No one has ever been able to explain to me how gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage in general or my marriage in particular?

Do we have so many loving and committed couples in this country that we can justify denying the most basic of rights under the Constiution to a segment of our American citizenry because a religious minority dislikes what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms?

It’s worth underscoring that this is a conservative Republican court that struck down the ban on gay marriage, presumably because they recognize that “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” does not just apply to a self-chosen few.
( send private message )

That’s right! the bulk of the judges who made that decision were appointed by Republican governors and presumably Republicans themselves.

Nevertheless, leave it to the likes of the Runners and Steve and Gail Knight to try and make political hay of it.
( send private message )

Do you not care about the will of the people of California being overturned by Judaical fiat ? The will of the people of the State of CA. was expressed in Prop 22 by 61 percent of the people. Those that agree with your position never proposed their own law and inactive to overturn 22, nope they turned to the courts because they know that the citizens of the state do not agree with them.

So now we come to a Constitutional amendment to decide the matter, that’s called Democracy.

When you loose that battle, by 51 percent or greater majority, we the people of the State of California say that marriage means one man and one woman, what will you do then?

It’s called Democracy, elected representative government, not rule by Judaical fiat.
( send private message )

Now the social conservatives will demand that he tow the hard anti-gay line just when he’s trying to reach out to moderates and independents who are not especially sympathetic to that position, in fact mostly horrified by it.

Closer to home, the governor has already indicated thet he will not support a Constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage and the Assembly is unlikely to be sympathetic either.

The local folks push for it at their own peril.
( send private message )

The residents in the AV are not the laughing stock of the state. Just because most people in rural areas don’t approve of watching two men walking down the street holding hands, or two women kissing on the sidewalk, does not make people in the AV ignorant. Calling us Neanderthals is a good thing. If Neanderthals were gay, they would have never EVOLVED (another topic for another day).

If people want to be gay, that is there choice, but to ask to be married at the same level as traditional marriage, that is wrong. Don’t call it discrimination. That would lead to men marrying dogs, or even having the right to have multiple wives, or even marrying children. The traditional marriage offers society stability, gay marriage opens it up to a variety of ways people will use to twist and manipulate the system. Call it something else, Civil Unions, or Same Sex Domestic Partners. Don’t call it what it is not.
( send private message )

Show me where Civil Unions, which I support, are deficient in the state of California, what does a Civil Union lack that a marriage offers where is the unequal before the law side of this?

If it’s about respect, well I respect gay couples, but I also respect the culture of this country and the religious beliefs of those that believe that marriage means one man and one woman. I’m not into new speak, or other fascist techniques to reshape our society into something that progressives /liberals think it should be.
( send private message )

At any rate, Pete Knight was a viscious homophobe and used Prop. 22 to manipulate the fear and ignorance of an uncertain public. I am confident that if a law similar to Prop. 22 were brought before the people today, it would be handily defeated.

Let me ask you this, Steve:

What is your personal stake in the matter? How would two men or two women being able to marry personally effect you and your marriage?

If you can come up with a legitimate answer to that question, I will consider it.
( send private message )

Don’t care if they are conservative, liberal or what ever. They overturned the will of the people, expressed in a vote of the people in passage of Proposition 22. Let’s not even talk about the respect for stare dais of the established (by the people) of what we thought on the matter. No, Judges know best.

The question will now go to where it has to, the people for a vote of what we the people think the Constitution should say. Matt will be unhappy when that final answer comes down, but ask me if I care.
( send private message )

My stake, I vote for things, I believe that my votes count. When Judges overturn my views because they know best, then I tend to get mad.

Before your time, I voted Rose Byrd out of office because she did not support the death penalty and I do.
( send private message )

But I’ll ask the question again, a question I have asked gay marriage opposents many, many times and have never gotten a satisfactory answer:

How does gay marriage undermine the institution of marriage in general or my marriage in particular?

And just saying “because they’re homosexuals!” doesn’t count.
( send private message )

Being “gay” isn’t necessarily a “choice”. There is current evidence and investigation pointing to the contrary. As for homosexuality itself, it can be very situational and may rely on a wide range of variables in it’s actual manifestation. But the actual feeling and emotions attached to someone who identifies as “gay” are not always a choice.

