Chuck wrote on May 15, 2008 1:15 PM:
" A slap in the face to the voters of this state. "
Not so mad in Nevada wrote on May 15, 2008 1:46 PM:
" That's exactly what I was thinking Chuck.... "
Former Hanford resident wrote on May 15, 2008 2:38 PM:
" I can't believe that California has finally made the right decision for the cause of human rights, which includes the gay population. I was so sick and tired of seeing gay people labeled like they weren't even human or desired any kind of god given rights. Hallelujah!!!!! "
Disappointed wrote on May 15, 2008 3:33 PM:
" To Former Hanford Resident:
Those are God given rights you were referring to. Not god given. He gave them to us.
So, since you mentioned them, let's be honest. He clearly states what is right between a man and woman in regards to marriage. What our responsiblities are and when we should/shouldn't marry. God gave us those directions and rights, as you have pointed out. I have never been shown a place (Scripture in context) which supports gay marriage.
If you do and can show me where it says gay marriage is a God given right... please enlighten me!! Until then, let's just agree as adults that this is a political issue.
Please do not mistake my words. I have no issue with people living the gay lifestyle. It's not something I am a part of, but I love people as individuals regardless of who they choose to love. I do believe they should be entitled to healthcare benefits from their lifepartner (as straight people are) and that their commitment should be respected if that's their choice. That still doesn't make it a "God given right." "
N. Hanford resident wrote on May 15, 2008 3:34 PM:
" Is marraige really a "god given right" or a privelege? If it's a "god given right" as "former Hanford Resident " has said, then my "god" says homosexuality is an abomination. Now, if it's a privelege, then we are all entitled to the same "privelege" as human beings. "
Scott Tucker wrote on May 15, 2008 3:42 PM:
" Finally, equal rights for everyone, regardless of sexual preference. Hooray for this decision. (Sorry Not So Mad, can't side with you on this one.) "
corn-nuts wrote on May 15, 2008 4:04 PM:
" WOW! What great news... the state of california has seen that marraige should be about the love betwee two people...
Maybe I will stop feeling like a second class citizen today. "
zenmom wrote on May 15, 2008 4:06 PM:
" I'm proud to be a Californian today ... at least until the backlash starts. "
Girl Friday wrote on May 15, 2008 4:55 PM:
" A very good vote and note most were Republicans who voted for the the right of the human being!!!!!!! Good job California!!!!!!!!! It was hard for me to belive that a couple of decades ago we were the ones to vote for interracial marrigage now gay good for the people of California "
N. Hanford resident wrote on May 15, 2008 6:16 PM:
" To "corn-nuts", I know a guy who loves his goat (yes, like that), should they be allowed to marry? Oh wait, you said people, most child molesters say they love thier victims, should we allow them to marry? My point, marraige is more than about just "love", it's a commitment along with so many other things. Don't base everything in life on your feelings. "
Chuck wrote on May 15, 2008 6:17 PM:
" My whole problem with this overturn is that the people of this state get up vote on an issue like this and then the court decides that the voters are wrong, and the majority voters voted no. To me it does not matter where you stand this issue, we could have voted yes on gay marriage and it still would not be right for the court to overturn it. People wonder why folks don't vote like they used to. For me I feel that marriage should be for men and women. My problem with marriage these days is that people can't seem to make them work any more especially men and women. By the way, how does everyone feel about gays leading churches. "
Future Former Resident wrote on May 15, 2008 6:22 PM:
" Im glad to see that there are people out there that know this is a good thing. My husband and I are moving out of Hanford after living here all our lives. Hanford is a wonderful place, but lately too many judgmental people. Why is that?
And for those of you quoting the bible...you are not God, if you think this is a sin, then let it be judged by Him, not by us. Live your life the way you want to, but also let others do the same. "
Mr. Truth wrote on May 15, 2008 6:27 PM:
" WHY?
I can just see them lining up as fast as possible to get married! IT WON'T BE A WHITE WEDDING IN GODS EYES!
Today is a very sad day for this State.
I may marry my Toaster Oven. "
sick of stupidity wrote on May 15, 2008 6:41 PM:
" I think that the only reason "normally" sane people oppose gays and gay marriage is that they are unsure of their own sexuality and that they may be gay or have homosexual tendencies. I am strictly heterosexual and am very sure of that. More power to the state of California for allowing people to be free "
Charles wrote on May 15, 2008 6:53 PM:
" Could I marry a horse? Is that normal or natural? "
dose wrote on May 15, 2008 6:56 PM:
" Is there anyone out there who can explain to me exactly how gay marriage is going to ruin marriage between straight people. No one has ever explained this. "
H.R. wrote on May 15, 2008 7:07 PM:
" It all boils down to what is allowed in the state's constitution. As it stands, the judges decided that the constitution does not allow the legislation for the banning of gay marriages. So, what does this mean? It means the state constitution needs to be changed/amended. And, if I'm not mistaken there are some citizens who are taking steps in that direction. This is not over. "
The Phophet wrote on May 15, 2008 8:14 PM:
" I only hope that God does not judge California like he did Sodom and Gomorra in the Bible. According to the Bible the main reason he destroyed these cities was due to relationships between same sex people. I will be praying for California and I hope God has mercy on us. "
Sid wrote on May 15, 2008 8:28 PM:
" Scott, et al...
I don't think the problem is civil unions but the word MARRIAGE has long standing ties between a joining of a man and a woman within and OUTSIDE of religious aspects. A relative latecomer to striving for social acceptance: Gay "marriage" should use a differerent word than "marriage" to describe itself as it is different than traditional marriage. It would be a less contentious issue that way because using marriage is kinda "in your face you must accept something" , an approach not likely to engender any fans.
As noted, the REAL ISSUE is how 4 California Judges get to overrule the majority of voters, in the millions, in this state in their desires against this. Don't forget, the same thing has hung up Proposition 187 which the voters passed by a wide margin to deny illegal aliens state benefits too.
Elitist judges, regardless of party/ideology, should not overrule the expressed will of the people. PERIOD. Interpret the law, but don't create it! That is outside your job description judges... "
ALEJANDRO wrote on May 15, 2008 8:43 PM:
" So what happens to the legal status of all those people who went through the ‘domestic partner' legal registration process? Are they now grandfathered in and are considered ‘married?'
Will there still be a domestic partnership law on the books in California?
And lastly, what about a legally married homosexual couple who wants to move into another state; will their marriage be recognized as normal?
This legal opinion doesn't change things, really; the facts of life are still the same.
Homosexual sex is not normal biological sex. Homosexual sex does not bring children into the world. Most religions do not endorse homosexual sex.
Homosexual marriage is not a normal, traditional marriage. Never will be.
You cannot legislate away our freedom to believe these truths. "
Traditional Marriage wrote on May 15, 2008 9:41 PM:
" I don't know why everyone is so upset over this ruling by the courts. Traditional marriage doesn't seem to be working and of the small numbers that do that's great but give me a break, what's it hurt? You anti people are just haters and disagree when nothing goes your way! I praise the courts for their ruling and maybe now gay people can feel like part of society and continue contributing to society like they always have been since the beginning of mankind! "
DaTruth wrote on May 15, 2008 9:49 PM:
" Why do we even vote? This type of thing is exactly what is wrong with our system... the voters should have the final say on everything... period! Just like Prop 87, the voters pass something and 3 liberal judges rule it unconstitutional. The 9th Circus of Appeals is a joke, and insults the CA voters time and time again... "
My Partner and I wrote on May 15, 2008 9:51 PM:
" As a Califorian and Hanford resident, my partner and I have been registered domestic partners for the past 16 years. It's amazing because in the 16 years we have been together there are some of out "straight friends" who have divorced once and some twice. For those whom are serious about it, it works, we are living proof. Both of us are gainfully employed, pay our bills, taxes and vote like everyone else. Never have we flaunted our relationship and we are respected by our friends and peers. It's those who have to mingle into the personal lives of people that make such an issue of it. You'll be surprised how many gay people and couples live, work and socialize around you. We are people too and some of us hold positions that are considered vital to society. Before you continue to bash the courts decision, please think about us as people that are just trying to live day to day just like you. "
Dont be too quick to judge wrote on May 15, 2008 10:12 PM:
" For those that reference marrying a goat, horse or a toaster oven... for those that say a child molester loves its "prey" and that they may want to marry... Do any of those instances have two consenting adults in them?
