Home › News › County News
As gay wedding 'date' nears, the debate grows
November initiative could halt nuptials in California
Download this story as a podcast!
Photos by Joseph A. Garcia / Star staff "I'll feel a bit like a pioneer entering the final phase of equality," said Robb Quint of Thousand Oaks, right, explaining how he feels about the upcoming marriage to his partner, Jerry Burns.
STORY TOOLS 
More from County NewsGay and lesbian couples are making last-minute calls to caterers and florists. Administrators in the Ventura County clerk's office are discussing whether people just married should be pronounced as spouses instead of husband and wife.
Barring a stay from the California Supreme Court, the state will become the second in the nation to marry same-sex couples beginning June 17. As of 8 a.m. on that Tuesday at the county clerk's office in Ventura, people can pay $155 for a marriage license, a certified copy, and a ceremony under an arbor decorated with plastic flowers.
In about an hour, they'll be married.
"I'll feel a bit like a pioneer entering the final phase of equality," said Robb Quint of Thousand Oaks, who plans to get married on that first day to Jerry Burns, his partner of 22 years. Rather than exchange rings, they'll clasp each other's ring fingers, which already bear the symbols of unity they bought together more than two decades ago.
As the day draws closer, the public debate that could ultimately decide the fate of gay marriage intensifies. On Nov. 4, Californians will be able to take their opinions to the ballot box, voting on a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as only involving a man and a woman. The secretary of state announced Monday that the initiative had qualified for the November ballot.
Legal experts say if the amendment passes, it would override the Supreme Court's May 15 ruling legalizing gay marriage and there would likely be a court battle over same-sex marriages already performed. The county clerk's wedding room would again be closed to gays and lesbians.
Quint, a 62-year-old retired teacher and member of The Star's Community Advisory Board, refers to the possibility as a dark cloud and the reason his wedding will be small.
"We're not emotionally ready to have the huge affair with the cloud hanging over our heads," he said.
A public divided
Eight years ago, about 61 percent of California's voters backed Proposition 22's gay marriage ban. About 39 percent voted no. But a statewide survey by The Field Poll released last week suggests opinions have changed.
The poll of 1,052 registered voters said 51 percent support same-sex marriage with 42 percent opposing and 7 percent offering no opinion. Poll officials said that in 30 years of asking people about gay marriage, the survey marks the first time a majority of respondents have endorsed it.
Opinions are divided by religion, ethnicity, gender and, maybe most of all, by age. About 68 percent of people ages 18 to 29 supported gay marriage, compared with 36 percent of people 65 and older.
From a bench in a Ventura courtyard, Nicolette Siedenburg, 24, of Camarillo tried to explain why.
"Maybe because we're used to seeing it more often. ... People are more open to coming out than they were," said Siedenburg, a probation officer. "I don't see why we can't all have the same rights."
But finding conflicting views from people of any age is as easy as moving from one bench to another.
"I don't think it's right. I think the natural, right way is man for woman and woman for man," said Ashe Pearson, a 25-year-old rock singer from Ventura who will likely vote for a Democrat in the presidential election.
Almost as common as differing opinions are people cornered by personal dilemmas.
The 68-year-old man sitting on a bench knows he'll likely vote for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. What he doesn't know is how he'll react to his daughter if she one day tells him she's getting married. She's a lesbian and is in a relationship.
"I love her and she's my daughter, even if I don't understand her beliefs," he said.
'A really tight race'
A large turnout for the presidential election probably favors gay marriage, because it would mean more young people voting, said Mark DiCamillo, director of The Field Poll.
Sen. Barack Obama's probable presence as the Democratic nominee would also bring out young voters, he said.
But different polls reach different conclusions. About 54 percent of people backed the proposed ban on gay marriage in a poll of 705 voters by the Los Angeles Times and KTLA-TV.
"The bottom line is it's going to be a really tight race," said Michael Shires, a Pepperdine University public policy professor. "It's going to be a very emotional campaign. You're talking about people's convictions and beliefs. You're going to see some strong, maybe even disturbing, advertisements as well."
The Campaign for Children and Families, a group pushing for a ban on gay marriage, sent letters last week to county clerk offices in Ventura and 37 other counties asking them to refuse to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples come June 17.
"It is your duty to carry out the clear intent of the Constitution," the letter says.
But marriage licenses will be issued in Ventura County unless the courts instruct otherwise, said David Valenzuela, operations manager for the clerk and recorder's office. A second wedding room will be opened for June 17.
California's Catholic bishops issued their opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling that legalized gay marriage in California. And some evangelical leaders are supporting the constitutional amendment from the pulpit.
The Rev. Rob McCoy of Calvary Chapel Thousand Oaks wants more than approval of another ban. He's part of a grass-roots citizens group that is working to oust the four state Supreme Court justices who ruled for gay marriage, overturning a ban overwhelmingly approved at the polls eight years ago.
McCoy said the judges willfully ignored the will of the people in a ruling that he thinks should alarm more than faith groups and conservatives.
"It isn't a Christian issue," he said. "We live in a democratic republic and our rights are being taken away from us. If they can do this to conservatives, they can do it to anybody."
The power of wedding bells
As some congregations fight against gay marriage, others fight for the right.
The Rev. Betty Stapleford of the Conejo Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship is spreading the word that the Thousand Oaks church is available for same-sex weddings. The congregation will vote Sunday on whether to officially oppose the constitutional amendment.
"I believe that people who love each other should be able to get married," Stapleford said, predicting the congregation will overwhelmingly oppose the amendment.
Macy's targets products to gays
Gay marriage in California has attracted the attention of others as well. Macy's department store ran a full-page newspaper ad hawking its wedding products to gay couples. The day after the state Supreme Court's ruling, a stationery company called OutVite.com sent out e-mails publicizing its same-sex wedding invitations.
Michael Quick and Harris Berger have found a wedding planner and a florist for their wedding in the middle of July. The Oxnard couple have been together for 23 years. And while others are opting for simple ceremonies at the clerk's office, Quick and Berger plan an outdoor wedding with 150 guests and a Lutheran pastor.
The grandness of the day hit Berger as he listened to love songs on his iPod in search of wedding music.
"I've been fighting this social justice issue for 23 years, and all of a sudden it's here," he said. "I'm getting married, and I can't believe it's happening."
Posted by West_to_East on June 3, 2008 at 6:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What the hell . . . People are worried about gangsters and blahshey but what the hell is this. This is what our world is coming to. Its ok to have sex with the same sex. Its ok to marry the same sex. Then whats next, it's ok to have sex with animals and make baby's. Maybe extreme, but society is just making it more odd for a youth to be raised in a world that is just becoming stupid. I have no hatred toward gays that are openenly about it, but gay marriage is not morally right. Woman weren't sent to land to marry each other and man was sent woman not a man. If your bibical.
This discust me honestly and I'm glad my son isn't being raised in California anymore because I certainly don't want him growing up beliving its ok or right to like boys and marry them. I'm not saying he won't be exposed to gays and lesbians but he will definitly not show descrimination against gays and lesbians but he will know its not right.
