Home › News › County News
Gay marriage ban lifted
But opponents say they will ask state high court for delay
Download this story as a podcast!
Photos by Paul Sakuma / AP John Lewis, right, embraces his partner, Stuart Gaffney, outside the California Supreme Court building in San Francisco on Thursday after the ruling. The two are among the main plaintiffs in the case. Below, a crowd celebrates the news at a rally at San Francisco City Hall.
STORY TOOLS
More from County News
The moment California's highest court ruled Thursday morning that same-sex couples have the right to marry, Connie Baer let loose with a yell she'd been holding back for nearly three decades.
She ran down the hallway of her Ventura home in search of the woman she considers her wife, Rita Marsh.
"I gave her a big hug and said Will you marry me?'" she said.
"I said, of course,'" Marsh noted. "After 27 years, why wouldn't I say of course."
In a 4-3 decision, state Supreme Court justices overturned a voter-sanctioned ban on gay marriage, calling it unconstitutional and saying domestic partnerships are not an adequate substitute. The decision means that in as soon as 30 days, California could join Massachusetts as the only states that allow gays and lesbians to marry.
But opponents say they will ask the court to delay the ruling until November, when voters will likely vote on an initiative that would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage. If that drive is successful, legal experts say the initiative would trump the court's ruling.
Secretary of State Debra Bowen is expected to announce at the end of June whether supporters have gathered enough signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. Observers say the initiative will almost certainly qualify, and supporters were already using the court ruling to raise more support and money.
"We're obviously very disappointed in the decision. The remedy is a constitutional amendment," said Glenn Lavey, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.
Though several people called Ventura County offices Thursday asking if they can pick up marriage applications, the court's decision doesn't become official for at least a month, said David Valenzuela, operations manager for the county clerk and recorder.
When the final go-ahead comes, the county will follow the law and perform same-sex marriages.
"My opinion is whatever the law directs me to do," Valenzuela said when asked for a reaction to the court ruling.
The ruling brought gay-rights events in cities from San Francisco to Santa Barbara on Thursday and plans for a celebration at noon today at the Ventura County Government Center. Shortly after the ruling was announced, people hugged each other and talked about wedding plans at the Ventura County Rainbow Alliance, a gay and lesbian community center in Ventura.
Baer, who is 71, has already picked out a white pantsuit to wear at the ceremony she wants to schedule before November in case a marriage ban passes.
"I was worried we wouldn't live long enough to see it," she said, then challenged a question about why she wants to get married. "Why would anyone want to get married? We're no different than anyone else. Why shouldn't we have a marriage license, a wedding, a reception like the rest of the world?"
Others greeted the ruling as one step toward equality and speculated about barriers yet to fully emerge.
"I'm not running down to City Hall to get a marriage application, because to me it's not a done deal," said James Lockwood-Risi, a Ventura marketing specialist who had his first date with his partner 21 years ago on Earth Day. They've talked about wedding plans, including caterers and songs for the ceremony.
"We've been thinking about it almost as a dream. It's something to plan that we can't really do yet," he said, citing the court ruling. "It brings us a lot closer to it than we've ever been."
But opponents berated the Supreme Court for overturning the Proposition 22 same-sex marriage ban that was approved by 61.4 percent of the state's voters eight years ago.
"I think it's unfortunate that a few people feel so comfortable setting aside the will of the people," said the Rev. Steve Larson of the Evangelical Free Church of the Conejo Valley in Newbury Park. "What they have done is decided it's their right to make law and it's their right to undo what people have voted in.
"It's their right to change the moral fabric of society."
Larson said California's domestic-rights laws give gays and lesbians virtually every right owned by married couples.
"They just want the word," he said, referring to marriage. "The reason they want the word is they don't like the fact that other people think that what they do is wrong. They want to wipe away every distinction, and there is a distinction."
Chris Hooke, a Ventura civil engineer who campaigned for Proposition 22, said perhaps organizers should have crafted the 2000 initiative as a constitutional amendment to shield it from legal challenges.
He argued same-sex marriage creates more situations where children are raised by two moms or two dads, weakening the traditional family unit.
"Any alternative to marriage, or anything that weakens that family, weakens society," he said.
Gay-rights activists say all they want is an end to the days when gay couples are viewed as lesser than heterosexuals. Jay Smith, executive director of the Rainbow Alliance, said the real celebrating won't come until any challenges to the court ruling have been overturned.
"Then we'll drink the bottle of champagne," he said.
The Supreme Court cases were brought in March 2004 by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay-rights group. The court had halted the monthlong issuing of marriage licenses to gay couples in San Francisco, which took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.
Lawyers for the gay couples had asked the court to overturn Proposition 22 as an unconstitutional civil rights violation that domestic partnerships cannot repair. A trial court judge in San Francisco agreed with gay rights advocates and voided the state's same-sex marriage ban in April 2005. A midlevel appeals court overturned his decision in October 2006.
The Supreme Court ruled that the marriage ban is discriminatory, said David Cruz, a constitutional law professor at USC.
"Even though the legal rights of domestic partnerships are almost the same as marriage, the institution doesn't have the same dignity as the institution of marriage," he said of the majority decision.
Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor who wrote a court brief supporting traditional marriage, said an unanswered question is whether other states will honor a California marriage license given to gay couples. He predicted many outside couples will try to use California licenses to challenge laws in their own states.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would have granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a statement that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
Voting to allow same-sex marriages: Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Associate Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, and Carlos R. Moreno.
Dissenting: Associate Justices Marvin R. Baxter, Ming Chin, Carol A. Corrigan.
— The Associated Press contributed to this report.
On the Net: For the complete Supreme Court ruling, go to http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/opinions.cgi.
Posted by high_society on May 16, 2008 at 1:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
China suffered a devastating earthquake and Myanmar a devastating cyclone.
Trust me, there are bigger things in the world to worry about than what the "gays" are doing.
I will never understand why anti-gay people spend so much time trying to argue something that won't directly affect them.
If anything, this will boost the economy.
When the economy is down, people still find money for celebrations.
Imagine the hundreds of thousands of people this will affect directly and indirectly:
-caterers, djs, florists, banquet halls.
For those who can't find a freaking job right now, become a wedding planner for the gays.
People should stop trying to stop them from getting married and try to live a happy life for themselves, because if you aren't happy now, you will never be happy.
Let them enjoy their own life and if you don't like it, move out of state!