Adult - Goat
Adult - Toaster
Adult Molester - Innocent child
Not a single one is the same thing and your ignorance shows with your comments. I am a heterosexual that can't stand the "Christian" hypocrites that call themselves Christians. They are not loving and accepting "as scripture says".
Live your life and don't be too quick to judge others... that's not your place. Live with the example of love and acceptance and be a true Christian...
Glad to see there are open-minded people making some decisions in this state. "
To Dont Be to Quick... wrote on May 15, 2008 11:07 PM:
" AMEN! "
Mrs.D wrote on May 15, 2008 11:22 PM:
" Groucho Marx was one of the comedians who said,"Marriage is an institution. And everyone should be institutionalize at least once in their life." Congratulations to all the gay and lesbian couples in our great state, California! I hope each and every one of you enjoy marriage the same way we heterosexuals do. God loves you and blesses you everyday!!!
Now, go forth and see who will do the dishes after dinner everynight! "
dose wrote on May 15, 2008 11:59 PM:
" To Da Truth:
I just thought I would let you know that this decision was rendered by the CA Supreme Court not the 9th circuit of appeals, also a majority of the justices on the Ca Supreme Court are Republicans. "
dose wrote on May 16, 2008 12:05 AM:
" I would like to remind the Christian people on here that not all of us on Earth believe in your god nor do we feel it necessary to follow your laws. Before you get all offended and cranky you should know I am not putting Christianity down, I am merely saying that I need a bible to tell me right from wrong. And really if you people are so against gay marraige then don't marry a gay person and you should probably be ok. I really don "
dose wrote on May 16, 2008 12:06 AM:
" That last post should have ended with " Why is it any of your business who other people marry anyway?" "
R wrote on May 16, 2008 12:19 AM:
" Since it is now legal for two men to "marry " each other, and that the term marriage has been totally perverted, I guess pretty soon everything else will be fair game....marrying more than one person, marrying minors, etc....now that this Pandora's Box has been opened, where will it end??? "
to Disappointed and Chuck wrote on May 16, 2008 12:32 AM:
" Your god and also says polygamy is a good thing and incest between a child and father is okay as long as they get him drunk on wine first and they want a kid really really badly. For that matter, if that don't work just grab the prettiest handmaiden your wife has befriended and make her watch.
Chuck....a good majority of people wanted to keep slavery and women without a vote also. Ever hear of mob law? Majority doesn't always mean that it is always the best desicion. "
Watchdog wrote on May 16, 2008 1:07 AM:
" Welcome to Hotel California where it is We the Judges instead of We the People. What's next same sex stripper joints. Why vote if it isn't going to hold, why pay taxes to pay judges to do the opposite of the popular vote. I don't care about the gay issue, I care that our right to voice our oppinions just went dow the dran and of course people like Scott Turcker think that is wonderful. Go have a piece of swiss cheese and shut the duck up.
Alejandro once again you have this issue right along with many other wise americans. "
Watchdog wrote on May 16, 2008 1:08 AM:
" Welcome to Hotel California where it is We the Judges instead of We the People. What's next same sex stripper joints. Why vote if it isn't going to hold, why pay taxes to pay judges to do the opposite of the popular vote. I don't care about the gay issue, I care that our right to voice our oppinions just went down the drain and of course people like Scott Turcker think that is wonderful. Go have a piece of swiss cheese and shut the duck up.
Alejandro once again you have this issue right along with many other wise americans. "
Hmmmmmm wrote on May 16, 2008 3:41 AM:
" Why bother voting and have your voices heard only to have a few judges turn around and say your vote was a complete waste of time and tax payer money. Voting is such a joke anymore it stands for nothing but a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. If got wanted same sex marriages he would have started with Adam and Adam or Eve and Eve. This is just another slap in the face to the fine voters of this state. "
Dauger wrote on May 16, 2008 6:32 AM:
" For those complaining about how "4 judges overruled the will of the people" - be thankful we have a society where there are judges who can and will protect the rights of the minority from being trampled by the majority. I am reminded of a society that did not have a court system to protect the rights of the minority - and how 6 million Jews paid for that with their lives. "
Scott Tucker wrote on May 16, 2008 7:24 AM:
" Real nice, WaRtchdRog, real nice. Why is it that when we say something the conservatives don't want to hear, they chalk it up to our anger and not to their own fear?
I, and all of the others who have voiced their support of gay marriage on this forum, will not "shut the duck up." Yet another feable attempt to muzzle the voices of those who do not believe as they do.
Watchdog doesn't like the idea of gay marriage, but, as revealed by his comments, it doesn't look like the dog supports the concept of free speech either.
As for having a piece of Swiss cheese, I think I will. It is good stuff. I really like the aged Gruyere. Lucky for me, my mother-in-law brings us about a pound's worth from the her local dairy every time she stops by. Tilsiter or Appenzeller isn't bad either. If you like soft cheeses, the Tomme de Rougemont is also really good with honey on fresh bread. You should try it. Maybe it will help you get over your fear of the unknown. "
Not Surprised wrote on May 16, 2008 8:55 AM:
" It goes along with every other stupid decision the california supreme court makes. All it will do is open the flood gate for everyone testing the boundries. The only reason it was pushed by the gay community was because it would somehow justify a devient behavior. "
Billy Buck wrote on May 16, 2008 9:07 AM:
" If "the people" voted to execute every one with a mole on their left arm would it be OK for the Republican dominated (6 out of 7) Calif Supreme Court to over turn that law?
This is a nation "of laws, not men". If something is illegal it can't stand "
Billy Buck wrote on May 16, 2008 9:12 AM:
" Chuck asked:
"By the way, how does everyone feel about gays leading churches. "
I feel great, thanks for asking. The demnomination I belong to has been ordaining gays & lesbians since at least the early 1980's. The United Church of Christ has millions of members. www.ucc.org
"
oh Please... wrote on May 16, 2008 9:15 AM:
" To all those who think gays and lesbions should not have the right to marry, Get Over It...
Marriage is nothing more than a Man-made Sham anyway... "
Billy Buck wrote on May 16, 2008 9:22 AM:
" ALEJANDRO asked:
" So what happens to the legal status of all those people who went through the ‘domestic partner' legal registration process? Are they now grandfathered in and are considered ‘married?'
No, the court did not deal with this issue. A marriage needs to be "solemized" by clergy or a county clerk. That did not happen with the domestic partenship paperwork
Will there still be a domestic partnership law on the books in California?
Yes- straight people also take advantage of that law. The court case did not chnage that law.
And lastly, what about a legally married homosexual couple who wants to move into another state; will their marriage be recognized as normal?
That will depend on what the law is in that state, so probably not. I'm sure there will be a state bt state court fight on recognition of calif marriages "
Mrs.D wrote on May 16, 2008 10:56 AM:
" I'm glad this ban was overturned. I know most of you must be parents here and I'll tell you why:
In the past 15 years, teen agers have become more brave about their sexuality. They aren't flaunting their lifestyle, but they are letting people that they do exist and have civil liberties just like everyone else. Most of you on this board feel the need to flaunt your opinion and lives, let the next generation do the same since past generations couldn't.
Get used to it; this is life. And life in Kings County. "
Dumb People wrote on May 16, 2008 11:01 AM:
" I like how everyone will immediately compare gay marriage to child molestation or zoophilias (sexual preference to animals). That is not what is being said, it is about equality. It is not like heterosexual people have abided by the church and kept marriage sacred. Look at all the divorce. Marriage is also not about procreation, as look at how many people have babies out of wedlock. In fact, the people who shouldn't have kids are the ones that have the most. It is easy to cite the bible, but wouldn't have God created them as well?
