Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
This is fantastic news!! Now maybe the country will begin to understand that marriage is a basic civil right. Being from Massachusetts this is a great anniversary gift for our 4th year of the legalization of gay marriage on May 17th. This should shake up the election as well. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue
www.OUTTAKEonline.com
I don't agree with this decision--the voters spoke and the Court is going against what the voters wanted. It's another instance of legislating from the bench regardless of how the voters vote and that most definitely is NOT constitutional.
Of the people, by the people, for the people, the majority silenced again. That's freedom! I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm...........
Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.
Good. THis measure will most certainly be on the ballot in California and voters will, as they have in so many other states, strike down this activist judge baloney.
What is needed is a national level law.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. NOT two faggots or two lesbians. This is nothing more than typical California liberal crap. The voters will prevail and stick this right in the keyster of those damn liberal judges.
I noted as well that the ruling's going to be a gift for the GOP!
Here's a hot-button culture war issue on a plate! 
This is always a one-sided left right. People like Charlotte think only they have authority to speak alone for all of us. Only they can have rights to have books for homosexuals in schools. Traditional families are not allowed to talk about AIDS and the realities of homosexual lifestyles.
They never allow groups like Exodus to speak that number in thousands of ex-homosexuals who tell the truth about the lifestyle that corrupted them. About how many men sleep with each other. Or how they meet in parks at night. Or how online homosexual sites promote sex in bathroom meetings. Anonymous sex with anyone, anytime, anywhere.
This is a sexual choice. What about the rights of children? Why do children have no choice who their parents are in adoption by homosexuals?
Anyone seen pictures of homosexuals take their adopted kids to homosexual orgies on Folsom Street in San Francisco? Where grown men openly perform all kinds of disgusting acts on others and themselves.
This is nothing more than self-absorbed, lost people who believe they'll one day be happy because of a single word - marriage. But they can never be happy or fulfilled by a word. Because they'll never be truly "married" or have children that are their own, by their own genes without artificial help. They can fool themselves, take drugs, drink and smile. But the truth is the great majority will always be unhappy, depressed, drug-addicted and angry at society around them.
How many homosexuals have married in MA? And how many have civil unions in San Fran?
2-5 thousand total? So our nation must bend its knees to what less than 10,000 people who identify themselves by anal sex?
They are the smallest of minorities imposing their perversions on a society at large. The judges could find all pedophiles legal as well in relations with children. Yet it still does not make perversion correct morally.
Sorry Charlotte. Whatever happens in the future, all you're doing is what Europe has already done in many nations. They destroy themselves from within. You think freedom means behaving irresponsibly and therefore living as you wish. But that is not true freedom. It is a prison based upon false beliefs that lust and sex is happiness.
It is a lie. And today, Europe suffers. As immigrants rape and pillage their women and flacid, feminine males do nothing to protect them.
You are creating a world of chaos and are to blind to see it. It has hapened in the past. It is documented fully for all to see in historical documents of all kinds from biblical sources to secular.
People who turn themselves over to sexual lust merely for feelings and emotions, that do not serve the greater purpose of a true family, male and female, those societies fall.
It has happened since the dawn of ages. History is replete with corrupt leaders like Mass and SanFran turning themselves over to lust. And if they force the nation into such madness, that nation falls eventually or chaos ensues. The barbairans eventually take over and the slaughter takes place. No amount of technology can defeat corrupt lifestyles from defeating nations within.
No matter how confident you may feel today. There is a purpose for all things under the sun. And nothing is new today that has not already been done.
If America kneels to the god of sexual lust, it will bow in defeat because of it. Maybe not today, but in the future. And one does not have to be religious to know such eternal truths.
This is why SanFran and Berkeley abhor and hate our military. Every city, nation weak in traditional families are blinded by their own narciissim. Love of self having taken over all their lust in blindness to the reality around them. So busy into their own lust, sex, drugs, food, fashion, gossip, he said, she said they cannot see an enemy surrounding them or the blood bath yet coming upon them.
Also, In such blindness they forced our government to pay for their sins. Forced tax payors to pay more for their choices of a few miniority over the majority. More than for cancer patients, heart patients, diabeties, MS, childrens diseases of all kinds, alzheimers, and so many more diseases all for their lust.
It is disgusting that they justify their selfish lifestyles and force taxpayors to pay out more for them, than the majority. While the majority suffers from lack of money for diseases that are not self-inflicted, the homosexuals throw orgy parties in San Fran.
This is no path for our coutnry to go down. It is a dead-end. European nations are now in the middle of such dead ends from Scandavavia to Spain. They abort their babies, exhort homosexuality and frivolity, sex and meaningless relationships above all, above the family. While importing that which abhors and hates them.
Very well stated Michael.
*gag* there's a difference between democracy and mob rule. (and just for the record, we don't actually have a democracy, but a "constitutional republic"). The judges (3 out of 4 of whom are Republican) interpreted the basic tenets of the CA constitution, that all of its citizens are equal, which supersedes voter initiatives (read: "the majority") that intend to subjugate a minority class. All these same arguments that have been raised here were raised when racial minorities were finally having their civil rights secured in the 60's.
