Shame, Shame! San Jose Mayor Comes Out In Opposition To Gay Marriage

Sumballo wrote:

<quoted text>
Peter refers to himself as living in the tent of his body. Who we are is not established by our physical bodies alone, but rather the person on the inside - our mind, soul and spirit.
Everything on the planet is distorted by sin in general. It is because of sin that we are mortal and have sicknesses of various kinds. Sin distort God's creation. Everyday there are babies born with birth defects, allergies, defective hearts, under developed systems, mental disabilities, etc. And even if a person is born with some unexpected affect, God still accepts the person on the inside and offers the same gifts and revelations. This then makes the message of salvation available to all.
So I don't think God chooses some to be born flawless and some to be burdened with physical, emotional or behavioral maladies, no. He knows each of us before the creation of the world and desires for us to have a restored, fulfilled life.

Really what ur saying is that God makes mistakes. If he was the almighty, he wouldnt make mistakes.

Wally wrote:

<quoted text>
The whole point is that it's not someone's physical body that defines them.
What do you think of Down's Syndrome people?

I think they have Down's Syndrome.

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL...well, if you're so sure of your current "legal spouse" status and so sure of the outcome of the CA and FL ballot initiatives, why don't you "sue the state" right NOW? Why are you WAITING, if you are so "sure"?
Florida Statutes § 741.212, Marriages between persons of the same sex, provides:
(1) Marriages between persons of the same sex entered into in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, or relationships between persons of the same sex which are treated as marriages in any jurisdiction, whether within or outside the State of Florida, the United States, or any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location, are not recognized for any purpose in this state.
(2) The state, its agencies, and its political subdivisions may not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any state, territory, possession, or tribe of the United States or of any other jurisdiction, either domestic or foreign, or any other place or location respecting either a marriage or relationship not recognized under subsection (1) or a claim arising from such a marriage or relationship.
(3) For purposes of interpreting any state statute or rule, the term "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the term "spouse" applies only to a member of such a union.
Your ISP suggests that you are from Tampa.
As the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division stated in the 2005 case of Wilson v. Ake:
"This Court is bound to follow the precedent established by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. None of their precedent acknowledge or establish a constitutional right to enter into a same-sex marriage. The legislatures of the individual states may decide to permit same-sex marriage or the Supreme Court may decide to overturn its precedent and strike down DOMA. But, until then, this Court is constrained to hold DOMA and Florida Statutes § 741.212 constitutionally valid."

Those rulings were in accordance to DOMA. Once Florida voters state "No" to this amendment, then we will legally sue on the basis of the vote of November 4th and DOMA being unconstitutional and in direct violation of the 14th amendment of the United State Constitution. If this fails within the Florida courts, then we will sue the state on the basis that we feel that all our Constitutional rights are in direct violation and we should be held permanantly exempt of all applicable property taxes, as we will not pay any monies due the state until our legal relationship is recongnized.

Of course, it helps when it shows that Florida voters are against the idea of banning equality. That is why we are waiting. We will not obtain truthfully what we want while voters have to make a decision.

Finally, we are not the only ones doing this. A local attorney has organized the class action for November 5 that involves more than 200 couples. We are confident this will fail and we are confident that Florida will be the next state to overturn DOMA and legally acknowledge our marriage.

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
Of COURSE I don't want to overturn the 14th Amendment -- but you are MISCONSTRUING the 14th Amendment, which is interpreted by the US Supreme Court to mean that "similarly-situated" persons are entitled to be treated equally. Same-sex couples are NOT "similarly-situated" with opposite-sex couples though when it comes to civil marriage, no matter how gay advocates try to spin it otherwise.

Says the bigot from the state that outlawed consentual oral sex. Be proud that you can quote to me that my marriage is $hit. I hope you do not obtain a nosebleed from that pedestal you are standing on.

You can not respect MY MARRIAGE, then I can not respect you, BIGOT.

Will wrote:

Unless and until the US Constitution or the state constitution EXPRESSLY grant a right to a certain BEHAVIOR, then NO minority rights exist based upon that BEHAVIOR.

With that premise in mind, blacks would still not have civil rights and could not vote, but that would help you with getting another republican in office, wouldn't it, ya ole Virginia Soreback.