I find it interesting homosexuality is looked at so poorly and people are so against homosexual couples raising children, even though many are well educated and successful. Yet, people do not say anything about the drug addicts and criminals that continue to have children and teach them to continue to victimize society and not contribute in anyway. "
So... wrote on May 16, 2008 11:30 AM:
" If the voters decided that it was all right to walk up to strangers and hit them over the head with a shovel, and the courts overturned it, would the courts be wrong?
It's a fine law when you're the one with the shovel... "
Alan G. wrote on May 16, 2008 12:41 PM:
" I agree with "Dumb people" that the comparison to pedophilia and bestiality is flawed and often employed by the less-intelligent set. I suggest a course in persuasion 101 before they come back to the table with such lame arguments. I'll bet that just like the straight population, gay couples will divorce just as often, except now one of them will be on the hook for alimony, which is reason in itself not to get married in the first place. But that's a topic for a different thread.
"
Disappointed wrote on May 16, 2008 12:52 PM:
" To Future Former Resident:
I am one of those who did mention Scripture and my God in response to someone else's comment.
I did so in a manner which was not judgemental but honest based on what the Bible says. I will not sugar-coat anything but also will not bend on the truth either.
I was a 'former resident' of Hanford, and still am. Although, chose to move back to this valley after living several years in the Bay Area. I am well aware of how 'close-minded' SOME in Hanford are. However, there are many, many transplants which help to round out the community and give new insight.
I firmly believe that people should be entitled to same benefits, regardless of who they choose to have as life partners.
However, my issue is more with the word 'marriage' which traditionally (Biblically) is a union between man and woman, ina promise before God.
Why not acknowledge the committment with a different name and get the equality deserved as being humans, without changing a word that is so clearly defined in Scripture?? "
Mr. Truth wrote on May 16, 2008 1:15 PM:
" Man + Woman = Heaven
Man + Man = Hell
Man + Toaster Oven = Hot Sandwiches and such
(Also heaven) "
to Disappointed wrote on May 16, 2008 1:59 PM:
" There was a thousands of years of marriage thousands of years before your bible, so how can you think that? You meant to say, your TRADITIONAL marriage came about after your bible was created and not marriage is defined only by what your recent bible (recent as in only 2000 years old as opposed to the 10,000 plus years of marriage documented in ancient cultures before it even came along). By your own bible you have 4000 years of history before christ and the bible was even thought about.
Marriage was not invented by the christian bible and to try to uphold it to the christian bible is a deadly and unfair mixture of church and state. "
The anti right winger wrote on May 16, 2008 2:00 PM:
" In 1948, the California State Supreme Court struck down its interracial marriage ban. At that time, the number of people who opposed marriage for interracial couples was quite high. If you compare polling from that time with current data, you'll see that a far higher percentage of people opposed interracial marriage in 1948 than currently opposed civil marriage for same-sex couples.
The parallels between laws against interracial marriage and laws against marriage for same-sex couples are great. Public opinion was against a citizens right to marry the person of our choice if our spouse's race was different than their own, and many states changed their constitution to protest the 1948 California ruling.
Thankfully, all attempts to amend the various state and U.S. Constitution banning interracial marriage failed.
Stare Decisis is the legal principal of following the rulings found in similar previously settled legal disputes. In this case, I believe that any attempt to change our constitution to ban same sex marriage would be futile due to the existing rulings on interracial marriage. This is not judicial activism folks, it is a literal reading of the equal protection clause of our constitution. "
THEREALDOG wrote on May 16, 2008 2:36 PM:
" Mrs D
I thought you would be in this topic and I was right on what side you are on....if you had any idea and you DONT God does not bless these people why dont you read a book call the Bible and clearly states its wrong typical LIBERAL why dont you move to San Francisco to be with them......I dont care if they are together because I'm not the one they have to answer to... just dont make it a law saying its ok because it's not.....I think it does make sence that you back this because you also back H. Clinton and has soon she gets beat she will divorce Billy the idiot and marry a women maybe you..... "
Mr. Truth wrote on May 16, 2008 3:40 PM:
" Can two men HAVE a baby?
No.
Can two men ADOPT a baby?
........I sure hope not. That kid would probably grow up and marry a Sea Turtle. "
RobertD wrote on May 16, 2008 4:00 PM:
" I must admit I am conflicted on this issue. I have some gay friends and of course everyone deserves equal civil rights. On the other hand I also believe in the sacredness of marriage as an insitution and bond between a MAN and a WOMAN. My question for those who so adamantly support gay marriage: Exactly what civil rights are being violated by a ban on it? I don't find marriage mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. That being the case then it must fully fall under the authority of the legislature and/or the people. In this case the people of California clearly said NO. Again, Which civil rights are being violated? "
Watchdog wrote on May 16, 2008 4:03 PM:
" Wanted Teacher with no sense of ehtics or moral standards. Must be willing to travel. Must not have a back bone, must support the Gay Nation. Must be willing to forget common sense and absolutely must be a Democrat with no party ties. Must be willing to teach history according to his book learning and not open to any other possibilities/scenarios having complete faith in the authors version. Which by the way for the most part is Fiction. Dogmatic Attitude in all responses to Blogs - Inquire Within Switzerland.
No personality required. Prefer American who didn't have a life prior to taking this position. I think this pretty well covers it school master. "
Seeker of Truth wrote on May 16, 2008 4:14 PM:
" Truth,
I found that toaster overs don't work really well...to me they don't equal heaven. Anyway, I seen we no longer live in a democracy, it should acutally be call an oligarchy (rule by an elite few...4 stupid democracy killing judges). Why, are liberal/socialists so afraid of democracy? "
Watchdog wrote on May 16, 2008 4:15 PM:
" Alejandro - you know the other 49 states are not going to support this San Francisco liberal decision. The Gay movement began and will end on the Streets of San Francisco. There is already cries to overturn this decision. I can see this going all the way to the Federal Supreme Court and being reversed by a unanimous decision. The California Supreme Court will not get away with a decision for a few when the majority has already voted against it. Gay Rights are no where in the Federal Constitution of these United States. I fear that all that is gonna accomplish is now they are going to force the law makers to put laws in place that do not recognize benefits that gay relationships now enjoy. Now you have to re-write the entire marriage ceremony and change years and years of tradition for the rights of homosexuals? Then for the rights of traditional heterosexual relationships it should be reversed and not allowed, put it to a national vote? Arnie just committed suicide to his hopes to further his political career. He will never hold a position of power again. "
Watchdog wrote on May 16, 2008 4:30 PM:
" Alejandro - now if they want to attain complete blasfemy do the whole white dress ceremony and destroy years and years of heterosexual history and tradition. There is absolutely nothing sacred within this world today.
Many comedians joke go ahead an legalize gay marriage why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us, maybe we should let them experience either total commitment or divorce and see how they like it? Homosexual men have proven to be the most unfaithful of the species so this could get interesting. It might give an entire new meaning to the Gay Parade. Perhaps it will be the Gay Parade to the court house for divorces.
They've lived in sin, gone against Gods whishes in their sexual desires, Yes they are prime for failure, let's do it. "
dose wrote on May 16, 2008 4:35 PM:
" To the real dog:
I don't know if you are aware of the fact that some people on this planet don't care what your god says about marraige or anything else for that matter. "
ALEJANDRO wrote on May 16, 2008 4:46 PM:
" You know, all of the lefties responded as I thought they would. This ruling is just the cat's pajamas! Nat Hentoff is probably writing a first rights op-ed piece glorifying this decision right now.
I would like to make a challenge, right here, right now. Since we have quite a range of occupations here, including teachers, public employees, multiculturals, nonresidents of the area and expatriates living abroad, bloggers of all legal ages (I think), please tell me and your fellow bloggers this:
If homosexuals are just ‘good people' who are oppressed by society, then please explain this:
A homosexual is defined by the way he/she practices their sexuality, right? Not emotional love, as we don't have a problem with that. The physical act/acts that complete the contract, so to speak.
Then will a knowledgable person please explain in plain words how homosexual sex is not disgusting and completely against the biology that evolutionists (and science) believe in, not to mention God's law?