Posted by live_for_purpose on May 16, 2008 at 6:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So now I guess it will also be "legal" for close relatives, polygamists, etc. to get "married." What about those into bestiality?
I think the voters will have another say about this in November. That is the way it should be.
Posted by cslaurie on May 16, 2008 at 6:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
NOT CONSTITUTIONAL???? Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would cane the idiots on the California Supreme Court. Washington would have had them shot.
Posted by rdlgallo on May 16, 2008 at 6:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A sad day in the history of CA.
I agree with live_for_purpose. What's next, polygamist, adults marrying children, men marrying multiple men, etc.
Make no mistake, Americas family values are under attack and this is one example of it. The worst thing is that they're also allowed to adopt children. I personally think we as a society are responsible for this, essentially, we gave them a cookie and now they're back for milk.
Personally, I'm glad I moved out of CA.
Posted by lrgvanman on May 16, 2008 at 6:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sad day is right and how sadder than when our elected officials become so corrupt to support immorality. i am disgusted.
Posted by lrgvanman on May 16, 2008 at 6:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
like some other issues: no matter where you go, there they are and we all know they will get it in the end (snicker snicker).
Posted by jamaro099 on May 16, 2008 at 6:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is terrible. How can the courts do this? The impact to me and my family is going to be.....well, actually I don't think it is going to impact us one bit. Hmmm, after the ruling yesterday I went home and it was still standing. Picked-up the kids, they didn't seem tainted or lost. The Mrs. came home and we played with the kids....didn't feel any different. Put the kids to sleep, Went to bed, fooled around(yes, with my wife), woke up, nothing wrong so far.
So why are so many of you upset again?
Posted by BeaHappi on May 16, 2008 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jamaro099...well said. The impact to my family and marriage is...nothing. Well unless we get invited to a gay wedding, which we would gladly attend. :~)
I love the comment that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Oh, so it's better for orphaned kids to be left in whatever 3rd world country or US foster care situation they're in? Better to leave them there than to place them in loving and stable homes? Please, someone help me with that logic.
So much emphasis is placed on the sexual practices of homosexuals. Why is that? It's none of our business. I know that there are plenty of heterosexual couples who are into some pretty weird stuff sexually...but no one brings that up when discussing their marriages. Get over this already!
As long as gay couples are not hurting anyone and are happy, who gives a rat's behind if they are married? I'm happy for them. I really am.
high_society brings up very good points about the recent tragedies in our world. Thousands and thousands of people are dead and missing and the haters here can only be ticked off about marriages that will most likely never affect them.
Now that is sad...
Posted by Ms_California on May 16, 2008 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok what I don't understand is this.. why is it (almost) every males fantasy to see two woman engaged in a sexual act together? But we don't allow same sex marriages? I feel that if two people love each other than what is the big deal? Love is love people! There doesn't seem to be that much of it in the world right now. Let's take it as we can get it and maybe it will spread. Just so you know that most gay couples who adopt end up being the most loving and open parents a child can have with regards to the situation. I would almost bet dollars to pesos that these children who are adopted by gay couples are treated better, loved more and are provided for more than that of the welfare mamma's living on the Avenue! These people actually want children in their lives to love and grow not because they were forced to birth them or want the extra welfare cashola!
Posted by surfchicxo on May 16, 2008 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
EVERYONE DESERVES THE RIGHT TO BE HAPPY....all of you so-called religious people who are showing their disgust for it....my question to u is...Isn't god supposed to be the one to judge? It's not your job. Back off and allow these individuals to be happy!
Posted by BeaHappi on May 16, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ms_California..."welfare mammas living on the Avenue" - that is classic! Nice post!
Posted by Ventura22 on May 16, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The ban was upheld by voters eight years ago by a 61% vote. In all fairness to the voting citizens, They should run the initiative again on this year's election(presidential)when the turnout will be higher and see where society is at as far as accepting gay relationships. This should be done BEFORE we allow the courts to outright overturn a voter approved initiative. Granted that gays do not harm anyone and no crimes are being committed here. There are no drugs involved. The problem is that by allowing the courts to shove things down our throats, they will enact a backlash that will only cause more people to reject gay relationships, therefore setting us back many years.
Posted by jamaro099 on May 16, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ventura, I agree about the potential backlash but I disagree on the idea that the courts are shoving things down our throats. The US constitution describes basic rights that we all are entitled to exercise. We cannot enact laws that violate basic rights.
In my opinion, the courts are simply saying that the gay marraige ban violates those rights.
Posted by Ms_California on May 16, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Bea!
FYI...Ima...friends with KC and Wildflower... remember me?
Posted by garion246 on May 16, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To me marriage is just a shared financial link (responsibility) between individuals, a contract. The questions now arise such as healthcare benefits, retirement and pension sharing, survivor benefits etc. that employers cover for spouses of married employee’s. Also where do we draw the line about who can be married? Sibling? Friends? What is there to stop someone to get married so they can get healthcare benefits? I think the law already says it is between two people so the polygamy issue isn’t a question yet.
You do not get lower taxes by being married.
Is there anything legal that links bedroom activity to marriage? Can you still love someone and be happy without being married?
As for gays, I really don’t want to know what you do in the bedroom and I don’t want to see it in public.
Posted by keem_s on May 16, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We have a chance to correct this travesty on November 8, 2008 when we vote on amending the State Constitution to ban same sex marriages.
Posted by keem_s on May 16, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We have a chance to correct this travesty on November 8, 2008 when we vote on amending the State Constitution to ban same sex marriages.
Posted by hemlock1262 on May 16, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Attention Conservative Wing-nuts.
Yer Hero an Lord and Savyer Bob Barr who wrote the Defense of Marriage Act had this to say about the California court's decision:
"The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.
"Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state.
"The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states' powers should work."
Oh and one other thing -- six of the seven members of the Court are Republicans.
Buh-bye now.
Posted by hemlock1262 on May 16, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As long as we're going to ban things we don't want to see in public, I don't want to see fat white hillbilly ventura county redneck conservative christo-fascists in public. They're a nuisance with their fat behinds and their harley t-shirts and their stupid goatees and their jacked-up pickup trucks. Can we ban them too? It's time to class up the joint.
Posted by ScottinSoCal on May 16, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So why is it that the very same people who scream about their Constitutional rights when it comes to guns, churches and "disciplining" their children are the ones who conveniently forget the Constitution when it's something they don't like?
