does not belong in our society!

      • Karolyn

        Oh, but I bet you get a kick out of watching those two lesbians! :=) I think you people need a new country called “The Disunited States of America.”

      • Karolyn

        Christ is LOVE!

        • 45caliber

          Yeah, Christ IS love. But he also is to be the one making judgements come Judgement Day. Because he is lowe it doesn’t mean that he will automatically forgive everyone’s sins. He forgives sins IF YOU ASK HIM TO AND IF YOU DON’T CONTINUE TO SIN. That’s a big AND too. A real Christian, once forgiven, does his/her level best to not sin again although that is generally impossible. BUT (big BUT) he judges based on why you sinned. If you did it without thinking and made a mistake then you are likely forgiven. If you did it with full intent, I don’t think he is going to accept the excuse “But if you love me you HAVE to forgive me!” Try that on your spouse and see what happens.

  • Crystal

    The real danger here is losing the “Right To Vote.” Is anybody seeing what just happened to the American People? This goes way beyond homosexual marriage. We just lost the “Right To Vote!!!”

    • Doc Sarvis

      That is absurd. Nobody has taken your right to vote away. You will have elections this fall.

      • alpha-lemming

        Only until they determine we peons voted the right way!!
        They allowed this question on the ballot…. in the bowl of Granola called California I’m sure they assumed this thing would get hammered!!

        Oops!!

        Didn’t come out the way they wanted so NOW it never should’ve been allowed in the first place!! Yes 1-man 1-vote isn’t on life-support yet… but it has developed a particularly nasty cough.

      • Brad

        Doc,

        You dno’t get it, a federal judge just took the vote away from 7 million Californians, it’s a states case not federal.

        • Average Joe

          So the state should decide whether or not it’s own constitutional amendment is constitutional or not? Do you have any idea how frikking stupid that sounds?
          State:…hey , is this constitutional?
          State…yup…looks good to me.
          Or maybe asking you local bank to investigate themselves…yup…we looked around…we found nothing wrong…take our word for it.
          That is pricely why we have Federal judges…to make legal judgements on the constitutionality of laws and amendments passed by states.
          I’ll just bet that you have a fox guarding your henhouse.

      • Cameron

        When we the people vote the way Liberals want us to vote, then we are wise & good. Otherwise we have a hissy-fit & the election results must be fixed by someone wiser than we are, got it?

      • 45caliber

        Doc:
        I certainly hope so!!

    • slickporsche

      Yes, we are being screwed everyday by the liberal movement and this monster government.

      • Stewart

        Hopefully their throwing in some lube so it doesn’t hurt so bad, or good, depending on your mood.

    • VMCox

      No, we didn’t lose our right to vote. We can vote on anything, any
      bozo, can manage to get on the ballot. That doesn’t mean that the proposition will stand the constitutional test. As in this situation
      the voters passed a law that is not constitutional in the opinion of Ronald Reagan/GHW Bush’s appointed Federal Judge. To bad, it happens all the time, in all the states. That Constitution is such a pesky thing, that strives to protect us all. You know the one that you all are always screaming about. Except when you don’t like what it says.

      • Average Joe

        Well you know how all of these armchair lawyers are…they know everthing about the law and the Constitution…except the things that they don’t have a clue about, but that’s ok…they can make those things up as they go (based soley on their own opinion rather than facts).

  • atlas reborn

    dagney we do not need lynch mobs we need to retake our country from the leftist communist idiots and malcontents. or we coulc execute the leftists and communists and never worry about them anymore.

    • Doc Sarvis

      You sure sound like a malcontent yourself.

      • Cameron

        Hey, Doc, are only those who disagree w/you malcontents?

        • Doc Sarvis

          No, only those who are talking trash about the United States of America.

          • http://naver Samurai

            How is talking about taking our country back from the libs trash? He wants to free this country from the cowards and traitors in Washington. Keep up the good fight!

    • slickporsche

      We need a very strong and organized revolution to overthrow the government and install a new one that will recognize the constitution.Whats the deal does that scare all you whimps? Why do you think we are at this crossroads in history? Hey we have friends outside the US that would help us, and most of the US military. Oh you poor suckers are hiding. What you are all telling me is you like to complain on forums like this, but really do not care enough to really do something about it.

      • txjim

        I think a revolution would have happned a long time ago, but the government has controled so much of the news we receive and the amount of control is has taken with weapons that it would be alot harder than back in the day.

        • Karolyn

          I think a revolution hasn’t happened is because most people are too intelligent to engage in that kind of thinking, let alone activity!

      • Cameron

        The very last thing I hope ever happens, make that one thing that I hope NEVER happens, is to see foreign soldiers wearing blue helmets patrolling the streets of the United States, enforcing THEIR version of peace on us. Then I will become an “insurgent”.

      • Karolyn

        I’m just siting here smiling and sending love to you my friend. Am I supposed to be building a bunker to hide from the likes of you? You really do have a screw loose.

      • 45caliber

        slickporsche:
        We may have to have a revolution, but I hope not. I do expect most if not all the military to sit one out. However I’m also thinking that it is real handy right now for Oblama to have a war half way around the world so he can keep them out of our country.

        I suspect any attempt to organize and lead a force to Washington would meet with resistance. But I do believe we would have the numbers on our side. I think they know it too.

        Tell me, do you believe that they would hesitate for an instant in firing a nuke to obliterate such a move? I don’t. And they have the buttons. Take a city like Houston. 10,000,000+ people in and near Houston. Say a thousand armed men met there with the intention of going to Washington. I believe they would nuke Houston and wouldn’t let it bother them a bit. After all, those in Houston should have been smart enough to have stopped them first.

        Further, I expect it to be an ariel burst to produce an EMP pulse to shut down all infrastructure in the immediate area – say at least a hundred miles across if not more. Then the news media can come racing in to record all the poor helpless people starving to death due to lack of food and water that they can’t bring in. I’m sure it would be a good object lesson on the rest of the country. Most people have less than a week’s worth of food at home and stores generally only stock two or three days’ worth of food. And if all the pumps are shut down, how long could you go without water?

        “Don’t mess with us or we’ll punish you!”

        • Karolyn

          Don’t you think our “enemies” in other countries would just love that and take advantage of a torn country? anybody with thoughts of revolution should give a thought to that fact.

    • Stewart

      Yeah, let’s just kill everyone that we don’t like, is different than us, or we don’t agree with. Are you related to the Anti-Christ or something?!?

  • patrick

    All this crap, and all of, “We the people”, are wrong! Let me explain. This issue about queer people and their wanting to have a legal marrige, never should have even been allowed to be heard in the courts. In the beginning, GOD created man and them woman. Yes there is a difference. GOD’S will was for humans and the animals and plants, to have sex and pro-create more living beings. Get it? We need a male and a female. Without a male and a female, no babies would be created. Evolution… bullshit! The scientists have never found genes or DNA that shows a whale gene in any human. Also, they have never found a queer or gay gebe in any human so they are nOT born that way. We have allowed these queer people, all these rights to promote their idiotic lifestyle, more children have simply learned this lifestyle. This new attitude has been rammed down our throats by constane brainwashing and we have let our guard down and now we have to fight to make it right all over. Also, the same thing happened with the abortion issue. It never should have been allowed to be heard in the courts. Simply put, if a woman wants to kill their babies, let her! Only she will have to face her creator some time in the future and GOD will decide her punishment. Didn’t our framers of the Constitution write in that document: Life and Liberty? I therefore proclaim that all abortions are un-constitutional!!!

    • txjim

      I agree with you patrick, but let me add these questions.
      Why is the government ok with funding abortion and then backing a life style that limits procreation? What does the government get out of limiting life and promoting immorality? Is it the sense of control or is there deeper issue that we just dont see yet in our government?

    • slickporsche

      Good post Patrick! Now get you guns and ammo, and lets do something about it. NO excuses, lets get er done.