And to whoever reply's saying what if he. . . No there is no room for WHAT IF. . .
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH GAYS AND LESBIANS BUT I KNOW AS OF JUNE 17TH AND ALL THE OPEN CAMPAIGNING AND EXT. IM GOING TO GROW TO HATE THEM ALL. I JUST ASK WHY? HOW MANY YEARS DO WE HAVE TO VOTE NO. EVENTUALLY IT WILL PASS. I GUESS WE NEED TO PUSH IT EVERY YEAR TO BAN IT.
Posted by rjlebeck on June 3, 2008 at 6:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I've kept my opinion in check on the issue of gay marriage for quite a while now and kept wondering when somebody would eventually bring up the obvious: Under what power does the government have to confer a religious sacrament or ceremony? While the government has the duty to confer the legal status of a civil union between two legally consenting adults, why is there all the hubris over gay marriage when it is clear that there is an established separation between church and state?
Even in the Bible, Jesus said: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
The answer to this manufactured dilemma is quite simple. Any couple, gay or straight, can be married in any church that permitted their union. The Catholic Church often denies the use of its facilities and the bestowment of the holy sacrament of marriage to straight couples for a variety of reasons and they are clearly within their right to do so under the First Amendment. However should a couple seek the blessing of say, the Church of the Holy Copulation, then in the eyes of the Lord and the church community, the two shall become as one.
Bottom line. The government should not be in the wedding business but has the legal duty to bind a couple to a contractual obligation of their mutual choosing. Without the government's blessing there can be no legal benefits gained by being married in a church. Those who would seek to impose their moral code upon others would not have the arm of government to wield their case.
It bothers me greatly that while the Middle East simmers, while our troops sit like ducks in the Iraqi desert, while our polar ice caps melt, and while millions struggle to put food on the table and a roof over their head, gay rights and gay marriage is being promoted as the defining issue of our day. This "burning issue" will only serve to push more important concerns to the back burner and play into the hands of demagogues and charlatans. The gay rights movement is a selfish waste of time and resources whose energy could be better spent serving the Constitution and the separation of church and state rather than undermining its original intent.
Posted by VivaVentucky on June 3, 2008 at 6:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Not only will the new marriages join two people to each other, they will also join these people, in a way stronger than was the case before the marriage, to their community and to society in general. The history of this country has been a long march toward an inclusive society, what with the freeing of slaves, women getting the vote, the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60"s and even wheelchair ramps on street corners. Continue the march! It's is obviously the American way!
Posted by astroox805 on June 3, 2008 at 6:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
first off, im not one to bash on gay people,but the truth of the matter is that this is gonna cause alotta confusion amongst the youth growing up. this is what life is comin to? modern day sodom and gomorrah? love the sinner hate the sin
Posted by Ms_California on June 3, 2008 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't understand WHY gay marriages are going to cause confusion for our children? Hello! gays have been around for years!!!!! Children aren't going to care or even ask to see a marriage certificate if they meet someone they like. People are people! What color you are, what sexual orientation you are or even what language that you speak does not confuse children. It is the person you are inside that counts.
I posed this question before... why is it ok for EVERY teenage male to fantazise about seeing two woman sexually engaged, and it be acceptable?
Posted by nannyfo1 on June 3, 2008 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rjlebeck is correct. The state issues the marriage license, not the church (by the way, after reading the 1st amendment, I found no mention of the seperation of church and state). The question then becomes, does the state have the right to define the parameters under which a marriage license is issued. I would guess that most folks would say that the answer to that question is yes. After all, we don't want 35 year old men marrying 13 year old girls. So since the state (we the people) get to define marriage, the only way to decide the parameters of marriage is by a vote of the people. That will happen this November.
Posted by MrMAB on June 3, 2008 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The biggest problem to overcome here are the opinions of twits like West_to_East. Gay marriage will lead to bestiality or sex with children? this is ridiculous on too many counts to address fully, but suffice it to say that until children and animals are able to give advised consent at the AGE of consent, neither sex nor marriage with them will be legal.
Furthermore, the assumption that homosexuals are perverts that will have sex with anything that moves is equally insulting. These people are attracted to others of the same sex just as you or I are attracted to members of the opposite sex. They look for the same things that straights look for in a relationship...except their Dream Date has the same plumbing.
And as far as these "disgusting acts" they perform on each other, they don't do anything that straight couples also do, so unless you're a puritan, you have no right criticizing others. What's the line about glass houses...?
Grow up, people.
Posted by MrMAB on June 3, 2008 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
nannyfo1:
As I remarked in my previous post: Until children and or animals are of age for informed consent, neither sexual relations nor marriage to either will be legal. Nothing about gay marriage will change that.
Posted by DrcGrl on June 3, 2008 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What I want to know is, is Mr. Quint still the Spanish teacher at Agoura High School. This was over 20 years ago of course.
Posted by DrcGrl on June 3, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If I read the whole article, I would've gotten my answer, sorry!!
Posted by scott on June 3, 2008 at 7:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
didn't we the state of california already vote on this defining marriage as between a man and a woman? run away judges making law not interpreting law like they are suposed to.
Posted by oxnard40 on June 3, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Whoa!!! This is the end of the world as we know it. What's next, Inter-Racial marriages?
Posted by Ms_California on June 3, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
AMEN MMSHOOT!
Posted by rjlebeck on June 3, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Again, if by marriage we mean a holy vow between two people and their God, then the government has no right to regulate it. It can and should enforce the rights and protections of minors, prosecute bigamy, polygamy, and bestiality (maybe people who marry their pet for tax purposes?). Holy cow!
My argument is that government should't be in the marriage business. It shouldn't issue marriage licenses at all. All unions, from a government perspective, should be a matter of legal, rather than a religious standard. To put it bluntly, if the sex itself is not outlawed and there is consent, then who is the government to prevent such a union? Therefore all citizens, male or female, have the right to a Civil Union. I know that doesn't sound as romantic as church bells and a preacher that looks a little like Elvis, but as Tina Turner might say, "What's love got to do with it?"
Render to Caesar what is Ceasar's, and to the Lord what is the Lord's.
So for God's sake, let's work on getting the troops back home from Iraq and start thinking a little more about our country and planet than drowning the dialog with hate and misunderstanding on both sides of this woebegone and polarizing mud fight.
Posted by MrMAB on June 3, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, and for those who want to take the religious/or moral stance that marriage should be between a man and a woman because only they can procreate, what does that say for couples who marry and can't have children? Or don't want to have children? Or who take the morally highest road of all and choose to adopt one of the hundreds of thousands of parentless children already on the planet rather than to add to the population? Should these people not be allowed to marry either? Where is the line drawn?
