Comments for California Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on Gay Marriage »
Posted By david_nwpa 1 year, 7 months ago in StyleThe California Supreme Court announced on Wednesday it will issue its ruling tomorrow on whether same-sex couples can marry in the state. The judgment is expected at 10:00 am PT, and LGBT groups throughout the state are making plans to be in San Francisco for the decision.
Read Full Story at 365gay.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 260
-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The whole LGBT community will be waiting patiently tomorrow to discover whether the people have been granted the same rights as others, or if LGBT Californians are also second-class citizens. If marriage equality is mandated by the court, then the governor should have no choice but to amend California law and ratify gay marriage.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's your answer:
http://news.propeller.com/story/2008/05/15/cali...
Reply-
-
Neutral
smeejay1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
here's bigger news. the ban HAS BEEN OVERTURNED!!! the year that i was born the recommended course of action for a son or daughter coming out to their parents, was INSTITUTIONALIZATION. and that institution's recommended course of action was ELECTROSHOCK therapy. all of these changes within my short lifetime of 49 years. and please don't think that this is gloating. this SO does not mean that gays and lesbians have won. this means that ALL americans have won. this country remains the single greatest experiment in democracy and human rights in history. WOW!
Reply -
-
-
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
IanFraigun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In situations of human and civil rights the will of the people is often wrong.
If we would always let that will expressed through the ballot box rule then we would still have slavery. Even with that gone we would still have legal segregation and discrimination. All are aginst our desire that ALL people should have equal rights.
There are many other things the 'people' have voted for that are against the law and our constitution and have had to be overturned by the courts over the years.
Reply-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive86 Replies
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The only collection that is danming the will of the poeple is the Neo-Conservatives and their umbrella organization -- Republicanism.
They claim to be 'Fiscal Conservatives' --- and they bankrupt our nation with the most lavish deficit spendin in American history!!!
Its liek ... you gotta be morally vacant and a bona fide liar to be eligible to vote Republican.
Who woulda thought such a thing could be possible 'pre-Gingrich'?
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Out of frustration over the war and the President's inflationary spending, voters are considering the socialism of the Democrats to be a viable alternative. They forget that the Democratic Party has not represented the moral, ethical or religious views of the majority of Americans for a long time. I don't think that President Bush can claim to be a fiscal Conservative by an stretch of the imagination.
Reply -
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Out of frustration over the war and the President's inflationary spending"
More over fear of a president who sees no limits to his power and breaks the will of the constitution on a daily basis. The fact that he's spent the US into the toilet for generations to come doesn't help much, either.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
IanFraigun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Judges do not legislate. Their job and they do it very well is to banish laws that violate provisions of the constitution. The so called most activist judge was also in reality the most conservative believing the constitution meant exactly what it said. That was Earl Warren a conservative republican governor before being on the court. The Chief Justice for Row V Wade - Warren Burger another conservative republican. Funny how your kind always equates these true conservatives to being liberal. Not the fact but you do it anyway.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Judges do legislate when they overturn laws established and reinforced by popular votes. Earl Warren was never a Conservative, he just appeared more moderate prior to his appointment and fooled Eisenhower. I would consider Berger a moderate, not a Conservative.
Reply-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There's nothing unconstitutional about the legal status of marriage as it has been since the beginning of time.
Are you saying that a popular vote is irrelevant if it doesn't achieve your political goals? I suppose that you feel that violent revolution is a legitimate option if the electorate isn't "enlightened" enough?
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"There's nothing unconstitutional about the legal status of marriage..."
While it is true the Constitution says nothing specifically about the right to marriage, rights are assumed, not granted. Therefore the right to consensual same-sex marriage is assumed and any ban thereon is unconstitutional.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yep, those devils Jefferson and Madison and Adams and that bunch, saying there is no divine right to govern and that rights of people do not derive from governments but can only be recognized by them, the silly leftists. It ain't all about you and your religious views, Sparky.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
cleare1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i don't think you know or understand the values of the "Founding Fathers"...you clearly don't know that they argued vigorously amongst themselves. the only "values" they all agreed upon were delineated in a document called the Constitution of the United States of America.
when a public servant, elected or not...or when a soldier, enlisted or officer, takes their oath of office, they aren't swearing to uphold and defend the american people, the political administration or even our beautiful land. They swear to uphold and defend the constitution...against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC.
the real patriots in this country respect individual rights guaranteed even to homosexuals, by the constitution.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To which 'values' are you referring? Slavery?