Michael, that's great if that's your religious opinion, but in this country we don't have a state-sponsored religion. Neither will any government official violate your religious freedom to hate gays by forcing you to marry another man if you don't want to. That's the great thing about the U.S., you believe what you want and I believe what I want, neither one of us usurping the other's pursuit of happiness, no matter how few are in the minority class. Furthermore, the points made above are in sharp contrast to the overwhelming scientific majority opinion, based on peer-reviewed research, that tells us there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality, and that it is not a choice for the vast majority of all of us... like, when did you make the decision to become straight? (assuming you are heterosexual). You also have a lot of stereotypes that I think you would figure out how untrue they are if you actually took the time to get to know some LGBT people on a personal level instead of judging them from on high. It's so comical that you chastise their alleged promiscuity, yet at the same time wouldn't allow them to be monogamous ("mono"=one, "gamy"=spouse). By the way, Massachusetts, which until June 16, 2008 has been the only state to allow same-sex marriage, also has the lowest divorce rate. See, it didn't cause a calamity like people in your camp promised.
You talk about all the hate they are bringing upon themselves, but, wow Michael, you really are doing quite a decent job of hating without any help. You talk about disgust, well, I am disgusted at all the vile hatred propagandists such as yourself spew to rile up angry mobs. Reminds me of Hitler, and, no big surprise, he tried to kill off gays and anyone else that wasn't in the majority class. YOU are the one that wants to take us down the path of ethnic and "moral" cleansing which, if you know anything about history, is the true abhorrence.
I did like one thing you said, though:
"There is a purpose for all things under the sun. And nothing is new today that has not already been done."
Like I said about subjugated peoples in our country's past, the assault on civil rights has been done before. But there is a purpose for this struggle. Every example of religious zealotism such as your rant sways more and more level-headed Americans away from the hatred and toward the fold of tolerance and acceptance of this great country's diversity. So, keep on talking, Michael. You're one of the reasons 51% of Californians are now in favor of same-sex marriage, which is why a constitutional discrimination amendment won't pass in November.
Billy, maybe you should read all of Michael's post. First, if you look over the history of ANY great nation--Rome, Greece, etc.--it had nothing to do with religion which brought about their downfall, but their sheer love of self and sexual deviancy, governmental corruption, arrogance in their own self worth and alleged "progressiveness" from what had founded them. Those are facts, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. You can call Michael a hater all you want, but again, you are showing yourself to be the hater because he disagrees with your viewpoint.
Finally, there has yet to be a "homosexual gene" found showing a "biological cause" of homosexuality. If and when it is ever found, then and only then should it become a "civil right" action. Until then, it has no place being lumped with civil rights struggles over the years--blacks cannot change their color, women cannot change their gender. That is what civil rights is based upon--things that cannot be changed rather than choices made.
And, in the land of fruits, nuts and flakes, why would we expect any different? Just because 3 of the 4 justices are Republican doesn't make them conservative--the terms are not synonymous.
Beth, Michael never disagreed with my viewpoint, he probably hasn't even read it yet. I think if you re-read his post, you'll see his true colors. He even goes so far as to make a disgusting rebuff against AIDS research, because, in so many words, they deserve it. That is the kind of hatred and ostracization that killed Matthew Shepherd and countless other hate crime victims. It has no place in a civilized discussion and I shouldn't have even dignified it with a response. I just re-read my post and I don't see anything hateful, just honest. His kind of rant really does remind me of Hitler, only Hitler was not doing it under the guise of religious righteousness.
That's actually not historically accurate about Rome, etc. Such civilization downfalls happened for a variety of reasons, none of which was "sexual deviancy". In any logical discussion we have to go with what the overwhelming educated, scientific opinion is.
Likewise therefrom we can safely say that sexual orientation is definitely not a choice. I'm glad that you agree and are open minded enough to admit that if it is innate, then those people should be equal under the eyes of the law. There have in fact been peer-reviewed studies which show heredity for homosexuality (namely, mono- and dizygotic [identical and fraternal] twins separated at birth and raised in separate environments). No human behavior will ever have one gene identified (I have a degree in Genetics). We are much more complex than lab mice. In any case, that is beside the point because we know that orientation is not a choice, regardless of nurture or nature. This conclusion was reached after decades of study on the matter, and at least at first, accepted reluctantly by the medical establishment. I can tell you, if you knew any gay people at all, none of them would tell you they CHOSE to get called faggot and beat up at school and fired from their jobs. Don't you think many if not most of them would have chosen the easier path of heterosexuality? I urge you to get to know some gay people, I think it will challenge a lot of your world view.
I know a helluva lot more gay people than you think and surprisingly (at least in your viewpoint) the vast majority say it was a choice because it was easier than hetero rejection fears. One or two, by their androgenous (sp?) body types I believe had no choice--they were the vast minority--the majority of the ones I knew admitted it was a choice.