You can't violate someone else's basic human rights - even if you don't like who they are.
Both the California state and Federal Constitution have been read to mean that marriage is a basic human right, as far back as 1948 and before. Basic human rights aren't up for a vote - and you'd better thank your lucky stars they aren't, or we'd all be without rights eventually.
Posted by christafrankmiller on May 16, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ok...if were going to allow their "basic" rights and freedoms, we need to allow prayer back into our school and the 10 commandments to be posted in public!! this isnt fair for some to have their rights when i dont get mine!! its all or nothing folks...hello!? why is it ok for for "bad" things to be okayed but not things dealing with god or christianity? im confused... my husband is over in afghanistan fighting for what...? so we cant pray in school and illegals dont have to stand and/ or say the pledge of allegiance to the country they want to stay in, and they can have gay clubs at schools, but no bible clubs, i could go on and on...it just sorta seems like we have our priorites mixed up here folks... my uncle is gay and i love him to death...i feel its wrong but im not anti gay!! i just think that we cant let some have the freedoms, but not others... we let illegals have rights that they dont deserve but legal americans get what!!??
Posted by christafrankmiller on May 16, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i want to add that i am dissapointed in our gov.!! he takes the anti gay marriage stance to get into office and then when its election year, he changes!? yet another reason i hate politics... LIARS
Posted by jamaro099 on May 16, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Christa, you have the right to pray to the God you follow, likewise you also have the right to not pray. Prayer in school is not a right because of the separation of church and state.
How would you feel if tomorrow schools announced prayers would be mandatory in public schools?....oh, but you'll pray several times a day, be provided a prayer rug, and be directed to face a certain coordinate.
If we allow prayer in schools, who's prayer?
I do agree that schools should allow students to form social groups based on religion....but the issue is where do you draw the line. If you allow Christians to form an after-school, what about people who worship satan?
Like you said about rights, it is all or nothing.
Posted by latina79 on May 16, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
christafrankmiller-i agree with you 100%, well said.
Posted by mikesmason on May 16, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I can remember long when I was a child in Sunday school being told that the day would come when the world would call evil good and good evil. I thought that to be inconceivable, I argued that surely they were confused.
It's all coming together now.
Posted by del on May 16, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
With a few additions of my own pertaining to the current "Much Ado about Nothing", I offer some words from ol' Lazarus.
Political (Moral/Religious) tags--such as communist, democrat, republican, fascist, liberal, conservative, ANTIGAY MARRIGE, PROGAY MARRIGE and. so forth--are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically, MORALLY/RELIGIOUSLY into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
Posted by BeaHappi on May 16, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ms_California...of course I remember you! Nice to hear from you!
Posted by Mr_E_Man on May 16, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I see that alot of conservatives are upset over the fact that the =state supreme court is responsible for overturning this decision.
Here's something to think about...
One of the reasons the supreme court exists is because all too often, political activists from all sides try to circumvent the constitution by creating voter initiatives that conflict with the constitution. And when people use emotion and divisive language to scare people into voting for these unconstitutional laws, someone needs to step in and clean up the mess.
I, for one, am glad the supreme court showed some backbone here.
As for a November vote, I don't think it would pass. Borderline conservatives are quick to vote against anything that might be considered gay-freindly. But a constitutional change is they don't have the numbers or backing to get away with.
Prop 22 passed with only 61 percent of the vote 8 years ago. Alot more younger and more tolerant voters have come of age since then. And the population of conservative seniors has decreased since then as well.
If the conservatives really want a fight, I'm sure they'll get it. But I don't think they'll be happy with the results.
Posted by holdenon_2000 on May 16, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is something to think about.
Larry King was being guided (instructed because he was young) by other GAYS to express himself, so much that he started sexually harassing other classmates in his school. The GAY alliance has made a poster boy out of this Kid who kept harassing straight boys during school. As a result he was shot. I do not condone the shooting at all, however King actions had been addressed to the school, and his conduct was never punished, because the school feared a "discrimination" law suit. Now the boy is dead. If this had been a straight boy harassing girls, he would have been punished. So you GAY alliance people who pushed King into acting out of line, to support your political beliefs have destroyed the lives of TWO kids. I also think that GAY men are too active with straight men. I have had my but grabbed by a GAY man more than once. They have no right to touch me, but If I were to punch them, I would be considered a bigot or arrested for a hate crime. If a straight men grabbed a girls but, he would be slapped, and the woman would not be arrested. Something is wrong, and if you cant see that, you are retarded.
Posted by christafrankmiller on May 16, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hey jamaro...how bout if its the prayer that this nation was founded on... to the same god they believed in back then that is still god today!! the reason this nation is blessed!! look at history...we strayed from god (the one and only) and things went downhill!! and you know whats sad- when sept 11th happened...suddenly everyone wanted to be buddy buddy with god and needed him...till the worst past then its back to who needs him!?
so..why did they allow prayer in school back then but not now? whats the difference...its still the same constitution...right? oh thats right...cause our kids are the bosses...right!? i forgot...look at the youth of today...god help us all!! another reason i homeschool!!
Posted by christafrankmiller on May 16, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i agree 100% holdenon!!! i have felt that from day 1...thank you for not being afraid to voice that!! it backs my point exactly!! why for some but not all!?
Posted by lthrnek on May 16, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I say, "let em get married! Why should they be happy!"
Let's expand the law so I can marry the Dallas Cheerleaders. . .
Posted by Mr_E_Man on May 16, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting thought holdenon. Too bad its only partly true.
The real truth is that because gays are still treated as second-class citizens, Larry was being harrassed long before he started returning the favor.
By the way, I've known a few Gay Alliance supporters and I can tell you that they are not in the business of training young gays to go out recruiting straights, as you seem to believe.
In fact, most of the gay people I know, I was unaware of their sexual orientation for quite some time before it became apparent to me.
Why? Because unlike unruly "straight" college kids, they keep their hands to themselves.
Posted by LivinInPoorMansPV on May 16, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ms CA
that was by far the best post i have ever seen you write!
Whenever i have read the "bible" (history book/travel guide) i have noticed, there sure are allot of gay people in there.
Posted by tyfys on May 16, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm a pretty conservative Christian and I don't think this is the end of the world. Here is my take...