Explain how - lets say ‘man-man' sex - is a natural and beautiful thing to behold.
If anyone can do this without being censored it would be a miracle. "
This ruling means what wrote on May 16, 2008 5:13 PM:
" First let me tell you I am a Christian and fully believe in the bible and God! Second my father is gay and I was raised by him and his partner. My confusion is this...when their is already domestic partnership which you can only register for if it is a same sex relationship what is "marriage" going to change? Second with the domestic partnership and rights one receives from that isn't the whole equal right marriage thing redundant?? In reality marriage is a religious ceremony is it not if the same rights can be obtained through domestic partner registration?? The whole marriage word is only going to mean unfortunately we will now have stats on gay divorces as well as straight marriages. Moving on just so everyone knows who has been so willing to quote the bible and also those who have chosen to dis-respect the bible I believe in Matthew it says the most important command is to love God the second would be to love everyone else and those are what all the other commandments are based on. It says everyone else not just those who follow God’s laws!!! "
This ruling means what..cont. wrote on May 16, 2008 5:13 PM:
" Are job as Christians are to let the light of Christ shine through us and lead by example to have people become Christians not sit in judgment and condemn all those who are not!!! In fact the bible clearly says none of us are without sin it also says we will be judged and shown mercy the same way we do others. Christians let’s not forget we are to love everyone and judge no one!!! Gay marriage supporters please do not judge all Christians as hypocrites as you do not like to be judged on stereotypes neither do we. Just know the Christians who you feel are not really Christians are struggling themselves as I said none of us are without sin!! Let’s all try to leave the judging up to the only one who can judge!! "
To Billy Buck wrote on May 16, 2008 5:37 PM:
" You are wrong! Straight people may not take advantage of a domestic partnership unless one of the parties is at least 62 years of age: This was taken directly from the California State Website!
Why can only same sex couples or opposite sex couples in which at least one partner is at least 62 years of age register as domestic partners?
The eligibility criteria for registration of a domestic partnership was set by the California State Legislature and signed by the Governor in 1999. During the legislative process, eligibility of opposite sex couples was limited to senior citizens. This agency has no authority to change the criteria set by the legislature.
"
Maybe wrote on May 16, 2008 5:37 PM:
" Maybe, just maybe, God created homosexuals as a way of birth control? This world is so over populated we're busting at the seams, not to mention starvation and all the other problems that comes with people not being responsible when it come to having children. Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of man, GET OVER IT and worry about your own lives! "
Mrs.D wrote on May 16, 2008 5:48 PM:
" THEREALDOG, I put up a post on the other story about the opponents of gay marriages who are just as wound up as you. I stated that being married, heterosexual or homosexual, is a civil liberty. It's a freedom of choice on who we marry and when. Isn't that why we are fighting in Iraq? For our freedom!?
Get used to it, realdog. God loves you and blesses you everyday. God loves and blesses everyone everyday. And if you can't deal with that, you know where to go and it's not San Francisco. "
Mr. Truth wrote on May 16, 2008 5:53 PM:
" TO ALEJANDRO
Please!"Cats Pajamas"? Be careful libby, dressing up kitty isn't natural either. You don't dress up your cat, DO YOU?
Please tell me you don't plan on marrying it...... "
lisa wrote on May 16, 2008 5:53 PM:
" For those opposed, continue focusing on this issue and ignore the ridiculous number of teen pregnancies and ongoing meth use, resulting in sexually transmitted diseases. I grew up in the valley and it is a joke to people how young the "straight" people are when they get pregnant and first use narcotics. By all means, STOP gay marriage....or at least drop gas prices so we can make it to our KKK rallies and hate marches!!! No wonder people talk about how backwards this area is. "
Watchdog wrote on May 16, 2008 6:04 PM:
" Alejandro I really like you Amigo, please don't hold your breath while you are waiting for that answer. I like you don't believe it will be coming in a blog near you.
Some people just do not understand that moral concept that there are boundaries that shouldn't be crossed.
That the Bible is about Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Ellen and Eve. It's a good thing that we no longer believe in stoning or burning witches. You wouldn't be able to hear the train whistles for the screams from fires and the thumping of the stones.
It pains me to know the fate of so many who through their stubborn behavior or lifestyle choices won't know anything but suffering in their futures. I pray for God to watch over their soon to be tortured souls.
I'm not a religous person, but I do believe in Heaven, God and salvation. "
Jackie K. wrote on May 16, 2008 6:49 PM:
" I invite you to share your comments on my blog, The Pulse. It's titled "Marriage with toasters, farm animals, oh my!" "
Gay in Hanford wrote on May 16, 2008 7:17 PM:
" Here's a question for those of you who are against same-sex marriage: Have you ever met someone who's gay? "
ALEJANDRO wrote on May 16, 2008 8:47 PM:
" Yes, I am still holding my breath.
That homosexuals who now can marry legally proves to us non-gays exactly WHAT?
The concept of PHYSICAL homosexual sex is still ugly, vile, and against the laws of both evolution AND God. Nobody says that one person cannot love another; emotions and feelings are not the issue here.
Where is Scott, and where is SJT, dose, Alan. G. and Duane? And, of course, the opinionated Mrs. D. in answering this simple question of mine?
Again, can anyone explain how homosexual sex is ‘right', and good, and proper? Name one thing that gays do physically that is accepted by society, something that you would teach to your kids to do, or something that would be taught by a public school.
You can't can you?
Thought so. "
Mrs.D wrote on May 16, 2008 9:30 PM:
" RE: Gay In Hanford, I have and my eyeballs have yet to be burned from their sockets. I went to Lemoore High School with 2 lesbians, 2 gays, and one transgendered boy who wasn't a real transgendered person, but a big fan of Duran Duran.
They obviously here, they are very not so straight, so get used to it. "
Mr. Truth wrote on May 16, 2008 11:41 PM:
" TO Gay IN HANFORD...
Try being gay in some other place than Hanford.
I bet u will luv it!!!
Try San Franscico...I hear that place rules!!
Good luck and goodbye. "
To Alejandro wrote on May 16, 2008 11:51 PM:
" You sound more like someone that's letting the cat out of the bag with your questions rather than asking a legitimate question...
Gay marriage has nothing to do with what goes on in the bedroom.
Marriage has nothing to do with what goes on in the bedroom.
How many years ago was it that smut was considered illegal?
You sound like the perfect candidate for that hypocrite that has all of his gay pornographic material stashed away in the closet and are out here asking the rest of the world if we're on the same perverted page as you.
What goes on in my heterosexual bedroom or my neighbors homosexual bedroom is quite frankly none of your business... Get past your twisted agenda and address the issue at hand and not your own delusional interpretation or fantasy of what being gay is... "
ALEJANDRO wrote on May 16, 2008 11:59 PM:
" Since Billy Buck seems so knowledgeable, and I thank him for answering some of my questions, could he answer these also?
Since homosexual marriage is now the law in California, what will happen to the legal status of the words: ‘husband' and ‘wife?' I am very confused as I do not want to be in conflict with these new rights the our great court has conferred.
Two lesbians, when legally married: are they considered to be two ‘wives?' What if one is a declared ‘butch' and not only acts like a man but wants - and demands - to be called a ‘husband?' How does this get addressed by the law so that the butch woman (surrogate man) who wants to play the role of the male in a marriage does not get discriminated against? The same goes for two homosexual men: do you call them ‘husband' and ‘husband?' Or ‘husband' and ‘wife' if one of the boys wants to be legally considered to be the receptive female partner?
I am so very confused! "
The Bible says... wrote on May 17, 2008 1:14 AM:
" 1 Corinthians 6:9
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.
"
Dandre wrote on May 17, 2008 3:09 AM:
" Look at the PERVERSIONS these holier than thou's come up with! WOW!
This is about the Constitution and for those who need their marriage protected, your marriage is in trouble and its got nothing to do with anybody else!
Those of you married more than once, what's up with that, I thought it was sacred?
And for those who reference the bible. Not being a virgin at the time to marry is punishable by death!
I think I'll start a petition!