What exactly are 'Family Values' anyway? I always thought it was something like: two loving people committing to each other for life, openly engaging and helping their neighbors, and perhaps raising compassionate and thoughtful children in a caring and responsible manner.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
These far left looneys never will admit that this country was founded on Christian values. They want to make every thing the Bible calls evil a normal way of life. Homosexuality is only one of those things. They even took a good word and murdered it by referring to them as gay. Trying to change the view of what it really is.
Just watch the negs start coming.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The country was founded with Christian values as the norm. The Constitution, however, is NOT a Christian document. The founding fathers took great pains to keep God OUT of the founding documents.
The Bible doesn't call homosexuality 'Evil', it is 'abomination', or 'unclean'--akin to eating shellfish. People pick and choose from the Bible all the time, which is why we don't stone disobedient children to death.
You speak as if those on the left want to turn everyone into homosexuals. That's poppycock! We just want to ensure that those who happen to be gay get equal treatment. The Religious Right is hell-bent on turning each and every homosexual straight. When one group of people starts referring to another group as 'evil' (isn't that what Hitler did?), then it's time for the government to step in.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh really? You are defending the values of the Founders? What are you doing, channeling them? 'Cause I don't believe a single one of them wrote a word about gay marriage! Jefferson cut the Bible down to just the accounts of Jesus's life, minus miracles, and His words (you won't find anything in His words about it either). You'll have to go a door further to sell this one.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's somewhat hard to defend the values of people that held slaves and used the Bible to justify it.
What it comes down to is whether or not the founding fathers were Christians (most weren't -- they were Deists) they specifically and intentionally left out *any* religious reference in the constitution and specifically created the anti-establishment clause just for people like Endoscopy who want to force their moral judgements upon others.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, but the Left loves to hold up the example of Jefferson. In this case, the role of religion is an irrelevant argument since popular votes in so many states have clearly rejected gay marriage.
Reply-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They weren't your modern evangelical Christians. The majority were Episcopalians, and guess which of the first 13 now has a gay Episcopalian bishop? Quite a few were Unitarians, who denied the trinity and the divinity of Christ. Do some research, Son. Here's a good start:
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_R...
And they went to great pains to exclude religion from our government and our government from religion, any and all religion, and after they had done that they then explained it over and over again in correspondence among themselves and with others, in their journals, and in their political writings. In other words it is only a matter of curiosity what religions they might have believed in, 'cause it sure has nothing to do with the government they gave us. Ever read and Thomas Payne, Son? A RABID athiest.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do some real research. They belonged to the Church of England until after the Revolutionary War and the churches split. The extremely liberal Episcopal Church of today can't be compared to the Church of England during the 18th Century. Nice try. Only three Unitarians on the list...apparently, you didn't read it. Btw, I'm not your son, so you can stop addressing me in a condescending manner.
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is the same church. The Anglicans just divide the administration of their church by country, and we became a different country. The Apostolic Succession still applies. Oh, and the Unitarians? Two of the first six to hold the office of President were Unitarians.
Reply-
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The point is that it DOESN'T MATTER! HAVE your religion, PLEASE! Just don't presume. The Founders certainly didn't, at least in the statement of the principles on which they founded this nation. They were not perfect at following their own stated principles of government, but things have gotten better since then, and are still getting better, and still have a way to go. You can get with it, or be an obstacle to progress. That's up to you.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"...who want to force their moral judgements upon others." Sounds like you, Dionys, think that's WRONG to force moral judgements upon others, O "I'm not a Muslim". Maybe you were telling the truth about not being a Muslim, after all?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Natureboy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Perhaps you have not heard that part of a healthy democracy is protecting the minority from the tyrrany of the majority.