Posted by stik_figure on June 3, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rev. Rob McCoy of Calvary Chapel Thousand Oaks says "It isn't a Christian issue...we live in a democratic republic and our rights are being taken away from us. If they (the courts) can do this to conservatives, they can do it to anybody." You're right Reverenced, we do live in a democratic republic that by definition includes "believing in or practicing social equality". The conservatives have been imposing their version of "social equality" on the masses for far too long. Don't believe in gay marriage? Then don't have one. Don't believe in abortion? Then don't get one.
Posted by Ms_California on June 3, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am not a religious person, I did not marry my husband for religious reasons.. I married him because I love him and want to spend our lives together. I was not married in a church nor was I married by anyone associated with the church. You can't say that marriage is a religious union because is isn't.
Posted by MrMAB on June 3, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Marying someone because you love them and want to spend your lives together...what a novel idea! ;o)
Posted by MrMAB on June 3, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Marrying someone because you love them and want to spend your lives together...what a novel idea! ;o)
Posted by rebel123 on June 3, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It really makes no difference what so ever if men marry men and women marry women. For pete's sake folks, we're talking about a very small percentage of the population. If you really think this is going to bring down life as you know it, you're living in a vacuum and don't see the real social and economic issues that are indeed threatening to change our lives in serious and drastic ways. Gay marriage it the least of our concerns! Leave them alone and start focusing on the raging war, gas prices, high cost of living, lost jobs, health care costs, gangs.....and the list goes on. For those who fear the youth will be confused, I'd offer up that there are for more insidious and real dangers lurking out there in the form of drugs, gangs, fast cars/motorcycles, and std's!
Posted by nannyfo1 on June 3, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Don't believe in gay marriage? Then don't have one. Don't believe in abortion? Then don't get one."
stik_figure, this is the same argument that slave owners used 150 years ago. If you don't believe in owning slaves then don't, but leave the rest of us alone. I am sure glad that their advice was not heeded.
Posted by star on June 3, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"stik_figure, this is the same argument that slave owners used 150 years ago. If you don't believe in owning slaves then don't, but leave the rest of us alone. I am sure glad that their advice was not heeded."
Slaves were victims. Who are the victims of gay marriage?
If we amend our state Constitution to ban gay marriage, I can point to victims of that ban.
Posted by Ms_California on June 3, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
well Mr MAB.. that and he ALOT of money haha!
Posted by bbbdugout on June 3, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
some of you are really pathetic - you're worried about gay marriage - someone actually said what's next - marriage to animals - and some sounded off with religious rights - please - if your God is all powerful then he/she loves them all - REGARDLESS - so move on and start to worry about some real problems (i.e., people out of work, people going hungry, destroying the environment, etc.)
Posted by bbbdugout on June 3, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
some of you are really pathetic - you're worried about gay marriage - someone actually said what's next - marriage to animals - and some sounded off with religious rights - please - if your God is all powerful then he/she loves them all - REGARDLESS - so move on and start to worry about some real problems (i.e., people out of work, people going hungry, destroying the environment, etc.)
Posted by bbbdugout on June 3, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
some of you are really pathetic - you're worried about gay marriage - someone actually said what's next - marriage to animals - and some sounded off with religious rights - please - if your God is all powerful then he/she loves them all - REGARDLESS - so move on and start to worry about some real problems (i.e., people out of work, people going hungry, destroying the environment, etc.)
Posted by cassandra on June 3, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I must have missed the end of the war; otherwise the Star wouldn't be taking up so much space with issues that don't really effect anybody but gays.
How would anyone else be affected?
People who are so concerned with other people's sex lives need to get a life of their own.
Red meat issues attract maggots. How about front page for Iraqi's balking at US presence? How about peak oil? How about water shortages? How about real media instead of distraction.
As usual, Mr. Lebeck has some seriously rational and insightful things to say. Maybe somebody will read them.
Posted by MrMAB on June 3, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm actually very surprised--and pleased--by the number of intelligent and insightful postings today. Maybe the people who think society is going to come to an end now have moved back out to the streets with their "THE END IS NEAR" sandwich boards...
Posted by MEATisMURDER on June 3, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
all you god fearing republicans make me want to vomit. Stop being bigots and using your imaginary friend in the sky as rational. Christianity has no place in out government/policy.
face it, christianity is just as vile than any other organized religion. its virtues are flawed, it is evil.
Posted by MrMAB on June 3, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So much for the intelligent and insightful postings...
Posted by Face on June 3, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Homosexuals are born the way they are. Why be afraid of John marrying John? Confusion for kids?? Homosexuals have been allowed to adopt children for decades, what signal are we sending to kids that their family cannot be recognized because of a few religious zealots? Religion is a fine thing taken in moderation, but fundamentalism has been the root of mankind's inhumanity to man for thousands of years. The same folks who exhibit homophobia here, their parents were ranting about mixed race marriages, and their grandparents were ranting about freeing slaves. Fundamentalism is what allows the worst crimes against our fellow man. Look at the Mideast where mongoloid children have bombs strapped to them to kill innocents in the name of God. What a load of crap our fundamentalists here spew, better they go the way of the dinosaur. If they do not like it here, convert to Islam and go to Pakistan where you can cut off your daughter's clitoris and make her wear a rag over her face.
Posted by LivinInPoorMansPV on June 3, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bible Bible Bible....why are people so adamant to bring this history/travel book in to play. Uh there were humans before the BIBLE! And the men and women were probably intimate with the same gender. This issue has nothing to do with "GOD" "JESUS" "ADAM & EVE".
Posted by BeaHappi on June 3, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
cassandra...I totally agree with you. I have yet to figure out how gay couples marrying will have any negative affect on me, my marriage, or my children.
Get a life is right!
Posted by LivinInPoorMansPV on June 3, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Face you rock!
Posted by oxnard40 on June 3, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Marriage in "God's eye" is so out of whack today.
Don't you have FLDS members having multiple wives (including 16 year olds) in Texas. In God's name.
Posted by BeaHappi on June 3, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There are plenty of heterosexual married couples who don't believe in God. They are LEGALLY bound to each other as husband and wife. For some people God doesn't have anything to do with their legal commitment to each other.
And FACE, you do rock...GREAT post!
Posted by sandnsun on June 3, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
For people that want to take the bilbical stance of marriage only being between a man and a woman....it is widely argued by biblical scholars that that was put into the bible as an afterthought due to the fact that tribes in Israel were quite primative and were participating in beastiality, i.e. you could not bring home a camel and profess your love for it and participate in a union. So, if you really think about it in a technical aspect, man and woman was thrown in to rule out marrying animals...not someone of the same sex.
Posted by keepermel on June 3, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As a whole I am reading that people that are against gay marrage are all religious finatics. And all people who are for gay marrage are anti religious. I am getting this by all of the name calling and hate I see. People on both sides believe what they want to very deaply. It is the intolerance to discuss rationally that is creating such a problem. A few posts at the top where very well written with level headedness, yet if they were not on your side they were disregarded. I thought we came to a common middle before, with legal rights given to civil unions. That was a step to the middle by both sides....why is that no longer ok? They are saying that we can not go the way of the "religious" side but we have to go the way of the "gay rights" side. How is that fair? The issue is that there is no meeting in the middle aloud and that is why people get so upset. I can't voice my opionion as just that...an opinion. But you can Legalize your opinion...which should be just that. Everyone can want everything, but not everyone has the right to everything. There are age limits, there are economic limits, there are social limits and there are physical limits. Human rights does not mean personal choice rights.