And the same question applies to you AVbornbred:

What is your personal stake in the matter? How would two men or two women being able to marry personally effect you and your marriage?

If you can come up with a legitimate answer to that question, I will consider it.
( send private message )

My dog in the fight, I am a traditionalist. Words mean some things, marriage is a religious institution that has civil rights attached.

I am perfectly willing to support Civil Unions and all the rights of marriage without redefining the meaning of the word marriage.

The real homophobia comes down to gay folk that feel that then need to be validated in the life style choices they have made and the rest of us must validate their view by recognizing the sanctity of their choice. if we don’t see it that way we must be homophobic.

Sorry, not buying. Matter of fact, before you were even born I attended one of my neighbors “commitment ceremony”, which was weird for me, but in one sense who am I to judge.
( send private message )

I think it is good the judges have reintroduced the issue. Their interpretation of the state constitution is valid and this needs to be reconsidered by the people of California today. What are you afraid of, you will lose this time??
( send private message )

You called it. Judaical activism, overturning the will of the people, will galvanize most reasonable people.

matt and his buddies will honk on and on about how homophobic we all are, and I and all the others who don’t like being told by Jurists what our society should be like will go and vote to put what we think in the Constitution.
( send private message )

Two Questions:

1. Why tag anyone who does not support Same Sex marriages a Neanderthal simply because they are opposed?

2. Why not call them civil unions instead of Marriage if some of the opposition would be satisfied if they did?

And before you ask, I agree 100% with Steve and I quote:

“If it’s about respect, well I respect gay couples, but I also respect the culture of this country and the religious beliefs of those that believe that marriage means one man and one woman. I’m not into new speak, or other fascist techniques to reshape our society into something that progressives /liberals think it should be”
( send private message )

I very much disagree. Courts need to respect the people and our voices as much as they seem to respect precedence in past court rulings.

If things and thinking on gay “marriage” has changed, fine let’s put it to a vote. Put the proposition up that changes Prop 22, let’s have a vote.

Having Judges overrule the voice of the people is never a good idea, and we are about to find out just how much people really beleive that point.
( send private message )

5 of my closest friends are gay and I adore them all… and NONE of them care what “Official Reference” is used to enable them to be joined legally.

They simply want to be able to have the opportunities Married folks do, especially when it comes to legal responsibilities. Not one of them cares if the decision is to semantically alter the way things are now.

They simply want to live their lives together as a couple legally and could care less what the union is referred to as.

I will never understand why “some” have to insist on the “Marriage Title” when accepting an alternative would better their chances..
( send private message )

Exactly..
( send private message )

Fine, then show me, tell me where Civil Unions are defective in the goal of making all official references before the bar of justice.

The whole gay marriage crap is about gay people wanting society in general to endorse/validate their choices.

I don’t care and many religious people don’t and I do not support enforced re-refinement of common societal terms to just make a small group of people feel better about themselves.
( send private message )

Steve,

When did you “choose” to be heterosexual?
( send private message )

By that logic, we’d still have slavery. Unfortunately for the “traditionalists”, civil rights must apply equally and to all.
( send private message )

Ok, I agree that people’s minds might changed/softened in the last eight years, so instead of having a judge overturn the will of the people, why not just re-vote on it again?

This is the prime example of my vote for prop. 187, my vote meant nothing…
( send private message )

The second, and far more important, is whether judges have the right to overturn the will of the voters. And to that question the answer, unfortunately at times, must be yes. Our system is set up so that questions of constitutionality are only answered in the passive form inasmuch as judges do not seek out cases on which to rule, but rather that the cases must be brought to them. Those cases are not brought to them until after a law has passed thus giving judges the right, and responsibility, to determine their constitutional alignment.

Therefore, the answer here can only be a constitutional amendment.

Which leads to the next question. Should the will of the majority supersede the rights of the minority? Before you answer that put it into the context of the Civil Rights movement. The majority in those days did not feel Blacks should have the same rights as Whites. Should the majority have won that argument simply because they were the majority?
( send private message )

Wondered when you were going to go there.