Want to protect marriage?
Make adultery a capitol offense!
WHOOPS! There goes half of the Republican party! "
Dandre wrote on May 17, 2008 3:45 AM:
" THE CONSTITUTION DOES MENTION GAYS!
THEY are included in the phrase WE THE PEOPLE!
The demons are demonizing again!
Yeah, salvation comes to the judgemental!
Your religious arrogance and ignorance is amazing.
All the questions you ask about others, I ask about you? You do a pretty good job of sounding pretty 'vile' and 'ugly'!
Thats why YOU are not a Judge! AND have absolutely no idea what the Constitution is about...The party of hate cries out?.....TOO BAD! "
Scott Tucker wrote on May 17, 2008 7:29 AM:
" Alejandro, Here is an answer for you. I don't think sex between consenting adults, be they man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, or any other variation thereof, is disgusting. Because, quite frankly, it is none of my business. Is homosexual sex "right"? That is not for me or you or anyone else to answer, unless of course you are referring to your own personal preference. The question of right and wrong can only be answered by the two adults who wish to practice it.
One thing that gays do PHYSICALLY that is accepted by society and that I would teach my kids and students to do? How about teeth brushing, exercising, taking baths regularly, any form of manual labor, dancing, the list goes on and on. You see, homosexuals are human beings. I gladly endorse gay marriage, because it poses no threat whatsoever to our society. And as far as religion is concerned, all religious beliefs are equally valid, which is the same as saying that no one belief system is more valid than another, which means that the Bible, or any other book, has any say about how two adults wish to love each other.
"
Scott Tucker wrote on May 17, 2008 7:44 AM:
" The Wanted Teacher ad is classic! Made me laugh. Not becasue it was funny, but rather because it was a pathetic and pitiful attempt at humor. Annoying dogs should stick to what they know best: greeting other dogs in their peculiar manner and gettiing used to a life of obedience on a short leash.
(Yes, it is sad and tragic that the dialogue has been reduced to this. Thanks again, Watchdog, for taking us all down the high-road of predjudice and bigotry!)
"
Dandre wrote on May 17, 2008 12:04 PM:
" Quote;
When they came for the homosexuals, I said nothing because I wasn't a homosexual.
When they came for the Catholics I said nothing because I wasn't a Catholic.
When they came for the Socialists I said nothing because I wasn't a Socialist.
When they came for the god-aholic homophobes
I said......ITS ABOUT TIME!
My God is evidently smarter than your god because MY God is about love!
To invoke the Constitution or the Bible to justify YOUR 'phobias' and 'bigotries' is a reflection of YOUR 'soul' and NO ONE ELSES!
TWO rooms-
a thousand Democrats in one room and a thousand republicans in the other.
You have the SAME amount of what makes up HUMANITY in BOTH rooms.
THE DIFFERENCE- in the Demcratic room, we RECOGNIZE, RESPECT and even CELEBRATE those differences.
In the repub room, those differences are DEMONIZED and mocked. That's why in this room if your name was something non-American, like, lets say, alejandro, the hate awaits and byTHEIR OWN definition, the repugnat room is FULL OF DEMONS!
Americans DENYING rights to other AMERICANS aren't Americans at all, they are the enemies to our Constitution, God and Mother Nature.
"
LifeLongCitizen wrote on May 17, 2008 12:39 PM:
" I feel that it is interesting you feel this way Mr. Tucker being from Missouri. I have to say in response to the article; what ever floats your boat? Everyone marches to the beat of a different drummer. "
Watchdog wrote on May 17, 2008 3:34 PM:
" O.K. the California Supreme Court just announced it is taking all guns from the public, because Charolton Heston died. They have also decided that heterosexual marriages will be replaced by homosexual marriages so all you heterosexuals are no longer legally married. Homosexuals in a landmark decision will pay twice the amounts of alimony and child support and healthcare on their spouses when divorced. This decision was made because they declare they love their partners twice as much as heterosexuals do. Oh and the 4th ammendment about illegal searches and seizures it has been stricken from the books by the brilliant California Supreme Court. All law suits brought by government officials will be presented and paid by those officials who are guilty of malfesance. All welfare from heterosexual participants is revoked for fear another baby may be born. Only homosexuals will now receive welfare. Anything else you want changed as long as we are ignoring people and doing our will? How redundant and ridiculous have our law makers and judicators become? Oh and KISS has to quit wearing makeup during performances. "
Watchdog wrote on May 17, 2008 4:12 PM:
" To Scott Tucker - You are welcome hope you enjoyed the trip. But when it comes to prejudice and bigotry try looking in the mirror and thinking United State of America and Scott Tucker. "
Scott Tucker wrote on May 17, 2008 4:46 PM:
" Hey LLC, it's been a while. Yes, I was born in the Show-Me-State, raised in the Golden State, and am now living in a Canton that took its name from a bear. I am flattered that you remember so much about me.
You're right, everyone marches to the beat of a different drummer. That is what makes life so interesting. Hope you are well, my mysterious, former neighbor. "
ALEJANDRO wrote on May 17, 2008 4:47 PM:
" I asked this valid question:
"Then will a knowledgable person please explain in plain words how homosexual sex is not disgusting and completely against the biology that evolutionists (and science) believe in, not to mention God's law?"
Scott stepped up to the plate and completely dodged the question with a non-answer: that it's none of his business. So he basically endorses gay sexual activity by strategically avoiding a non-politically correct answer.
What if you actually allowed yourself to have an opinion, Scott? And what if you had the guts to state it here?
As an educated man and a teacher of children, I really want to hear your scientific and rational-emotional justification of this departure from normal human biology and scientific evolution.
I have no quarrel with someone emotionally loving someone else, but look up the definition of ‘homosexual' and you get a physical component of the behavior every time. How is this optional physical act 'good', healthy, normal, and scientifically sound for the human race?
Then show me why I have to accept it in my heart, my mind, and with my tax dollars.
"
vegasguy wrote on May 17, 2008 5:25 PM:
" As a former Hanford resident, I am taken a back by all the judgemental bible thumpers who reside there! Sadly Hanford remains a bastionof ugly homopobia and racism! "
ALEJANDRO wrote on May 17, 2008 5:39 PM:
" I have another practical question, not at all political.
I guess we will have to legally change the way millions of birth certificates are worded.
Father's Name_______
Mother's Name_______
If someone - male - anonymously donates sperm to induce pregnancy in a lesbian woman-woman union, whoops, marriage, who then would the ‘father' be? Can a woman be a ‘father?'
So if the birth certificate is changed to read:
Partner's Name_______
Partner's Name_______
Don't we already have a domestic partner law? What does this change anyway?
I think about these things... "
ppg wrote on May 17, 2008 6:32 PM:
" Does anyone remember that AIDS came into being through the homosexual community? It is not politically correct anymore to discuss where AIDS originated. Our children have been brainwashed into believing that the homosexual lifestyle is just another choice or that people are born that way.
This judicial decision is the frosting on top of the political cake that the homosexuals have been pushing in our faces for the last 20 to 30 years.
Congratulations to the weak judges and supporters of this decision. You have added to the downhill slide of our society.
"
Gay in Hanford wrote on May 17, 2008 6:39 PM:
" Mr. Truth, why should I leave? I like living here. I have a good job, I own a house, and I very rarely shop out of town.Would it make you happier if I were a drug addict or alcoholic? Could you stand it better? I find your ignorance insulting and backwards. "
Seriously getting worse...to function a normal males or females. wrote on May 17, 2008 7:29 PM:
" Moral civilizations have tried to fight the sickness of the unnatural behaviors. Homosexuality, bi-sexuality and transgender acts were used through concentrated efforts in temples. The actuality is they provided purposeful blatant demagoguery propaganda.
The use of these acts were primarily used against poor women, slaves and young boys and girls who were orphaned. Society at that time boosted it provided the poor masses a means to survive. It was a harsh existence in a hostile and hard ancient world, life expectancies were dismal.
These practices were condoned as acceptable idolatrous customs and the innocent were prostituted out to the wealthy males of communities those ancient times.
