Log In | Register
O-K
IS FREE DEBATE WITH HONOR AND TRUTH POSSIBLE TOGETHER.???????
Articles Posted: 0; Links Seeded: 3509
Member Since: 6/2007Last Seen: 10/04/2009
Member Since: 6/2007Last Seen: 10/04/2009
11 Votes
69 Comments
California high court set to rule on same-sex marriage case---CNN JUST SAID THE COURT RULED AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE. --But NY TIMES SAYS IT APPROVED GAY MARRIAGE
News Type: Event — Seeded on Wed May 14, 2008 11:19 PM EDT
Article Source: CNNadvertisement
A ruling on whether California should legalize same-sex marriage is expected Thursday from the state's supreme court.
California's supreme court is expected to rule Thursday on whether to legalize gay marriage. The decision will be announced about 1 p.m. ET, according to the court's Web site.
Several gay and lesbian couples, along with the city of San Francisco and gay rights groups, had sued to overturn state laws allowing only marriages between a man and a woman.
Published to:
- O-K's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: Examples of the Justice System Gone Awry
- Regions: none
 | California ban on same-sex marriage struck down | CNN | Fri May 16 | 0 |
 | California's top court legalizes gay marriage | Associated Press | Thu May 15 | 17 |
| California lifts gay marriage ban | BBC News | Thu May 15 | 0 |
| California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage | The New York Times | Thu May 15 | 1 |
| Black robes trash traditional marriage | World Net Daily | Thu May 15 | 3 |
- Public Discussion (69)
- Examples of the Justice System Gone Awry
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
57
11
{"commentId":1801720,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
If the state justices rule in favor of the plaintiffs, California would become the second state to allow same-sex couples to legally wed. Massachusetts adopted the practice in 2004, and gay couples don't need to be state residents to wed there.
{"commentId":1801720,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 3 votes
#1 - Wed May 14, 2008 11:20 PM EDT{"commentId":1801722,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
Five other jurisdictions around the world have legalized same-sex marriage: Belgium, the Netherlands and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.
{"commentId":1801722,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 3 votes
#2 - Wed May 14, 2008 11:20 PM EDT{"commentId":1801951,"authorDomain":"dbourdeau"}
Being a Ca. I feel it should be approved. If two people love each other, then why not? I realize many people do not agree, and I also realize the Supremes will probably disagree.
{"commentId":1801951,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"dbourdeau"}
- 3 votes
#3 - Thu May 15, 2008 1:34 AM EDT{"commentId":1803489,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
I am not for or against it but any change should be done by the legislature, not the courts.
{"commentId":1803489,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1803659,"authorDomain":"anthopos"}
I am not for or against it but any change should be done by the legislature, not the courts.
That's not what is going on here. The court isn't creating legislation. The court is weighing the ban against the state Constitution and ruling on whether or not the ban violates said Constitution. Which is the court's job.
{"commentId":1803659,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"anthopos"}
- 7 votes
{"commentId":1803700,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
That happened in Hawaii and was overturned by a constitutional amendment. It is better if done by the legislature. And a constitutional amendment against it is on the ballot in November, so this may not hold up.
{"commentId":1803700,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1803862,"authorDomain":"geejay"}
I disagree, OK. Laws are best declared constitutional or not by judges, who have a modicum of constitutional knowledge.
{"commentId":1803862,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"geejay"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1803935,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
I respectfully disagree.
As happened in Hawaii, and will probably happen in CA, the voters over ruled the court. They should have followed New Jersey which allowed the legislature to set up a legally legal civil union instead of mandating gay marriage.
{"commentId":1803935,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1803991,"authorDomain":"anthopos"}
the voters over ruled the court.
No, they changed the rules. The court ruled that the law violated the constitution. The voters changed the constitution and voila! The law no longer violated the constitution. That's the way things are supposed to work. The legislature passes laws, the courts rule on the laws constitutionality and the voters amend (or don't amend) the constitution. All as it is meant to be.
instead of mandating gay marriage.