So now we equate the societal recognition of interpersonal relationships with the subjugation of an entire race of people. That’s a pretty good trick, and one that many would fall into.

Tell me how you equate race to sexual orientation again? What’s the observable characteristic that raises gay folks to the state of where you want to equate things, a lisp perhaps?
( send private message )

A war was fought to answer your question. Those that held that there was such a thing as a 3/5 person lost that war.

If the proposition 22 was not the will of the people, then where was the anti 22 that overturned that law?

The argument actually is now moot however. There will be a Constitutional amendment, and the will of the people of California will once again be determined.
( send private message )

(That “lisp” remark was unfortunate, but I’m not going to suggest comparable stereotypes.)
( send private message )

I should have rephased it, it took four people to change the will of millions…
( send private message )

Perhaps the definition be changed. Anyway, gays will be able to marry in California in roughly a month. This may be overturned shortly after.

Quesiton is, if and when it is overturned, what becomes of the gays that married during that legal period. Are they still married? Toss that around. I’m going for coffee.
( send private message )

Ok…no lisp, then a snappy sense of fashion that the rest of us male slobs fail to exhibit?

I am into Federalism, I beleive these matters, including abortion, belong to the people of each state. I think abortion wrong, gay “marriage” wrong, but I am perfectly happy to let the citizens of the state decide what they think, just like they do with the death penalty. I’m going to guess here, but you probably are a supporter of a Federal ban on the death penalty, or at least an activist Federal Judiciary that makes it so.

I’d also guess that given your background in the media, you cry 1st amendment when it comes to what the media is allowed to say, I’d agree by the way. I’d probably though push for a strengthening of libel laws so the media just can’t say anything without consequences if done with malice.
( send private message )

One more thing as a calibrate of your point of view. Are you in favor of return of the “Fairness Doctrine” ?

As you might guess, I am dead set against it, being the Libertarian leaning Republican type that I am.
( send private message )

Not at all, but talk radio sometimes says things, both L and R that some don’t like. Even jokes about Lisps and sense of fashion. Some who don’t like free speech from both the L and R would like to shut that down. I shut it down by not listening, i.e. switch the channel.
( send private message )

Just trying to calibrate if you were totally infected with Liberal media disease. Seems you’re not, well except for equating being against gay marriage as being for slavery.
( send private message )

If you frame the question to ask specifically What difference it makes to how I live and breath as it compares to the Iraq War, Housing, Crime, the Economy, and the “Invasion”, this issue is nothing more than a footnote..

I honestly don’t give a damn.. I need gas prices to come down, my house to be worth something again, to see the “Invasion” of our borders stopped, and crime reduced.
( send private message )

LOL..Not in my Neighborhood! ROFL
( send private message )

I honestly don’t give a damn.. I need gas prices to come down, my house to be worth something again, to see the ‘Invasion’ of our borders stopped, and crime reduced.“

Exactly. So why don’t you bring that up to Congressman Buck McKeon who, according to the A.V. Press, has gotten involved in the matter.

Doesn’t the Congressman have more pressing matters on the federal level to be concerned with? (i.e. gas prices, the war in Iraq, the economy, etc.)
( send private message )

That would be a great question to ask.. Other than pandering to the far right, I cannot think of one…

The Christian Right will be all over this, if they are not already, for McKeon, The Runners, or any of the Assembly candidates to to take this head on is a waste ot time..

FIX California NOW…Same Sex Marriage YES or NO does nothing for me or my famiily..
( send private message )

And some are suggesting now that Polygamists and Bigamists are now going to use this ruling as a “Why them and not us?” argument..
( send private message )

No wonder about that.

And common sense will never prevail as long as zealotry remains the order of the day.

What I find humorous is that this debate sparks so much commentary yet not one peep about our liberal legislators removing any wording regarding the value limit on a vehicle one can own and still be eligible for welfare. So now you get to pay for the food stamps and welfare checks for people driving brand new Escalades.