You will find the concept discussed in pinko publications such as the Federalist papers and the writings of John Stuart Mill.
Reply-
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If people voted in a ballot that anyone who used the derogatory term "lib" should be banished from the state and the state Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional to pass such legislation, then I am sure you would be very happy with decisions like this.
It's just becuase this decision makes it illegal to discriminate and you need someone to put down to try and make your life seem better that you are upset.
Sorry, you have to be a bigot out in the open instead of trying to hide behind laws now.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He doesn't realize that we aren't a pure democracy, which protects the rights of the minority from the whims of a majority. We're a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution rules. It amazes me how many people don't know that, and think they're good Americans. They don't even know what being an American means.
Reply -
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've heard arguments from some people that, if they used a word besides "marriage," it would speed things up. That seems to be a big part of the problem for many people--not the idea of gay couples in long-term relationships--or having kids, but the choice of words.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's pretty clear from some of the posts here that the word is not the issue, at least for some. Look at the posts referring to homosexuals as 'evil' or 'failures' or 'below standard'. People are admitting they don't like gays, regardless of the content of their character, assuming all gays are the same and live the exact same lifestyle.
This is, after all, the last bastion of the hyper-haters. They can't hate people for their religions or color any more, but by gum, they can sure hate them fags!
Reply -
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But if you use a different term, then you have to change a lot of legislation to grant all of the over a thousand rights associated with marriage. If you just use the term marriage, the rights associated automatically transfer.
See? Much easier. And again, what people are upset about is that something or someone that they detest will be equal to them. They want to be able to shame homosexuals and can't if they are equal to them.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ahhhh.. but if "the will of the people were followed" women and blacks could not vote, own property, go to school with children of a different race, marry a different race, etc..
sometimes and only sometimes the courts have to step in and make things RIGHT..
Reply -
Neutral
hamy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sometimes, the will of the people is wrong. You cannot allow the majority to dictate the rights of others. Look at Loving v The State of Virginia. She herself equated her past battle to the current struggle for marriage equality.
Remember? It was illegal for a black and a white to marry too. People didn't want that but the courts had to step in and say that everyone deserves the same rights. Now we are faced with the same problem. Idiots like you think that you should be able to keep a segment of the American population down as second class and the courts are telling you that you can't.
Now why don't you join the Westboro Baptist Church in protesting at soldiers funerals. You are no better.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have no problem with gay marriage when it is legislated. I have a huge problem when the courts start legislating ANYTHING, and that's what this is.
I don't buy the argument that we would still have slaves if it weren't for the courts -- seems to me there was a little thing called the Civil War that addressed that issue among other things. As far as the rest of the civil rights, it is true that there were some court rulings, but the civil rights movement is really what drove the courts as well as federal legislation and an amendment to the Constitution that really made it happened. Segregation is unlikely to have lasted regardless of the courts.
Reply-
-
Neutral
IanFraigun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
May I remind you the courts knocked down segregation in public schools only 54 years ago. It took another 14 years to get it outlawed in other areas of life. It would still exist today, such a short distance in time later, if not for the courts.
Reply -
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a crock. Starting with Eisenhower, the presidents and congress especially the Republicans had bills put into law. The court correctly reversed itself on separate but equal when it was proved that it was not equal. That was the only court decision that wasn't supporting the legislation under Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. The solid south tried to block it but the Republicans supported it so it passed.
You need to reread your history. Women won the right to vote and more through an amendment to the constitution. At that point the courts decided on the prevailing law of the land.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Women made some of the most serious gains beginning in the early 1970s, along with African-Americans. They used both legislation and the courts to achieve this (sometimes the legislatures acted as a result of what was happening in the courts). Dowery laws didn't update where I was living until the late 1970s after many court cases (when they extended their application to men).
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, where I live, (CT) we have legal gay civil unions and will probably have gay marriage next year or so. Our LEGISLATURE passed a bill making it legal. This is a good thing.