Posted by BeaHappi on June 3, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm in support of same-sex marriage and I have a strong faith and believe in God. Obviously beliefs differ from person to person.
I simply believe that if two people are in love and are committed to each other...and want to take the ultimate "commitment" step of marriage...that they should be allowed to do so.
As someone pointed out above, there are certainly bigger fish to fry in our world. The war, economy, gas prices, education, illegal immigration, health care...certainly these are more apt to actually touch and impact our lives.
It seems that we get so hung up on the sex part of same-sex relationships when truly it's no one's business. I'm sure there are plenty of opposite sex couples that have some pretty "interesting" sex lives.
Posted by concerned_guy on June 3, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
An activist lesbian school teacher in California "reeducated" my sister - now she hates our country, hates her family, loves her "new" family. Now these "activists" continue their quest for their "rights"... notwithstanding when we voted that "marriage" was between a man and a woman they continue to activate for calling their abnormal unions "marriage"... and persuaded 4 judges to overturn our desires - now we must take the next step and make it a constitutional amendment. There are many ways for them to designate who they desire to leave their property to, or who can make medical decisions for them without destroying the special institution that the state created to provide love, support, and normality to children. Marriage is not a constitutional "right" guaranteed to everyone; it is a restricted institution - your near relatives, same sex, deviants and people with communicable disease need not apply... but they may if we lift all restrictions. A constitutional amendment will stop this emotional churning and free up resources to solve important challenges in our society.
Posted by oxnard40 on June 3, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is the Dead Horse.
Please continue to beat it.
Thanks Star
Posted by Ms_California on June 3, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is this the "homophobic" room? Cuz if it is I'd like to find my way out please!
Posted by Relvd98 on June 3, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Where's the exit, please?
Posted by BeaHappi on June 3, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"people with communicable disease need not apply"
Really? So someone who contracted HepC or HIV via a blood transfusion or as a result of an opposite sex relationship shouldn't be allowed to marry?
concerned_guy...obviously you've got some baggage left by the situation with your sister but to rule out marriage for people with diseases? Wow.
And "deviants" get married all of the time. They may just not present themselves as such.
Posted by BeaHappi on June 3, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ms_California...I'm with you sister! Let's all hop in that big ol' SUV of yours and hit the road!
Posted by Ms_California on June 3, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Whoo hoooo Bea.. but if we do can someone please call Cassandra and let her know we are conserving gas by carpooling PAALLLLEASE!
Posted by BigJake on June 3, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, I think that Gays and Lesbians should be able to marry and then of course for many comes the divorce.
My ex-wife and her attorneys can give them lessons on how to stage a scorched, no prisoners, divorce. Right Helen?
Gays and Lesbians, god bless them, know not where they tread. They had it safe, no marriage, no California divorces.
Posted by unclneal on June 3, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
let's continue to focus on giving everyone rights that they never had before, regardless of the will of the people... why vote for anything if judges and courts will overturn the popular opinion? when will I have the right to marry my dog? when can I get a license to marry my car? what's next, the courts will force the church to marry anyone who walks in? watch out America, not only will the separation of church and state no longer exist, the judges and courts will eliminate their independence!
Posted by getreal on June 3, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For all you athiest out there, if our society actually HAD religion like it one day did, there would be minimal violence, hate, theft, murder, beatings, gangs, all of it. It's because we no longer allow religion in schools that all they mayhem has occured. I bet you are the same people that don't believe in pledging to the very flag that represents your freedom.
Posted by hotwildflower on June 3, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
unclneal, That is actually my concern with this issue, gay or lesbian aside, the popular vote was counted and yet the high court comes and over turns the will of the people just like they did with...what was it, prop 182?
Why have people vote if their votes truly don't count? If there are so many people who this will not affect and who do not care about the issue at hand, why didn't they vote to pass this?
Now, I have no issue with gays or lesbians and don't have any desire to deny them their happiness, but I don't see why civil unions were not sufficient? They already have the benefits thru the state allowing health insurance for same sex partners...where does marriage give them anything MORE than civil unions? (a serious question)
Posted by oxnard40 on June 3, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
getreal is right!
Those gays are to blame for so much of societies problems. " violence, hate, theft, murder, beatings, gangs" All because of Gays.
He forgot to add that Gays also are to blame for Hurricane Katrina, the Northridge Earthquake, Communism, and the cancelation of ALF.
Don't let these creators of kaos get married. Just imagine what might happen next!!!
Posted by oxnard40 on June 3, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I forgot to mention that the gays ruined Jamie Farr's career.
Posted by BeaHappi on June 3, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
unclneal & hotwildflower - I am a bit confused by the overturning of the vote myself. While I did not vote against same-sex marriage, I do wonder how the vote can be overturned. So did this need to be voted on in the first place?
hotwildflower - in regards to what more they get by being married, it may be something as simple as having their relationship completely validated in the way that heterosexual relationships are...by making the ultimate commitment. Maybe just having the right to decide to get married is the point.
Posted by getreal on June 3, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No Oxnard40, I said LACK OF RELIGION is to blame.
Posted by Ms_California on June 3, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh Oxnard40.. don't forget to blame them for the creation of WILL AND GRACE!!!! Oh and look what they did to Doogie Houser!
Oh getreal forgets that the all mighty church did commit crimes and murders in the past.. and on a side note, most of the people who commit murders have some sort of religious family background! So now what? Don't blame the people of non faith for all of the bad in the world....
Posted by hotwildflower on June 3, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are plenty of people who claim to be Christians who are not living their lives Christ-like, however, if you think of good people, it is generally people who naturally live their lives by the Ten Commandments, whether they believe in God or worship Him or not, they are still living by the basic rules of being a good person....
Posted by hotwildflower on June 3, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
of course, minus the "No God's before Him and keeping Sunday Sabbath"
Posted by nunyabiznus on June 3, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
getreal...GET REAL!
Posted by getreal on June 3, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I will continue to pray for you non believers.
Posted by Ms_California on June 3, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Can you pray that I win the lottery! that would be awesome!!!!!
Posted by Face on June 3, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Free the slaves? What next, give them the right to vote?! Next thing you know, we will allow them to marry whites! Then God will destroy us all.