Zealotry reigns supreme.
( send private message )

Actually, this is more common than you probably realize, especially in the military. They provide each other with cover and companionship.
( send private message )

Like I said before, I’m more angry that judges have the ability to change the will of the people.

They could do the same with regards to the issues you just spoke of.
( send private message )

And we have points made against “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, along with a gratuitous slam of the military. Well done Ray…well done, especially in an area that derives much of the income of people in the area from that very same military. I wonder if your former audience caught a whiff of that.
( send private message )

What is the proper role of government?
( send private message )

Hey, when will the Ledford campaign come out one way or the other on this issue?

I’m pretty sure JRKnight is going to support the constitutional restoration of his father’s legacy.

Fox…not so sure how he swings.
( send private message )

This former audience member sure did and was not surprised at all
( send private message )

Seems a little disjointed does’nt it?
( send private message )

Would’ve sworn . . .
( send private message )

Ok, well sure sounded like the usual Liberal line that I would expect from matt, and I too knew gay people in the military, even back in the 70’s.

It was a very telling comment.
( send private message )

I have no doubt that you know, maybe even work with, gay people and have absolutely not a clue.
( send private message )

Maybe you missed the memo, only members of the Lancaster Baptist church seem to care, I sure as hell don’t. You should have a nice long conversation with TRex, he might care.
( send private message )

Maybe you don’t get the point that in California domestic partnerships including full health care are enshrined in the law.

As far as, the term “beards” in the military, OK…color me not shocked, and color me square in favor of “Don’t ask, don’t tell”.

I worked in a field in the service were we had tons of gay people, we knew who they were and really didn’t care unless they were “flaming”.
( send private message )

So let’s get back to the point of your original rant, you’re OK with Judaical activism, turning over the will of the people?

Will you work to defeat the Constitutional amendment to fix Judaical activism, I’ll probably just write a check to support the measure and stop watching Queer Eye.

Maybe Republicans will get Larry Craig and Mark Folley to campaign in support of the amendment….DOH. Democrats and gays can bring out Barny what’s his face.
( send private message )

As I posted earlier.. 5 of my dearest friends are GAY and they all live here..

What difference does it make how many gays live in the Antelope Valley, secretive or not? How does that fact add anything to the discussion?
( send private message )

I think it was a warning to keep your doors locked, after all they could break into your house and redecorate or something.
( send private message )

LOL.. gotcha.. But I have 2 VERY large homophobic dogs that might not like them much..

(ps.. that was a joke)...
( send private message )

Maybe we can we get someone who more represents the Democratic party.

Are there any African American-Hispanic, illegal alien, transgendered convicted criminals living on welfare with 5 children from 5 different men all of who are in prison that could run up here? Did I leave out any of the New Democratic party stalwarts ?
( send private message )

Your sense of humor is so over-the-top!

I never said it had to be a “Democrat”, but you better think twice before you send someone to Sacramento who is combative and arrogant and thinks they are too good to work with the majority in power.

Newsflash: two more counties in California have just moved from the Republican to Democratic columns: Ventura and Stanislaus—both now have majority-Democratic registration and this is expected to have an effect on legislative elections.

The GOP in this state has become arrogant, stale and xenophobic and it is going to implode. Keep electing narrow-minded Republicans in the mold of Steve Knight and you will only quicken it’s demise as well as destroy any chance of getting anything for the Antelope Valley from Sacramento.
( send private message )

I agree that Republicans in this state are a joke, well except Democrats are a bigger joke. So I’ll stick with the ones that have occasional flashes of sanity, namely Republicans.
( send private message )

Then those who hold such a religious belief as that should never marry a member of their own sex, huh?! Beyond that – beyond the ways in which their religious beliefs influence their lives – it’s none of their business!
You see, gay marriage is much akin to abortion; should you stand opposed to abortion, then don’t have an abortion. Beyond that, it’s none of your business!
In other words, your religious beliefs are just that, your religious beliefs. Beyond that, your religious beliefs are absolutely meaningless!

Persevere.
Guy

Good evening.

Selective reading on your part.

I’m mad not over the issue of gay marriage or not, I’m mad over judicial activism overturning the will of the people.