Massachusetts, on the other hand, had civil unions before CT, but it was as a result of a court order. Now, I believe they recogonize gay marriage -- because the legislature passed a bill -- again, I have no problem with this.
the path below leads to the Cornell (and Ivy League) Law library and the US code that defines marriage. Title 1, Chapter 1, 7 In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There should be quotes right before "In.... to wife"> here's the web address for the above quote from the US legal code.
http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscod...
This is why it requires LEGISLATION to chnage this, not court rulings -- in this case, court rulings ARE definitely legislating from the bench -- the is no way to interpret that definition as including gay couples.
Sorry.
This is legislation from the bench.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The US Code contains these definitions for procedural reasons, but they are not laws unless they outline remedies for violation. Using the US flag for advertising purposes is against the US code, but doing so will not get you arrested (where would all our used car dealers be?).
The US code prohibits the desecration of the flag, but this provision is clearly overridden by the protection of free speech. Again, the Constitution can and does override the US code.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
IanFraigun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The civil war was over the issue of maintaining the union at all costs. Lincoln used it to free the slaves mostly to gain northern anti slavery support.
It was the courts that struck down segregated schools because they were unequal, struck down poll taxes to keep the poor from voting, struck down redlining in real estate to allow free will mixing of communities, struck down laws against interratial marriage and so many other things not in compliance with our constitutional rights.
In California unlike any other state there is a constitutional right of privacy. That means the government has not right peeking into our bedroom which is why no sexual activities between consenting adults is illegal in that state. The same should hold true for those who wish to live together as a married couple since the government has no business by constitution to get involved in that decision.
Reply -
Neutral
jordan111 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have a huge problem when the courts start legislating ANYTHING, and that's what this is.>>>>>
The courts have a responsibility to interpret LAW. And our LAWS are derived from Constitutional intent. When a law is not in accordance with that intent, the courts MUST strike down the law. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Equal rights is equal rights, period! There are no 'if's, and's or buts' about it. We are obliged to follow the Constitution, not the whims of a 'majority' that deny the rights of a minority!
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Marriage is NOT a constitutional issue. It is a statutory issue,and therefore, must be dealt with on a statutory basis. If you want it to be a constitutional issue, then you must get an amendment passed getting gays recognized as a legitimate group that is entitled to equal rights -- as women, minorities and seniors have.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well I have a big problem with the government recognizing ANYBODY'S marriage if they use that to discriminate against anybody. What business of the government's is it if anybody is married or not? How is it right for the government to recognize your relationship but not mine? You can name no legitimate interest of the government that doesn't apply to all the citizens equally.
Reply-
Neutral
Natureboy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes!
If as the fundies endlessly repeat, "marriage is a sacrament," then separation of church and state requires that the government recognize civil unions only, equally accessible to gay and straight couples. Those who want their union recognized by the church can take it up with the church, but it should have no impact on their legal status, taxes, etc.
Reply-
Neutral
cleare1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
right on, natureboy...furthermore if marriage is viewed as such a sacrament, then i'd like an explanation for the multiple divorces amongst prominent fundamentalist christians and conservative politicians. i'd also like explanations for quickie wedding chapels in Las Vegas and quickie divorces in Reno.
Reply -
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I suggest that you reread the constitution. There is no separation clause. Something that the looney left doesn't understand. It is the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE. The reason was that there was to be religious freedom so no one denomination of Christians could dominate over the others like happened in Europe.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The separation of church and state is not some new-fangled 'looney left' notion. It is established precedent based on decades of Constitutional scholarship. It protects, by the way, both the religious AND the secular elements of society.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
well, if you want to base it on precedent, there goes your gay marriage....
you guys -- you claim precedent (which really doesn't exist in the separation that you claim goes back to the beginning -- the present form of the separation of church and state started in the 60's with Madelyn O'Hair.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not just christianity but all religions were equal and not legislated by government is true. But it has been interpreted by the SCOTUS and many scholars to mean that if you allow one religion to govern, it automatically becomes state sponsored and therefore outlawed by the constitution.