But the courts didn't mandate it, they merely said that the constitution didn't allow for laws against it. As you have pointed out, the voters are able, if they so choose, to amend the constitution to allow laws against same sex marriage.
{"commentId":1803991,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"anthopos"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":1804075,"authorDomain":"geejay"}
And it is up to the courts to decide if a challenged law violates the constitution of the state (in the case of the Supreme Court, the county). Even if the voters pass a law, it can still be challenged on constitutional grounds. The only way around this is to amend the constitution, which needs a steep (2/3) majority.
And it is how it should be, rights should not be left to the political winds, but interpreted by those who best know the constitution, judges. Voters can not overrule the court, and judges don't make laws, they interpret them.
{"commentId":1804075,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"geejay"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1804364,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
I suppose it depends on who you support.
The Hawaii voters did over rule the court. The court said gay marriage was illegal in Hawaii. The voters then specifically voted that it is not. It now is not. Court over ruled.
Courts have at times upheld slavery, segregation, denial of women's right to vote, many other things. They are people, just like us. It is nice to think they only follow the law but if they all did the vote would have been 7-0, not 4-3.
{"commentId":1804364,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1804380,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
Perry O;
We are saying the same thing in different ways.
But the courts didn't mandate it, they merely said that the constitution didn't allow for laws against it.
They mandated. They ordered that all county couirts issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Until the voters approve an amendment this means gay marriage is legal and the state MUST issue a license.
{"commentId":1804380,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1804501,"authorDomain":"geejay"}
Courts interpret the law and are fallible.
But if this law were to pass in November, it could be contested in the courts and overruled.
{"commentId":1804501,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"geejay"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1804555,"authorDomain":"anthopos"}
O.K. said the vote in November was for a constitutional amendment. If that passes the California Supreme Court can't overrule it. Only the U.S. Supreme Court could and I don't see that happening.
{"commentId":1804555,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"anthopos"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1803291,"authorDomain":"EmilyRuthless"}
It's approximately one hour until their decision is announced. I hope with all hope that same sex marriage will be approved. Those who oppose same sex marriage are basing their case on religious morals. God meant for there to be a man and a woman. They also claim that the government has no right to deny children a "strong family." Presumably a "strong," family can only occur when there is a man and a woman.
Let me be frank and say that is crap. I know several gay couples who's families have held together longer and been happier than straight couples. Why shouldn't gay couples be allowed the same rights as any straight couple because fundamentalist don't like it?
If the court chooses to ban gay marriage on the context that they are doing so to protect children they should probably start investigating every family who is expecting a child to make sure that they are fit to be parents. There are plenty of people in this country who have children and shouldn't and plenty more who don't have children and should.
{"commentId":1803291,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"EmilyRuthless"}
- 5 votes
#4 - Thu May 15, 2008 12:14 PM EDT{"commentId":1803508,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
I am going to try to hear it on TV and post the decision here.
Any change should be by the legislature, not the court. Majority rule. Gay couples in CA now have the same rights as married people if they file a domestic partnership.
{"commentId":1803508,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 1 vote
#5 - Thu May 15, 2008 1:09 PM EDT{"commentId":1803511,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
CNN JUST SAID THE COURT RULED AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE.
{"commentId":1803511,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 1 vote
#6 - Thu May 15, 2008 1:10 PM EDT{"commentId":1803515,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
I will post a link as soon as I can get it.
{"commentId":1803515,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 1 vote
#7 - Thu May 15, 2008 1:12 PM EDT{"commentId":1803555,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
Maybe not. FROM NY TIMES
California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.
The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.
The cases were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.
{"commentId":1803555,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 2 votes
#8 - Thu May 15, 2008 1:21 PM EDT{"commentId":1803646,"authorDomain":"anthopos"}
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html
This link says they ruled against the same sex marriage ban.
{"commentId":1803646,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"anthopos"}
- 4 votes
#9 - Thu May 15, 2008 1:41 PM EDT{"commentId":1803663,"authorDomain":"anthopos"}
From the above article.
An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is likely. The federal high court has never addressed the question of same-sex marriage.
