Equal rights?

Persons who demand the state authorize same-sex marriages are not demanding equal rights but unequal and unnatural rights.

[danilo]

I don't understand why people like you are against the dignity for gay people to marry the person they LOVE. Homosexuality is AS natural and as beautiful as Heterosexuality. There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with being open and pursue the happiness set and written in our US Constitution. God Bless...

[Vallejo Visitor]

danilo wrote:

I don't understand why people like you are against the dignity for gay people to marry the person they LOVE. Homosexuality is AS natural and as beautiful as Heterosexuality. There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with being open and pursue the happiness set and written in our US Constitution. God Bless...

Would you expect me to accept your preference to "marry" an animal or fish, or is your love belief defined only in human to human terms? If your love is complete, you do not need to be accredited with a societal decree of "marriage", other than to allow you the benefits of natural behaviors and traditional values of marriage. Your beliefs are un-natural, but I do not hate you for having them.

[VallejoGuy]

I believe the "marriage" is a religious-spiritual ceremony. As such, it should not be sanctioned by the State for anyone.

The State should issue Civil Union contracts to any two consenting legal adults, which provides them the legal rights within the State and Federal justice system.

Then those two adults can go have whatever kind of "marriage" ceremony they would like.

[Steven]

Blah, blah, blah.

[Max]

This letter makes a horrible point. By your reasoning women are are infertile shouldn't be allowed to marry either...

Let go of your bigotry and imagine if you weren't allowed to marry the one you love.

[BR0DY]

Vallejo Visitor wrote:

<quoted text>Would you expect me to accept your preference to "marry" an animal or fish.

What drugs are you on, last time i checked animal do not have the capability to speak. Or is there something you are leaving out, like you, a jar of peanut butter and fido,going at it in a sick fest? Stupid do you pay you 10% dumb fee, weekly?

[VallejoGuy]

The government has no legitimate role to play in ANY relationship.

Marriage licenses have nothing to do the personal relationships between two people, and everything to do with the financial assets shared by the two people.

Cal wrote:

<quoted text>
The government has no legitimate role to play in homosexual ****.

[FrankIrvingstone d]

You are stupid. Only humans can enter into a contract. That is what a legal marriage is... a contract.

Why are you obsessed with marring an animal?

I don't know a single homosexual who is interested in marrying an animal.

Vallejo Visitor wrote:

<quoted text>Would you expect me to accept your preference to "marry" an animal or fish, or is your love belief defined only in human to human terms? If your love is complete, you do not need to be accredited with a societal decree of "marriage", other than to allow you the benefits of natural behaviors and traditional values of marriage. Your beliefs are un-natural, but I do not hate you for having them.

[FrankIrvingstone d]

It’s clear, same sex couples are better at honoring their marriage vows than opposite sex couples.

There are two kinds of marriage, civil and religious.

Homosexual can already get married in the eyes of God, so why not in the eyes of the government that we support with not only our money, but also our lives.

To those against same sex marriage, I promise not to get married in your church if you promise to let me get married in mine. What is so hard to understand about equal civil rights…

In addition, here’s a bet no one seems to want to take. I’ve offered it to Bill O’reily and to others but they don’t have any donuts to bet against my dollars.

Since same sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts, who do you think has the highest divorce rate? I will bet anyone, dollars to donuts, that the heterosexual divorce rate is higher. Any takers? I thought not.

Well it’s straights by over two to one.

Since homosexual marriage has been legal in Massachusetts, only 7% of same-sex marriages have ended in divorce, but almost 18% of opposite sex marriages have.

[FrankIrvingstone d]

You are a liar. The government has the same role in same sex marriages as they do in opposite sex marriages.

Name one difference?

Cal wrote:

<quoted text>
The reasons for government involvement in marriage have nothing to do with anything homosexual. The government has no legitimate role to play in homosexual relationships.

[FrankIrvingstone d]

Government sponsored benefits....

Get it now.

Vallejo Visitor wrote:

<quoted text>Would you expect me to accept your preference to "marry" an animal or fish, or is your love belief defined only in human to human terms? If your love is complete, you do not need to be accredited with a societal decree of "marriage", other than to allow you the benefits of natural behaviors and traditional values of marriage. Your beliefs are un-natural, but I do not hate you for having them.

[VallejoGuy]

Right... because a couple years of data in a small State is all you need to establish a definite trend in social issues. Who cares what the divorce rate is for both groups, it's irrelevant.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

FrankIrvingstoned wrote:

Since homosexual marriage has been legal in Massachusetts, only 7% of same-sex marriages have ended in divorce, but almost 18% of opposite sex marriages have.

[Steven]

Such a surprise coming from the nranewsdotcom neanderthal.

[nranewsdotcom]

You got that right, Steven. If you don't like the way the law is and the FACT that the people of California voted NO WAY to Sodomite marriage, then you can take all your friends who have no morals and move to Massachusetts; Canada would be more ideal yet. The further away from California, the better.

[hoodathunkit]

Vallejo Visitor wrote:

<quoted text>Would you expect me to accept your preference to "marry" an animal or fish,

Why? Are the Neal Horsley's of the Republican party looking to marry their first "girlfriends"?

[Steven]

nranewsdotcom wrote:

You got that right, Steven. If you don't like the way the law is and the FACT that the people of California voted NO WAY to Sodomite marriage, then you can take all your friends who have no morals and move to Massachusetts; Canada would be more ideal yet. The further away from California, the better.

What I heard: Blah, blah, blah.

[curiositys-kille d-cat]

if "marriage" can't be given as a right to gays just because of procreation, what then happens to couples who are straight and cant procreate (if the couple was infertile)? the bible says divorce isn't right either. What are they to do? Why should they even have sex at all if no child will then enter the family through biological means? that ends up negating the total purpose of marriage for them.

What about couple who choose not to have kids even if they ARE capable to do so? should there be laws against them too for wanting to be married?
Should there be civil unions for straight couples who cant/dont want to procreate?

[David DeSilva Reno NV]

This should be a moot point anyway. In 1992, President Clinton signed into Federal Law "The Defensive Marriage Act." That defines "marriage" the union of one man and one woman. So no matter what any state law says, under Federal law, gay marriage is illegal. Just ask Mayor Newsome. Doesn't he look like a fool!

[McMike]

Steven wrote:

Blah, blah, blah.

thank you

yadda yadda yadda

is anyone else heard this one too many times? it's totally losing the impact it once had.

[Max]

David DeSilva Reno NV wrote:

This should be a moot point anyway. In 1992, President Clinton signed into Federal Law "The Defensive Marriage Act." That defines "marriage" the union of one man and one woman. So no matter what any state law says, under Federal law, gay marriage is illegal. Just ask Mayor Newsome. Doesn't he look like a fool!

It's not that easy. Clinton did not pass a constitutional ammendment, if he did maybe you would have a point.

We do have a constitution that with the 14th ammendment gaurantees equal protection under the law. The supreme court has previously ruled in Brown v Board of Education that seperate is not equal- and it will be on these grounds that folks smarter than you or I will rightly argue in front of the the supreme court that seperate institutions for marriage and civil unions are constitutionally prohibited.

Gavin Newsome does not look like a fool, in fact I believe history will show him as a hero and patriot for standing up for the rights of people who are are unjustly persecuted.