    • Cameron

      Don’t tell me queers (queer- noun- means odd or different) can’t reproduce! Otherwise they would have died out a long time ago.

      • Karolyn

        Gay people don’t necessarily produce gay offspring. Cheesh! What century are you living in!

        • 45caliber

          But according to polls, they are 11 times more likely to.

        • http://naver Samurai

          Then why do they use invitro fertilization?

  • pa judge

    by the way that judge just said that all hetrosexual marriages are unconstitutional. what do you think that the founding fathers would say about that idiot judge and our society of today? Maybe we should just go back to prehistoric times and kill all the disfuncinal one like nature does.

    • Average Joe

      pa judge,

      Judge?…considering the poor grammer and spelling…you are laughable at best….maybe you should have your court secretary proof read your posts in advance…so that you don’t look quite so ignorant.

      • txjim

        So your argument joe is that because he doesnt spell check that his point is invalid?
        Thanks for keeping to the topic at hand joe and your deep insight!

      • slickporsche

        Well Joe blow, you understood him,so shut the — up.

        • Cameron

          What do you have when you have nuts on your wall? Walnuts!
          What do you have when you have nuts on your chest? Chestnuts!
          What do you have wheh you have nuts on your chin? Mouth fulla…!!!

        • Stewart

          Were you meaning “Joe blow” as a noun or a verb?!?

      • Average Joe

        Just for you two morons,
        The comment was about the name “pa judge”….if in fact he is a judge, the grammer and spelling would show that he is uneducated at best…as such…unfit to be a judge…obviously you two have never heard the word “sarcasim”…maybe you should look it up…learn a new word today.

        • Average Joe

          Before you spout off…”sarcasm”.

        • Cameron

          Nice try! But you still didn’t get your nuts out of the fire.

          • Average Joe

            The only “nuts” in the fire are you Libby Von Schtupes who have no respect for anyone that does not espouse your beliefs.
            Tow your line…because you are all knowing and all seeing…I’ll bet you even have the Oil of Aphrodite and the Dust of the Grand Wazoo….while you’re at it….can you cure my asthma too?
            You have to look beyond the end of your nose and your narrow mind…. to see the big picture.

    • Cameron

      Our Founding Fathers believed in hanging. There’s more’n ONE way to define “Hanging Judge”.

  • Josette

    I have two comments to make:
    1. To ‘Average Joe’ – your name tag is a misnomer. The Average Joe does not believe in gay marriage.
    2. To ‘Crystal’ – you are wrong, we have not lost the right to vote. It is just that the judge took away the meaning and consequences of our vote. He ALLOWED us to cast votes, and then decided that the people didn’t have the sense to know what we were doing. This has been happening a lot lately – we do need to do something to change the gall of 1 gay judge against a whole state.

    Now, I do agree with Phoenix “If we can allow gay people to marry because it violates their rights as citizens, then we must not violate the rights of others, like blood relatives to marry, polygamists to marry, etc. Their (rights) to marry regardless of the
    consequences are being violated.” I have a family member that is a lesbian and living with another woman for 20 years. I love my cousin and really like her partner – BUT notice I said ‘partner’. Marriage is between One Woman and One Man. I will not condemn the gays or lesbians for loving each other and do support their rights to health and insurance issues, but I don’t like them raising children and I will never accept that they are MARRIED.

    • Average Joe

      I never said that I was for or against gay marriage. I have stated that everyone is supposed to be equal under the laws of this nation…it is not a gay,straight, black,white, man, woman or any other issue…it is a Human Rights issue…period. Do humans have the right to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they are not infringing upon another persons life? The answer is a resounding yes.
      They are not asking you to participate…only to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit in their quest for “Life, Liberty and the persuit of happiness”…just like the rest of us.

      • Stewart

        Would you please stop making so much sense and excepting people for who they are! :-)

    • Karolyn

      From what I’ve seen, they appear to raise much finer children than most I’ve met!

      • 45caliber

        Not the gay families I’ve seen. The daughters are all into sex at about 11-12 years old and do it if there is a slight suggestion that they are lesbian too. The boys grow up with a chip on their shoulders and generally end up in jail for fighting – if they don’t become gay at an early age themselves.

        I wouldn’t call that a better family life at all.

        • Karolyn

          I would think it has more to do with the quality of the people rather than their sexual preferences. Just like with heteros.

          • 45caliber

            You may be right. But why do you assume gays are better quality?

  • patrick

    ATTN: I have a new remedy to help eliminate this queer/gay problem. I have been making friends with a bunch of queer guys and i asked them all if they will donate their sperm? All but one has agreed. Oh by the way, all these queer/gay men have AIDS. So what i’m thinking about doing is to donate their infected sperm to sperm banks so queer/gay couples will use it to get their partners pregmant. If all works well , it won’t be to long and all our problems will go away. See we need to become creative in dealing with these people so i have started on a new plan to rid the United States of America of eveil-doers like Obammy, Holder, Reid, Pelosi, etc etc. I’ll let ya’all know when i have new equipment to get rid of liberal democrats.

    • you’re a joke

      Your remedies sound like that of Hitler. You’re sounding like one of the “evil-doers”, not them. It’s unfortunate you’re mother didn’t have an abortion while she was carrying you! Your comments are good for a laugh. Thanks for the great humor!

    • you’re a joke

      Maybe you should be reported for sounding like a terrorist! That would be fun!

    • Cameron

      That’ll never work, Patrick. It’ll take too long & the cost to society will outweigh the perceived benefits.

    • Stewart

      Just out of curiosity, will you be assisting your friends during the donation process? Do you prefer using your right or left hand?

      • Average Joe

        Stewart,
        you forgot to tell him to “Get a grip”……lol

        • Stewart

          If it were only that easy. ;-)

    • Karolyn

      Wish I knew who you were so I could turn you in.

      • 45caliber

        From what I read, he hasn’t committed any crime. Now if he actually DID this, he might but I’m not even sure there. So turning him in wouldn’t work very well even if you do think he is an evil man.

        Besides, it was obviously a joke.

        • Average Joe

          Technically, it is conspiracy to commit murder…the last time I checked…. it is a felony. Not just for him, but also for those that agreed to it…..technically speaking of course.

  • http://drg-freeassociation.blogspot.com/ DrG

    Most of you are looking at this the wrong way. In fact, from a purely legal standpoint, there is no way you can ban Marriage between 2 men (or 2 women) using the 14th amendment as reference. The argument needs to be that Govt has no business defining marriage in the first place. All govt references to marriage should be changed to civil union, to allow those visitation/power of atty/inheritance rights that Gays want, while allowing religious objectors to define marriage in their own religious terms. If Catholics or muslims wish to deny gay marriage official status within their religious dogma, so be it.

    Remember that the hx of govt licensing of marriage and govt recognition of marriage was rooted in post civil war America, and the original purpose of requiring marriage licences was the prevention of inter-racial marriage. Now I do not equate “gay rights”, in general, to black “civil rights”, but in this respect, there is some correlation. That is why we need to remove the govt from this contentious issue.

    This should be the offical Libertarian position on the issue (I don’t know if it is.) -

    Govt should recognize civil unions between any 2 consenting adults, and the legal ramifications that formerly applied to marriage. The term “Marriage” should have no govt definition and may be applied as any non-govt group or individual sees fit.

    The fact that any individual has a sexual preference (gay, straight, appliantology, etc.) should confer no special status or protection, IMO, confering special victim rights. No-one HAS to engage in sexual behavior of any kind, engaging in sex is a choice. Asking for governmental approval of your sexual choice is silly, you silly goose!

    • Average Joe

      Well said. Too bad most of these “homophobes” still won’t get it.

  • John McKone

    This appears to be the “WILL OF THE PEOPLE BE DAMNED DECADE”, for a lot more things than just Prop. 8.

    • 45caliber

      Sadly, you are right.

