California Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage

[sawblade]

Still makes me wanna puke! How Sick! I guess all you homosexuals can thank your mom and dad for not being homosexual!

[Christina]

Jeff wrote:

This is a sad day for California, and one more reason why Northern California needs to break loose and form a new state. These are not our values. Otherwise expect a mass exodus of decent families who find they can no longer shield their children from California's ubiquitous cultural sewer. Californians, we have become a national freak show.

You are making comments that cannot be substantiated with any evidence whatsoever. When you say, "these are not our values," to whom are you referring to? Certainly not the Republican judges who voted for equal rights two days ago, and certainly not those in our state that support equal rights. You are welcome to your own opinions (even if they're laughable), but NEVER assume you speak for anyone else. You certainly do not speak for me, an educated Republican supporting equal rights.

[Christina]

Dob wrote:

I still don't like the fact that the word "gay" was stolen by the homosexual comunity for their own. This is messing with another's heritage and history. Sorry if you that sounds bigoted, I think not. What are kids thinking today when they study the "Gay 90s"?
Second.
I AM TIRED OF GROUPS OF PEOPLE DEMANDING SPECIAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS. THIS IS ALL TO BENEFIT THE ATTORNEYS AND THE COURTS.
Say goodby to more of our liberties and hello to more big government intusions and the costs associated with it.
Three.
Today, marriage for homosexuals, tomorrow; Do you Harriet take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband? Moooo!

How does the ruling benefit attorneys and the courts? Do explain.

So, you are claiming that the LGBT community is trying to get "special rights." Well, did all of those heterosexual couples getting married ruffle your feathers because of their "special rights" to get married? I didn't think so. EQUAL RIGHTS are not special rights, they are simply rights that should be extended to any person. Do you realize the same argument against "special rights" was made in the 50s, etc. to support SEGREGATION? Or, maybe ignorant people like you still think racial equality is a "special right."

[Christina]

sawblade wrote:

<quoted text> Makes me wanna PUKE! How sick! Sure am glad Adam did not do Abe! How gross! Is this what you want for Chico??? A bunch of homo's running around downtown?????

Man, you've got a sick mind: I am pretty sure Adam would not "do" Abel because Abel was his son in the story.

[ChicoLibertarian]

To Bible Basher wrote:

<quoted text>John 3:19 states "This is the
judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and
men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for
their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil
hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for
fear that his deeds will be exposed." Have you ever
thought that the reason you hate the Light is because
you love the darkness? Darkness blinds. The Bible
says that he who walks in darkness does not know
where he is going because the darkness has blinded
his eyes. You may consider us Bible believers crazy,
but we know where you're headed if you don't believe.

Put your bible down, take your blinders off and go out into the real world. I suppose the bible is your crutch to help your poorly developed mind deal with reality, but that doesn't mean that we all need it. Please stop pushing your bible on us. Mmmmkay?

[Christina]

Just a Question wrote:

How common do you think it will be that two friends (guys or girls) who get married just in order to reap the benefits that a married couple gets? I.E. health insurance, tax breaks, tuition incentives, etc.

The rate will probably be the same rate as any guy and girl marrying now for the tax benefits. Are you assuming friends can only consist of two dudes and two girls? Also remember, the California marriage decision only affects STATE rights, not federal tax incentives, etc.

[Christina]

Dob wrote:

I still don't like the fact that the word "gay" was stolen by the homosexual comunity for their own. This is messing with another's heritage and history. Sorry if you that sounds bigoted, I think not. What are kids thinking today when they study the "Gay 90s"?
Second.
I AM TIRED OF GROUPS OF PEOPLE DEMANDING SPECIAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS. THIS IS ALL TO BENEFIT THE ATTORNEYS AND THE COURTS.
Say goodby to more of our liberties and hello to more big government intusions and the costs associated with it.
Three.
Today, marriage for homosexuals, tomorrow; Do you Harriet take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband? Moooo!

Your last comment should be submitted to a book on logic...it's a fabulous example of slippery-slope fallacy! I'm serious dude, publishers do need those kind of fallacy examples!

[Now Thats Teamwork]

ChicoLibertarian wrote:

<quoted text>
Put your bible down, take your blinders off and go out into the real world. I suppose the bible is your crutch to help your poorly developed mind deal with reality, but that doesn't mean that we all need it. Please stop pushing your bible on us. Mmmmkay?

Sounds like you're getting a
bit touchy, poorly developed mind, oh really. The
Bible is reality Mr or is that Ms? You will see.

[Christina]

ThePlague wrote:

Oh My God or is there one out there paying any attention?,I gues the days of Protecting our children are officially over, Dont go calling me narrow minded,there is no way a man should be with another man,How can that be right.I know I am not gay as I hate Poop.hate it when it gets on my fingers while wipping,the nasty smell it exudes and the bacteria it produces,so hey its ok to have analcourse as long as you dont mind the stinch or possible diseases,And how will children be born if women are not having a man give sperm.?this is totally screwed up ,so who voted in these judges and if they can veto the mexican drivers law we all passed why not veto this rediculous and completely disgracefull Law ,now we will be seeing men engaged in kissing and more in our local parks and other public hangings just how will this look in the childrens eyes. poor lil johnny will be so confused when he sees 2 men tongue kissing ,hope dad goes over and Punches them in the Head.Dont be open unless your willing to risk some parent wanting to kill your Phag azz.Veto this law today.