I live in a country where abortion has been legal since the 70's. IMO abortion is a much bigger issue since human lives are being harmed. Anyone concerned with gay marriage should be fighting harder against abortion. Our country is becoming more and more "liberal" and choosing to turn away from God's laws. However, the constitution and not God’s laws bind our lawmakers. I honestly don't think gay marriage can be banned under the constitution.
While I believe it is in our country's best interest to follow God's laws, we can't force God's laws on a country that espouses the separation of church and state. So, I as a Christian will live in a country that is more and more turning away from God. It is sad to see, but God himself gives people the opportunity to choose him or not.
Posted by holdenon_2000 on May 16, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr E_
You have yet again contradicted yourself twice. First you said that GAY are being treated as second-class. Then you said that you were unaware of your GAY friends preference for quite some time. If everyone else was also unaware, then how would they have been treated as second-class?
Second I never made the claim that GAY are recruiting Straights, you keep putting words in my mouth. I said that King was harassing Straight kids, and regardless if he was being harassed previously or not two wrongs do not make a right.
And I bet I get called a bigot for my beliefs, and you will try to make me out to look like I am filled with Hate. By accusing me of being a bigot or a hater which is not true, you are taking part in name calling that you would not want to see used against GAYs for accepting their beliefs.
Mr E_Man You have called me a "Hater" and "Bigot" in your previous posts. So it is OK to critique Straight men who oppose GAY marriage, but It is not OK to critique GAYs for their beliefs. Seems like your the bigot.
Posted by TheBoldTruth on May 16, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
HAHAHA Some people in Ventura are so stupid. If you were one of those to compared same sex marriage with marriage to an animal, you are stupid.
Marriage requires 3 things:
1. Consent
2. License
3. solemnization
Do you stupids see a problem??? THAT IS RIGHT! ANIMALS CANNOT CONSENT!
As far as your other two arguments: incest is illegal because their offsprings will be retarded (like many of you).
And finally, polygamist ... sure I support the legalization, but why would a Man want to marry 12 wives ... one is already way to expensive.
Ventura, get over yourself.
Posted by jamaro099 on May 16, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
tyfys, how pretty are you? ;-) ha ha ha.
I agree with your post 100%.
christa, I agree that too many people only call on God when they are in trouble. And yes, I believe more people should pray. However, the desire go be in contact with God has to come from within and I don't think mandating prayer in schools is the answer.
Posted by carolyn.crandall on May 16, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I feel so sorry for the ones who hate. Hate is a terrible emotion that only brings people down, causes depression, shortens one's life and inflicts misery everywhere they go. Thank goodness for the intelligent segment of our society that understands that rights are for all people, not just the Bigots. I am proud of my state and the Supreme Court's decision. I hope it prevails against these hate mongers if they are successful in getting it on the ballot this November.
Posted by sca300500 on May 16, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, why arent there this many comments on REAL news stories that impact the majority of readers. This doesnt impact anyone except the gay people who are now able to marry and go through divorce like straight people. A 50% divorce rate hurt the sanctity of marriage, not gay people being allowed to wed..........
It would be nice to see this outrage directed towards the lack of assistance reaching Myanmar. or World Hunger in general, or the genocide in Darfur......but no, lets all go crazy on gay people who want to get married...
Sad....
Posted by shaver_one on May 16, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As I said in another thread:
If a gay person tries to seduce you, smile...say "no thank you, I'm straight", and acknowledge their good taste in people.
Or...
Are you afraid to admit that you might actually enjoy the attention?
And to christafrankmiller: I certainly hope that YOUR significant other is the same religion as you...the same EXACT ethnic background as you (% of a particular country of origin + % of another country of origin)...the same economic profile (before you met) as you...the same color hair as you...the same color eyes as you...the same political bent as you...drives the same make and model of car as you...enjoys the exact same mix of music as you...agrees 100% with everything you say and think.
What a wonderful world it would be if we were all cookie-cutter images of each other.
Yawn!
Posted by shaver_one on May 16, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Please remember that Nazi Germany opposed (among other things) gay-rights. The Soviet Union opposed gay-rights. Iran opposes gay-rights. The KKK opposes gay-rights. Even though his own daughter is a lesbian, Dick Cheney opposes gay-rights.
Posted by shaver_one on May 16, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Catholic Chuch opposes gay-rights...unless, of course, it involves their own priests.
Posted by Mr_E_Man on May 16, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Holdenon,
Your quote - "So you GAY alliance people who pushed King into acting out of line, to support your political beliefs have destroyed the lives of TWO kids"
you openly accuse Gay Alliance of "pushing" King into acting out to support their political beliefs.
No, I'm not putting words into your mouth. I'm just watching you put your foot into your mouth and calling you on it.
And as for contradicting myself, um no.
Knowing someone's sexuallity has nothing to do with how they are treated by society. By telling an entire section of the population that they are not welcome to participate in something simply because YOU don't agree with it IS treating them as second class citizens.
Its no different than telling people they can't own land because of their race, skin color, sexual orientation, etc.
Posted by BeaHappi on May 16, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think that everyone posting here, regardless of what side you're on, should take a moment to say a prayer (or send a thought) to the Goodrich family of Santa Paula. Their beautiful little boy was taken from them yesterday and after seeing his picture and reading the story it's the only thing I can think of.
The thought of losing one of my children is something that I cannot bare. The most important thing in this crazy world of ours is to show love and compassion. Lord only knows there's not enough of that.
We're never going to agree on everything, thank goodness. For the most part I think that people...straight and gay alike...are just doing their best to live their lives.
Now say that prayer for little Charles Goodrich. And if you have kids of your own remember to hold them a little tighter, closer, longer.
Posted by tyfys on May 16, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just a little observation here...
Plenty of hate speech and self righteousness coming from BOTH sides. What happened to tolerance?
Posted by joefox on May 16, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VERY COOL NOW I CAN MARRY MY HIGH SCHOOL BUDDY AND WE CAN SMOKE POT!!!!!! BOTH LEGAL IN CALIFORNIA!!!!!
Posted by shaver_one on May 16, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Go for it, joefox.
as the Vulcans say:
"Live long and prosper."
Posted by joefox on May 16, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well the pot thing I will need because of some medical reason to deal with my high school buddy!
I don't think it should be mariage maybe name it life partnership this could make the church's happy!
The word Mariage should be a church trademark just like SuperBowl belongs to football only!