It's not over yet though I'm not sure on what grounds they would take this to the U.S. Supreme Court. I don't recall anything in the U.S. Constitution that would make the provisions in the California Constitution unconstitutional.
{"commentId":1803663,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"anthopos"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1803679,"authorDomain":"anthopos"}
"The government should promote and encourage strong families," said Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund. "The voters realize that defining marriage as one man and one woman is important because the government should not, by design, deny a child both a mother and father."
I wish he would explain how this law denies a child a mother and father.
{"commentId":1803679,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"anthopos"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1803710,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
Thanks for that link. Fox also said the ban was overturned. CNN now says they are checking again.
{"commentId":1803710,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1803725,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
Perry O
From the above article.
An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is likely. The federal high court has never addressed the question of same-sex marriage.
It's not over yet though I'm not sure on what grounds they would take this to the U.S. Supreme Court. I don't recall anything in the U.S. Constitution that would make the provisions in the California Constitution unconstitutional.
All stat constitutions must comply with the US constitution but setting marriage laws are set by states so it is probably not a federal issue.
{"commentId":1803725,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1803746,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
Perry O"
The government should promote and encourage strong families," said Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund. "The voters realize that defining marriage as one man and one woman is important because the government should not, by design, deny a child both a mother and father."
I wish he would explain how this law denies a child a mother and father.
In a gay marriage-two men- there would not be a mother, in a lesbian marriage there would be no father. Many people believe children should have a mother and father.
The voters in CA likely will overturn this in November.
{"commentId":1803746,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1803788,"authorDomain":"anthopos"}
In a gay marriage-two men- there would not be a mother, in a lesbian marriage there would be no father.
Yes, but if the two men or two women are not married and have a child, they still don't have both mother and father. Allowing them to marry does nothing to change that. According to Mr. Lavy's logic, by allowing divorce, a state is doing much more to deny a child a mother and a father than they would by allowing same sex marriage. By allowing unmarried people to have and raise children, the state is denying children a mother and a father.
{"commentId":1803788,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"anthopos"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1803694,"authorDomain":"seanabrady"}
I think this was a smart choice for the CA Supreme Court. I think that this is just one of those things that should not be legislated. There is no legal reason to not allow same sex couple to marry, and the religious reasons should not be passed into law. Good job CA.
{"commentId":1803694,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"seanabrady"}
- 4 votes
#10 - Thu May 15, 2008 1:52 PM EDT{"commentId":1803783,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
As I said I don't support or oppose it but over 70% nationwide oppose gay marriage as do all three presidential candidates. This does insure gay marriage will be a big issue in the presidential election.
{"commentId":1803783,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1803875,"authorDomain":"geejay"}
Over 70% once opposed ending slavery, too.
Sometimes, change has to be forced on us.
{"commentId":1803875,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"geejay"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1803955,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
Change, including forced change, can be good or bad.
Bush started a war which changed things.
Democrats say they will end the war which will be change.
{"commentId":1803955,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1804077,"authorDomain":"geejay"}
The war is not equivalent to gay marriage, OK. One involves rights, the other is an action taken by a president.
{"commentId":1804077,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"geejay"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1804404,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
Word play. The constitution gives him the right to order the military to fight. Unless congress over rules him.
A right is anything the constitution or a laws says we can do. It can be changed to be illegal at any time, and changed back. See prohibition.
My point was that forcing the majority to accept a minority viewpoint can be good or bad.
{"commentId":1804404,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1804508,"authorDomain":"geejay"}
It's not word play. What viewpoint was forced in the case of the war?
{"commentId":1804508,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"geejay"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1804848,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
Neither forced a viewpoint. There is a war. No one has to go to war and anyone can oppose it. This decision does not force anyone to support gay marriage or get married to a gay, but at least for now, gay marriage is a fact in California.
{"commentId":1804848,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1803723,"authorDomain":"EmilyRuthless"}
Excellent! I hope that other states follow. I know that the battle isn't over but this is one step towards victory. YAY California.