David wrote:

<quoted text>
Hadn't you heard? Your hate based political charade has been exposed as the fraud that it is:
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.
Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.
No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage. It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.
Homosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two unequals will NEVER be equal.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage, and the two are VERY different.
No homosexual relationships is the "equal" of a real marriage.
Marriage is indeed very different from any homosexual relationship:
Here are some MAJOR differences between real marriage and any sort of homosexual relationship, especially regarding any governmental involvement:
Like it or not, marriage and family are the basic building block of American Society.
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that allows the contrived oxymoron and only about 1.6% of the US population claims to be GLBT anyway, so homosexual "marriage" fails on this one!
Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage. No child will EVER be born as a direct result of a homosexual relationship, so homomarriage fails on this one, too!
Having both a mother and father in the home is one of the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. No homosexual relationship can provide this.
Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage" and most find homosexual acts to be immoral and damaging.

Bugger off, Wil. You are a f$cking little troll.

David wrote:

<quoted text>
Hadn't you heard? Your hate based political charade has been exposed as the fraud that it is:
No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that permits the oxymoron.

That's a lie. You've never posted anything that supports that. And even if only a few thousand homosexuals wanted to marry in each country. Who are you to say that their love isn't valid? How is your marriage going?

David wrote:

<quoted text>Homosexuals are NOT the same as other people. They seldom form longterm exclusive relationships, often completely obsess on perversion, and have much elevated rates of many diseases and social ills. THIS is the reality.

No, actually according to the CDC, as of 2005 there were ZERO cases of lesbian to lesbian HIV infection and well over 200,000 cases of heterosexual HIV infection. According to your moronic reasoning, maybe we should just outlaw all marriage except for lesbian marriages, for the sake of health concerns. I'm a male homosexual. My relationship is completely monogamous and we seldom have sex just as many married couples seldom have sex after they've been together for quite a while. Why? Because when you're in love, a truly loving relationship, so many psychological needs are met that are connected to sex, that the sex drive automatically drops a great deal. This is a common occurrence in heterosexual and homosexual marriage. Of course when this happens, sometimes one or both partners will sabotage their own marriage by thinking "Oh, I'm not really in love", basically because they don't understand what has happened.

David wrote:

<quoted text>
No homosexual "marriage" is recognized by the US Government. We have a democratically established national definition of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.

True. For now.

David wrote:

<quoted text>
No law could ever make even one homosexual relationship into a real marriage.

A ridiculous assertion. Obviously, right now, as we speak, there are homosexual partnerships and marriages that are going much better than some heterosexual partnerships and marriages. And certainly there are homosexuals who are married to an opposite sex heterosexual partner, in loveless relationships, high-risk for child molestation, acting out in not only that sick manner, but also participating in anonymous sex in bathrooms as Senator Craig most certainly attempted, doing drugs and paying for sex with other men as Ted Haggard, the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals certainly did. You have some nerve to judge the quality of all gay marriages as somehow being the same with your blanket bigotry when the marriages that are spawned from the spreading of your ridiculous nonsense are an unfortunate loveless destructive joke and many homosexual couples spend devoted happy faithful lives together.

David wrote:

<quoted text>It is of course ludicrous to claim that "equal rights" are involved in trying to disenfranchise others on the legal definition of marriage.

No, it's actually ludicrous to claim that somehow heterosexual marriages will be devalued by allowing homosexuals to marry. If someone were suggesting that the definition of marriage should be changed to mean ONLY a union between two people of the same sex, then you would actually have an argument here. But no one is suggesting that heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's you that is wanting to affect the rights of other consenting adults. Not the homosexuals. Your stance on this is extremely unAmerican and no different from religious conservatives that argued God didn't mean for the races to mix and had interracial marriage banned in 17 states in the 1960s, claiming that: "We all have equal rights already!!! We all have the equal right to marry someone from our own race!!!" Bigotry, plain and simple. Thank God the US Supreme Court didn't see it your way.

David wrote:

<quoted text>Homosexual "marriage" is a complete FRAUD.
Two unequals will NEVER be equal.

Just another baseless assertion. Here is a link to famous homosexual couples who have been together for years:

http://www.buddybuddy.com/famous.html

But evidently in your pea brain, WillyBea, Brittney Spears 55 hour marriage is somehow superior to the many gay and lesbian couples who have been together for more than 50 years.

David wrote:

<quoted text>No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage, and the two are VERY different.