  • Ace

    Romans Chapter 1.
    Even though most Christians tolerate the sins of others deferring judgement to God, will the the government tolerate Christians that refuse to enable, participate and recognize gay marriage?

    • 45caliber

      That is exactly what I’m afraid they won’t do.

  • Lyle G

    Some people seem more interested in keeping others from their rights than in keeping their own

    • 45caliber

      Well said.

  • ONTIME

    Here’s another guy(?) who is unclear on the concept….this judge hasn’t got enough sense as a out of the closet gay to re’acusse himself from a case in which he has conflict of interest, so his opinion means little and now he will probably be repremanded for failing to address his personal conflict. The dummy ought to be forced to resign, his lack of common sense inaccordance with his views is so out of whack that even other gays are embarrassed.

    Gays are allowed civil unions, this entails all the rights that married couples enjoy but they want to co-opt the word “marriage” and spit on the fact that tradition is for a man and woman and not same sex partners…get over it and understand braking the law is not like breaking thousands of years of tradition and you risk losing your gains.

  • ONTIME

    Here’s another guy(?) who is unclear on the concept….this judge hasn’t got enough sense as a out of the closet gay to re’acusse himself from a case in which he has conflict of interest, so his opinion means little and now he will probably be reprimanded for failing to address his personal conflict. The dummy ought to be forced to resign, his lack of common sense inaccordance with his views is so out of whack that even other gays are embarrassed.

    Gays are allowed civil unions, this entails all the rights that married couples enjoy but they want to co-opt the word “marriage” and spit on the fact that tradition is for a man and woman and not same sex partners…get over it and understand breaking the law is not like breaking thousands of years of tradition and you risk losing your gains.

    • Average Joe

      And you got your Law degree and passed the BAR where?
      I am pretty much certain that this judge has done both of these things and actually does know the law.
      You on the other hand, I have serious doubts about either actually occurring.
      Ladies and gentlemen we have another armchair lawyer that knows more about the law than a Federal Judge…dang ONTIME…..you da man…you go put dat dum ole judge in his place….show him da errors of his ways!
      The Koolaid kid strikes again!

  • http://none Ferdi

    I do not care, if a person is Gay or stright, neither has the right to shove his or her feelings down any one throat, if they want protection under the law, let them hire an attorney, and draw up a legal document say just how they want everything. The Bible says it is not right for a man to jay with another man as woman, it also says the same thing for women. If you are gay and want to live together do just don’t shove your life style down my throat. I am a fire arms certified instructor, certified by the dreaded N.R.A., I feel everyone should have and be trained in the use of firearms. I have never forced my feeling on any one, that is his or hers choice, same with sam sex marriage. B.F.L.

    • 45caliber

      I agree.

  • JIM

    READ THE BIBLE (NEW TESTMENT )GOD SAYS A MARRAGE IS A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN NOT 2 MEN OR 2 WOMEN.IN GENESES GOD TELLS TO GO AND POPLUATE THE WORLD,THERE IS NO WAY 2 MEN OR 2 WOMEN CAN DO THIS.IF YOU WANT TO LIVE TOGETHER AS MAN AND WIFE THAT YOUR BUSISNESS IF YOU WANT TO GO AGAINST GOD’S WILL JUST DON’T FORCE IT ON ME!

    • Karolyn

      Nobody’s forcing it on you. They just want their rights.

      • 45caliber

        Rights? What rights? I don’t know anywhere that it is spelled out that everyone has the right to marry whatever they wish. I don’t care if they do, but that isn’t a right by any means.

        • Karolyn

          And why isn’t it?

          • http://naver Samurai

            Read the defense of marriage act passed under Clinton. That’s some more answers to your questions.

  • JIM

    CAL. AND SAN FRANISCO IS NOTED TO BE THE QUEER STATE,MAYBE THAT WHY MANY ARE LEAVING CAL.

  • http://Makessense Charlie

    Why could they not have had a different document and not interfered with the origianl wedding document.

    Write another bindin document” my significan partner”

    • Stewart

      I’m sorry, but your comment is way too level headed and open minded! ;-)

      • Cameron

        And it doesn’t stir up a stink!

  • Dorothy Duda

    1Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals

    Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

    Rom 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

    Leviticus 18:22 ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

    Jude 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. from NASB
    For help –
    Exodus International.org North America 206-784-7799
    Post Office Box 77652 Seattle WA 98177

    Focus on the Family.com Dr James C. Dobson 719-531-5181
    www,family.org 8605 Explorer Dr, Colorado Sprgs CO 80920-1051
    Post Office Box 35500 Colorado Sprgs CO 80935-3550

    NARTH.com Nat’l Assoc for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality 818-789-4440 16633 Ventura Blvd Ste 1340 Encino CA 91436

    Catalogue Books: “Regeneration” Book S410-661-0284
    Post Office Box 9830 Baltimore MD 21284
    http://www.bookscatalogue.com http://www.indiabookmart.com
    searched all thru web via ISBN # might try searching thru
    reviews

    Crossover Ministries Inc. http://www.crossover-inc.org/default.htm

    Here are other verses or chapters to consider –
    1Corinthians 5:11
    Rom 1:28-32
    Lev 18:24-30; 3-21
    Jude 3-19

    and there are many more. God taught mankind what was good and what was evil, but if that is not enough let us look into the biological sciences for most animals as well as all humans it takes 1-male and 1-female to procreate that is make offspring and reproduce themselves. We were made for each other as man and woman or husband and wife. Two women together or two men together can not mate and reproduce. It is completely abnormal behavior and it is a choice that these people have made to suit their own personal desires against nature and against God. God and the Church pray for and love the sinner but not the sins. Sodom and Gomorrah were completely destroyed and so was the Roman Empire because of blatant sins and depravity. Seek help, study, learn, believe, repent, confess belief, be baptized by immersion for remission of sins and be saved through Jesus The Christ. God bless them and help them all.

    • Average Joe

      I am guessing by your post, that you consider yourself to be a Christian. As such, is it your right to judge these people or is it God’s right? Will you be held accountable for their sins…or will they? The next time you delve into the scriptures…try looking into tolerance of others with which you disagree and whether or not you have the right to judge others. Either be hot or cold….you cannot be luke warm. Live what the scriptures tell you and stop picking and choosing which you will apply to your life.
      “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
      Clean up your own house …before attempting to clean up someone else’s.

      • 45caliber

        I agree that we aren’t supposed to judge. BUT … we are commanded to set aside people who refuse to give up a sinful life because they will mislead the young in spirit. One of Paul’s writings to the Corinthians, I believe. It doesn’t say anywhere that you are supposed to approve of their sinning. And that is what many of the gays want.

        • Average Joe

          BUT … we are commanded to set aside people who refuse to give up a sinful life because they will mislead the young in spirit.

          In other words…do not befriend them… do not hang out with them….do not associate with them. That is perfectly within each individuals’ rights.

    • Stewart

      I appreciate where you’re coming from, but respectfully disagree.

      For 1700 years after God destroyed Sodom, the human authors of the Bible and the Jews as a nation described Sodom’s sin as lack of hospitality, pride, idolatry, greed or gluttony but never as homosexuality.

      If the problem in Sodom was homosexuality, God would have clearly stated that in the Bible.

      If the problem in Sodom was homosexuality, some Jewish rabbi, scholar or writer would have pointed that out in the 1700 years after God destroyed Sodom.Some teach that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexual. This has no theological support. A careful look at scripture corrects such ignorance.

      Perhaps one of the most misleading term in English is the use of the word sodomy to describe anal penetration and/or male homosexuality. The mere fact of this linguistic development sealed in the minds of many English speaking people that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality. The Church’s false teaching on this issue is an abomination and travesty, not loving homosexuals that are unfairly condemned by this ignorance.

      God appeared to Abraham telling him that he and Sara would have a child and they were going to investigate the wickedness in Sodom & Gomorrah. Thinking God would destroy the cities, Abraham made a deal with God, that He would not destroy the cities if 10 righteous people could be found in Sodom where Abraham’s nephew Lot lived.