{"commentId":1803723,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"EmilyRuthless"}
- 2 votes
#11 - Thu May 15, 2008 2:00 PM EDT{"commentId":1803775,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
I'm not sue if other states will follow 30 states already ban gay marriage by constitutional amendment. And California voters will vote on a constitutional ban in November. For those who support gay marriage it is a victory for now.
{"commentId":1803775,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1804083,"authorDomain":"geejay"}
And that vote in November can be challenged and sent back to the courts.
{"commentId":1804083,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"geejay"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1804409,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
Yes, but it then becomes a federal matter and would eventually go to the USSC
{"commentId":1804409,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1804905,"authorDomain":"dbourdeau"}
OK, this Ca. girl is very happy same sex marriage was approved. But, I eventually think the Supreme Court will weigh in on this matter, and being a conservative court, I tend to doubt it will stay.
{"commentId":1804905,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"dbourdeau"}
- 1 vote
#12 - Thu May 15, 2008 6:14 PM EDT{"commentId":1810870,"authorDomain":"chasing"}
Except marriage is a states issue. The Supreme Court probably is more than content to stay clear of that particular hot potato.
{"commentId":1810870,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"chasing"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1805048,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
As I said I am neutral in this. I am not married and not gay and I don't plan to become either.
I think you are right. In November voters will approve a ban on gay marriage, it will be challenged in CA courts and eventually end in the US supreme court.
{"commentId":1805048,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 1 vote
#13 - Thu May 15, 2008 6:42 PM EDT{"commentId":1810866,"authorDomain":"chasing"}
Arnold himself has said he'd campaign against a change in the CA constitution in order to ban gay marriage.
{"commentId":1810866,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"chasing"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1806446,"authorDomain":"bartning"}
I was taught in northern California by a professor who passed the bar exam in SF that marriage is for procreation basically, continuing the cycle, something to which everyone's entitled. Same-sex marriage does not allow for this. I also don't like the idea that one can't use marriage as a way to weed out potential problems with a mate to say the least. The professor fought in Korea too, and it was a Supreme Court and Constitutional Law class where I got an "A" back in the mid-to-late 90s.
{"commentId":1806446,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"bartning"}
- 2 votes
#14 - Fri May 16, 2008 1:09 AM EDT{"commentId":1807558,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
As far as I know marriage has alwas ben a man and women, or sometimes multiple wives. But I know of no society that called same sex unions marriage.
{"commentId":1807558,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1807588,"authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
But you do now, don't you. At the time the words "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." were written, most of the world did not share this view. There are more things becoming self-evident by the minute, O-K.
{"commentId":1807588,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1807662,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
I was referring to the past societies, not present ones. I know some countries allow gay marriage today. I don't care who marries who or what they call it but I prefer laws be made by elected legislators, not appointed judges. If courts can find a new right they can also take others away.
{"commentId":1807662,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1808164,"authorDomain":"chasing"}
The past is irrelevant in this instance and is, at best, a red herring. If genital mutilation was "always practiced in the past" that doesn't mean it should be allowable in the present (or future). So the past held different standards. So what? News at 11.
{"commentId":1808164,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"chasing"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1806551,"authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
It's not marriage that begets babies, it's having sex. Marriage is a legal union that has a great many repercussions: co-ownership, sharing of income, adoption, inheritance. I think society gains by this legal clarity, so if people want to get married, there is no reason to withhold that privilege. Many straight couples can't have babies. My wife and I don't have babies together, and we didn't plan to have any. But being married is good, it says that our relationship is something special. So why not let everybody know!
In my country we have had a trial period of some ten years. Lesbians and gays have a certificate. Now we have simplified matters. There is no longer any legal difference between gay and straight marriage. This is Norway. Several other European countries have had this for a while. The US is always a bit slow on human rights.
{"commentId":1806551,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
- 3 votes
#15 - Fri May 16, 2008 2:05 AM EDT{"commentId":1807570,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
The problem is a majority opposes gay marriage, some think it is a sin. Just like polygamy, a majority is opposed to it. There are many limits on who can marry who. I really don't care but in a democracy majority rules unless it is unconstitutional.