Many of the pagan cult's and religions are abominations practiced today, they are NOT sacred acts...the reality is they are ludicrous in circumstance to vial low grade forms of fornication for entertainment. In modern times they are all represented with the ideas they are practices by people who are persecuted for their so-called natural impulses.
We should not be blind-sided; the overturning of this gay marriage ban is just opening the door to other unhealthy mind and body destroying acts.
"
Mag wrote on May 17, 2008 8:26 PM:
" Alan and Scott, once again you are my heroes. Alejandro and Watchdog, again and again I wonder where your head is. Of course I have to leave the bible out of this discussion because it doesn't mean anything to me. What do you care what 2 people do to each other? I think a lot of things men and women do to each other is disgusting and vile. How is that not as bad as what same sex people do to each other? If you don't like it, don't watch it or partake of it. That should be simple enough. Technically, (as my college zoology text said) sex is only for reproduction. I know a lot of people would disagree with that one. People do things that "feel good" whether physically or mentally. Why can't you just let everyone do what they want in private as long as they don't bother you? One day I hope you realize people are people. They eat, breathe, sleep, excrete, and everything else, just like you. The rest you don't have to worry about. "
Watchdog wrote on May 17, 2008 11:04 PM:
" Some of us can't hear the drum for the train whistle and others drink enough foreign ale they just don't care any longer. Then there are those of us who do care and make intelligent, articulate comments to have them diagramed by Teachers in foreign countries who just wish they still resided in this community. Then their are some comentators who throw out an invitation and then don't like what you have to say and have to twist your comments. Then there are some Justices who think they can override the will of the people, they may change the law but the will remains and as long as it does there is a chance for the right decision to be reinstated. The popular vote will overcome this decision by these misguided four men who don't understand their limited power. "
Another gay hanford resident wrote on May 18, 2008 1:38 AM:
" To: Alejandro---What if I said that hetro sex was disgusting......Don't worry about what happens in my bedroom, worry about your own. Also, by allowing gay marriage how does that raise your taxes?
To: ppg----Aids originated in Africa, by straight people.
All the comments about the "pitfalls" of gay marriage, could easily be said about straight marriage. In my opinion, straight people are destroying the meaning of marriage all by themselves.
Where would the ecomony be without the gay population, it has been proven that the gay community has more liquid assets then straight people.
The residents of Hanford, would be surprized at the number of gay people in this community, your teachers, business owners, lawyers, doctors, city and county employees. "
Keep is real... wrote on May 18, 2008 11:38 AM:
" The only legitimate arguement that I've heard from the anti-gay movement is about the voters of this state being overturned by a select few in court. That is the one and only logical arguement made throughout all of these comments.
Alejandro and clan twist the topic out of context to their own fantasy of what being gay is. Such extreme homophobia constitutes in the closet behavior. To be so scared and vile toward another human being because you are so uncomfortable in your own skin makes your ignorance and arrogance scream bigotry from the comments you make.
Stick to the valid and logical argument I'm giving you foundation to start from. All the other views you share are your opinion... This is a free county and I suppose you are entitled to your wrong opinion.
Best of luck on building a logical arguement... "
dose wrote on May 18, 2008 3:40 PM:
" Ever since gay marraiges became legal in Massachussettes teen pregnancy rates have dropped, they are now the second lowest in the nation after Pennsylvania. Also Texas which only teaches abstinence sex education has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STD's.
So Alejandro I want to ask you why do you want the teenage children of California to be pregnant and infected with STD's, why do you hate America? "
MV wrote on May 18, 2008 3:45 PM:
" What puzzles me the most about gays is the following example might help the confused.
Picture Angelina Jolee and Senator Edward Kennedy side by side. A gay man would rather make out with the Senator than Angelina. Now that to me has to be as sick as it gets. If you think the Senator is sexier than Angelina you are also stupid sick. "
dose wrote on May 18, 2008 6:07 PM:
" To MV:
So are you saying that Edward Kennedy's wife is sick because she wants to kiss her husband? "
FemFem wrote on May 18, 2008 9:57 PM:
" I grew up in Hanford, seen a lot of good things and a lot of bad things. However; the most shockingly disguisting things I've come across are the increased "homophobes" in the town I've loved since I was a kid.
I am a lesbian and I'm proud to admit it. I am honored to be witnessing a change in times like these, especially with the "Supreme Court overturning the gay marriage ban." I want the same rights as everyone else. I am human and it doesn't make me a pervert to want to share my life with my partner the way we want. We are both grown adults, we pay our taxes and will someday raise our children with love and the utmost care, while educating them that "hate" is not a family value! "
Mrs.D wrote on May 18, 2008 10:44 PM:
" RE: MV, Angelina Jolie is a known bisexual. But I guess it's okay in your eyes! "
Is about time wrote on May 19, 2008 2:15 AM:
" I really don't see what the big deal is. Let gays and lesbians get married, then they can be miserable like the rest of us!!! "
Watchdog wrote on May 19, 2008 2:53 AM:
" FemFem - the situation develops into more than two consenting adults when you add the line we look forward to raising our children together. If you plan to have children somewhere along the line you either lay out a large sum of cash for invitro or participate in a bi-sexual experience or at the very least include a sperm donor, which would have to be male. So now you have added male sperm so that includes a male and children so that means one and one are now four. The very only other equation would be adoption and therein you add the pregnant donor, now there is five in the total. So it is now no longer two consenting adults involved in your relationship. Thank God you Gay men and women still want children or us heterosexuals would probably just be expelled off the earth at some time in the future history on this planet. What I am trying to say is the decision you two make together effect many more lives than you like to admit, dosen't it? So perhaps you better ask your unborn child how they feel first? "
Watchdog wrote on May 19, 2008 3:02 AM:
" FemFem - but I don't figure gay people who want to include children in their happy little homelife consider the effects other children will have on them. Anymore than interracial parents take it into consideration? So as long as it was decided in your little love nest bedamn the children, be damn the heterosexuals and be damn your government. Darnn I am starting to sound like Jeremiah Wright with all these bedamns. But you get my point, sometimes even in the heterosexual world there isn't enough family planning done in the planning of a family. So I beg to differ with you, your relationship no longer is two consenting adults, because you have already yourself changed it up to include children. You Gay women never have the need for a man until sperm comes into the scenario. Why don't you just go the whole way and have a test tube baby? But hey if you get a Gay guy and you get pregnant with twins then you all have struck gold, right. This entire scenario is beyond me, all in the name of two, no three, no four no five. "
Watchdog wrote on May 19, 2008 3:02 AM:
" FemFem - I think I'll go back to talking about politics it isn't as complicated. "
BM wrote on May 19, 2008 12:09 PM:
" Hey FemFem;
You have the same right to marry as anyone else. Someone of opposite sex! "
FemFem wrote on May 19, 2008 1:44 PM:
" Yes BM, I am going to take the opportunity to marry my partner. Marry "someone of the opposite sex?" I'd rather pass! I've seen lesbian women who marry straight men for the wrong reasons. (i.e., Fear of family rejection, fear of not being accepted due to being homosexual.)
Fortunately, my partner and I have a sperm donor, a gay man, also HIV-, well accomplished in his life and career. "
Loosing My Mind wrote on May 19, 2008 2:14 PM:
" Watchdog is blowing hard - again. You, sir, are the very voice of ignorance - no, its champion! You argue that children being raised by gay parents are in some way being exposed to something wrong and therefore will develop abnormally. I would argue just the opposite. If your assertion is true, explain why there are homosexuals at all. How many homosexuals were raised by heterosexual parents? I would argue most to all. Why, in your opinion are heterosexual parents making their children gay? The fact is: they aren't. People are born that way. Good parents (straight or gay) do not expose their children to sexual acts. They may act affectionately towards each other in the presence of their children. That is what loving parents do. Gay parents, I'm sure, do not bring their children into their bedrooms any more often that any other type of parent does (birth or adopted). It seems, after reading your post, that you have your own identity issues that you are struggling with. I for one am happy being heterosexual. No skin off my back for gays to marry. Perhaps you are bothered that more gay men will now be off the market. "
Former Hanford resident wrote on May 19, 2008 2:35 PM:
" To Disappointed's Note on 5/16:
That's it!!!! You have really gotten what this interpretation of gay rights is all about!! Everyone, please read this comment. It's the best description so far!! I love you and thank you tremendously for putting into words what I couldn't.
