Gay-marriage debate returns to San Fr...

Gay-marriage debate returns to San Francisco

There are 17 comments on the Long Beach Press-Telegram story from Jan 9, 2010, titled Gay-marriage debate returns to San Francisco. In it, Long Beach Press-Telegram reports that:

As of Monday morning, the epicenter of the national debate over gay marriage returns to the same few blocks in San Francisco where it catapulted into a major public issue six years ago.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Long Beach Press-Telegram.

Robert J G Jackson Sr

Huntington Beach, CA

#1 Jan 10, 2010
Apparently, the message has yet to be delivered, despite numerous votes of the public.
Susan

AOL

#2 Jan 10, 2010
I find it interesting that people are still so discriminating about same sex couples. These people are no threat to anyone in society, just want to be treated the same as everyone else. As far as the voters, we all know some things shouldn't be put to the public to vote on. Prop 8 was one of them. How long would it have taken for women to vote if it were up to the voting public in America? And the civil rights movement as well. Would our African American citizens been allowed to vote had the government not allowed them to. Eventually yes, but we all know it would have been years if left up to the voters. People who vote against same sex marriage are nothing more that KKK members wearing a different mask. It's just shameful for any American to act this way. I fear intolerance and bigotry in this country will never stop. Thanksfully my Husband and I raised our kids to be free of hate and discrimination for all people, even the ones with flawed views.
NOT IN THIS TIME

Los Angeles, CA

#3 Jan 10, 2010
Susan wrote:
I find it interesting that people are still so discriminating about same sex couples. These people are no threat to anyone in society, just want to be treated the same as everyone else. As far as the voters, we all know some things shouldn't be put to the public to vote on. Prop 8 was one of them. How long would it have taken for women to vote if it were up to the voting public in America? And the civil rights movement as well. Would our African American citizens been allowed to vote had the government not allowed them to. Eventually yes, but we all know it would have been years if left up to the voters. People who vote against same sex marriage are nothing more that KKK members wearing a different mask. It's just shameful for any American to act this way. I fear intolerance and bigotry in this country will never stop. Thanksfully my Husband and I raised our kids to be free of hate and discrimination for all people, even the ones with flawed views.
I do not know how old are your kids but, you sure your kids do not discriminate or do you have a blindfold over your eyes for that. And ever since people started to write a
man and a women belong togheter.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#4 Jan 10, 2010
Why is this shyt on a sports thread?
Mike

Midway City, CA

#5 Jan 10, 2010
Please stop wasting tax payer money!
Agent Orange

Huntington Beach, CA

#6 Jan 10, 2010
Why is is when the democratic system works and people are allowed to vote for issues and decide an issue the minority whines?

It appears that the majority in California still believe in Natural Law - the very foundation which our Constitution was established upon.

I read somewhere that Mexico and Argentina is allowing gay marriages.. why not move there?
Chuck

Denver, CO

#7 Jan 10, 2010
Why say Mexico and Argentina? Five states in the USA allow it - and they're in better shape then California. Canada, Spain and several other countries pulled their heads out of the ground a few years ago. Again, doing just fine.

And I still say - you really want to protect marriage and save the children? Ban divorce!
Curt

AOL

#8 Jan 10, 2010
"...blah blah..... It's just shameful for any American to act this way. I fear intolerance and bigotry in this country will never stop."

That is the same stupid and UNFOUNDED garbage that the far left idiots like you Susan have tried without success to make for 30 years. It's not about ignorance or hatred Susan. When will you learn that condemning others for their right to an opinion, and a VOTE exceeds your personal opinion of how this country should be run??? All you accomplish by calling the MAJORITY of us stupid haters, is that you make us stronger in our opinion and our VOTE.It went to the PEOPLE for vote, and the PEOPLE understand your opinion and WE disagree. GOT IT???
TRUTH

Cerritos, CA

#9 Jan 10, 2010
For now five states allow it. There are movements in each of the states to let voters vote on it (the only times that so called "same sex marriage" laws pass is when the legislature votes on it or a court uses judicial activism to allow it). EVERY time the people get to vote on this subject, marriage is kept at one man and one woman only.