{"commentId":1807570,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1807659,"authorDomain":"anthopos"}
Haven't you ever heard the expression, "majority rules, minority rights"? Our system of government was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
{"commentId":1807659,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"anthopos"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1807697,"authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
Democracy doesn't mean majority rule, it means rule by the people. The people are where the rulers seek their legitimacy.
If democracy meant majority rule, then the majority could change the constitution to its liking. The opposition must accept rule by those in position, otherwise they would demand their freedom.
In a two-party system like the one you have, things seem very clear until you learn that the president may represent a minority while congress may represent a majority. In a multi-party state you may have a constellation of a party or parties in the middle doing the ruling because parties to the right and left can't agree, thus the sum of representatives in opposition may be larger than the sum of those in power. The strategy of the ruling party or parties will be to balance their policies in such a way as to gain support either from the right or left. Thus the majority, even in opposition, do influence matters.
{"commentId":1807697,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1808083,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
Actually the US is a constitutional republic, limiting the power of government and guaranteeing rights to the people, which limits what the majority can do. The US constitution is difficult to amend but California ca amend the state constitution by majority vote in an election. A vote on gay marriage is set for November. I would like to have 3-5 strong parties in the US. It would be better.
{"commentId":1808083,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1808526,"authorDomain":"bartning"}
Clipping to my column, and I'm a bit defensive about the idea of clipping it to Examples of the Justice System Gone Awry, but I'm clipping it anyway. However, I also want to mention that polygamy's legal in some countries right now too, e.g. Saudi Arabia I believe.
{"commentId":1808526,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"bartning"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1807003,"authorDomain":"karlromanoff"}
The time has finally come. As an openly gay man for more than thirty years, I'm still appalled at the sheer numbers of people against us, many of them living 'the lie' in their own marriages. I never thought I'd say this because I believe in live and let live , but it's time now to OUT THEM ALL. I urge you, out all the bigots who only wish they could live our lives. This is much too serious of an issue to sleep through this time.
{"commentId":1807003,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"karlromanoff"}
- 3 votes
#16 - Fri May 16, 2008 8:15 AM EDT{"commentId":1808416,"authorDomain":"jonesgirlinva"}
It is not that people are against you as people. Is it so wrong that people still have values and have you ever thought that the reason that the numbers are still so high is because the last statistic done in 2007 showed that 86 percent of America is still of christian or catholic background. To me it is your own business what you do behind closed doors but redefining the meaning of marriage and what it has been for centuries is wrong and I am sorry that I feel that way but I am far from being alone on this topic. See that is what is wrong with the country today. Just because someone does not see things the same way that you do then we all must be haters and bigots. I have several friends who have chose that life for themselves and I love them to death but they will also be honest and say that they know that their lifestyle is not natural and they are not pushing to change peoples minds about it either. They are very good people and I love them to death but some things people need to realize is not going to change no matter how hard you push. You will never get people to deny the bible or deny their background and how they were raised no matter how hard you try. I had a close friend of mine who was killed several years back and I know that it was because he was gay it was never proved but everyone knew why it happened. Does everyone really want to start the violence that I can see coming from all of this. It is way to many people that oppose this action but yet it keeps being pushed despite what everyone else thinks about it. Maybe one day it will be different but I do not believe that it is going to change anytime soon. And until then why can't we just be happy with the way things are. Just because people can not marry does not mean that the love is not there and it does not change. Marriage is a piece of paper and nothing more than that. I loved the man that I am married to before we got married and nothing has changed after we married. It is the same! So why fight the world over a word?
{"commentId":1808416,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"jonesgirlinva"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1807578,"authorDomain":"O-K"}
Most people are not against you. Most are against redefining marriage. California already has a domestic partnership with the same rights as marriage, so why fight over a word.