      God sends two angels to Sodom, where Abraham’s nephew, Lot, persuades the angels to stay at his home. Genesis 19 records that “all the people from every quarter” surround Lot’s house demanding “to know them”. It was common in those times to use violent and brutal rape as a way to humiliate and establish power over another, not unlike in some prison situations today. It is also done by heterosexual males which is very unnatural for them. This was part of the terrible acts of pederasty, the opposite of today’s loving homosexual natural relationships.

      Lot attempts to protect the visitors sent by God by offering his two virgin daughters to be raped. The people of Sodom refuse them and the angels render the crowd blind. Lot and his family are then rescued by the angels as the cities are destroyed.

      ALL of Sodom’s people participated in the assault on Lot’s house; in no culture has more than a small minority (7-10%) of the population been naturally homosexual. Therefore it can be assumed most of the violators were heterosexual. Lot’s offer to give his daughters suggests he knew the crowd had heterosexual interests – in fact offering young women for sexual hospitality was common. While it is unclear, even if homosexual rape was what the people were after it was do defile the strangers unnaturally

      between mostly heterosexual males against another heterosexual male as in pederasty. This rape attempt has nothing to do with loving, consenting homosexual love but was clearly not the reason for God’s destruction of Sodom.

      Homosexuality can not be called one of the sins of Sodom, Gomorrah or Gilbeah since it is not in any of the lists of their sins given in the O.T. Ezekiel 16:48-50 lists the specific sins of Sodom as pride, plenty, laziness, uncaring for needy, haughty and worshipping idols – which was an abomination – not homosexuality.

      Some try and see in the word “abomination”, a false reference to homosexual activity. This word translated abomination is to’ebah in Hebrew and is frequently found in the Old Testament. If one reads it in context every where it appears it is always connected with idolatry – never homosexuality. Just a few examples are in Deut 7:25-26 where it is the idol used in false worship, Proverbs 21:27 having to do with broader false worship etc. The people of Sodom were involved in idolatry.

      The attempts to stretch “abomination” to “unclean” acts in Leviticus as to mean homosexuality is just as false. That would mean that we would be just as justified to claim that the sin of Sodom was that of shellfish eating, beard trimming or that the sin of Sodom was menstruation on the part of the womenfolk for the same reason.

      Your use of quoting certain passages of the Bible doesn’t have a strong argument.

      • Leviticus 15:19 “And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days; and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.” SHE’S ON HER PERIOD. DO NOT TOUCH HER!

      • Leviticus 21:20 states that you may not approach the altar of God if you have a defect in your sight. DO YOU WEAR GLASSES?

      • Leviticus 19:28 “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord.” NO TATTOOS!

      • (Leviticus 11:10-12) And the hare, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you. You shall may not eat the meat of lobsters, crabs, prawns, oysters or clams; they are unclean to you” BETTER NOT EAT ANY OF THAT YUMMY MEAT! AND DON’T TOUCH A FOOTBALL WITHOUT GLOVES!

      • Leviticus 19:27 “Shaving the sides of your head (being clean shaven) or disfiguring the edges of your beard (trimming) is also forbidden.” YOU BETTER HAVE A BEARD!

      • Leviticus 20:10 “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” HAVE YOU OR ANY OF YOUR FRIENDS EVER CHEATED ON THEIR PARTNERS? THEY SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH!

      • Leviticus 19:19 “Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of cattle. “Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.” “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” BETTER NOT BE CROSS-BREEDING COWS. BETTER NOT BE PLANTING MORE THAN ONE KIND OF CROP IN THE SAME FIELD. BETTER NOT WERE ANY BLENDED FABRIC GARMENTS.

      • Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” ARE YOU MARRIED TO YOUR FIRST SPOUSE? IF NOT, YOU’RE AN ADULTERER!

      The word “homosexual” first appeared in the New Revised Standard Bible in 1946.

      And what about Polygamous Marriage, one man with more than one wife? A polygamous marriage is not an Adam and Eve style marriage relationship yet God accepted, affirmed and blessed polygamous marriages in scripture.

      a. Lamech had two wives – Genesis 4:19.

      b. Esau had three wives – Genesis 26:34 & 28:9.

      c. Jacob had four wives – Genesis 29:28 & 30:4-9.

      d. Gideon had many wives – Judges 8:30.

      e. Abijah had 14 wives – II Chronicles 13:21.

      Open your heart and your mind to other possibilities.

      Blessing!

      • Average Joe

        Very well articulated sir, I applaud your knowledge of the Bible. It is a shame that more people have not taken the time and effort to actually ubderstand the scriptures that they claim to live by. Unfortunately most belong to what I refer to as the “New Church” (read tax free government corporation…not a real church). When the government bestows gift on anything or anyone, they always expect something in return. Today, most “churches” are just more of the same indoctrination that our Federal “public school system” gives to our children. Dummy down… this is what we will teach you…and nothing more.Control the mind…become subserviant OBEY!
        Again thnx for the read and keep trying to educate the masses.
        God Bless you and yours.

      • Karolyn

        Thank you so much!!

      • 45caliber

        And Abram was married to his half-sister. So … do we now allow all of that too?

        • Average Joe

          Let’s not forget that around 100-150 years ago, it was perfectly “normal” for a 14 year old girl to marry a man in his 40′s. Why? because back then an older gentleman was considered to be financially better prepared and settled down enough to support a wife and family. Most girls were married by the age of 16….or they were considered to be spinsters consigned to spend thier lives alone. Just a sign of the times where morals are concerned.

        • Karolyn

          Whatever!

          • 45caliber

            That’s what my daughter says right after she loses an argument.

          • Average Joe

            Karolyn,
            I was simply pointing out that “Morals” change with every generation. Things that are cinsidered immoral today, were not always considered to be.During the days of the Roman Empire, women were considered to be for procreation and men held long term relationships with other men. Now, before someone spouts off that this is what caused the downfall of the Roman Empire, it was not. The downfall of the R.E. was cause when they went from being a republic with a republican form of government, to a democracy (majority rules) where the citizen’s found out that they could vote themselves monies from the public treasures, seantors became corrupt and took bribes to pass any laws that were paid for by special interests (saound familiar?).

            “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
            permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
            the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from
            the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for
            the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
            with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose
            fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”
            “The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning
            of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these
            nations always progressed through the following sequence:
            >
            1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
            2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
            3. From courage to liberty;
            4. From liberty to abundance;
            5. From abundance to complacency;
            6. From complacency to apathy;
            7. From apathy to dependence;
            8. From dependence back into bondage ”
            Alexander Tyler on the fall of the Athenian Republic .

      • http://naver Samurai

        Good job, but what part of gay marriage being an abomination in the eyes of God do you not understand. Remember, it also says in Revelation that in the last days mans heart will burn for another man and not for the woman as God planned it. If you’re a christian than you are to abhorr evil acts, like being gay. Gays will not be allowed in heaven. Period! If you like these people, fine. If you marry one, fine. But don’t say that you believe in all these things and call yourself a christian. It’s inconcievable to call yourself a christian and live in rebellion to the Bible. The wages of sin are death and being gay is a sin, so where do you think that they are heading?

        • ProudAmerican

          I always find it interesting when someone as yourself has an opinion that is “THE ONLY ONE THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE RIGHT”! The planet has over 6 billion people. Your opinion is only one of them. Try opening that tiny mind of yours sometime to other possibilities.

          And Samurai, put the sword down and go outside and play!

          • http://naver Samurai

            Not so proud lib american, I didn’t say that my opinion was the only right one so knock it off. But I do know what I’ve read in the Bible. If you have a different opinion, fine. I do have a right caleed “freedom of speech.”

  • Bill

    I am very concerned today.