Certainly they do. The government usually keeps marriage records for statistical purposes. They also keep records for legal purposes. Certainly in a case where someone dies unexpectedly and doesn't have a will, it's beneficial to know who the spouse is...especially if children are involved. The government in some states requires blood tests of marriage certificate applicants. Public health is obviously another valid governmental concern. And finally, whether the government has a valid concern to know if people are married or not, shouldn't play a part in a consenting adult's right to marry. If someone decided that only married couples with children were a valid concern of the government, would all couples who decide against having children have to have their marriages annulled? Of course not. That's ridiculous.

David wrote:

<quoted text>No homosexual relationships is the "equal" of a real marriage.

Uhh...didn't you already say that?

David wrote:

<quoted text>Marriage is indeed very different from any homosexual relationship:
Here are some MAJOR differences between real marriage and any sort of homosexual relationship, especially regarding any governmental involvement:
Like it or not, marriage and family are the basic building block of American Society.

Marriage and heterosexual families are the basic building block of any society. Do you know why? Because 90+% of any society is heterosexual and obviously heterosexuals produce children quickly and effectively through biological means. But that doesn't take away from the fact that hermaphrodites are born and usually assigned one sex or the other at birth (and only about half the time does the surgeon get it right - the other half of the time the physical assignment doesn't match with the gender identity in the brain), people with various chromosomal conditions are born having the physical characteristics of BOTH sexes, people with biologically based gender identity disorder are born with their internal (in the brain) gender identity not matching with their physical body, and homosexuals are born with their sexual attraction being directed at the same sex instead of the opposite sex. These people are all HUMANS. No matter what the 'basic building blocks' are, they are every bit as much a part of society as everyone else and they have their place. Certainly homosexual couples can adopt children that would otherwise be in institutions and children being loved by two parents is obviously better on average than children being loved by one parent or NO PARENTS, remaining in the institution. Only a very sick person would rather a child grew up in an institution than being loved by two homosexual parents. America's society is unique from any other. It is a MELTING POT. And as such it should honor all people, no matter how they were born. No matter whether their family is traditional or progressive. Freedom is the American way of life, and you, WillyBea, very much represent the way of life that the original Americans ran from.

David wrote:

<quoted text>No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that allows the contrived oxymoron and only about 1.6% of the US population claims to be GLBT anyway, so homosexual "marriage" fails on this one!

Concerning the US population:

Studies on the total number of gay and lesbian people in the United States show a range from 2 percent to 10 percent of the total population. In the last three elections, the Voter News Service exit poll registered the gay vote between 4 percent and 5 percent. While concluding that the Census 2000 undercounted the total number of gay or lesbian households, for the purposes of this study, we estimate the gay and lesbian population at 5 percent of the total U.S. population over 18 years of age,(209,128,094). This results in an estimated total gay and lesbian population of 10,456,405. A recent study of gay and lesbian voting habits conducted by Harris Interactive1 determined that 30 percent of gay and lesbian people are living in a committed relationship in the same residence. Black, Gates, et. al2 find a similar figure in their study recently published in "Demography." Using that figure, we suggest that 3,136,921 gay or lesbian people are living in the United States in committed relationships in the same residence. Census 2000 counted 1,202,418 gay and lesbian people in committed relationships. Under the assumptions stated above, this represents an undercount of 62 percent.

And regardless of what is happening in foreign countries (and I very much doubt your ridiculous claim):

In Massachusetts:

Cambridge took in 227 applications overnight; Provincetown took in 113; more than 1,000 applications were made on the first day statewide. Two-thirds of applicants were women, and one-half of the applicants had been partners for more than a decade. Forty percent of the female couples had children in their homes. In the first year, more than 6,200 gay and lesbian couples were married due to pent-up demand, but that number fell to only 1,900 marriages in the second year, 2005. There were 1,442 in 2006. And the estimate for 2007 is 1300. According to the trend, Massachusetts should bottom out at an average of 1200 same sex marriages per year which makes sense because that would represent 3.2% of all marriages and homosexuals are thought to be 3 to 10 percent of the general population. In comparison, more than 36,000 heterosexual couples are married each year in Massachusetts.[4]

^ "Marriage rates by State: 1990, 1995, and 1999-2004" (PDF). National Center for Health Statistics (2005-10-19).
www.dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/...

David wrote:

<quoted text>Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage. No child will EVER be born as a direct result of a homosexual relationship, so homomarriage fails on this one, too!