{"commentId":1807578,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"O-K"}
- 1 vote
#17 - Fri May 16, 2008 11:04 AM EDT{"commentId":1808189,"authorDomain":"chasing"}
Marriage is redefined by people, not dictionaries, not governments, no the judiciary. I'm sorry, but already gay people in committed relationships, even in states where they are not officially "allowed" to marry, still will often refer to their relationship as a marriage. And it's not like you can take that away from them. Wash their mouths out with soap? Fine them for uttering it? So, as you cannot control the usage of the word, that's already a battle you're bound to lose, sooner or later. Struggle all you want - you'll just delay the inevitable, IMHO. But don't people have better things to do than worry about one 8-letter word? You know, like war in Iraq, childhood poverty, malnutrition and starvation? Little things like that? Because if it isn't about that 8-letter word then, you know what, it's about rights, and one state accepting the marriage performed in another state, and the federal government getting on board with the 21st century. And I wish that the people "against" gay marriage would just be intellectually honest with themselves and admit they want (most of them, anyway) to deny rights to fellow Americans. Then they can put it in their "hate the sin, love the sinner" pipe, and smoke it.
{"commentId":1808189,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"chasing"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1807968,"authorDomain":"mashenka06"}
Bad idea.
There's a reason why there are males and females. In ALL of nature, there exist a male and female. The male has a sexual organ to give (+) and the female has a sexual organ to receive (-). The male organ is built by GOD to give into the female organ. One was designed to fit the other. Homosexuality is not natural. Men having sex with men means positive with positive. Women having sex with women means negative with negative. There is no organ built to it. No children can come of such union. Imagine if the whole world were homosexuals, (which will be if we teach our children that homosexuality is normal) then there obviously will be no generation after us. Some people say that homosexuals are "born that way". Look at it this way buddy. In life, people are born with diseases, some with sicknesses. Do they just live their lives that way? No, they get help. They try to cure it. Are people born murderers? No, choices are made along the way. It is NOT normal. There is no way a society could hold itself together without a moral backbone. It doesn't matter if your a Democratic or Republican, everyone should know the difference between right and wrong.
{"commentId":1807968,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"mashenka06"}
#18 - Fri May 16, 2008 12:33 PM EDT{"commentId":1810850,"authorDomain":"chasing"}
Yeah well, God told me to be gay, as he speaks to me personally and not through the offices of a Priest (yay Protestantism!), and as you weren't there, you couldn't possibly tell me differently, now could you.
{"commentId":1810850,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"chasing"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1808333,"authorDomain":"jonesgirlinva"}
From what I have read the majority of you accept what the courts passed in California. I for one am completely against this. I am sorry but I do not want my child exposed to this in no way, shape, or form. What is done behind closed doors is that persons individual rights as Americans. However, when it is done walking down the streets where children play I believe poses a great deal of confusion for a child. I teach my child to look past an individual regardless of color, sec, religion ect because I do not believe that you should judge someone based on any of those things. However, when my child comes up to me and says mommy why is two mommy's over there kissing, what the heck are you supoosed to tell them.
This is not natural in any way. And yes before anyone says anything, I do have friends that are gay. However, every one of them will tell you that they are not proud of who they are and they know that it is not right and that they can not change who they are but they will always stay secret about their lifestyle to the outside world. This country was founded on the principle of man and women and if it was natural two men could naturally have a child together or two women could do the same. I know that there are many male and female couples are out there that can not have children but it is due to some type of medical problem and not because they have the identical parts inside. I also think that allowing them to adopt children should be banned as well. I think that a child should not have to struggle this harsh world and constantly be on guard because of what mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy chose for their own life. I also know of children who are going through this and it is not a day that goes by that they do not come home crying because someone called them a name or started a fight with them. You know every one in America has a right to live with whom they choose but I believe that homosexual couples should have to live with their own choices without bringing innocent people in to fight their fights with them. And no I am not a hater of anyone. So don't be quick to judge.