It is just a matter of time until these five states overturn those stupid laws.

Marriage is one man and one woman only, no exceptions. Changing that does away with marriage all together.
Chuck wrote:
Why say Mexico and Argentina? Five states in the USA allow it - and they're in better shape then California. Canada, Spain and several other countries pulled their heads out of the ground a few years ago. Again, doing just fine.
And I still say - you really want to protect marriage and save the children? Ban divorce!
Miguel in Lomita

United States

#10 Jan 10, 2010
It seems that when the people speak, like in voting, it can just be ignored. I don't have an opinion on this subject except the part where it was brought to the people to vote on and the majority of voters don't want it. Could it be that a majority of the people don't want same sex lovers to be honored with the marriage title? Maybe when two guys give birth the attitude will change.
Debbie

United States

#11 Jan 10, 2010
This case is huge. In the preceding cases before Brown v Board of Education were key California cases that set precedence. Presiding over those California cases was Earl Warren who would then go on to become was California. Presiding over those key precedence cases was Earl Warren, who would go on to become Chief Justice of the United States. The same 14th amendment granting equal protection under the law for ending segregation is the same issue here. In 1950 conservatives were uncomfortable with de-segregation as they are today with gay marriage. Conservatives are opposed on religious grounds as they were in 1950, but they must prove their case not based on religion (separation of church/state) but on the law that states that government must provide equal protection of rights to all people.
Phillip Moyer

La Puente, CA

#12 Jan 10, 2010
Legalizing same sex marrage. Will sodomy now be legal. Next prostitution. History is repeating itself. Read the Rise and fall of The Roman empire. Glad I won't be around to see our nation turn to Satan.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#13 Jan 10, 2010
PUCK A BUNCH of Queers is it my right to say get the hell outta here !!!! go suck on a tootie or gargle some balls you worthless SOB's I hate Queers
Phillip Moyer

La Puente, CA

#14 Jan 10, 2010
Why vote? The politicionsand who ever has the most money will prevail
Curt

AOL

#15 Jan 10, 2010
"Why vote? The politicionsand who ever has the most money will prevail "

If it were that simple the vast majority of the people who don't want gay marriage to become law would have already put this issue to sleep. The money AND the vote of the people are against it.

Attempting to put the issue of gays getting married legally in the same context as civil rights in the 60's is just plain foolish, and I don't blame black people for getting angry about the gay movement trying to ride the coattails of the black experience. Could that be why blacks never vote for gay marriage?
TRUTH

Cerritos, CA

#16 Jan 10, 2010
You are wrong. This is not a civil rights issue. EVERY DOMA that has been passed, even on the federal level, has successfully passed every challenge. This one will also pass muster and PROP 8 will be upheld.
Debbie wrote:
This case is huge. In the preceding cases before Brown v Board of Education were key California cases that set precedence. Presiding over those California cases was Earl Warren who would then go on to become was California. Presiding over those key precedence cases was Earl Warren, who would go on to become Chief Justice of the United States. The same 14th amendment granting equal protection under the law for ending segregation is the same issue here. In 1950 conservatives were uncomfortable with de-segregation as they are today with gay marriage. Conservatives are opposed on religious grounds as they were in 1950, but they must prove their case not based on religion (separation of church/state) but on the law that states that government must provide equal protection of rights to all people.

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#17 Jan 10, 2010
TURDS !!!!!!!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Illinois Fighting Illini NCAA Football Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Osei tabbed to lead Elk Grove's football program (Jan '17) Jan '17 EastwoodPharTz 2
News Second former Illinois player alleges misconduc... (May '15) May '15 tom wingo 2
News End appears near for Tim Beckman at Illinois (Oct '14) Oct '14 JTyler 1
News Vontae Davis: Dolphins' top draft pick arrested (Jun '09) Oct '13 Jets Blow 10,351
News Illinois Football Roundtable: Is Aaron Bailey t... (May '13) May '13 Kat 1
News Cleveland Browns audition a pair of kickers in ... (Mar '13) Mar '13 Hamp 2
firing the coach (Nov '12) Nov '12 depage 1
More from around the web