Brilliant!!!!! "
RobertD wrote on May 19, 2008 2:59 PM:
" "Dandre" has twice mentioned that gays and gay marriage is in the Constitution. While it is a given that gays are inculded in "We The People" I still do not see where marriage, whether gay or straight, is any part of the document. Thus, marriage is a legislated institution based on the will of the people. And again (unfortunately for the gay community) can be legislated as illegal as per the recent initiative. So instead activists courts step in to play legislator because there is no solid legal, particularly Constitutional, basis for their decision. The will of the people has been circumvened. "
Josh wrote on May 19, 2008 5:59 PM:
" To watchdog, IN your response to another writer you stated that if they want to have a baby with their lesbian partner that it will not be just them in the picture, that they will have to have a bisexual experience or if they adopt they will be bringing others into the picture. Isnt the same then true for hetrosexual couples who can't concieve? Whether they want to adopt or use a sprem donor. Then it is not just them they are involving others. If a hetro woman has to use a sperm donor to have a baby does that mean she is cheating on her husband? "
Dandre wrote on May 19, 2008 6:30 PM:
"
Robert- You distort what I said……Any Law that restricts another citizen’s civil-rights is UN- Constitutional, even if that law has a 100% majority!
That’s the whole point of 3 co-equal branches of gov’t, if one messes that up the 2 others have a way to clean it up, with the court being the final say, the phrase ‘activist court’ is a propaganda ‘talking point’, an activist judge means he is doing is job!
The Constitution is there to protect the rights of the ‘minority’. Your statements about the Constitution are not accurate.
Our Representative Republic is NOT a strict ‘majority rules!
The Constitution mentions gays as a separate group as much as it mentions anybody as a separate group, namely, never! But to grant ‘marriage contractual rights’ to ONE SELECT group while trying to exclude another group is Un-Constitutional!
"
Watchdog wrote on May 19, 2008 6:39 PM:
" To Josh - is a sperm donor not another man's sperm? Yes naturally it is conception with a man that isn't her husband. Unless her husband donated his own sperm. "
Watchdog wrote on May 19, 2008 10:18 PM:
" I welcome you to the new third world country the United States of California. It's been said for years that business especially those in other states find California unreasonable to deal with and now we as voting Californians are seeing it come home to roost in our chicken coups. The supporters of this issue now say it doesn't matter what the majority state wants it doesn't matter what the national voters decide we are stuck with this ruling, like it or not. Well then I say we should all check that little box on our W-2's that allow us the maximum deductions and spend our money (going to the state/federal that doesn't want to listen) ourselves. Everyone make a mass exodus tomorrow and tell your employers you want to max out your deductions on your tax forms so they can't blow your money on Gay rights issues. If enough of you do this we will shut this country down bigger than any other form of demonstration can. Go back in a week or two later when they come to their senses and change it back. You can change it anytime you want. "
Watchdog wrote on May 19, 2008 10:27 PM:
" Gay people want to run this state and the federal government let them be the only one's paying taxes and see how far they get running anything. Anyone can make an honest mistake on a W-2 and change it back at a later date, say when this issue gets reversed. Take away the money from your representatives to operate and guess what they can't operate anymore. Let the state lose what credit standing it has left borrowing money to make payrolls, then maybe they will respect the majority and listen to us. In the meantime bank the difference in your pay and pay it back on April 15, 2009. It's not a crime to defer a payment, people do it all the time. I haven't seen a single law that says you have to pay them in advance. Companies only pay taxes every quarter why can't tax payers do the same thing? I can't believe no one has ever thought of this before. Doesn't the government make mistakes on our paperwork all the time? They sure have mine over the last 57 years. You aren't evading your postponing. "
Mrs.D wrote on May 20, 2008 12:11 AM:
" Watchdog, the guy running this state is a foreigner with a niche for making bad film after bad film, who happens to be married to Skeletor. You guys elected him. "
RobertD wrote on May 20, 2008 10:27 AM:
" Dandre- I beg to differ. I distort nothing. You assume marriage is a civil right and it is not. It is a legislated combine that society ahs determined exists between a man and woman. If you actually read what the Foudning Fathers intended, it was NOT three "equal" branches of government but three branches governed by checks and balances. The Founders intended the legislative branch to be supreme as it is the voice of the people. I totally agree with you that the Constitution (ie. Bill of Rights) also prtects the rights of the minority but marriage is not a right listed nor can it be adequately inferred from any of the rights listed. The Constitution is merely a framework of a representative federal republic. It has little to do with minority rights....thats the Bill of Rights. "
Dandre wrote on May 20, 2008 11:34 AM:
" Robert- Co-equal branches in this Context.
discrimination is Un-Constitutional no matter how you frame it.
The Constitutionality of legislation falls under the power of the Judiciary, the most powerful of the three in this CONTEXT.
And Show me where I said the Constitution talks about gays and their marriage, it didn't happen. "
RobertD wrote on May 20, 2008 11:59 AM:
" Dandre-The Constitution does not mention marriage at all, thus it falls under the perview of the States and the People, which is expressed in the legislative process. The Consitution was designed to protect the 'basic' rights of minority groups, but even more importantly allow the will of the majority to be expressed in policy as long as those rights were not infringed upon. What you fail to prove is how anyone's rights are being violated by banning gay marriages, especially when civil unions for homosexuals are allowed, offering practically all of the legal and material edvantages of marriage. No one's basic rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights are being violated just some imaginary right you believe you have. There has to be limits or as others have pointed out one might argue their right for a polygamous marriage. "
Not Gay but Ok wrote on May 20, 2008 12:50 PM:
" It wasn't that long ago that some "good Christians" believed in black and white water fountains. Maybe you'de like all the gays to sit in the back of the bus and mind all you good white folk. This is no different. You are discriminating against others who don't think like you or look like you or act like you. Take all your preaching to your church of preference and leave others alone! "
The anti right winger wrote on May 20, 2008 12:59 PM:
" RobertD wrote: "The Constitution is merely a framework of a representative federal republic. It has little to do with minority rights....thats the Bill of Rights. " Robert the last time I checked the the "Bill of Rights" were the first ten amendments to Constitution, just how is it that they are not part of it? Judges settle differences in the reading of the law. Imagine the chaos that would exist if the law was no more than what the individual believes it to be, yet that seems to be exactly what you are suggesting. As I wrote in my earlier blog the points of law in this case were settled with the 1967 US Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1; 87). In this case the court wrote "The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." . Discrimination due to sexual orientation is just as prohibited by federal law as is racial discrimination. "
RobertD wrote on May 20, 2008 2:12 PM:
" I disagree. The Loving v. Virginia case dealt with the issue of marriage, which I would bet every judge at the time believed was a union between a man and woman, being denied to a couple based on race, during an era of horrendous abuses based on race. African-Americans had no other options like civil unions. To compare the Loving case with the current debate about gay marriage is like comparing apples and oranges. They are both fruit but have significant differences. What is being discussed here is a fundamental change in the definition of marriage religiously, culturally, socially, and leaglly. This is mroe than the obvious racial discrimination in the Loving case. Once again, exactly what civil right is being violated when homosexual couples have available to them civil unions? "
RobertD wrote on May 20, 2008 2:46 PM:
" From the California Constitution: "308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That being the case then what right does the State Supreme Court have in changing the constitution? Can the US Supreme Court all of a sudden decide that there is no need for seach warrants or that the President may serve an unlimited nuber of terms? This is a perfect example of judicial activism in the worst way. The California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 gives homosexual couples ALL the rights of a "married" couple. The only thing they do not get is the word: MARRIAGE. If the gay community so desires this word they need to amend the California Constitution like any other group would have to do and not circumvent and demean the legislative process. "
Alan G. wrote on May 20, 2008 2:55 PM:
" Robert D., the fact is that gay couples do NOT enjoy all of the same rights with civil unions. I think California tried to ensure the same rights, but fell way short. A lot of it has to do with child custody issues and other legalities. You can Google for more info if you are unconvinced.