A constitutional amendment will fix my unhappiness, then our gay friends in time can try to get one on the ballot and overturn the will of the people. Pretty simple stuff called Democracy.
( send private message )

Out!

Says you and 4 out of 7 judges of the CA supreme court. I’m into Democracy, why aren’t you? Prop 22 passed by 61 %, ie the will of the people. The Constitutional amendment will pass by that much I think.
( send private message )

Thoughts?
( send private message )

And the reason why Supreme Court justices are given lifetime appointments is so they do not feel compelled to rule according to what the majority wants rather than what the Constitution dictates.
( send private message )

What happened?

It now appears that Republican leadership is sending the message that individuals can’t be entrusted with making their own decisions; we must have government making them for us.

With Democrats trying to control some of our personal decisions and Republicans wanting to control others we are headed into a total Stepford society.
( send private message )

I have been a proud Conservative most of my life and I do not see how your
“Republican leadership is sending the message that individuals can’t be entrusted with making their own decisions” conclusion was calculated.

Please elaborate
( send private message )

What is it about referring to a same sex partnership as a “Civil Union” that is so offensive to the Gay Community?

Everyone I know who is opposed to same-sex marriage has been able to embrace “Civil Unions” so why fight it?
( send private message )

Well you seem to believe and put your faith in the views of 4 out of 7 black robes instead of the voice of the people. The voice of the people was expressed in proposition 22, the voice of the judges was decided in a 134 page opinion with no respect to our voices.

We will again turn to the voice of the people to determine what we as a society thinks marriage means. The constitutional amendment is pretty strait forward, “marriage means one man and one woman”.

If gay folk can point to something right that is not granted by civil unions, I will support fixing that too. But as a form of validation of their life style by declaration of their unions as a marriage, not going to happen. The citizens of California will vote for this amendment to our Constitution, then the black robes and the Liberals in the Assembly can go pound sand.
( send private message )

I have been unable to attract any of my gay friends to offer any opposition to Civil Unions as their ONLY goal is to be afforded the same legal rights a Married folks are. As far as I KNOW, there is no difference other than semantically.

So why fight it?
( send private message )

Why not, because this is not about equality under the law, Civil Unions create that, it’s about redefining words like marriage to make one group feel validated.
( send private message )

and the Polygamist’s and Bigamist’s, are they next?
( send private message )

Silly, but very expected
( send private message )

No I think the next word to be re-defined because of civil rights is “fat”. You will be sent to state sponsored re-indoctrination camp if caught using the word “fat” to describe a person of large girth.
( send private message )

This gay marriage will cause ALL (cousins, brothers, sisters, polygamist’s, Bigamist’s, etc.) people to marry under the law. And I believe not only would it create chaos in the state, but in the courts.
( send private message )

Only until November.
( send private message )

Tradition.

We are where we are because of tradition. Man marries a woman children are produced. However, tradition is under attack because we are told what occurs behind the bedroom door is nobody’s business.

We see how words are changed to suit new meanings, such as Gay. At one time gay meant a child running after butterflies in a field of flowers. Now gay means a woman kissing another woman with passion in places we don’t need to go. Or maybe a man kissing a man in places you can imagine but gay doesn’t come to my mind.

Therefore, tradition is under attack. In Spain it ok to have sex with a 13 year-old. Spain has allowed the tradition of being an adult to be challenged to 13.

Those that want traditional marriage to include same-sex please answer this question. Is it ok for a man to have consensual sex with a 13 year-old if they do it behind closed bedroom doors?

FYI, PK Shaw says a woman should be able to do with her body as she see fit, and I asked then is it ok for her to sell herself to another for profit? To PK’s credit, she said yes. That is called being consistent.

Can you be consistent in your offense against tradition marriage?

Which tradition will you seek to destroy next?
( send private message )

Excellent points..
( send private message )

In my mind that’s the wrong argument, that one was fought out during Prop 22, and it was approved by 61 percent.