    We had, not one but two votes in this state and both times the populous decided that the definition of “Marriage” shall be defined as a joining or union of one man and one woman. There has now been a judge that has seen fit to begin to overturn the election. The bases as stated by the judge, has been that there is a denial of “Civil Rights” as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

    What I found disturbing after the ruling, was the statement by one of California’s state senators, “Today, we have won a great moral victory”, and later another individual went on to say that “There is no place for discrimination of any kind in our society”. With respect to the victory, it must then be said, that a foe or enemy was defeated, in order to have a victory. I would therefore like to open the dialog with a question. “With whom are we at war, to declare a victory over?” For if the issue is a civil one, then in the eyes of the state, are not all the joinings of two persons together, civil unions? Therefore, do we not all have equal civvil rights to civil unions? Do not these civil rights already exist? But, if the issue is a moral one, then “What is the moral foundation being used?” If the issue is moral then how is the constitution being applied?

    Because the argument is being decided on constitutional grounds we have to look at the document being used and the basis on which that document was derived. First, the constitution is the result of the basi beliers as stated in other documents, some of which are, the Magna Carto, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers and the direct input from the Constitutional congress. These documents lead us to the moral framework that underpins the Constitution. It must be understood the the Declaration of Independence is in fact the foundation upon which this country framed itself. The second sentence, perhaps the best known statement of all time, states that “We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Who then is the Creator? We would have to look to the persons writing the Declaration of Independence, in order to understand them to mean God. I know, I know, I can hear the question coming, “Whose god are you going to use?” We have to understand that the overwhelming majority of the signers and writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were Christians. In fact, 23 of the signers were, practicing ordained ministers of the Word. Therefore, the basis used as the framework for these documents must be the Holy Bible. In fact, George Washington, our first president, stated in a letter to the first Congress, that it is proper that the Bible should be used to teach reading.

    If, the senator is correct, and this is a moral issue, then it still begs the question, “What is the basis for our moral foundation?” The answer has to come from our Declaration of Independence, it is our Creator that gives us our moral conscience. So, I ask this individual again, over whom are you victorious? Did you win a victory over God? Are you not then elevating yourself above God? I think, that is a very dangerous position to place ones sef into.

    If we delve deeper into the Constitution, we soon realize that it is a document of limitations. Those limitations are placed on government as to what it can and cannot do. One things comes clear almost immediately. The government, and all of the branches are included, cannot mandate conscience, for to do so would be to elimincate our Liberty. Our Country’s and our State’s collective consciences are, of the people. The people established this by their vote. Remember, the “Will of the People”. Remember, a government “Of the people, By the people and For the people”‘ It is not to be the will of the elected officials or their appointee’s, being rammed down the people’s throat.

    Now I know, what argument is coming next, “That’s discrimination”! But, I ask you, now that we have established this is a matter of conscience, how is this discrimination? We, however, are NOT to discriminate against some one or some group, based on those things that they cannot do anything about, such as, Gender, Race, Color or National Origin. Nor are we to discriminate against a person or group based on their beliefs or Creed. But, are we not to discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil, up and down, left and right? That is discernment, being analytical. Is this not allowed? If it is not, how do our judges judge? In this particular case, is this not discriminating against the Judeo-Christion heritage and beliefs? In other words, our Creed, in favor or partiality to another? It would appear that this particular jurist is not being analytical, but rather, prejudicial!

    The issue, cannot be discrimination, because it is not prohibiting a union. It is however being discriminating of the issue, being either a civil or a moral one. It is not a prejudicial stance for or against the civil unions, that, are present in the eyes of the state, because they are all civil.

    So, now we come to the real argument, “The terms, Marriage and Unions.” The issue becomes one of definitions of the terms contained within the moral code. The understanding of the foundation to the document being used, to discriminate between the two terms in question. Because the issue was forced upon the people of this state, the People deemed it necessary to establish, within the Civil Code, a definition of the moral meaning. All they did was, to codify the “moral conscience of the electorate, and, they did it twice.

  • http://na al

    marriage is specifically intended for the benifit of couples children . gay marriages are not about children and procreation ,more they are about the lust for pleasure. lets keep the right perspective about what marriage is really about and the gay marriages are not productive in this way . / al

    • Stewart

      Marriage is for the benefit of the couple, not the children. Some people marry and choose not to have children.

      Paul dictates that (1 Corinthians 7:9) It is good for a man not to touch a woman and as a last resort, one should marry to avoid fornication and (1 Corinthians 7:11) if a woman divorces or separates from her husband, she must remain celibate!

      Uh, also remember, Paul is the one who said women should be silent in church and subservient to men yeah, right…

  • Barnabus1

    Amazing!!! One corrupt judge can negate 7 million voters’ decisions…I guess we should just let corrupt judge’s control our fate, if voting means nothing!!!
    A far worse thing is on the horizon:
    If you love life at all…you had better see this all the way through!!!!! Your life depends on it!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm3PYZ0N7Dg&feature=player_embedded

  • 45caliber

    What is really sad is that federal judges can be removed only by impeachment. And that doesn’t happen very often since they don’t want to give the people the idea that they can be removed from office. So they feel free to make any law they wish by declaring it unConstitutional or Constitutional … whether it really is or not.

    Not long ago in Colorado there was a Federal judge who would hand the lawyer of any convicted felon on appeal a list of prices for various crimes – in court. If the lawyer paid the money for the particulary crime his client was convicted of doing, the judge would dismiss the case. It took 10 YEARS before Congress agreed to impeach him – and the judge died of old age before they did.

    • Concerned American

      Slight correction:

      What is really sad is that federal judges can be removed only by impeachment or death.

      • 45caliber

        True. But I wasn’t thinking of killing one of them.

  • atlas reborn

    i thinkist we have crossed over to the twilight zone where isnanity is normal and normal is insanity. by the judge^s illogic we can say all laws are illegal and that the and that chopping off my neighbors head because he did not cut off my head is not punishable because it is illogical.

  • atlas reborn

    you know I am fully for gay marriage provided that they all go to saudi arabia and have an Imam execute the marriage. i will pay for their return passage.

    • 45caliber

      Good idea! I’ll chip in myself on the return trip.

  • Concerned American

    The ruling can also be use to eliminate the “gender bias” entrenched in the single sex restrooms in public venues such as government buildings and facilities.

    Where are we heading?

    • VMCox

      Stop worrying about restrooms. This whole discussion is ridiculous, there have been a multitude of voter passed initiatives in this country that have been thrown out by our courts. Our system is working just fine, that is the way it is supposed to be. God does
      not rule our country. Our laws and our constitution rule our country. So, if the voters or the state legislature pass an unconstitutional law, it is struck down in the courts.

  • http://gmail i41

    It is just a watering down of the standrads of the USA. The rump rangers will soon help get the sharia law passed or acceoted. next will be multiplal loves, next if you love you dog,cat or favorite goat it will be a marrage/union. It is about time to have a union/marriage of a slug and orb twix the shoulders of a faggot or a muslim. When the pilgrims arrived the first hanging was a young male caught having sex with a animal. Of course what do we expect with the “it Ok” feel good any things goes thinking of progressives, liberials, and all marxist democrats. The faggot judge who rules is a classic example of B–l S–t backgroung checks, and what do the judges really want as far as interpting laws. Sotamoron and Gagin Kagin will prove how “judges ” are liars and do have an agenda. The idea of life time service is dumb. As a live stock producer, we dispose by selling, slaughtering, and neutering all males and females that act or behave as a queer organism of the species.. Muslims are still are enslaved to the cave dwelling stupidity, their teatment of women,children, and the abuse of humanity makes them lower than the bottum side of a submerged cow pie. If the faggots are going to exist, they should be rated high on insurance rates, even higher than diabetics and people with high blood pressure. Rump riding is a free choice where as being a diabetic or having high blood pressure is something you can not control,no matter how you exercise or eat or even exercise. Happyness would be a muslim with a queer under each arm being shipped to the sandbox dung heaps where they are seperated from the rest of us.