And, if you read my entire post, I didn't say sexual deviancy was the only cause, but a main factor--along with other factors. Quit cherry picking and hiding your talking points in language you think may intimidate me.
I don't deny the need for aids research. I do deny it's a biological factor--you haven't supplied a link and last I read in my mother's medical journals, there was no biological factor. I also deny the attitude of special treatment--if gays want to be treated like everyone else, then they need to act like it instead of shoving their agenda down the hetero's throats. It's really that simple.
I have nothing to do with your intimidation. If you feel intimidated, I'm sorry, but I can't be held responsible for that. My point being, I don't know any historical scholar who cites sexual deviancy as a (among others, as you say) factor in the downfalls of great civilizations. Perhaps you could provide me with a reference (a scientific journal, e.g., not a religious blog).
I'm wondering how many of the "gay" people you know are in or have gone to "reparative" therapy. I would say your experience of gay (men) would be very unusual with regard to the total population, perhaps by your geographical location or social group. But if that's what you've encountered, I have no reason to doubt that's been your experience. It's just that those of us who are self-confident and at peace with how we were made do not fall into the choice category... which is overwhelmingly who I surround myself with by default. So, my experience may also be skewed in the opposite direction.
Here is my source... it provides links to the true sources at the bottom, this is just a good synopsis. As you'll see, genetics is no guarantee of anything, not even blue eyes. But, it is predictive and highly influential.
http://answers.yahoo.com/
questio...06061524AAZwLeg
As far as "agenda", take a look at almost everything in any media ... the heterosexual expectation is relentlessly shoved down everyone's throat. So when an occasional "Will & Grace" series or minor coverage of California's same-sex weddings on the news comes along, I hardly think it an unbalanced representation, not when one considers the constancy and dominance of straight themes around.
They were Las Vegas Gay entertainers (rather prominent ones)--and no they weren't in any "reparative" therapy. Quit the spin--now. And quit the propaganda. The reason gays aren't given--as you say--equal time--is because they are 3% of the population--hardly an equal amount.
If you're comfortable, fine. But, facts are facts, including civilization downfalls.
Now, I don't have time to further discuss your love of men--there are more important things in this world than your sexual preference. I will believe my mom's medical journals--thank you so much for offering me yours.
Have to go read on real matters--like supreme court morons in time of war (oh--law is my field while science and medicine were my parents).
Carry on--but don't expect any converts here because while you may deny faith and belief, real conservative values, etc., as being irrelevant, those on this blog don't.
Bye now. Oh, and intimidated? Hardly--although that was indeed your intent.
You sound really angry, Beth. Maybe you're just trying to be a good lawyer. Were they Sigfried and Roy? If so, how cool that you know celebrities on that kind of a personal level!
If you'll kindly re-read my post, I wasn't asserting anything about your "friends", merely wondering, so thank you for resolving my erroneous speculation.
I wasn't complaining about gays not being given equal time... you were complaining about them getting too much time. I was simply rejecting your idea about it being forced down everyone's throat because of the prominence of hetero themes ... I would say more than 97% of the time, for sure. And, 3% of the population admit to being gay in an unsolicited phone poll. The number of actual gay/bi/lesbian populace is probably at least twice that, but there are also other sampling problems with many rejecting labels such as "gay" or "homosexual". I could provide you with a source, but I don't think you'll take it seriously simply because it came from me.
It's interesting that you asked me to provide sources, I did, and yet A) you reject those sources and B) you refuse to provide me with sources. Who is spreading propaganda now? I would like to know what medical journals your mother has, and especially how old they are. Medical journals also used to tout lobotomies, but we now reject that practice. The medical establishment is actually notoriously slow to accept new research regarding psychology, sociology and mental health.
I'm not trying to convert anyone here ... I wonder why you think that ... is it because I have this supposed "agenda" that all gays have? I think faith and belief is great, in fact, I have some of my own. But I would never try to write my religious convictions into the law which governs you, and neither should you me. I also embrace some conservative values, one of which is that government should stay out of the personal lives of its citizens.
I think you need to work on your comprehension skills... you can't infer my intent. I've told you what my intent has been, and since you know nothing about me personally and cannot infer tone from written word, I would ask you to refrain from making judgments about my intention.
"Bye now" is a little trite. It would be more constructive if you could remain civil.
Here's the bottom line, Billy, and I'm steering you back on topic. You obviously can't take a hint.
The fact is these judges legislated by fiat and overturned the voices of we the people. That is wrong and illegal. Whether you like it or not, the opinion of 4 people in California doesn't override the votes of the people.
Same thing with the Supreme Court and it's recent gitmo ruling.
These judges need to be removed from the bench--regardless of how or what you feel about the gay issue. They are not there to legislate by fiat. They are there to uphold the rule of law. End of story. If the people over-turn this decision--and they have vowed to do so--what then? Another shoving it down our throats by fiat? And how often do you think that's gonna fly? People are tired of having their lawful votes overturned by fiat and issues they voted against shoved down their throats.
You're done Billy.
Edited By Siteowner
Commenting by HaloScan