This latest outrage is one of judicial activism, overturning the will of the people. A constitutional amendment will settle the question once and for all, and it will pass
( send private message )

Judges as we know are the best and brightest and therefore able to show us stupid people we don’t understand tradition values. The argument becomes we know best because our education trumps your dated traditional feelings. But judges put sand fleas and smelt ahead of people too so why is it a surprise when judges feel they are the anointed to pick a better outcome for us?

We live in a Republic and as long as judges feel they are superior to the masses, we will have nutty decisions such as this one.
( send private message )

I haven’t read the California state constitution but there is a provision in the US Constitution that guarantees equal protection under the law for everyone. It would not be a stretch to decide that protection be afforded to gays as well straights.

And Randy’s argument about marrying 13 year olds is not valid as 13 year olds are not considered to be adults in this state or this country.

(I also suspect had he been born gay he would be as vocal as the next in demanding his right to marry)
( send private message )

I have potsed this 3 times.. I do not think a majority of gay’s care about the semantics in regards to being “Partnered”.

“Call it whatever you want” is the cry I am hearing.

Using the same argument you subscribed to Randy, ie. he not being Gay is perhaps why he can’t see the light, could also be the reason you continue to insist that the “Married” monikor is so important.. Correct?
( send private message )

Knight will be against it and for the constitutional amendment of course.

But what with lawyer Fox have to say?

As a primary issue, this is going to be big on the Republican side, Democrats and Jimbo not so much.
( send private message )

What I have stated (as many times as you) is that Supreme Court judges are not bound by the wishes of the majority; only by that which is constitutional.

I couldn’t care less what the majority of gays are saying.

My opinion, and it is just that – my opinion, is that government should be as minimally invasive into the private lives of its citizens as possible, meaning when no other person’s safety or welfare is compromised, and that the provisions in our Constitution be respected.

I guess you can twist that however you want but it’s really a very straight forward position.
( send private message )

The question of the Supreme Court decision will probably come up at the PWC debate on Monday night.
( send private message )

Ok, so the question will come down to “Do you support a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman”?

That’s a pretty simple question, and one the Governator has said he does not support.
( send private message )

You can bet Ace’s money (which is not much) that Knight the “conservative” will be all in favor of the amendment.

Fox and Jimbo will be the question mark.
( send private message )

Knight is running as the conservative in the race. No conservative thinks this move is a good thing, full stop.

I quote the Justice Baxter’s dissenting opinion.

“Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces today. So far, Congress, and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage —an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority….

But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will….

I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power. The majority purports to apply certain fundamental provisions of the state Constitution, but it runs afoul of another just as fundamental— article III, section 3, the separation of powers clause. This clause declares that “[t]he powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial,” and that“[p]ersons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others” except as the Constitution itself specifically provides.”

History confirms the importance of the judiciary’s constitutional role as a check against majoritarian abuse. Still, courts must use caution when exercising the potentially transformative authority to articulate constitutional rights. Otherwise, judges with limited accountability risk infringing upon our society’s most basic shared premise the People’s general right, directly or through their chosen legislators, to decide fundamental issues of public policy for themselves.

Judicial restraint is particularly appropriate where, as here, the claimed constitutional entitlement is of recent conception and challenges the most fundamental assumption about a basic social institution.
The majority has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.
( send private message )

Would your stance remain unchanged if the consensus of Gays reached a 2/3 or majority in regards to semantics? You say you could care less about the majority, but is ther a line you can draw to decide when you could?

I am not twisting anything, I am attempting to understand your opinion..
( send private message )

Tradition is best kept in places of worship. It has no business being foisted upon the public at-large.
( send private message )

For me this isn’t a “gay” issue but one of public policy.
( send private message )

Wondered when you would try to link this local Ca issue with the other stuff you like to honk on about.

What will you do for an issue when we vote for the Constitutional amendment to settle the question once and for all?
( send private message )

This is overturn by the courts, and will be fixed by “We the people”.