  • MRAMERICA

    Judge Walkers ruling was not based on the 14th amendment to the constitution. The judge is just another one of many who permiate the raw edges of society, and our senses, in their ongoing effort of “Defining deviancy down”.

  • atlas reborn

    I know none of you homosexuals would go and get married there. a good reason being they cut their head off. they also burn the remains, and bury them

  • Robert Berger

    Why are conservatives so obsessed with what other people do in private? What business is this of theirs? What gives them the authority to be judge,jury and executioners of people whose lifestyles they disapprove of?
    And what business is it for the government ot pry into our bedrooms?
    Conservatives claim to want”limited government”but they seem to want unlimited power for the government to pry into our sex lives.
    Some limited government.
    And just because the Bible,an ancient book of myths and fairy tales written ages ago in an age when mankind was extremely ignorant and didn’t evenknow the earth was round contain statements purportedly condemning homosexuality, does that mean that we,in this supposedly enlightened day and age,should follow its dictates blindly?
    The Bible also says that eating shellfish is an abomination.Should we have the government declare the consumption of shellfish illegal and close down the shrimp,oyster and lobster industries, and arrest and execute any one caught eating seafood? What kind of mindless obscurantism rots the minds of religious conservatives?
    Let them worship as they choose and attend church etc. I have no problem with that.I just don’t want narrow-minded,intolerant,self-righteous and ignorant jackasses interfering with my life,or the lives of other Americans who don’t subscribe to their narrow beliefs.
    Same sex marriage would not interfere with straight couples getting married and having children. What’s all the fuss about.
    In the past,many Americans were just as outraged and horrified at the possibility of allowing blacks and whites to marry,blacks and women to vote,and balck soldiers to fight along with whites in the army. Some people never learn.

    • Karolyn

      Thank you!

    • Average Joe

      Wait a minute, I am a consevative and I totally agree with the court’s legal finding that the Amendment was unconstitutional.Some of us actually look at the law and then make informed judgements …based soley on the facts of the case. Most of my conservative friends feel the same way. Please don’t lump us all together…there are and always will be non thinking, illiterates, and homophobes in all groups of people who will interperate the laws based soley on what they heard…from someone else.
      For those people, Einstein had a quote:
      “Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity…and I am not certain about the universe.”

  • http://gmail i41

    Stewart, I don’t know what Bible you read or if you are a queer, but the citizenary tried to break down Lot’s door to get the angels and know them, that doesn’t mean introduce your self. In the Bible when people got married they knew each other. Of course in Queer City San Fran which is a marxist democrat weirdville of the dual use top and bottum orfices that are interchangable. I see Karolyn is spouting the airy fairy bildge again. War and violance is what makes males men not queers and girly boys. The years of senative men and no fighting, teaching basket weaving and arts fartsy crap has created a generation of whimps. That is why pinheads like you Karyln create aggressive females and loud mouth b-tches who are poor or worthless mothers. Faggots don’t create young unless they find a lesiban who wants to fight to see who is tougher. Abnormal behavior is learned just like picking your nose and rear in public, parents need to take responsiblabity for raising their children, not a damn village and the government. As for the female teachers taking on young males, well the indians always let “aunties” coach the young boys. With so much metro sexual, sensitive men, peaceful males, single welfare moms, pacafistic pusses, and what do we get, abunch of worthless bastards that are mentally nuetered, and too damn worthless to support them selves or their children. Since the Now pussified America, I am waiting for males to take off a week every three because of bloat and feeling like a crank yanker, when every idoits like Karolyn whine about equal pay, for equal work. Over 3 decades I never seen a women get less pay for doing the same job as a man, I did see them not be able to handle 12-16 hour days or nights on a job with out getting played out, pay was the extra hours males put in that increase earnings. The females did good work but just didn’t have the stamina to grind out the hours, and I wouldn’t expect them to. By the same token, there was several younger males that wouldn’t work 6 days a week, too soft and pusssified to pay the freight, but wanted the same pay amount.

    • Karolyn

      Wow, 141, you have sure outdone yourself. You sound like straight out of the old west like a movie I’m watching right now. Too bad it’s 2010 and not 1850. You are one hard dude.

    • Stewart

      You said that abnormal behavior is learned. Boy, you must have received an A+ when you learned how to become the way YOU are! Normal people don’t talk the way you do! You seem to be against peaceful men. Jesus was called the Prince of Peace. I guess you’d prefer the Anti-Christ?!? You’re a joke….with a bad punchline!

    • Average Joe

      Did you forget to take your meds today or was it that you over medicated? Please see your Dr. asap…your dosage needs ajustment.
      We wouldn’t want for you to have a stroke.

  • Kristoffer Martin

    Looks like I’ve entered into another Obama bashing, anti-gay, extreme rightest zone.

    I want to say a few things here; 1. About time. Prop 8, be it the will of some of the pop or not, was and will always be unconstitutional.
    2. What the Cardinal said ( “No court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.”)is intriguing. For one, Marriage has never been and never will be a matter of nature. If in fact we are talking about nature then homosexuality, which is a completely natural thing, has every right to exist and not be suppressed by the Cardinals own logic.

    More importantly Marriage is not a sacred union, it is a human made construction, a human idea, because it is so our courts have every right to determine who can and cannot be married. That said by our own constitution all people are created equal and therefore no one can be discriminated against.

    • http://naver Samurai

      Actually it says that all men are created equal.

      • ProudAmerican

        That’s right! ALL men. Even you. With your skewed view of the world.

        • http://naver Samurai

          At least I’ve seen the world. Unlike you who haven’t come up from his mother’s basement.

          • ProudAmerican

            Hey Brady, have you been spying on me again? Actually, I wish I did live in my mother’s basement. After she died from an illness 10 years ago I sold her house. I miss her terribly! No joke! I have seen the world, but never lived in my mother’s basement.

            You’re a real funny guy, Brady! Your parents must be so proud!

  • atlas reborn

    martin religions created marriage at the behest of God. marriage has been around for about 4000 years give or take 1000 years and not much has changed about it. man and woman go to clergy and are married. around 1776 a country is founded named United States of America by Christians and Jews on the JedoChristian values. and a Constitution is made and ratified. States are supreme at that time. anything not delegated to the federal governmert is the states rights. if a state wants marriage to be between man and woman that is what it is and the federal government has nothing to do with it. If a state wants to define the rules of marraige it is the law of the state. the federal government has nothing to say about it. that is that. now since a bunch of idiots want gay marriage they were trying to so something to make a law so they could get married. the people of California had a state constitutional amendment to define marriage and it passed. the gay did not like so they appealed to the federal government. but the federal government has no juristicion in this matter. Bill of Rights no.9 and no.10 the rights not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. so california has a law that defines marriage. where does the federal government to say anything. they do not have standing. show me where the states were made less than the federal government. it does not exist. what has happened is tyranny. if this is let stand we have lost all rights and have a dictatorship. and you can kiss your a.. good by. you can start bowing down to the masters.

  • Henry Ledbetter

    “The WRATH OF GOD is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrightiousness of men who hold the truth in unrightiousness.” The context goes on to describe the homosexual lifestyle and then they are given over to a REPROBATE MIND. Some of you may think you do not not mind God’s wrath but you will once you experience it. I suggest everyone read Romans 1:18-28 with an open mind. Henry

  • http://gmail i41

    Thank you Karolyn, I do live in the west, and queers and steers only last around here for about 6 months. They ususally get wheels put under them and shipped out. Our churches aren’t falling for the love a faggot and they like hugs. Marriage is between a man and a women. Our boys are raised to be men and girls grow to women. We have women operating and owning businesses and men teach schools, the idea that some is confused and don’t know if they in a closet or who they love, the same sex isn’t an option, unless they want to go San Fran. Our schools turns out military officers, college grads that excell in many feilds and have world wide acknowledgement., and our unemployment rat for the state is under 5%. Welfare rates are 1% and there is always a job to do, and we don’t like the whining pup sounds of wimps, it is not my interest job or feild of training crap. Also if you steal and raise hell and get caught your face will probably try to bruise some one’s knuckles and livestock or property thieving isn’t a pretty sight. But you can come and stop by and we will have a cup of mud or a cool drink Karolyn,we always like interesting and smart people!