Fundamentalists are the reason why we had the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 (otherwise known as the Sterilization Act). The use of religion to purport crimes against Americans continues to this day as we can see. If the will of the people were to turn homosexuals into lampshades and burn them in ovens, would that make it right? Would those stoking the ovens feel empowered by God to do so? You propose to know God's will and thy will be done?! No no no I say. We are done with the zealotry, those who destroy in God's name, those who maim with a bible in their hand. They think themselves superior and they wish their judgments on the people. ENOUGH!! Enough of the 19th centurions in their glass houses throwing rocks at the "other" citizenry! This country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. Stop the witch burnings! Stop using the bible to support your racism, your puritanism, your pro-slaveryism, and your anti-humanism!! You of the hating God beware. Judge not lest ye be judged! Those who purport to adhere to Christ, act as he would and says without twisting his words and intent. Back to your caves and watch over your own heathen flock, send your monies to your money laundering religious leaders, pray to your paycheck and live however you want. Just leave the rest of us alone to our 21st century of enlightenment. How is it we are to tolerate the intolerable? Enough!
BTW Ovaltine rocks, not I.
Posted by getreal on June 3, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ms_California you can joke around all you want but will never really succed and be truly happy without religion. You will keep wanting and yearning for something to make you whole but will never ever get there. I truly believe we never should have sperated church and state, we should teach our children to be God fearing and we should follow the Ten Commandments. Greed by the way is a deadly sin.
Posted by hotwildflower on June 3, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
wow, Face forgot his prozac this morning...
Posted by Ms_California on June 3, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AMEN BROTHER FACE!!!! AMEN BROTHER!
Now on a serious note (God says I can't joke around anymore)
getreal... I'm already going to hell by your standards so what do I care if I have lots of money in the meantime? I don't agree with union of church and state and the intergration of religion into our schools. I don't believe that religion makes you a great person. I don't practice religion but I believe in being the best person that I can. I have never murdered anyone, committed a crime, been arrested etc. and my children and I are just fine and quite frankly if you didn't know I wasn't religious you would have never guessed I wasn't. Not to mention who is to say what religion we teach? I believe in the religion of Karma.. can we teach that in schools? Christianity is not the all mighty power and frankly I don't believe half of the crap christian leaders spew out of their cake holes!
Posted by NRSPNKY on June 3, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Last I understood, marriage wasn't about sex, but about commitment, partnership and love. There are a lot of screwed up straight people in the world that have sex with children.....animals...trees...blah blah blah...homosexuality had nothing to do with that immorality. God will judge you on HOW you love, not WHO you love.
Posted by MicheleinCA on June 3, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Allowing same-sex couples to marry will confuse children? How so? I remember hearing that same argument in the '70s when unmarried women gave their children their maiden names. It'll confuse everyone if a child has a different name when his mother gets married. Nonsense! It's time to stop making the crazy arguments that kids will be adversly affected if same-sex couples are allowed the same - yes, that's right - the same laws everyone else is granted. And, forget the argument about whether it's the church or the court that allow marriages, it's the laws that govern the rights of people that's at stake here. For the woman who's glad her child isn't growing up in CA - trust me, lady, everyone in CA is glad you aren't here either!
Posted by SpiderWoman on June 3, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh come on, isn't it obvious? The state and communities need more money so now they let gays and lesbians marry and rake in some dough from the marriage licenses. Then down the road they will divorce and the courts will get the money from the court costs and this cycle goes on and on.
Posted by sparks240 on June 3, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
getreal: Just about every war that has ever been fought has been about religion. Societys have been wiped out in the name of God. Is it only your religion and your god that you want to cram down our throats? America was founded on freedom of religion. Any religion.
Posted by Ventuckey on June 3, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As long as we're following the Bible, let's overturn the age of consent laws too. Funny how you religious nuts pick and choose over which laws you want. You are nothing more then a bunch of hypocritical bigots. You might as well say you want to kill all the gays as well, because deep down you know that's what you really want.
Posted by may29 on June 3, 2008 at 6:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sparks 240 Getreal never mentioned a specific religion, he just said relegion so what exactly is he cramming down your throat except for religion, any religion. And no getreal never said anything about gays being killed off.
Posted by seelarmon on June 3, 2008 at 8:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
After 22 years, these men are more "married" than many will ever be. Lucky for anyone to find their sole mate, whatever the gender.
Posted by avuncular2008 on June 3, 2008 at 8:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"if our society actually HAD religion like it one day did, there would be minimal violence, hate, theft, murder, beatings, gangs, all of it."
GTREAL -- Um...when exactly was this? The history of this country is fraught with violence and disease and strife, much of which was promoted by the Puritans and the slave owners (many of whom used the Bible to justify their actions). Likewise, millions of people were killed by communist leaders, so there's no winning with us human beings...
What I think you might be saying is that there needs to be a shift in people's consciousness, then I agree. No amount of policy changes will break the mold of selfishness and violence that society--religious or secular--has inhabited.
Posted by StayInSchool on June 4, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think homosexuality is wrong on all levels, moral, spiritual, and biological. But this country was founded on the idea of tolerance and protecting the rights of the few against the will of the majority and their mob mentality, and gays deserve those rights just like any other minority.
Posted by freethought on June 4, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
West_to_East - " IM GOING TO GROW TO HATE THEM ALL"
There's your problem - Hatred. Why do you care if gays are able to officially marry? How does someone else's life decision for him her or and his or her partner affect you? It doesn't. Is your religion (whatever that may be) so intolerant that it drives you to hate? It can't be Christianity, as Christians are supposed to love. Muslims? Nope, they follow the same credence as the Christians. Buddhists? Hindus? No and no. You must be a sad little man.
Posted by freethought on June 4, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rcamacho - "Marriage by God Almightys Design was meant for a union between man and woman..."
Dude, yours is an opinion of very few nowadays. Your religion is just that - yours, not mine, and not that of the planet's majority. I'm glad you don't hold a public office.
Posted by freethought on June 4, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
keepermel - "...all people who are for gay marrage are anti religious..."
Not quite right. There are several religions that are open minded to same sex marriages. Mainly, just those that stem from the Bible (Judaism, Christianity, and Muslim) are anti-gay marriage. And even then, many Christians are becoming more accepting as they come to understnad what actually makes someone gay.
Posted by freethought on June 4, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
unclneal - "watch out America, not only will the separation of church and state no longer exist, the judges and courts will eliminate their independence!"
The separation hasn't existed for some time now - not since the 1950s when the government decided to force the words "In God we trust" onto every U.S. monetary device (coins and paper money). I am 100% Americna and proud of it, and I do not place my trust in anyone but myself. Yours is a statement that hopes to induce fear to keep even positive change from occurring. Take your fear elsewhere, say, maybe to Iran.
Posted by freethought on June 4, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
getreal - "For all you athiest out there, if our society actually HAD religion like it one day did, there would be minimal violence, hate, theft, murder, beatings, gangs, all of it. It's because we no longer allow religion in schools that all they mayhem has occured. I bet you are the same people that don't believe in pledging to the very flag that represents your freedom."
There goes more hatred from a self-proclaimed Christian. I'm an atheist, and I proudly served for many years in the USMC ready to give my life for your freedoms. How long did you serve? Atheists have practically the same morals as Christians with few exceptions (such as the stance on gay marriage). We are mainly a non-violent, non-intrusive bunch. We live and let live. We don't force our beliefs on others. Take a look at your religion's past. Can you say the same? I know many Christians, and find them to be warm, friendly, and engaging people for the most part - just like my fellow atheists. It's the few with EXTREME ideas like yours that worry me.