How rude and how disgusting. How do you think a heterosexual couple who adopts because they're biologically unable to produce a child, would feel if they saw this comment? What do you think the response would be from a father who very much loved his son or daughter, even though they weren't blood-related, would be if he saw this. I wouldn't be surprised if he became physically violent with you for invalidating his fatherhood and the value of his child. You're a sick person whose hatred for homosexuality blinds you to common decency.

David wrote:

<quoted text>Having both a mother and father in the home is one of the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. No homosexual relationship can provide this.

Wrong. Research shows that gays and lesbians are just as fit to parent as heterosexuals, possessing the same abilities to nurture and provide stable homes:
-David K. Flaks et al, Lesbians Choosing Motherhood: A Comparative Study of Lesbian and Homosexual Parents and Their Children, 1995.
-Charlotte J. Patterson & Raymond W. Chan, Gay Fathers and Their Children, 1996.
-Judith Stacey & Timothy Biblarz, Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter, 2001.

Also: Children of gay and lesbian parents experience no significant differences in quality of peer relationships, nor do they experience more struggles with self-esteem.
-Susan Golombok et al., Children in Lesbian & Single-Parent Households Psychosexual & Psychiatric Appraisal, 1983; Fiona Tasker & Susan Golombok, Growing up in a Lesbian Family, 1997.
-Sharon L. Huggins, A Comparative Study of Self Esteem of Adolescent Children of Divorced Lesbian Mothers and Divorced Heterosexual Mothers, 1989.
-Mary E. Hotvedt & Jane B. Mandel, Children of Lesbian Mothers, 1982.

David wrote:

<quoted text>Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage" and most find homosexual acts to be immoral and damaging.

Actually, according to polls from Gallup, Rasmussen and Zogby, three of the major pollsters, acceptance of gay marriage far exceeds acceptance of interracial marriage in 1967 when the Supreme Court nullified the bans against interracial marriage in 17 states. In fact, a majority wasn't in favor of interracial marriage until 1991. Compared to interracial marriage, gay marriage appears to be on a fast track, likely because 90% of the population realizes clearly that they didn't choose their sexuality. It just happened in puberty as mainstream medicine and mental health maintains is the case.

telkoin wrote:

<quoted text>
Really what ur saying is that God makes mistakes. If he was the almighty, he wouldnt make mistakes.

No, that's not really what I'm saying.

God allows sin to affect his creation.

Sumballo wrote:

<quoted text>
No, that's not really what I'm saying.
God allows sin to affect his creation.

Why?

BlueLamp wrote:

<quoted text>
Why?

The bible does not expand on this and so I have an opinion, but reall only God knows why.

My opinion:
To give men an opportunity to repent rather than be forever separated from God.

Based in part on:
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

God creates humans after the animals and plants in Genesis 1, and before them in Genesis 2

Sumballo wrote:

<quoted text>
Genesis does not conflict from my read.
We both know that God created both man and woman. He had purpose in creating two different sexes.

Gary47 wrote:

God creates humans after the animals and plants in Genesis 1, and before them in Genesis 2<quoted text>

I read it over and see no conflict.

Genesis 1 has a day by day account and man is created after plants.

Genesis 2 refers to the creation of the earth and heavens stating there was no rain, plants or man. Then it says he created man and placed him into a garden He had planted. The past tense indicates that the plants were already created.

I checked several versions and they all agreed.

Sumballo wrote:

<quoted text>
The bible does not expand on this and so I have an opinion, but reall only God knows why.
My opinion:
To give men an opportunity to repent rather than be forever separated from God.
Based in part on:
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

You've actually just proven that you're not a biblical scholar...

StevenFL wrote:

<quoted text>
With that premise in mind, blacks would still not have civil rights and could not vote, but that would help you with getting another republican in office, wouldn't it, ya ole Virginia Soreback.

I ask One question. Why do you refer to history that you have absolutely no knowledge of? Go watch more cartoons.

One of the many clear contradictions in the bible.

Gary47 wrote:

God creates humans after the animals and plants in Genesis 1, and before them in Genesis 2<quoted text>

Dave S wrote:

I am so disgusted by this hate speech. We have come so far and I seriously want to throw up when I read crap like this. This is not about shame shame this is about some ignorant ahole that wants to lose his job. Please email me @ chuckreedisout@yahoo.com I am so sick of sitting around and not saying anything while these idiots think they can get away with all this crap.

If what he said was hate speech, then the beliefs of most Americans in American history and almost all humans in human history on this subject matter is hate speech.