Posted by christafrankmiller on May 16, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
shaver...you must not have read my post...im not saying everyone has to be the same...im not anti gay- im not saying anything about being against this bill!!! im just saying- if they get these rights...I WANT MINE!!! my kids should be able to pray in public school...if you want to be in this country, you should HAVE to stand and say the pledge of allegiance...even if you dont agree...is it going to kill you!? just as gay marriage isnt going to kill me!! talk about tolerance!! if they say a prayer in class and your kids have to sit there..is it going to kill them? NO- they probably wont even listen to it- they dont anything else anyone says!! who knows it might be the best thing that ever happened to them!! my whole point is- you cant give one group rights and not another...and for some odd reason its only christianity that is banned and picked on!! another example...were taking kids away from people becuase they have multiple mom and dads and they get married young, yet well give kids to families with two dads or two moms...? dont get me wrong...my uncle would be an amazing dad...he is a wonderful loving uncle..even more so than my straight uncles...its just the whole point AGAIN its ok for one group but not another!?
Posted by Ms_California on May 16, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well thank you LivinInPoorMansPV... I try...
christafrankmiller, you keep mentioning "prayer in schools" do you honestly know exactly how many DIFFERENT religious backgrounds Ventura has? If everyone wanted prayer in school there would be no learning... there isn't enough time in the day. I am sure that you wouldn't want little Johnny learning about Jahovah? Why because it isn't your religion. Your God isn't everyone's God so you can't use that as an argument nor is it relevant to this issue. I mean really what does God have to do with being gay and married? Better yet... who made these people be gay?
OH YEAH GOD! God is the creator correct..
Posted by tyfys on May 16, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
cristafrankmiller--
I thank God they don't allow prayer in schools. The last thing I want from my kid's liberal teachers is for them to include "prayer" in their daily lesson.
I pray to God that the same constitution that will allow Gay marriage will also protect my right to worship in the coming years as our country becomes more and more hostile to Christians.
Face it--we are in the world but not of the world. For many years Christians enjoyed the blessings of living in a country that embraced God's law. Now the tables are turning. Thank God we live in America where our right to worship freely is protected.
Posted by holdenon_2000 on May 16, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr E Man
When King was questioned about wearing dresses to school (a disruption to school) by guidance counselors, he said he was encouraged to express himself by his GAY peers. Sounds like he was pushed into bringing attention upon himself by his peers. Have you followed the case, or are you commenting on things you don't know. Go take some E, kick it with you GAY friends and pretend that your know everything. Im sure you can trick yourself into believing you are better than everyone else, however everything you have stated is wrong about treating GAYs, you are also participating in (name calling, & false accusations)
Posted by holdenon_2000 on May 16, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think they have the right to love whomever. Marriage in the United States was always between a Man and Women, until recently. Our laws that provide benefits (yes you will get a tax credit if your GAY partner is not working, you can claim them a a dependent and get a tax break) for Marriage, were made with the intent of supporting a healthy family. The housing credit the military gives for married families is intended to provide more house for a family. I don't think that the reason for any benefits was to support someones love for another. I will openly support GAY marriage, as long as GAY relationships are not supported by my tax dollars. Here is a prime example Man number 1 makes 75K per year, He sees that by getting married to his unemployed friend, he can use them as a dependent, and get the $1,000 tax credit per year, Over 20 years this is $20,000 that he avoided paying in taxes, by marrying his friend (lovers or not). Now the unemployed friend will benefit by sharing the medical insurance that the working mans employer provides, costing non GAY families more in health care to support, a man who may never had gotten married had the benefits not been there.
The first thing a GAY person says when a straight person disagrees with them, is your are filled with hate. Not true I don't hate GAYS, I just don't approve GAY relationships being given the same value as a relationship that can naturally bear children.
Who ever said SEX does not create the miracle of life, is a fool. Science is simulating SEX. So science is performing straight SEX in order to create life. So even science concludes that GAY sex will never support life.
Where does it stop, can I marry with my cousin? It really does not hurt anyone else, or involve anyone else, and if we decided not to have children, the claim that our children could be deformed, is not valid. So now we should let Cousins, Brothers, Sisters, marry each other, since the constitution states that a marriage is between two people. If GAY marriage is allowed then we must approve inter-family marriage as well.
Posted by Kreemac70 on May 16, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think I might throw up now.
I think our society needs to focus on violent criminals, drug pushers, and the overall safety of our individual communities.
I do not support same sex anything....however, if they aren't hurting anyone, selling something illegal or jeopardizing the safety of the community in which they live, I say, "Live and let live".
My late cousin always told me, "It is what it is...And there you go". Kind of a simple thought process, but it sure beats freaking out over things that aren't really going to effect me.
Posted by Ms_California on May 16, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
holdenon, I don't understand your comment related to taxes... you can say the same of a man and a woman. Many years now woman have been the homemakers and not working, so by your descriptions above this scenerio could be true of heterosexual couples, correct? consider this...a wife is unemployeed and thus bring in the $1000 tax deduction.. oh wait now she has 3 little children which also are now tax deductions? Same situation just different piping on the parties involved. In case you didn't already know, some insurance companies do pay/offer benefits to live in partners, straight and gay. What about the people who marry for citizenship?
As for the topic of creating life.. if a woman is baren does that conclude that she should/can not marry? Because she cannot produce offspring? Based on you theories, sex is only for procreation correct? I bet you have never had recreational sex before.
Marriage is a union between 2 people who love each other and want to share their lives together. Who cares what their sexual orientation is.
Posted by christafrankmiller on May 16, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ms_ california... god didnt make gay people- its a choice!! but thats another topic!! it IS relevant...for the last time...say it with me... IF WE ARE GOING TO GIVE SOME PEOPLE RIGHTS (GAYS THE RIGHT TO MARRY)...WE HAVE TO GIVE OTHERS THEIR RIGHTS...WHATEVER THAT BE!!
i was using the prayer in schools because thats my whole point- its ok for immoral acts and corruption, but its not ok for anything moral or positive to be a right!! now i dont believe in polygamy at all, but we are raising hell in this community because its a "cult" and wrong (in our opinions), but what is the difference in gay parents!? oh...thats right cause of the religion part!! are you seeing my point now? im not trying to make everyone religious...but if im expected to be tolerant...be tolerant of me!! why is it such a problem to pray in schools nowadays but it wasnt 75 years ago!? they had the same religions back then as they do now...people just accepted it...i dont care who you pray to and if you want to say a prayer in my class- go for it... im not getting your point...i am totally open to my kids learning about all of the different gods...they make their own choices for religion...we go to our church but im not nieve in thinking theyre going to go the path i go...i hope they do but i cant make them. they know that people believe differently than we do!! i didnt say god had anything to do with people being gay!! i was merely stating that im tired of god being taken out of everything when i have my freedom to worship as i choose..isnt that why the pilgrims left england anyway...and now its being taken away!!