Posted by VeritasLuxMea on June 4, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You people do not understand the issue at hand. This is about judicial tyranny. It is about one judge overriding the VOTES of MILLIONS of Californians who have ALREADY voted on the issue of “gay marriage”. This matter had already been settled by the PEOPLE.
Here is another way to look at the issue: take away the “homosexual marriage” and insert another issue that the voters have already settled, such as Prop 99 – Eminent Domain. The PEOPLE voted that the government cannot take away land from homeowners to benefit private developers. Now, what if the government did seize your home anyway because ONE JUDGE ruled that it “was constitutional”? Would this be okay? Why?
How are these 2 issues any different? There are not. If we do change the natural rules for marriage let’s do it with a VOTE by the PEOPLE and NOT the opinion of ONE JUDGE.
Posted by freethought on June 4, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
getreal - "I will continue to pray for you non believers."
And I will continue not to care how you decide to waste your time.
Posted by freethought on June 4, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
VeritasLuxMea - Although I believe consenting gays should be able to do whatever they like with and to themselves, I cannot argue with your point. The majority rules. It is that simple (or at least it used to be).
Posted by getreal on June 4, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Freethought, I did serve, proud Marine. Tell me, what did GOD, core and country really mean to you being an athiest? You just said those words to pretend to be a Marine?
Posted by Face on June 4, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A belief in a god is not necessary nor a requirement to serve in the armed services or any branch of our government. I think you meant to say Corps not Core, or did they fail to teach you how to spell that in the Marines?
Posted by freethought on June 4, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I never said that word (In God,), and I don't say "under God" when I say the pledge (learn you history as to why those words are even there and when they appeared). I didn't need God or any other non-existent being to be a proud Marine. Don't throw that jargon in my face. Do you remember what you were willing to give your life for? Freedom. Freedom for Americans to live the life they choose - not the life you choose for them. many Marines I served with were Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and atheists like myself. It wasn't just Christians. Are you going to dishonor them too? You should be ashamed of yourself for even making such a comment.
Posted by VeritasLuxMea on June 4, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
freethought - thanks for seeing the bigger picture.
I disagree with changing the definition of natural marriage, but if the voters decide for it at the ballot box I will live with the decision and life will continue as usual (I will just disagree, that's all).
However, I am very uncomfortable with the power judges are taking for themselves. The checks and balances are no longer in balance. Some people feel the same regarding the presidential powers vs the legislature.
Someday, everyone on this post will be adversely affected by judicial tyranny for issues unrelated to this article. We are losing our democracy day by day.
Posted by StayInSchool on June 4, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Veritas, you are not seeing the real issue. Rights of the minority. The courts have always been the ones to uphold the rights of minorities. Without judicial intervention the mob majority would always rule. All minorities would be treated poorly, including hispanics. Votes by the people are great, but too often the majority of people do not agree with minorities and that is where the judicial branch is supposed to step in. Thank god they do. In the 1960s we passed The Civil Rights Act and many states refused to abide by it. The courts and the federal government stepped in. By the way I think homosexuality is wrong but I feel they deserve the same rights as you or me.
Posted by freethought on June 4, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
VeritasLuxMea - Thanks for pointing out the bigger picture.
Posted by freethought on June 4, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
StayInSchool - Also a good argument, and I'm not just saying that because I believe gays should be allow to marry.
Posted by StayInSchool on June 4, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree we are losing our democracy, but only from the expanding executive powers.
Posted by leahb78_1999 on June 4, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The big picture is this... This ruling will mean that church-run organizations such as adoption agencies, hospitals, and other religious organizations (i.e. the Boyscouts) will be shut down all across the state because of this ruling.
It has already happened to a Catholic adoption agency in MA, shut down because they did not want to allow gay couples to adopt the children.
A hospital in CA is already being sued because of these anti-discrimination cluases for refusing to offer a sex-change operation.
Thanks to this ruling, you can look forward to thousands of similar lawsuits trying to shut down organizations that are simply exercising their freedom to religious beliefs.
Posted by Face on June 4, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We are not in danger of losing our democracy, there are no expanded executive powers as that would have to diminish another branch's powers and that cannot be done without a constitutional amendment. The closest we came to losing our democracy was during the Civil War and WWI when wartime acts authorized such things as the imprisonment of reporters and open dissension punishable by jail.
Posted by getreal on June 4, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Free thought, the first Pledge of Allegiance, written by a Baptist Minister did not include under God. When Lincoln was President, Under God was added to the Pledge to represent the American way of life. These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded. The changes occured in 1954. I do know my history. Let's face it. Our belief system is different. I believe in Christianity and you do not.
Posted by getreal on June 4, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Free thought, the first Pledge of Allegiance, written by a Baptist Minister did not include under God. When Lincoln was President, Under God was added to the Pledge to represent the American way of life. These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded. The changes occured in 1954. I do know my history. Let's face it. Our belief system is different. I believe in Christianity and you do not.
Posted by VeritasLuxMea on June 4, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
StayInSchool -
as you posted "we passed The Civil Rights Act", the "we" being the legislature, not the courts. We, being the people, vote for the legislature and the legislature votes. The is a representative republic.
We, the people, do NOT vote for judges. Judicial appointments are many times political paybacks for past support. Also, judges are to interpret the law ALREADY passed and not legislate from the bench.
Lastly, I disagree with "too often the majority of people do not agree with minorities". Most people want health, happiness and opportunity for others here in America. America is a great nation because we, for the most part, are a caring people. Also, California is not homogenous but very heterogenous. We are quite the cosmopolitan state. That argument does not work here. Maybe in Iraq with Shiias vs Kurds vs Sunnis, but in California we are more of a "live and let live".
We should never legislate for the minority but for the majority. For example, should we ban guns because a very small percentage of the people are criminals or should we respect the 2nd ammendment and note that 99.9999999999% of gun owners are responsible and honest people? Should we ban alcohol because a few decide to drive drunk? Should we restrict the movement of Muslims becasue a few of them are terrorists? No, no and no.
Posted by VeritasLuxMea on June 4, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Face - power is made by power being taken. To many, the constitution and the bill of rights are a "living document" and subject to interpretation depending on the mood of the day. Unfortunatley, what is written as an absolute right becomes dimished by the progressive relativists. If the very documents upon which our rights have been built are subject to change then our rights are temporal at best. Better hide your gun and watch what you say.
Posted by VeritasLuxMea on June 4, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Forget to mention beliefs and how one worships (or does not).
Posted by getreal on June 4, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mmshoot yes, the Pledge of Allegiance has to do with the American way of life. Its stands for your freedom, freedom in America. I would call that the American way wouldn't you? If you have no loyalty to the flag and what it represent then what are you doing in this country?