Another issue that came up in the last year was the case of a straight couple who divorced. The man was on the hook for an obscene amount of alimony to his ex (another jacked up law) but the problem was, the ex decided she'd rather live as a gay woman and entered into a civil union with her new partner. His argument was that the civil union is supposed to be the same as a marriage, therefore he should be off the hook. The ex claimed in court that she was still entitled to collect and the court agreed. So you see, it's NOT the same. As a man, if you don't agree he got ganked, then you need to give up your membership to man-town. "
Alan G. wrote on May 20, 2008 3:19 PM:
" Here you go Robert D., in case you were still convinced that civil unions enjoy all of the same rights as a marriage. If that were the case, this poor schlub wouldn't be on the hook. I'm just sayin'...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/07/23/alimony.partnerships.ap/index.html "
Dandre wrote on May 20, 2008 3:36 PM:
" Robert you are TRYING to make this way too complicated where it doesn't need to be.
This is just like ‘seperate drinking fountains'.
The constitution etal. doesn't say anything about drinking fountains but it HAS definite cases of precedents when dealing with the word ‘separate’, whether THAT word applies to ‘drinking fountains’ or ‘marriage’ or ‘where you can sit on the bus’ that is the fundamental Constitutional question and the 'tools' to deal with UNCONSTITUTIONAL ‘anything’ are in place to rectify all the mistakes, even the ones determined by majority rule.
The Courts are SUPPOSED to be ACTIVE, it’s their JOB! They have the responsibility of providing ‘Equal protection under the law’ and the word ‘separate’ has no place in that sentence. No matter how much you pray!
Do you believe that you do have the right to circulate a petition and with a majority, re-instate slavery, or Jim Crow Laws or negate any other 'Evolutionary' milestones that WE THE PEOPLE have RECTIFIED in the last 200 years?
The Courts would have to get ACTIVE and turn these laws over again! No matter if 99% voted for them!
"
The anti right winger wrote on May 20, 2008 3:48 PM:
" Robert D wrote: "Once again, exactly what civil right is being violated when homosexual couples have available to them civil unions? " The principal you are supporting that civil unions are somehow an equivalent to the right to marry the person you choose goes to the arguments put forth in Brown V. Board of Education (the case that outlawed school segregation based on race). It seems to me that you are putting forth an argument that these individuals can be given less civil rights than other citizens based on sexual orientation. The California Constitution or any other state law cannot overrule rights granted under federal law. If this were so, the state policy of segregation by race as found in the Brown v. Board case would have been allowed to stand. The argument that discrimination against an individual due to sex, race or sexual orientation can be legally permitted under the laws of a state is simply without merit. This is not judicial activism, but a logical and literal reading of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.
"
RobertD wrote on May 20, 2008 4:27 PM:
" AlanG- There will always be minor exceptions. However, married hetero couples have custody issues and alimony problems too. My question is still not answered....what civil rights are being violated. "
Alan G. wrote on May 20, 2008 5:23 PM:
" Robert D, you have stated that civil unions are the exact same thing as marriage and I provided an example where they aren't. So you could make the case that gays and straights have "similar" rights, but the constitution doesn't say "similar but equal, sort of."
The fact that marriage licenses are handed out by a government agency means that there can be no discrimination. No separate but equal. You are correct that hetero couples also have custody issues and alimony problems but shouldn't the gay community have the right to enjoy the exact same problems?
"
ALEJANDRO wrote on May 20, 2008 7:34 PM:
" OK Alan G., you can't twist the truth about that alimony case you cited above. You might get away with that in the liberal blogs section but here you will not be able to spin facts.
Two points of reality, Alan:
1.) If you read the details properly, the mistake that this man - Garber - and his legal counsel made was really a stupid one, legally-speaking.
"Garber knew his former wife was living with another woman when he agreed to the alimony, but he said he didn't know the two women had registered with the state as domestic partners under a law that was intended to mirror marriage."
(source:http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/07/23/alimony.partnerships.ap/index.html)
He and his lawyer AGREED to pay his ex BEFORE he found out that they were domestic partners. Despite the fact that he knew his wife was a lesbian and living with another woman, he OK'd this money to be paid to her. So much for the legal concept of discovery.
Apparently, as an afterthought, Garber and his counsel attempted to use domestic partnership to erase the settlement he previously (and foolishly) agreed to.
(continued below) "
ALEJANDRO wrote on May 20, 2008 7:35 PM:
" 2.) Alan, you can't be serious in arguing that the decision of ONE relatively minor local California judge is justification for redefining the sacred institution of traditional marriage. But this is what happened with the State Supreme court decision, right? That too was the swing decision of only one judge.
The problem is not with the definition of marriage, it is a matter for contract law and family court experts working with the legislature to fix the domestic partner laws as they should have done in the first place. "
Alan G. wrote on May 20, 2008 11:53 PM:
" Well, had the legislature done a better job of working out the details, we probably wouldn't be where we are today. But here we are. I think there will be a lot of kicking and screaming and arguing by those for and against, but I think in the end the court's current opinion will eventually be the final one. That's just my prediction. "
Watchdog wrote on May 21, 2008 1:15 AM:
" Ok. Ok. Ok.... then what I am reading from the latest blogs is that they will have all the rights of a man and woman in their newly granted right to marry. So does that mean that every poor soul who made a poor selection and married a Lesbian and created children with her, have the right to now go back charge her with fraud and make her repay every cent of alimony and child support she stiffed him for twenty years ago? By the way fraud is a felony which comes with a prison sentence. Because all those lesbians who jumped out of the closet and were granted custody by a court deceived that court and was not perfectly honest about their current living conditions. That also means any current relationships where a woman/man divorce and the other marries the same sex now nulifies the alimony just like in a normal marriage correct. So women can't betray their spouses further and hold them subject to ransom for having children with them and the courts will be informed of the new relationship and marriage through the mediators who are assigned the cases. "
RobertD wrote on May 21, 2008 10:27 AM:
" This shal be my final comment on this matter since no one has proven to me what civil rights are being violated by a ban on gay marriage, especially taking into consideration the 2003 California Domestic Partnerships Rights and Reponsibilities Act. AlanG- You can not pull one rabit out of the hat and expect me to believe in your magic. Read the act http://www.ucop.edu/sas/sfs/docs/ab205_q-a.pdf and you'll see that in practically every way and shape California has created an alternative to traditional marriage for the homosexual community. Why can they not be satisfied with this sensible compromise? If proff of real civil rights violations can not be offered then the desires of the majority must stand. If not then we have devolved into a system of government ruled by the minority (ie. Coommunist Party control of Russia for 80 years). "
Not Gay but Ok wrote on May 21, 2008 10:58 AM:
" Why is it that so many people have trouble letting the gays use the word "marriage"? I guess you just want to remind them that they have a second class relationship. What's wrong with calling it a marriage???? It makes you feel better if you call it something else???? Like Shakespear said, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Get over yourselves and let the gays get MARRIED if they want to. It's none of your business anyway! "
Dandre wrote on May 21, 2008 11:00 AM:
" Yo! watchwhoeveryouaretoday!
the answer to your fanatical rant is its none of YOUR business unless you are a divorce attorney or a lesbian or spouse of a lesbian and from your rants you haven't shown enough insight to be any of those! "
Randy wrote on May 21, 2008 11:45 AM:
" I heard the all-powerful CA Supreme Court is now considering changing the name of the color known as "black" because it is offensive to many African-Americans. The new name doesn't matter though because the court can make a decision contrary to a documented and universally-accepted definition, right?
Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for centuries. In fact, it would not be a stretch to estimate that 9
Subscribe Now
Mobile Site
Place an Ad
Email Updates
Classifieds
Find a Job
Find a Car
Real Estate
Contact Us