Posted by shaver_one on May 16, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
christafrankmiller:
Who's prayer would you mandate (Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Wicka)?
Would you punish those that chose not to participate (either from being a different faith, or not of any faith)?
How would you weed out those zealous teachers that would DEMAND that every child participate (and, don't be fooled...there ARE those types of teachers)?
Pray all you want. That's your choice. Let your kids pray at school, on their own time. That's their choice (or, yours...considering that they are minors). Just don't presume to take my child's learning time, in school, to practice your faith.
As the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court have stated, Organized Religion belongs in Houses of Worship...or the home...but not in public schools. You want Organized Religion is school, send your kids to a parochial school.
Nobody is talking about the Pledge of Allegiance...except for the fact that Eisenhower inserted "under god" into it, in the 1950s, spurred on by a Presbyterian minister, in a clear attempt to suggest that, at least to these two, America was united under one Christian God...thus making the Pledge, a prayer. That 'suggestion' wasn't true then. It isn't true now. Making the Pledge mandatory is a violation of the First Amendment.
Posted by Ms_California on May 16, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
christafrankmiller ...Ok you state you want your freedom to choose and that it is an issue for you... so why should we not allow those that are gay to choose to be married to the one they love? They already live together and yes, have sex! So why does it bother you that the law will have proof of their union now? You make no sense and no point here. I don't want prayer in school. If you are religious teach it in the privacy of your own home. Don't force it on others as you are here. I don't want to be preached to about "your God" I have my own beliefs and they may not be those of yours. Who is to say which religion is taught in school? Back 75+ years ago the religious community was not as diverse as it is now. Most people practiced Christianity. Not today. People have changed and evolved. People have chosen to forgoe the Sunday morning mass to pray and worship as they please. We have had gay's in our world the entire existance of life...if you think they just popped up within the last few years you are sheltered and need to get your nose out of the bible and see life for what it really is.
And to your comment about gay being a choice, that isn't true. You are who you are and that happens in creation my dear. Just as the color of your hair and eyes are determined at creation. People don't just wake up one day and say "hey, I think I will be gay today!" It is deep inside from the very beginning.
Posted by shaver_one on May 16, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Violation of the First Amendment meaning freedom of speech and expression, as well as freedom from a government sanctioned national religion.
Posted by keem_s on May 16, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What rational reason is ther to allow gay marriage but not allow polygamy? Anyone got an answer?
Posted by keem_s on May 16, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What rational reason is ther to allow gay marriage but not allow polygamy? Anyone got an answer?
Posted by jamaro099 on May 16, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Christa,
On the whole school and prayer thing...are you saying kids should have a right to pray in school, like during their lunch break? Or are you saying the school should integrate prayer as part of the curriculum?
If a child wants to go off and pray during lunch or recess I say go for it. But it is not okay to have it part of the curriculum because with all the religions no learning would take place.
You have the right to free speech, and you have the right to believe or not believe in a God or other being.
Just like you don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater if it isn't true, we do not have the right to expect the Government to set aside time for prayer. That is a personal matter.
So I do not see your point about not being able to exercise your rights.
Posted by Mr_E_Man on May 16, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
holdenon,
Being told to express yourself and being told to wear dresses to school are two very different things.
And yes, I've read just as much about it as you have. I sincerely apologize for your inability to make any reasonable point thus far.
Debating with you is like arguing policy with an appalachian banjo player.
I'll tell you what... Go educate yourself, read some books, develop a basic understanding of the constitution and gather some real facts. Then we can have a debate.
I can't believe you're still arguing that "marriage is for raising families" thing.
I guess the 20+ million married couple in the U.S. without kids should be forced to rescind their marriages too right?
Please stop. If you make me laugh any harder, I'm liable to express myself all over my keyboard.
Posted by christafrankmiller on May 16, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ok well... im not going to argue anymore about something well never agree on- you exercise your freedoms at the expense of my family and ill exercise mine...
everyone will be accountable on judgement day..like it or not...
have a nice weekend!! : )
Posted by christafrankmiller on May 16, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
noone will answer it keem!! i keep trying...
Posted by shaver_one on May 16, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As long as you can support them, I say marry as many women, or men as you like...except for children and relatives...unless you live in Alabama.
Posted by keem_s on May 16, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah I keep asking but no one will answer.
Posted by Ms_California on May 16, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
keem....
I may have a response to your polygamy question. Polygamy is based on power, power being the alfa male who has nothing better to do them spread his seed into as many submissive woman as possible to make himself feel better for his short comings. It is S & M at it's finest. These people are incapable of love and loving one person and being manogamous. There is a big difference between marriage of 2 and marriage of 10! Not to mention christa's god says don't covent thy neighbor....
Posted by shaver_one on May 16, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Of course, the partners in any polygymous relationship must all be in agreement.
Posted by Ms_California on May 16, 2008 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
yeah right shaver... that's like saying an abused wife must life getting the $h!t beat out of her cuz she allows it. I would not want to be in either of those situations. I am woman hear me ROAR haha.
Posted by christafrankmiller on May 16, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ms_california...since you know so much about my god and want to throw that in there- like you follow my god- it also says homosexuality is a sin...now what!?
and who cares what polygamists do with their lives right!? isnt that what were preaching here...tolerance!? again hypocrite
Posted by Ms_California on May 16, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah christa..... No one is preaching tolerance except you. We are discussing same sex marriages and the right to them. Doesn't your god also says that sex before marriage is a sin.. so should she shun the children born out of wedlock? What about those who are not married but live their lives together? I am pretty sure they are having sex!
I believe there is also a law in one of our glorious states that says it is against the law to walk down the street eating an ice cream cone... see how stupid logical things sound?
Oh and the polygamy comment was a wise crack. I'm sorry you didn't get it.
Posted by BeaHappi on May 16, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't care if polygamists have more than one wife...as long as they are all willing participants.