Get it?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Absolutely right. Marriage should be under the purview of religion & separate from government influence. If the govt. wishes to give 'perks' to couples sharing their lives together, then those perks should go to ALL couples sharing their lives, or to none. And NEVER should govt. dictate what a church may do in regard to marriage. If a church marries a homosexual couple, that's the business of the church & the couple and no one else.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
None have been able to explain how a gay marriage in Massachusetts or California will in any way change or alter the family in Iowa. None have been able to explain how allowing gays and lesbians to marry and be accepted completely as citizens in this country will in any way damage society. Spout off biblical rhetoric all you like, but none have presented any evidence. In fact, divorce rates are not changed in Massachusetts, where marriage equality has existed for over 5 years. Hence, marriage equality is about setting people as equal regardless of the underlying bigotry some people refuse to surrender.
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Spout off biblical rhetoric all you like, but none have presented any evidence."
Dang, so I can't use the old "Hell-Fire" argument? Darn!
/end sarcasm
No one will ever be able to explain that. Ever. Or explain how marriage is religious when you can get married in the eyes of the law by a judge, as opposed to a priest.
Reply-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Exactly. Can't people marry on board a ship at sea and have the ship's captain perform the ceremony? Saying that, what defines a ship? Are we talking about a cruise ship, or could it be the ferry running between Manhattan and Staten Island?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
donotdoubt1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Reply-
Neutral
antitrust1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you realize that you are being told how and what to think by a words that are supposedly written by "God?" How are those ideas of God any more valid then the bum off the street saying he has heard the voice of God? Oh wait, maybe if he wrote them down and sprinkled some dust on them they would be, completely ridiculous. Christianity uses fear to impose itself as a governing body but that is another topic.
Reply-
Neutral
antitrust1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Religion must be separate from government. How do you impose one belief system on an entire nation or another's own morals? You simply can't. Marriage is defined by religion, not the government, yet politicians do so for electiblity. Others are correct when they state "equal rights." It shouldn't be called marriage between same sexes but "unions" or some other jargon. If it is an insult to you and your religion that is your problem. Where are your morals when atrocious acts are being committed by our government? Yet you vote for and keep the same politicians in office.
Not everyone is Christian and your morals should not be imposed on someone that does not believe the same.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Murder is against the law because it is a violation of another's rights, NOT because God said so. Same with torture (well, it SHOULD be).
There is a rational standard for the vast majority of laws on the books that have to do with an assumption of equality and an assumption of rights. Any form of descrimination, be it because of race, religion, or sexual preference simply has no rational basis and therefore should be discarded.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So speaks an ignorant person. Less than 3% of people are Homosexual. You buy into their lies. Most Homosexuals just float from partner to partner many times on a daily basis.
None of the people who followed Jesus at that time were homosexual.
He was being nice. In the Old Testament the act is called an abomination.
Reply -
-
Neutral
antitrust1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Most Homosexuals just float from partner to partner many times on a daily basis."
Do you know any and how do you know this? Is it something you heard or can you back it up? Everyone has their secrets and homosexuality stretches back further then the existence of Jesus by thousands of years.
Reply-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are the ignorant one. Abomination in the times that the Bible was written just means "out of accordance with our customs" according to all Bible scholars. It is not a condemnation.
And where is the link to the study from the census bureau that confirms your 3% idea?
And there were men who slept with men throughout history and there were women who slept with women throughout history. Look at B.C. art for a clue.
Moron.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
jumpmaster1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If the California supreme court does not pass this, there will be riots in the streets of San Francisco.
There will be slap fights, hands on hips, pouting, and all of the houses in the Castro district will be painted in clashing colors in protest.
Reply -
-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I see...way to go California. Since Gay marriage is being banned by POPULAR vote in almost every single state, what better way to subvert the will of the people than have the court get involved?
Personally, I don't care if states ban or legalize gay marriage as long as the PEOPLE of that STATE decide. Not the federal government, not some activist judges.