As to future younger generations, well if they want to they can amend the constitution too when your position is the majority view. It’s called Democracy, but somehow I don’t think that will be any time soon.
( send private message )

If someone like Billy can have a mail-order bride and bring her to the U.S. and marry her and enable to receive citizenship, why can’t two men or two women who have lived their whole lives as U.S. citizens have the same rights as Billy’s new wife?
( send private message )

They do already in California, it’s called Domestic partnerships. You’ve yet to point out one thing that is wrong with those that the Assembly can fix.

This is not about rights, this argument on your part is about validating lifestyle choices by redefining words.
( send private message )

I also have asked the question of my friends and none of them have any reponse either which is why ALL of them favor civil unions
( send private message )

Maybe we can find a court to make that official, seems like you like that process.

NS

The gay argument is, you don’t respect me and my lifestyle choices unless you let me call it marriage.
( send private message )

Did you wake up one morning and “choose” to be straight?

Is your sexuality so fluid that it comes as an easy “choice” for you? Or, is it more fixed?

I suspect the latter. So, do everyone a favour and stop calling it a “lifestyle choice”, when it plainly is not.
( send private message )

Socially retarded?? Why do you ALWAYS demean anyone who disagrees? How does my acceptance of civil unions afford me the title of a “Social Retard?”

Stop being a child for once..
( send private message )

Show me the “gay gene”, another fiction that gay folks want us straits to beleive, we were born this way.

Sense I’m not a Democrat, I don’t mind saying there is no such thing as a “gay gene”, it’s a lifestyle choice.
( send private message )

It is what it is and while by no means perfect it is the system that has made this country the leader of the world.
( send private message )

a Gay Gene???? LOL…
( send private message )

Wow, R/S are you saying you could just as easily sleep with a man as you can a woman? You sure you want to reveal that on this site?
( send private message )

No it’s actually not. Judges making laws instead of being the just the honest umpires is rather new. Unfortunately it would seem Republican judges have gotten just as stupid as liberals now.
( send private message )

So why is it that the Gay Community cannot respect the tradition as IT IS NOW?
( send private message )

Then you did not read the dissenting opinion I posted above. This so called right to gay marriage was invented out of whole cloth, the exact problem with what jurists have been doing for about the last 30 years.
( send private message )

Please note that I’m not homophobic, most should remember that my sister is gay and I have friends who are gay. I do not and will not judge them, the only thing that concerns me is the can of worms which will open for ALL to marry and the chaos that will come.

Craig and I spoke about this at church this morning and surprisingly he said it’s about 1st amendment rights.
( send private message )

To potentially ostracise themselves from friends and family?
To risk being fired or conveniently “laid off” from a job?
To risk being verbally and/or physically abused?
To face excommunication or rejection from their religious upbringing?

Gay and lesbian teenagers are five times more likely to committ suicide than their heterosexual peers. On average, they are more likely to get involved in substance abuse as a result of depression.
( send private message )

A better topic: how many civilians did Col. “Pete” Knight kill in Nam? How many canisters of napalm did he drop?
( send private message )

Oh but I did read your dissenting opinion R/S. I just disagree with it. Were the Civil Rights also invented out of whole cloth?
( send private message )

Asking the same question of an Alcoholic, a Drug Addict, etc…and you get the same answer..

it is a CHOICE..
( send private message )

Would it suffice then?
( send private message )

Answer the question.. Why are you and others opposed to Civil Unions? What exactly is the problem?
( send private message )

Ask any of them if they “chose” their sexual orientation.

Or, did you lie when you stated as much?
( send private message )

Because society does not respect their lifestyle choice unless they are allowed to marry, and wear comfortable shoes, and decorate, and….and…and..
( send private message )

That is not true at all..The made the choice at some point in their life to pick up a joint and smoke it or a beer and drink it.. Same as Smokers…

Even though they know the harm any of these activities can cause, they still CHOOSE to do it..
( send private message )

Actually… Only one of them has been gay for as long as she CAN remember the rest, all men, made the decision late into their teens..
( send private message )

Besides, as the laws get more progressive in regards to marriage, Sharie Grunters will one day be allowed to marry their cuz, or favorite great dane, etc.
( send private message )

Thanks for the suggestion that I COULD be lieing about having gay friends..