It's not for me but think of the benefits of multiple wives (for the other wives)...laundry always done, house always clean, meals made, shopping done...the whole 'divide and conquer' thing! :~)
I know quite a few gay people and not one of them "chose" to be gay. Their earliest memories are of them feeling different and being different. To me homosexuality is not something that you agree with or don't agree with. It's like saying you don't agree with people born with red hair or green eyes or short people or tall people.
Pologomy is a choice; being gay or not being gay is who you are. HUGE difference.
Posted by BeaHappi on May 16, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
...oops! Polygamy, not pologamy.
Posted by Ms_California on May 16, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bea, I didn't even think about the housekeeping! I always wished I had more arms but hey that is even better... not to mention when your not in the mood, one of the other gals is sure to be! Gets ya off the hook there too! What a concept!
Posted by Mr_E_Man on May 16, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hadn't thought of that. Hey, if the wife is cool with it, do Bea and Ms_C want come over later?
Posted by Ms_California on May 16, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. E .... I don't do windows! haha
Posted by BeaHappi on May 16, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ms_California...just goes to show that good things can come from having an open mind! I thought about the other "benefit" you listed but didn't want to freak ppl out too much by bringing it up. But I'm glad that you did!
I think the part that would bug me the most about the polygamy thing is the clothes that those women wear. What the??? That could be more religion-based but wow, that in and of itself turns me off.
So maybe if I do ever decide to give the ol' polygamy a try it'll be with normal clothes. No long dresses, hair in a bun, make-up free faces for our "blended" home!
Posted by vcmann on May 16, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
how come nobody is at work today? (or are you?)
Posted by BeaHappi on May 16, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr E...slow down mister. Let's have everyone get used to the idea of same-sex marriage and then we can start the Ventura County Chapter of Polygamy!
Truth be told since I work FT I probably need to brush up on my domestic skills!
Posted by BeaHappi on May 16, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
vcmann...are you at work today?
Posted by Mr_E_Man on May 16, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh well, it was worth a shot. But if you change your mind, I have a push mower.
Posted by vcmann on May 16, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
yes, I do windows!
Posted by shaver_one on May 16, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
christafrankmiller:
At 1:02 this afternoon, you said you would stop arguing. What are you still doing here?
:<}
Posted by christafrankmiller on May 16, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
not arguing shaver!!! just watching and laughing at stupidity at its best... thats my right isnt it!? i didnt say i was leaving..i said i was done arguing so if you dont mind...ill get back to my amusement...thanks for noticing : )
Posted by vcmann on May 16, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh leave the poor thing alone, it's a free world! (-:
Posted by shaver_one on May 16, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Polygomy doesn't necessarily involve long dresses, hair in a bun, make-up free faces, or wife beating.
You don't have to be religious to be in a loving 'multi-faceted' relationship...whether it be polygomy, hetero marriage, gay marriage, or no marriage. As long as you love each other, and treat each other with R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Posted by BeaHappi on May 16, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"As long as you love each other, and treat each other with R-E-S-P-E-C-T."
Amen to that shaver_one. Finally! Something we should all be able to agree on! :~)
Posted by hemlock1262 on May 16, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hard Facts:
1. 6 out of 7 California Supreme Court judges are Republicans
2. 7 out of 7 California Supreme Court judges were approved by 60% to 80% of voters in their most recent election, a better record than George W. Bush
3. Bob Barr, author of the Defense of Marriage Act, approves of this court decision.
Posted by keem_s on May 16, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Are you actually saying all polygamy is S&M, wow that's a stretch don' tyou think? AS many have pointed out, adults who willingly agree to this, why can't they? Please come up with some more S&M crap, its a hoot!
Posted by yayo13 on May 16, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
why cant guys marry guys or girls marry girls.
No one in this world has the right nor the proof that one person's morals are correct. its a fact that humans are humans no matter dick or vagina. why do all these people who are so against marrages get into other peoples business so much. this has nothing to do with the government or your children or anything like that. its PERSONAL. how would these so called "perfect" people with all these great morals and oppinions feel if someone were to judge them so publically about their hederosexual marrage..
Im not gay but im right there with all of the men and women who are cheering you on. Theres absolutly nothing that any of us are doing wrong. thats straight up descrimination and the government is allowing it to happen
Posted by keem_s on May 16, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's say I'm a bisexual female and I want to marry one of each, why can't I?
Alfa females OK with you MS Calif?
Posted by moyalva2003 on May 16, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
well at least them gays find out the hard way that how being married sucks.
Posted by holdenon_2000 on May 16, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr E Man
You keep agreeing with me but say you don't. "Being told to express yourself and being told to wear dresses to school are two very different things." by making this statement you are agreeing that he should not have worn a dress to school, or should not have been advised to wear a dress, otherwise you would not have made the comparison. I agree Boys should not wear a dress to school.
Again you result to name calling, however you dislike name calling towards gays. Then you justify King sexual harassing boys, because he was harassed. OK makes no sense.
And because I don't agree with you you assume I am not educated. I bet I have a better education, career, and read much more than you. Put some money where your mouth is.
And I see your point about +20 million who are married and do not have children, but that does not change the intent of the law makers when these laws, and benefits were created. My point is that the benefits were not intended to help people in love, but intended to help families.
True that many adoptions by gays are probably putting children in better homes than welfare mothers. But that is like comparing apples and oranges. Instead lets compare the stability of a Child raised in a gay loving family, with the mental stability of a child raised in a Straight loving family. Or even better lets compare children adopted by gays with children adopted by straight couples. That would be a good comparison. I searched for studies but could not find any.
My argument still stands, the government made the benefits of marriage with the intent of raising families. Since the only way gays can raise a family together is by simulating Straight Sex, or by adoption, why should these benefits be granted to a group of people who will most not have children.
Here are some stats from UCLA: http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinsti...
Household characteristic Same-sex couples
with children
Average number of children 1.9
Average age of parents 37.5
Percentage of children under 5 years of age 31%
Percentage of children who are adopted 5%
This tells me that most of the children in this study were born into a straight relationship (Father and Mother) So the gays raising children had straight sex in order to have children. Otherwise 95% of the children would have come from artificial insemination. And since 31% of these are under 5 years old that tells me that the Mother or Father most likely just recently had a change in sexual preference.
Cant make up your mind?
Confused?
Bi-sexual?