So, you think heterosexuals only have missionary style man-on-top procreative sex? Ahem, children are not born from male-female oral or anal sex as well.

Also, if you knew anything about the judicial system, you would know that the law in question cannot be vetoed. It is not an act of legislation, it is a court ruling.

RE: "poor lil johnny will be so confused when he sees 2 men tongue kissing ,hope dad goes over and Punches them in the Head."

What an incredibly hateful statement. You should apologize to the children for fostering hateful rhetoric. I am concerned about children growing up around people that believe in violence...what a shame, what an un-Christian shame!

(I'm serious, you do need to apologize...)

[steveg]

thank you wrote:

i personally am not a lesbian woman, but i have friends who are, and i am so thankful the california supreme court is now allowing them to form a legal union! thank you!

So I ask you what did they gain?

[Don]

Christina wrote:

<quoted text>
Man, you've got a sick mind: I am pretty sure Adam would not "do" Abel because Abel was his son in the story.

This is sawblade's story, and obviously since he thought of it, it's a personal problem of his. Many people read all the same stuff, he's the ONLY one who made incest of it. Guess what's on his mind? NObody else put it there!

[Don]

steveg wrote:

<quoted text>
So I ask you what did they gain?

If you have to ask you obviously don'e understand the issue. Google "gay rights" and educate yourself.

[Christina]

Don wrote:

<quoted text>
This is sawblade's story, and obviously since he thought of it, it's a personal problem of his. Many people read all the same stuff, he's the ONLY one who made incest of it. Guess what's on his mind? NObody else put it there!

Exactly my point Don.

[steveg]

I still contend Iran has a handle on this issue.

[Nutjub]

If we are going to allow homo marriage, why not allow a man and a dog? Or a woman and a plastic cucumber? Besides, how is the Fed gov going to react to this? It WILL take an act of congress to change the way the IRS and every other gov angency deal with the homo thing. And just because 2 states have allowed this, what makes everone think the rest of the US will except it?

[ChicoLibertarian]

Nutjub wrote:

If we are going to allow homo marriage, why not allow a man and a dog? Or a woman and a plastic cucumber?

Probably because neither a dog nor a plastic cucumber are human beings. They don't have human rights, now do they?

Nutjub wrote:

And just because 2 states have allowed this, what makes everone think the rest of the US will except it?

First the word is "accept" and guess what? As goes California, so goes the nation. In 10 years a majority of the states will be in line with this ruling.

Nutjub? More like Nutjob.

[Smilodon]

ChicoLibertarian wrote:

<quoted text>
Probably because neither a dog nor a plastic cucumber are human beings. They don't have human rights, now do they?
<quoted text>
First the word is "accept" and guess what? As goes California, so goes the nation. In 10 years a majority of the states will be in line with this ruling.
Nutjub? More like Nutjob.

I thought it was all about the "Love" and "commetment" of the relationship that mattered, not who or what is in the relatonship. If at least one is human, then they have a "Right" to married under this ruling. If the happy "couple" can prove that there is a commitment and that at least one loves the other, then they should have a right to join together in holy matrinony, right? These people are making a mockery of marriage.
As for everyone following Cals lead, that may have been true a long time ago but Cal has gone off the deep end. Those of us who know this is wrong, will fight to stop it. Just because you say something is okay, doesn't make it okay.

[tiredofthesos]

And, dear Bible literalist, we know where you and the rest of us are headed no matter what we believe or what we do.

The difference is that some of us - none likely to have ever believed in such a ridiculously pitiful lie as biblical inerrancy - still have a life to live, stretching toward the human and (there) illusory but spiritually rewarding goals of greater knowledge of what truly is, deeper honesty about what we are, and improved attempts at widening the experience of beauty.

I wouldn't trade ten minutes of my own modest (and now troubled by minor misfortune) life for all the self-deceiving pleasure - or terror - that your empty abuse of the Testaments, Old & New, has produced.

May YOUR heart awaken to the value of this mortal coil, while you still - I'll exaggerate here - possess it.
Blessed be.

[axon]

The Economist magazine had a wonderful obituary to Mildred Loving in this week's edition. Loving was a black woman who married a white man in Virginia when that was illegal there. Over time she and her husband prevailed in their challenge to that law, and now interracial marriage is commonplace, and no one but avowed bigots objects to it.

It's a matter of time until same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land. The misguided fools clamoring for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage will hoist on their own petard when it goes the other way, and marriage becomes guaranteed in the constitution as a right for all citizens regardless of their orientation. Bet on it.

It's about fairness. It's about justice. It's about time.

Alan Chamberlain
[e-mail]