Reply-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The PEOPLE decide what they want, not the COURTS. "
Tell that to Bush and the Congress, then. The people don't want a war that drives the country into oblivion. Nor do they want warantless wiretapping. Nor do they want their various civil rights eroded.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Who erodes our rights all the time by making rules for "our own good". Think about the smoking laws. The extra tax on cigarettes so the poorest can pay more taxes."
Think about the signing statements that Bush uses to ignore or willfully violate the laws he signs.
Reply -
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Think about the smoking laws."
This is not the best argument, because the smoking laws have made it possible for asthmatics and those who suffer from severe allergies to actually go into bars and restaurants without having to medicate themselves.
Someone's addiction shouldn't trump someone else's medical problem.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
cleare1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
sometimes "the people" are wrong. our founding fathers knew this and that is why they structured our government the way they did; to protect the rights of the individual against the stupidity of "the people".
our constitution grants all citizens equal rights under the law including homosexuals.
Reply -
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The founders warned us repeatedly about the "tyranny of the majority" and sought to limit it through separation of powers and a constitution and Bill of Rights that make things explicit that might be undermined by special interests.
Reply-
-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
and we've pretty well traded in any hope of the "tyranny of the majority" for what we've got now -- which is the tyranny of the minority.
if you go back and look, unpopular ideas - religions, opinions and whatnot -- were to be tolerated -- that is there would be no legal consequences holding these opinions -- no arrest, no jail, etc. Tolerance is a synonym for forebearance. There is no requirement that the majority must whole-heartedly embrace the minority opinion, just that they not actively harass it. This has morphed to the demand that tolerance include acceptance -- enthusiastic acceptance, even. If each and everyone of us doesn't publicly avow that each and every lifestyle is just as valid as the next, we are labeled as hateful bigots.
This is not necessarily tolerance or even acceptance, but it is indiscriminate.
Reply-
Neutral
smeejay1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
it's your words, not anyone's judgements of them, that would label you to be a bigot. homosexuality doesn't care at all whether you love it or hate it, anymore than your opinion or acceptance of a tree affects how it grows. homosexuality, like all of god's creations, simply IS.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned4 Replies
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
-
-
Neutral
Hobe1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
California Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on HoMOsexual Marriage
Is it fair to say, there are caults in many states that allow so called men to Marry multiply wives, in some cases under age teen age girls. There have also been suggustions that teen age boys have also been abused?
HoMosexuals should and must have the same rights as all americans....
Reply -
Neutral
Itachirumon1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"California Supreme Court to Rule Tomorrow on HoMOsexual Marriage
Is it fair to say, there are caults in many states that allow so called men to Marry multiply wives, in some cases under age teen age girls. There have also been suggustions that teen age boys have also been abused?
HoMosexuals should and must have the same rights as all americans.... "
Hobe, is it fair to say you're a waterhead retard? It's spelled homosexual or Homosexual not HoMOsexual, we've been over this Corkey. By the way, it's also called cults, not caults. You should take sixth grade English over again because you have repulsively bad syntax. I'm suprised you capitalize Homosexuals and won't even capitalize Americans...are you really that hypocritical? Just goes to show you: Cons "Love America" unless they have to prove it, then they show their true form. Get a life you unpatriotic, bigoted, nationalistic, ethnocentric donkey's rump.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
dandur61 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Homosexuality is genetic, like blue eyes. A major study by an Illinois university of DNA from gay brothers will be released next year to show this fact once and for all.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada now for some time and hasn't changed the lives or marriages of straight people in the least.
Do onto others...
Reply-
Neutral
Itachirumon1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Shhhh don't mention Canada in front of the neocons. The Canada-did-it argument doesn't seem to work with people who believe that each and every country is worse than America. Good to have pride but you need reality too ya know?
While we're at it, don't mention anything done by major studies or universities...them folks daunt take too kindley to that there bukake learning. Universities are el satan to them.
Don't say DNA either, DNA doesn't exist, it's the devil in bed with a goat *shifty eyes*
Reply
-
-
JoseMadreComment removed: Hard Banned
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.