I believe that everyone is special in their own way but when is enough enough. Next you will have prostitutes saying that we are infringing on their constitutional rights because that is the only job that they know how to do and we are preventing them from doing it. I mean come on! This was a great country at one time and has steadily went downhill because of people constantly wanting to amend the constitution, amend the laws, and amend anything that does not suit their lifestyle. I believe that when you make a choice in life you need to deal with the consequences of such actions....just as we teach our children every day of our life. And for those of you who want to bring religion into this....who for the most part does marriages.....pastors. What about their rights? I know a many of them who would not appreciate having their religion persecuted and be forced to go against their beliefs because a state has passed a decision. Next thing you know we will be suing pastors and churches for refusing to marry someone because it goes against their beliefs. Furthermore, this is a tough life deal with it as most people do. You don't see me crying and moaning because they no longer allow the bible in school or teach my child what I teach them at home. No I don't!! It is a hard lesson in life but sometimes people just need to be happy with things the way that they are.
{"commentId":1808333,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"jonesgirlinva"}
- 1 vote
#19 - Fri May 16, 2008 1:58 PM EDT{"commentId":1808392,"authorDomain":"anthopos"}
I teach my child to look past an individual regardless of color, sec, religion ect because I do not believe that you should judge someone based on any of those things.
And yet you are just fine with teaching them to judge someone based on who they love.
{"commentId":1808392,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"anthopos"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1808454,"authorDomain":"jonesgirlinva"}
Read what I said! I am not personally against any of those things and I do not teach my child to hate. But I do teach him the bible and we do attend church. So sorry if that bothers you. The bible talks of man and women such as Adam and Eve....not Adam and Steve. Yes I do teach him to love everyone regardless of what they do or what they choose but I do not support them being able to be married. What part of the fact that I have several gay friends, did you not understand? So do not question me on my parenting skills because you do not know me or my children. And as far as I am concerned I could care less what people do or who they choose to love but I do not agree with the fact of being able to get married nor adopting children because of what I have seen with my own eyes from my friends and the children that they have. If you have not been there than you have no idea what I am talking about. That child comes home every day crying because he does not understand why he has to daddy's when everyone else at his school has a mom and a dad. He is ridiculed on a daily basis, has isolated himself, tried killing himself, and is currently seeing a psychologist for all of his problems. And yes I do blame the children who are doing this to him but I also blame the parents because that child was not given the choice of who adopted him and yet he has to fight the fight for the life that they chose to live. What is fair about that?
{"commentId":1808454,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"jonesgirlinva"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1808622,"authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
I do indeed read what you say, and I am saddened by it
I am sorry but I do not want my child exposed to this
Do not use your child as a shield for things you yourself can't tackle. I i am proud so say that my children can tackle many aspects of life. As for the sight of homosexuals, I am sure they would not even blink.
It is true that there are many situations I would like to shield my children from. There is a time for all things while growing up. You pass the site of a car accident - would you not give the help you can to save lives? Yes, it would not be a good experience for my children riding with me, but by seeing me act, they also learn that life is sacrosanct and comes before all else. Thus in not shielding them, they also learn. You , too, are also teaching your children something. You are teaching them inequality, the idea that you are somehow better. That is the sad moral of your tale.
{"commentId":1808622,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1809907,"authorDomain":"chasing"}
Do not use your child as a shield for things you yourself can't tackle
Amen to this. Children handle pretty much anything you throw at them. They're definitely more resilient, when it comes to this sort of thing, than adults set in their ways. But come on now, I don't expect parents who hate each other to stay together for the "sake of the kids" and I accept that society has marched along (and continues to do so) despite the facts of child labor, and their common perception as "little adults" not so very long ago - childhood being a relatively recent invention, and all. My kissing my boyfriend isn't what's harming anyone's kid - it's a parent who doesn't know how to explain it that does. And it isn't as though they (the parents) haven't been in the world long enough to come up with something, for Christ's sake. What did you tell them when Katrina happened, anyway? Or when grandma died?
{"commentId":1809907,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"chasing"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1810151,"authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
We took our bloody time about this in my country. Compare: We gave women the vote after one year of talking (1906)! But the movement toward the liberation of homosexuals has been excruciatingly slow. Even the word itself was outlawed. Now there are only some Christian organizations left, but nobody much cares what they think except homosexual priests. On the other hand, we are getting quite a few Muslims to Norway and they are like retards, claiming "there are no homosexual Muslims". From having been educated, we are now the educators. I fear we have another 40 years of nonsense ahead.