Posted by StayInSchool on June 4, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For over two centuries the Constitution has remained in force because its framers successfully separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality. The Constitution has evolved to meet the changing needs of a modern society profoundly different from the eighteenth-century world in which its creators lived.
Posted by venturapagan on June 4, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If society went back to being "ruled" by religion, then the Inquisition would be back, and in force. It was the early churches that were MURDERING ppl for centuries because of some behaviour, thought, or beliefs they didn't agree with. Millions were killed in Europe before it happened in Bay Colonies; Getreal-do you wish we return to this time? If I recall, your God (supposedly) created everything on Earth, including gays and heathens. Who are you to judge what is right; this is your God's right, is it not? Let ppl be happy, in love and let's leave God out of it, kay?
Posted by getreal on June 4, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
God did create everything but he also said homosexuality is a sin, sexual perversion. Like I said before, I am Christian and most people on this post are not. We will never agree.
Posted by VeritasLuxMea on June 4, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
StayInSchool -
how is the Bill of Rights different today than they were 200 years ago? Has the meaning of the Bill of Rights changed according to the relative thought processes of Jun 04, 2008?
I find the Bill of Rights just as relevant today as they were 200 years ago! The words have the same meaning to me.
It would be frightening to know that others believe that we really don't need those gentile, quaint words because we are so modern and evolved - that we trust government whole-heartly!
Posted by VeritasLuxMea on June 4, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ravensnest13 -
by stating "let's leave God out of it" is about as intolerant as stating "God agrees with me so I throw God into everything".
Stepping on the beliefs of others is a bad way to make a point. It is pretty much futile. Instead, argue with positives instead of negatives. Also, the "church" can mean a lot of things. The Bible calls the church the bride of Christ, whom He shows unconditional love. The inquisitions were the results of popes, bishops, kings who only wanted power and put themselves and Catholism before the simple Biblical phrases of love and obedience to God.
getreal -
it would more interesting and substantial to see the actual verses and Biblical quotes because anyone can say anything. Of course, your argument would be towards the religious crowd only. Bascially, it should just be an argument among the religous and the aethiest could have their own debate.
Posted by getreal on June 4, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
One more thing freethought. Do you remember the oath you took to be a Marine? I do, I remember the exact day and the very last line in your Marine Corp oath is "so help me God".
Posted by freethought on June 4, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
getreal - No, God didn't create anything. While you're quoting what's a sin and what's not based on the Bible's teachings, take a look at the 10th Commandment, which clearly places the worthiness of a wife as that of a house, an oxen, or any other of a man's possessions. The Bible (and the Qur'an, for that matter) is chocked full of wonderfull teachings, but was written during a time when freedoms, value on life, and the understanding of each other and the world were much less developed. You want to cling to the myths perpetuated along with the moral teachings, go ahead. Every day, more people are figuring out that they can do without them. In its place, acceptance of their neighbors is found and embraced.
As for the changes to the pledge, there was a reason for them that will always bother me, as it should every other American. It was done to combat the completely imagined possible overtaking of communism in our great country. There were those who supported the idea of communism. However, most of our fellow countrymen would never accept the communist ideals due to the loss of many freedoms that would be sacrificed in its name. There was no need to emphasize a requirement for religion in everyone's lives. "In God we trust" is a slap in the face phrase. Not everyone believes in God. Not every religion has a supreme being. Buddhists are one such example (no, they don't worship Buddha).
I'm not sure why you brought Honest Abe into the discussion. He had nothing to do with the pledge. He referenced God in his Gettysburg Address, and that was all. It's actually funny you should mention him. By many accounts (including his former law business partner and his own wife), Abraham Lincoln was, like me, an atheist.
Posted by getreal on June 4, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not the point. He's so proud of being a Marine but apparently either didn't properly take the oath or lied through his teeth.
Posted by freethought on June 4, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
getreal - I was a Christian back in those days, so I read the oath as you did. I would not do the same now. And guess what? They wouldn't force me. God doesn't make the Marine Corps the superior fighting force that it is - Marines do.
Now, to the pit with you Devil Dog!
Posted by freethought on June 4, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My oath was to my country, not some faily tale creature (although I believed it at the time).
I am proud of my service. You, however, seem only proud of a few words that you spoke.
Posted by freethought on June 4, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mmshoot - How about this - "So help me, me." (to quote George Burns).
Posted by freethought on June 4, 2008 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
getreal - You underline exactly why the world has a problem with regards to religion. You are, even now, full of hate and disgust for those who are not like you. When exactly did Jesus give a sermon on the benefits of hate and disgust? How about adhering to the teachings of the religion you hold so dear? If all chrsitians could do that, I actually believe the world would be a better place.
Posted by getreal on June 4, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not in any way full of hate or disgust for those not like me. I do agree with your advice to adhering to the teachings of religion. The world would indeed be a better place if this was followed by everyone, not just Christians but everyone. I believe the world has a problem with religion because of fear. They do not understand religion so they fear it and rebel.
Posted by XJEZABEL805X on June 4, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FIRST OF ALL IT SHOULDNT BE THE GOVERMENT OR RELIGIONS RIGHT TO EVEN DECIDED IF GAYS MARRY AT ALL NOR IS EVERYONE THAT THINKS ITS WRONG....ALL OF YOU PEOPLE THAT HAVE AN OPINOIN KEEP IT TO YOURSELF ....I AM A LESBIAN...AND A BOOK IS NOT GOING TO TELL ME IM WRONG FOR LOVING ANOTHER WOMAN...NOR IS ANYONE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER...ARE YOU REALLY GONING TO DIE OR IS YOUR CHILD GONNA CARE IF SOMEONE U DONT EVEN KNOW ..MARRY ??? GUESS WHAT ITS PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT THINK YOUR CHILD IS GOING TO GROW UP CONFUSED DUE TO GAYS LOVING EACHOTHER AND WATING TO MARRY ...THATS WHAT MAKE SOME GAY PEOPLE NOT WANT TO COME OUT OF "THE CLOSET" .. AND BE HAPPY ....SCREW THAT...U RATHER HAVE YOUR CHILD UNHAPPY SO THEY CAN MAKE YOU HAPPY ...THERE IS TRULLY SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU. GROW UP AND MOVE ON...ITS GONNA HAPPEN SO GET USE TO IT AND STOP FIGHTING IT.
Posted by freethought on June 4, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
getreal – No, you are wrong once again. It is actually the other way around. People cling to a belief in their religious “history”, although there is no evidence to support those teachings, because they were taught as children that all stories surrounding that religion was absolute fact. Unlike the deal with Santa Claus, however, they were told that these stories were not myth – again, without proof. People hold their religious convictions close for various reasons. Some fear what awaits them beyond the grave if their faith wavers. Others simply love the security they are afforded by believing someone is always watching over them. If that brings them comfort and happiness, then that’s fine with me, although I have found it all to be unnecessary. I and my fellow atheists have a deep understanding of many religions, not just Christianity. This is how we were able to come to our conclusion of our life choices. It wasn’t out of fear, but out of the fact that we know there is nothing to fear (but fear itself).