Since I am extremly involved in the performance industry, I can tell you I have many more than just the 5 gay friends I posted about earlier, but these 5 are very close friends to me and my family and we have had this exact discussion!

BTW: they did NOT call me a social retard at any time during any of them..
( send private message )

Having sex with a woman as a woman ONE time does make you a Lesbian either..
( send private message )

INSECURITY

The people who oppose Gay Marriage are either insecure of their marriage, their sexuality—or both!

For, if they weren’t, this wouldn’t be an issue.

Saying it is “tradition” is nothing more than a facade to mask their insecurity.
( send private message )

What’s wrong with Domestic partnerships, Civil Unions…you still can’t come up with one thing.
( send private message )

As Wrong as you could possibly be.. How can you possibly suggest you can decided that the Majority of America is simply Insecure??

What a crock of shit..
( send private message )

using your absurd argument..

IF gays cannot accept the tradition of Marriage and accept Civil Unions as a compromise, then perhaps they are INSECURE!

Why else would they oppose it?
( send private message )

Many people experiment sexually to better understand themselves. But God forbid we even talk about that, because it’s just to taboo and too remote for this oh-so-pedestrian crowd at IntheAV.com
( send private message )

Because us dumb ass straits don’t respect the lifestyle choices made by gays…simple once you break the code.
( send private message )

I wonder where you hang out? I am constantly in the company of Gay men and women and this scary – awful biased community where gay men and women live in fear does not exist..

These are wonderful people who talk openly about who they are and have been welcome in my home and are part of my extended family…

Two gay men I have known for years are referred to as “Uncles” by my kids..
( send private message )

So you think traditions are not important and are laughable???

Wow..
( send private message )

Fine, as far as point 2, but the people of the state of CA has spoken on this matter with Prop 22. Judges overturned the will of the people.

The question of what is in our constitution will now come back to those who it governs, the people now. Not the Legislature, not the judicial, not the executive, we the people.

We the people are about to speak, listen carefully matt, listen carefully Denise.
( send private message )

Using your argument would allow me to marry 5 wives, and perhaps accept the Paw of my Huskie in Marrage also…

Your arguement eliminiates ALL barriers, and open season for weddings between anyone, or anything..

It is crazy..
( send private message )

And, I could care less how many “gay friends” you have. That isn’t germaine to the topic. Try walking in the shoes of a gay person for just one week. I don’t think you could handle it.
( send private message )

Why can’t the gay community accept civil unions?? No one has responded to that question..Including MY gay friends, because they do not care..
( send private message )

You are 100% correct, I could never walk in a gay man’s shoes because I am NOT gay..

Brilliant observation Matt..
( send private message )

I have to go but will leave you with the two questions still left unanswered:

1. Why are civil unions unacceptable?

2. How to draw the line if Marriage becomes a free for all?

Have a wonderful day everyone..
( send private message )

For all of Billy’s outright hatred of me, at least I can say he is certainly more keen than you apparently are.
( send private message )

Because the definition of what a marriage was set by the people of the state of California. Judges have imposed their will and their views on the matter over our will. Prop 22 passed by 61 percent, the constitutional amendment will do that well or better.
( send private message )

Finding that there was a Constitutional right for gay people to marriage. In short inventing a right out of whole cloth. The same silliness of “privacy rights and penumbras” that underlies the abortion issue.

Your equation of observable human characteristics of gender and race with human sexuality is the hole in your argument. Using your logic, if someone feels that they should be allowed to do something, say sex with underage children, who is to say it is wrong? Biology, ethics, religion, you are rejecting those in favor of what people feel like are their rights. You are advocating a standard based on what people feel not what tradition or religious belief holds. Given your standard, anything goes if I feel it is my right to do it.
( send private message )

Sex with children would clearly exceed the boundaries of this argument and therefore not a valid point.
( send private message )

so “tradition” would dictate we return to that definition
( send private message )

But it does not in the sense that the definition of what is a child is based on what? It’s mostly moral, some biological and some cultural. If you can redefine the law to suit what people feel in matters of human sexuality, what is to prevent them from changing it for sex with whatever someone feels is a child? The will of the people now mea