{"commentId":1810151,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"eriktheread"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1808591,"authorDomain":"jonesgirlinva"}
If anyone wants to argue with my views be it that you are gay or straight...please read this link before you do:
This is a site where the children of homosexual relationships have spoken out about their experience and what they have went through in life. I am sorry I do not think that any child should have to experience what these children have been through. What are we doing as a generation...teaching our children to keep things bottled up, to lie about who they are or where they came from, and that having a low self esteem is ok?
{"commentId":1808591,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"jonesgirlinva"}
- 1 vote
#20 - Fri May 16, 2008 2:49 PM EDT{"commentId":1809913,"authorDomain":"chasing"}
Uhm, if anyone is forcing the kids to keep things bottled up, it's bigoted society. So nice try, but no.
{"commentId":1809913,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"chasing"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1809841,"authorDomain":"elainema503"}
I believe when two people are in love, they should have a right to get married. It's up to the two people (same-sex or opposite sex) who are in love to decide if they can/will get married or not, and neither us or the judge or other citizens in the United States should intervene in anyway.
God wants us to love everyone, NOT only heterosexual people, so when two people want to love each other and stay committed to each other, I think that's what God wants to see that they can get married and continue to love each other.
For someone who go to church, I respect your belief. BUT please respect others too. Not everyone has the same religion as you are. This is the beautiful part about this country, FREEDOM. So stop trying to ban others who are practicing what is different from your belief.
{"commentId":1809841,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"elainema503"}
#21 - Fri May 16, 2008 6:42 PM EDT{"commentId":1813969,"authorDomain":"alphadog"}
OK -- I wanted to stop by and see what you were up to. Kudos to you for sparking such a revealing thread. I deliberately stay away from discussions involving religion and politics in any form. (Can't stand the heat -- so I stay out.) But, now that I'm here, gotta say my piece.
What gives anyone of us the right to decide anything in the name of "God." Seems to me. sitting in judgement of other human beings defies the meaning of "God" in the first place. Tell me that only Christianity defines God. And I will walk away. Tell me that God loves Christians but not Jews, approves of suicide bombings, the Holocaust and the Klu Klux Klan and I will change that walk to run ... you get the idea, I'm sure.
But to say things like "
The bible talks of man and women such as Adam and Eve....not Adam and Steve"
and things not being natural. Who amongst us was in the Garden of Eden, assuming that there was one. And what in the name of whomever/whatever gives anyone of us the right to spout bible and then talk about pastors doing "most marriages," What about the rest of us ... I am not talking gay/straight here -- I am talking about totally disrespecting other people who believe in something besides Jesus Christ and the New Testament.
Why is it that I have to consider and respect you and your children, but it doesn't work both ways. Who are you to decide what's natural and what's not. Do you think it's natural for a "storybook" family with a mommy and a daddy and 2.5 children -- when daddy spends nights in bed with his precious little girl while mommy turns her head? And what is this about children of gay couples being screwed up? Brittany Spears, poor trainwreck that she is, came from heterosexual parents ... as did a zillion other screwed up kids, many of whom were never in the limelight ... so please don't use that to jusitfy. I know many gay couples, none of whom have kids. But two hands don't have enough fingers to count how many couples I know -- friends and friends of friends -- who have kids with major league issues. Why is it "just a piece a paper" for you -- but not for Gay couples. You're right. It's just a word. So then let it be just a word. You can't have it both ways.
Not judging? Oh please. Have your opinion and I'll defend your right to it with my life. But dont'be blinded by your own hypocrisy. That's not what you want for your children -- is it? Is it?
Thanks for the reminder of Newsvine's other side. I'm going back home.
{"commentId":1813969,"threadId":"264623","contentId":"1489396","authorDomain":"alphadog"}
- 1 vote
#22 - Sat May 17, 2008 10:14 PM EDT{"canLink":false,"threadId":"264623","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