    • Denniso

      You’re living in a fantasy world…and,where in the ‘sacred’ constitution does it say that marriage is between a man and a women?

      • http://naver Samurai

        Raed your Bible! Also read the legislation passed by Clinton called the defense of marriage act. Marriage is one man and one woman and that is what is recognized in this country.

        • Denniso

          The bible belongs in church and has nothing to say about modern society and is irrelevant…it is a religious collection of writings by various men,no women of course,and I don’t remember the new testament having anything to say about gay marriage…Paul did say,apparently, that ‘to marry is to burn’…he was talking about regular marriage and didn’t care much for it. I think Jesus told his followers that they couldn’t follow him and remain connected to their families,so what kind of family values was he pushing?

          • http://naver Samurai

            Sorry duhniso! Paul said that if a man and a woman are having a sexual relationship and cannot keep from doing this, then let them marry. For it is better to marry then to burn.

          • Denniso

            That’s right,so Paul put marriage just above burning for men. Doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement,does it?

          • ProudAmerican

            I appreciate your way of thinking. Some of the others, not so much.

        • ProudAmerican

          “Raed your Bible”? What does that mean?

          • http://naver Samurai

            If you don’t know, then God is the only one that can help you.

    • Stewart

      You said that you always like interesting and smart people! You must be in total awe of them, since you’re neither interesting, nor smart. I can just image that your family tree looks more like a totem pole.

    • OMG

      (offensive comment removed)

    • OMG

      (comment removed for offensive content)

    • Stewart

      You are such an embarrassment. All you seem to spew is hate towards others. It speaks volumes of the type of person you are, which sounds very much un-American. How could you honestly be proud of who and what you are, when you present yourself as an arrogant, ignorant, homophobic bigot. That is not any way to live a life.

  • http://gmail i41

    Where does it say queers can marry, they are abnormal organisms and you can love a goat as muslims do to. Odd nutball behavior is not a reason to go against nature. But all marxist democrat are nor the norm either, too. And it is not in the Constitutioneither,which is what you pervs want to do, is destroy the USA by any means!

    • Stewart

      There you go again, trying to sound smarter than a 5th grader, and failing miserably. You are certainly presenting yourself as queer, not gay, but queer: of a questionable nature or character, mentally unbalanced or deranged. Yeah, that about sums it up. Usually when individuals, like yourself, are spouting off in such a manner, they are compensating for something greatly lacking within themselves. Possibly a severe personality flaw, with delusional undertones. It was worth repeating!

      • Average Joe

        I was thinking…brains…I could be wrong…but I am pretty confident that I am on the right track.

        • Denniso

          i41 is an example of the worst of the idiots in America…where does it say that gays can’t marry? The bible doesn’t count because it’s irrelevant to our legal system. Does the constitution prohibit gays from marrying? NO…

          • ProudAmerican

            ‘i41′ is also a perfect example why so many people who are from outside the U.S. think Americans are brash, arrogant, and ignorant. Unfortunately, people like ‘i41′, are the ones that get the attention. I guess with a name like ‘i41′, he considers himself an Apple product. However, there doesn’t appear to be anything smart, trendy, nor functional about him.

          • http://naver Samurai

            So that is why we based our laws on the 10 Commandments, moron?

          • Denniso

            Who are you calling moron? parts of the ten commandments predate the bible in other cultures…do you think that ‘thou shalt not kill’ didn’t exist as a societal rule anywhere until Moses ‘brought down’ the ten commandments? Think again…

  • Stewart

    There you go again, trying to sound smarter than a 5th grader, and failing miserably. You are certainly presenting yourself as queer, not gay, but queer: of a questionable nature or character, mentally unbalanced or deranged. Yeah, that about sums it up. Usually when individuals, like yourself, are spouting off in such a manner, they are compensating for something greatly lacking within themselves. Possibly a severe personality flaw, with delusional undertones.

  • James

    In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court held a Virginia law that banned miscegenation, had violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    At the trial court the District Court judge stated: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
    Obviously, that carried no weight at the Supreme Court. Mr. Chief Justice Warren ruled: “There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classification violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection clause…These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (p. 12)
    Richard Loving was white, and Mildred Jeter, his wife, was black. They were married in the District of Columbia, then went back to Virginia where they ran afoul of a State law. Virginia hadn’t deprived them of due process of law, they clearly had a law which prohibited such marriages, the Supreme Court just didn’t like it.
    This is a good place to remember the Great Flood of Genesis. The children of God had intermarried with others, so God saved Noah, who was “perfect in his generations,” and destroyed the rest.

    • Karolyn

      Fairytale!

      • libertytrain

        “Fairy tales can come true…it may happen to you…”

        • ProudAmerican

          Hi, about your “sounding like a racist’ comment regarding the ones I made to Samurai. It wasn’t meant in that way. After numerous times trying to have an intelligent debate with him, accompanied with facts, I wasn’t getting anywhere. He presents himself as an arrogant, ignorant, and know-it-all individual. Any person who uses words like faggot and queer derogatorily on forums like this one, deserves what he opens himself up to. Whomever Samurai is, he is an embarrassment to himself.

          I think the libertytrain is right on track. :-)

          • libertytrain

            ProudAmerican – I believe I was referring to you lumping all trailer parks as some derogatory place to be from in your post to Samurai – both “sides” loosely use terms that can be called derogatory – so you would need to think about what you say as well before being lumped into that racist group as well.

        • ProudAmerican

          You’re right. I was being disrespectful. Stop being my conscience. ;-)

          • libertytrain

            that’s your job really, not mine.

          • ProudAmerican

            Sometimes we need people like to remind us how not to be. Thanks for the reminder! :-)

          • libertytrain

            Oh my goodness – we have had this conversation before – I thought I told you not to play poker —– :)

      • James

        Karolyn, by “Fairytale,” were you referring to the biblical Great Flood or the “Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)” case? If the latter, you can type that in your PC search engine and click on the “findlaw” entry to read the case. That decision only has authority in that Circuit Court area. The California case is in he Ninth Circuit and is the first there.
        If you were referring to the Great Flood, there is historical evidence that it did happen. Dozens of nations wrote about how it affected their land, and they all agree that the Flood occurred over the same three day period in the 31st century B.C., which agrees with the biblical account.

  • Doug

    I think marriage is a religious ceremony that is church business. So churches should decide who they will allow to marry in their churches. Government deals in civil issues and therefor should not be in the business of deciding what a religious order decides about marriage, separation of church and state. So the government can allow a civil union of a type that each state decides. The government should stay out of the issue of marriage, a religious ceremony. Of course this is all a way to legitimize the actions of homos and make them a special class of people under the law. It will make heteros second class citizens.

  • Robert Berger

    Homosexuality is a “choice?” Why would gay people “choose” to live a lifestyle where they are always at risk of being discriminated against,taunted,harassed, fired from their jobs,beaten up and even being murdered?
    I just don’t get it. I’m heterosexual.Did I choose to be straight? No.That’s just the way I am. I’m also left-haned.Did I choose to be a southpaw? Of course not.That’s just the way I am. And yes,throughout history,there has been discrimination against left-handed people.
    In Muslim countries, there’s a superstitious belief that lefties are cursed by God. In many schools,teachers have tried to force left-handed kids to write with their right hands.It doesn’t work.
    Why should it be any different with gay people? Why can’t we all just live and let live?

    • ProudAmerican

      When it comes to “choice”, the one thing people CAN choose is how to treat others with dignity. To be civil and respectful of one another. To have empathy and understanding. To be open to OTHER possibilities. We can disagree, without being so damned disagreeable.