Relating this to the article, it is fear of difference that pits you and others like yourself against anything that is different, even when it doesn’t negatively affect you in any way. I don’t particularly enjoy the thought of walking around the corner to see two men kissing or overhear a gay man talking about his adventures in the bedroom, but I also don’t fault people for being they were born to be. To consider gays immoral is likened to considering African Americans mentally inferior. Neither statement is true.
Posted by astroox805 on June 5, 2008 at 6:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
freethought, im sure your not really an atheist,you just hate organized religion or anything that has to do with god..especially christians...im pretty sure i know why you cant stand christians, maybe some of the christians you encountered havent humbled up..im aware of those kinda christians..truthfully, my brother is gay, i dont like it, but it aint my life,he chooses what he is..its just funny how you and some of the others on this board bash religion so hard, its actually kinda hilarious. google searchin and what not for info to justify ur means..strategic word use to trick minds..nice tactics. and where did the military come in? bulletstoppers and grunts throwing the freedom card out,damn,smooth moves..get outta here with that bs..facts are,in my eyes(only opinion) that homosexuals are an eyesore when engaging in public acts of affection like practically having sex on an escalator inside a local mall..thats my only problem..its even an eyesore when men and women do that...keep that sh!t at home..ima end off with this,if god didnt exist, then whos image do we portray, a monkey?yall get upset when jesus name gets thrown in the mix, what would happen if he never existed. challenge..im sure you'll have a darwin type of response with some theory of the universe type of sh!t..lol
Posted by freethought on June 5, 2008 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
astroox805 - Yes, I am 100 percent atheist, meaning I do not believe in any supreme being at all. We are all here by provable natural accord. I don't know whose image you portray, but I portray that of my mother and father. You might ask the same mundane question others do, "Then where did they come from, and where did their parents come from?" and so on, and so on... (here comes that Darwin response you forecasted) You have to keep in mind that (and much credible evidence backs this up) that it took about 4 billion years for you to get here. That is an uncomprehensable amount of time to most, yet it rolls off our evolved tongues so easily. Monkeys didn't appear until the latter end of that timeline, and we appeared even later. It's all documented if you'd like to go to your local library and check it out. It's not just theory as you mentioned, it's fact. If you want to read an intereting, yet completely unproven theory, then I suggest looking up "intelligent design" or "creationism".
You wondered how the military got brought into the conversation. That was my fault. I mentioned that I am a former Marine and that I promised for several years to put my life on the line to protect our freedoms, including the freedom to practice a specific religion or none at all, and the freedom for gays to live the way the we heterosexuals are allowed to.
I hope you don't think that I was upset over people's choice of religion or that they use that to justify why gays can't marry. I only seek to share my view. As I have said earlier, I know many Christians (in this nation, how can I go through life not associating with them?), and I find most to be wonderful, engaging people. I also know a few Muslims, Hindus,Sikhs, and Budhists - all great people. Religion has helped to enhance their lives, so I'm not against it. I just don't see how it's necessary for me. Philosophy maybe, but not religion.
Posted by freethought on June 5, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"interesting", not "intereting" (my mistake on the last sentence of the first paragraph in my last comment)
Posted by lizlemon on June 5, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
astroox805 -
"..truthfully, my brother is gay, i dont like it, but it aint my life,he chooses what he is.."
It's interesting to me that you feel entitled to have an opinion about your brother's private sex life, yet I'm pretty sure he could care less about your "choice" to be heterosexual.
"..facts are,in my eyes(only opinion) that homosexuals are an eyesore when engaging in public acts of affection like practically having sex on an escalator inside a local mall..thats my only problem..its even an eyesore when men and women do that...keep that sh!t at home."
Wow, what local mall do you shop at? While I agree that public promiscuity is offensive no matter who you are being promiscuous with, all of my gay friends have sex at home in their bedrooms (with their happy, adjusted, well-loved children peacefully sleeping in the next room).
Posted by astroox805 on June 5, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
freethought- thanks for the clarification,im really not gonna take too much time to rebuttle with it-i just know that theory isnt necessarily true(reference to the evolution theory
sarah- are you blind or a hermit, that type of public display of affection surrounds the public at every angle. wake up and open your eyes. as for my brother,i love him to death, hes my brother-openly gay,so im entitled to whatever opinion i have whether it be gay or straight. i too have gay friends, they keep that stuff at home.bring it i know ur gonna reply with something stupid
Posted by freethought on June 5, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rn2003 - Nicely put. You touched on something I missed. Homosexuality is, like heterosexuality, not a choice, but a situation forced on the individual at birth. With exception of a very small percentage, gays do not choose their sexuality. So, they cannot "pray out the gay" (got that line from Malcolm in the Middle).
Posted by freethought on June 5, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In the case of evolution, it is both theory and fact (yes, it can be both). Every idea is a theory. Not every idea is also a fact. Evolution meets the criteria of both. We have witnessed it in our lifetimes hundreds of times (all documented).
I'm not sure what I clarified for you, but I am glad I could help.
Posted by Fred on June 5, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Make no mistake - this will come to a head right at election time (just like last time). This is an important issue, but not nearly as important as who will run the country and what direction we will head. Republicans always break out the old "gay terrorists will get you". It is a beautiful play - it has worked before and I think it will work again.
Fred
Posted by freethought on June 5, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope you're wrong Fred.
Posted by freethought on June 5, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry Pogmothoin, I forgot to address your church. Even now, it doesn't feel right talking about it without my sword, eyepatch, and fake parrot.
Posted by lizlemon on June 5, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pogmothoin -
Ramen! P-) (How do I look in my new eye patch?)
astroox805 - Just pointing out that you feel entitled to have an opinion in the first place. Nothing more to bring; you've brought it for me.
Posted by venturapagan on June 5, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My point of "let's leave god out of it" was that this is a civil rights issue, and while the church may not agree with it, discrimation is discrimination. All consenting adults have the legal right to marry. The fact that some ppl choose a religious ceremony to mark this event is irrelevant, as ship captains and judges can also perform the same service. Religion should have no say, except for maybe refusing to provide services to congregants (which I personally think is wrong, but only my opinion).
Posted by talkstocoyotes on June 18, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In the past month I've heard endless snarking about "the court overriding the will of the people" and "churches will be forced to perform 'gay weddings' against their will." And not one out of 1,000 of the snarkers have actually read a single word of the California Supremes' decision. It's available at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/...
Here are a few pertinent quotes relative to these scare tactics:
"... affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const, art. I, § 4.)"
"As the United States Supreme Court explained in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624, 638: 'The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.'
"Indeed, Chief Justice Burger made the same point for a majority of the United States Supreme Court in Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley (1981) 454 U.S. 290, observing emphatically that "[i]t is irrelevant that the voters rather than a legislative body enacted [the challenged law], because the voters may no more violate the Constitution by enacting a ballot measure than a legislative body may do so by enacting legislation." (Id. at p. 295.)
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.