These confused people make up the majority of gays, so they don't even know if they are gay, or not.
Posted by BeaHappi on May 16, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"So the gays raising children had straight sex in order to have children."
...or in the case of lesbian couples, one or both of the women could have been artificially inseminated in order to have a child. Thus not adopting but not having straight sex either.
Posted by Mr_E_Man on May 16, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Honestly, holdenon, I think you have serious comprehension issues. Like all your previous comments, just about everything you say is based on false assumptions.
Here, let me spell out my statement for you in simple words. I'll go slow for you.
King was not advised to wear a dress to school. He was advised to express himself. I never said whether I thought it was right or wrong.
I also did not try to justify his supposed harrasment of the other kid. I was merely informing you of what led up to it.
And now you claim that gays with children are somehow confused about their sexual orientation based on statistics that say nothing of the sort.
In the same sentence you say that these "confused" parents make up the majority of gays, despite the fact that gay parents are a small percentage of the overall gay population.
Here's a quote from you... "Since the only way gays can raise a family together is by simulating Straight Sex, or by adoption"
What the heck does "simulating" sex have to do with raising families? I actually laughed out loud at that one. That is like trying to compare changing a tire with the act of driving.
I'm sorry, but like I said before... Come back when you have something meaningful to contribute.
To the rest of you. Good night. It's been a good discussion.
Posted by lakerboy805 on May 16, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No gays on the Lakers that's all I ask..
Posted by Tom_Johnston on May 16, 2008 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I tried to post here earlier in the day, but it didn't take...have to admit, I skimmed over the post, but one caught my eye....
holdenon_2000 on May 16, 2008 at 4:05 pm
"My argument still stands, the government made the benefits of marriage with the intent of raising families."
Uhmm...from what I've read, the role of "government" when it came to "State" approval of a marriage via a State License was not to foster the raising of children, but rather to prevent black and white races from intermingling (and I suppose Asian, Middle Eastern and Native American too).
If the issue is, that the State has an interest in fostering "marriages" that follow on to building family units....well, given the divorce rate..the State has grossly failed.
The benefits of "marriage" as established by the State, have far more to do with inheritance, accountabilty, and responsibilty for another persons life...or the establishment of a person who is enabled to make decisons when a "spouse/partner" is unable to express their viewpoint.....as in medical decisions, tax liabiltiy and so forth.
The crux of "holdenon_2000"'s argument seems to be that marriage exists to foster a good environment to raise children...I don't think the reality bears that out.
It seems to me that folks who profess to be concerned with the welfare off children should be arguing for, at least, universal health coverage for children.
Posted by onapproach on May 16, 2008 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I just think it sounds really nasty. Yuck!
Posted by chili_con_artcarne on May 16, 2008 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am TOTALLY AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE!!!!
Haven't these people suffered enough?!
Posted by Pogmothoin on May 18, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jesus was gay.
Posted by jill on May 18, 2008 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good for them! It's about time they had the same rights as everyone else.
A suggestion for gay couples: Don't overdue the public displays of affection. It is such a turnoff. Not because you're gay. Overdoing it in public, straight or gay, is a turnoff, but it would be to your benefit to tone it down and stop the over-the-top gay parades. There aren't heterosexual parades with people parading around half naked. Let's face it, everyone has sex. Just have a little dignity and stop the in-your-face behavior. Maybe homophobics will back off.
Posted by Pogmothoin on May 18, 2008 at 6:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Damn, I love those parades.
Posted by jill on May 18, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, those parades are pretty hilarious, but very juvenile. If any person or group wants to be taken seriously and given respect, they really should be respectful of others and refrain from offending other people.
Posted by Fred on May 19, 2008 at 12:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here we go again - right at election time the old fear tactic.
"vote republican or the gay terrorists will get you"
(please pay no attention to the fact that you are getting billed for a war at 12B per month, prices are rising quickly and you are broke, and your house aint worth a third of what you thought it was)
George W McCain will save you from homo terrorists, not that black guy!!!!
Posted by keepermel on May 19, 2008 at 5:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Christa, I applaud your attempt at showing the unbalace there is towards the rights of Christians. I had been trying on the other story line myself. In every reply to both yourself and my posts, they prove our point. They argue that our ideas of things are wrong and messed up. Now it is ok, even applauded by others to condem Christian beliefs, but we can not voice our point that we believe that their ideas are wrong. They can force their "ideas", "beliefs", or "agandas" into the public schools. Text books even get changed to enter their ideas. Everyone has the right to make their own choices but not everyone has the right to get what they want. And as far as prayer in school....no my child can not bow their head and pray over their lunch at school. They are accused of "forcing it on other children". So are people sugesting that they have to hide thier religious beliefs? Just like you are all upset that gay people have been forced to hide their beliefs because of the way they have been treated? Again...ok for everyone else to do as they like, but not the Christians. Laws have been made to stop my choices and laws have been made to give you more choices. That is why there is anger and distain. No hate to the individuals who make those choices....just to the fact that those choices have more rights than my choices. I don't believe in yours and you don't believe in mine should make it a wash. Not that you have more right to disagree with mine.
Posted by patticakepatti on May 19, 2008 at 6:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
good post Tom_Johnston, I totally agree. If you have the time, read Holdeon_2000's posts from the other article on Gay marriages, he makes no sense. He compares gay marriages to child molestor's and relatives getting married, he has no clue.
Holdenon_2000 said: "Instead lets compare the stability of a Child raised in a gay loving family, with the mental stability of a child raised in a Straight loving family." Is he now leading us to believe that all families with a female "mother" and male "father" are all "loving?" Wasn't Charles Manson from a loving family? Ted Bundy?
Children who come from "gay" families, in my opinion, are much stronger and better equipped to deal with the world because they've had to put up with people like "holdenon_2000" and the ignorance they lend to our society.
Going by holdenon_2000's beliefs alone, he must be in a heterosexual marriage with children. Now that really scares ME! We are going to have little mini-me holdenon_2000's running around believing his warped philosophy's are truth.....what kind of mental stability are these children going to be dealing with???
People like holdenon_2000 hear what they want to hear, see what they want to see....everything is black and white and god forbid you don't do things exactly as they are suppose to be done! Who's to say anyone is doing anything properly in this very messed up world? Perhaps if the right wing conservatives of the world could stop being such flippin control freaks and open up their eyes to see that the world is not just black and white, we could all get along....
(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.