      Robert, all the negative and mean spirited comments made on the forum by certain individuals, could be rooted in how those people feel about themselves, sex, and sexuality in general.

      Thanks for adding some light to the forum that sadly creeps over to the dark side, way too often.

  • ProudGayAmerican

    First, most of the informed participants of this forum KNOW that NO RELIGION shall be chosen above another in any matters concerning that laws of the land – this is our springboard for Separation of church and state. This means no matter which bible, or other book (that’s what “bible” means) shall overrule the guidelines given to provide freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion. This is why many of the English, among other nationalities, left their native countries to begin life WITHOUT PERSECUTION in what became the USA. Although we have “God” mentioned on our currency and referenced in other national documents, NOWHERE does the bible have jurisdiction or prevalance over our rights. The founders were generally of these religious persuasions (note the plural reference), but were correctly guided by Thomas Jefferson to NOT establish a national religion, but a SEPERATION OF CHURCH & STATE to provide everyone with their own version of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. As our population has grown and gradually learned that accepting differences and embracing the best values of each culture, we became a strong and united country. Since 1861, we have seen the abolition of slavery, the vote for women, and a contining receptiveness to improve relations between religious, cultural, ethnic and other defined differences. Unfortunately, some will abuse politics for their personal gain or that of a favored groups (i.e. corporations) rathar that in the best interest of integrating and growing as a whole. People of lesser education or those just easily persuaded by emotional appeal (i.e. religions) tend to continue distrupting our path to harmony. Althought we have a great distance still to cover, we would be more successful not to be deterred by people with claims of self-righteous indignation who only apply selective passages of their respective religious reference materials to their choice of disruption.

    “We the people” does not mean, say or imply “we the heterosexuals” or “we the babymakers.” It is simple and succinctly ALL INCLUSIVE and was never to be reinterpreted for discriminatory purposes – that was the whole point.

    The bible, koran, torah, and every other religious writing are ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN in decisions of our government. We constantly hear of the USA as “Judeo-Christian country”, but our laws are ONLY PREDICATED on principles found in these and other writings which our founders agreed upon, NOT TAKEN VERBATIM from the bible or other references. Our forefathers included many values NOT mentioned in any of the religious contexts within our great documents… i.e. SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE was not mentioned in any religious book, but was included to PROTECT us from religious fervor and zealots who would impose their values on the American people. Apparently, although many of them had religious convictions, they really deliberated over these great documents with care to ensure our liberties would be safeguarded from the same “believers” who persecuted many who fled “the Old World.”

    Voting to discriminate against any group of people should outrage morally fit people and shouldn’t be misconstrued as a religious issue… yet many who claim “religious/moral” indignation are clearly ignorant of the basic lessons of treating one another as you would have someone treat you (EQUAL RIGHTS). Interpretation of this is simply to be fair to EVERYONE and has not in any way changed to mean calling people ugly, truly tired derogatory names and/or denying any of the basic rights any “heterosexual” expects and would demand.

    Did you know that less than approximately ten years ago, a commander of one our military branches issued orders that NO MORE MARRIED MEN were to be admitted to this branch of the military and that HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGES were detrimental to the function of the enlisted officers as a study determined that there was a major conflict between the military and marriage obligations. Of course, this was officially retracted within 48 hours as “an error.”

    Bi the way, i41 (probably your IQ +500) I really take exception to terms used like “queers, faggots, abnormal organisms, etcetera” as well as insulting women and anyone not within your intensely undereducated, limited scope of underachievement. (offensive words removed). Get with the program that many of us have acheived MUCH MORE than you or your nightmare society could ever dream of… And just a little FYI, SF is the #1 destination in AMERICA and has been for nearly every one of the last TWENTY years. I can imagine your habitat could only be the final destination for those that couldn’t find Dr. Kevorkian. Brain cells must be something your cohorts believe is in a galaxy far, far, far, far away. Hope your force goes with you… XOXOXO

    • ProudAmerican

      Your name should really be “A Great Proud Gay American”. It shows in your unbiased, informed, and intelligent comments. I’m always saddened by such ignorant, bigoted, and arrogant statements some individuals choose to make on these forums. It reveals someone’s true nature when they do so. Most of the time it ain’t too purdy! I don’t know why some of these people think it’s okay to say “All men are created equal, and liberty & justice for all. Well…except for you people!”. I feel that is so un-American. And don’t get me started on the know-it-all, self-righteous, finger pointing, Bible verse quoting, persons claiming to be Christian. A closed mind is a useless mind. Continue to be proud of who you are. Remember, gay and straight people are only gay and straight, while having sex. Simple, isn’t it. ;-)

    • James

      PGA, there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for the federal government “to provide” freedom of religion. Quite the opposite, the First Amendment starts with: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Religion is an unalienable right that is not dependent on any constitution for its existence. However, having said that, I should add the U.S. Constitution has no affect on God and His laws.

  • Concerned for AMERICA

    I am kinda wondering why a brother and a sister cannot get married. How about a Father or a Mother martying a son or a daughter? This “Can of Worms” will never have an ending. Man was NEVER meant to rule over man. There can never be enough rules (LAWS) to govern over a nation of people that do not want to submit to GOD. It was and is only meant to be governed over man by God! Just check out what the consequences are for men lying with men or women lying with women are in the Bible. These are not my rules, only GOD’S. Go argue that with Him and see how far you get. Quit trying to bring others into a perverted lifestyle chosen by you, and then trying to justify it before others and taking them to hell with you. That is not cruel or judgemental, it’s just the facts man. This, coming from someone who was in the movement of the lost and hurting homosexual lifestyle. There is HOPE and FREEDOM in the BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST! GOD LOVES YOU and don’t you ever forget that!

  • Josette

    I would really like to know why the gays and lesbians insist only being “married”. There would be less resistance to their civil union if it was called something else, like “fairied”, or some other name. The term “married” indicates 1 man and 1 woman to most people. Regardless of the laws, I will never consider 2 people of the same gender to be married. Find another term for it and they may have some success.

  • Winnie

    In our present times, marriage is nothing but a revolving door. What an insult it is to our Creator God when we swear to be true, faithful, and all those sweet sounding words from one man to one woman and visa versa. What a crock of poop we swear to Creator God that we will love, honour, and obey til death do us part. Outlaw the stupid word MARRIAGE and let’s get natural and unite with the one we love for as long as we can respect the other. I know of one man who has been married eleven times and all of his wives are all alive. A woman like Liz Taylor has been married how many times? I was married in Chicago to a Canadian man by the justice of the peace 41 years ago. I’ve known a few gay people who have lived together for years and their union outshines those who are married in church of Christian origin. We have no need to call names or put down our brothers and sisters in Christ if we are truly Christians. Just go back and read the comments you have written and feel the pride our Creator God has for you for your choice of words.

  • OLD FUDDIE DUDDIE

    I’ve read all of your arguements for and against homosexual marriages. I still stand by my statements made last week. No matter how loud a homosexual screams that he or she wants to be considered normal, accepted as normal and treated as normal, you fail the stress test.

    You have been allowed to exist for thousands of years as what you are a freak of nature, and granted you have made great strides by coming out of the closet and trying to force your choice of perversion as normal, it has only crossed the line of acceptability.

    Your perverted parades, your excessive display of vulgarity, your wild display of cross dressing, your movie and t.v. personalities and all of your other vulgarities, have shown just how far you plan to go to destroy families. And no… you are not alone in that quest, but you certainly have crossed over the line.

    We the men and women who not only believe but “know” that marriage is and always will be intended for a man and a woman to unite. Some unite till death do them part. Others unite for time and eternity, as it was planned for from the beginning, otherwise what great expectation would be in store to face eternity without our soul mate?

    My parting words are simply this: IMPEACH THE JUDGE, and let the appeal take place without your limp wristed threats of burning the churches!

    You see… you have failed the stress test.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.