Area gay, lesbian couples to wed

I really need to move to Idaho...or Wyoming. This place sucks.

I agree, Laura: You really do need to move. Interesting that you pointedly mention Wyoming, the place where gay college student Matthew Sheperd was brutally murdered 10 years ago. Coincidence, I'm sure...

Laura, I have a feeling that a whole lot of that ''suck'' would be gone from California should people with your backassward mentality actuality move out of the state.

Bon Voyage.

Roman wrote:

I agree, Laura: You really do need to move. Interesting that you pointedly mention Wyoming, the place where gay college student Matthew Sheperd was brutally murdered 10 years ago. Coincidence, I'm sure...
Laura, I have a feeling that a whole lot of that ''suck'' would be gone from California should people with your backassward mentality actuality move out of the state.
Bon Voyage.

Looks like you read something into that post that may not have been there.

Yes, Kalifornia SUCKS!!!
People vote and the courts overturn the will of the voters.
What's right about that?
What's the point in voting if this sort of thing is going to happen?

This is the saddest day in the life of this great nation not to mention a slap in God's face. Hey all you liberals, instead of using the Bible as a drink coaster or paper weight, why not actually pck it up an read it for a cahnge, you might actually find in useful.

May God have mercy on on all of our souls since right now He is not happy with us!!

What a beautiful couple - NOT. Sickening.
Hey Roman, take a close look at the picture. Who's backasswards? Actually a better word is ABOMINATION!

Dino wrote:

<quoted text>
Looks like you read something into that post that may not have been there.
Yes, Kalifornia SUCKS!!!
People vote and the courts overturn the will of the voters.
What's right about that?
What's the point in voting if this sort of thing is going to happen?

Dino, unfortunately, I believe you're wrong about Laura's post. Her mention of Wyoming was specific, even in the way it was worded. To put it kindly, it was in very poor taste.

On the issue about the 'will of the voters.' Let's, for now, put aside that public opinions have seem to evolve greatly in the last 8 years (since the divisive Proposition 22 was passed).

Say if we decided to put on the ballot, a proposition that would prevent people with mismatching color of eyes from, I don't know... let's say EATING SOLID FOOD. Why? Because something in some religious doctrine said so.
Well, we know that even if it passes, it would probably be overturned - because it singles out a group of people and limits the rights provided to all others, making it unconstitutional.

I know there is a campaign by the yahoos out there to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot this November. Even it they are successful in that effort, it is very doubtful that it would gain the support of the super-majority necessary to alter the state's constitution. Not even Proposition 22 acheived that kind of support and, as I alluded to before, opinions have changed quite a bit in the past 8 years.

And I don't know what all the fuss is about. Why would anyone make other people's personal lives their number one concern? Especially when you consider all the other things happening around us right now, we might hope people were a bit more humble and grounded about their social priorities. The only explanation I could think of is that trying to deny rights to a group of people that you're scared of makes for a great distraction from REAL problems.

Finally, has anyone considered the potential economic benefits for California that this turn of events could inspire? Recognizing that we're in a recession, statistics have demonstrated time and time again that the gay community (throughout the U.S.) collectively has a higher disposable income than most other social groups. What would be so wrong, in this day and age, with an influx of people from other states acquiring property here, and hopefully putting some reversal to our housing slump?

Please don't come up with things like 'our children will be traumatized.' That excuse, arguably an excuse for old, ignorant fear, is entirely worn out now. Because the gay community has been here A WHILE, and we really should be used to it by now. Maybe there are people who keep themselves from being aware of the gay community they come in contact with. I'm sure there are at least one or two of them contributing something positive to everyone's life here. It could be the grocery clerk you chat with, the guy who does your taxes, your very nice neighbor on the street.... Really, how could anyone want to deny the rights you have to those people?

We should concentrate our efforts on moving forward, fixing what's truly broken, the REAL problems in our state (and country)- and we should include everyone, equally, in that process.

Here's the old saying coming up again. What we learn from history is that nobody learns from history.

One of the prime reasons that pagan Rome fell was the sexual immorality. Gay sex. gay couples and bestialiyt were rampant. There were no marriage laws. DUH? What bestiality. You queers should also know this because it is also rampant in California. That's people fucking animals.

What's next? Humans and animals marrying.

Yes, "Real Man," that's exactly what's next: animals and humans marrying. Soon, you'll even see angry goats flipping people off as they drive their cars down the road!

It is Real Man or Real Stupid Comments?

I feel sad for the people who choose to live this life style, although we have a forgiving God he will no allow Homosexuals in to his kingdom. Here is what the Bible Say's.
1 Corinthians 6:9 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

Please pray that these people will find the lord and right with God.

I have always been under the assumption that in a Democracy the laws were supposed to follow the will of the majority of the people. I support a legal "Domestic Partnership" with all of the benefits and responsibilities of a marriage but "Marriage" should only be between a man and a woman. I also feel that gays should not be allowed to adopt children as this can cause untold problems with other children. "You have two mommies or you have two daddies and they sleep in the same bed?" This is not a natural situation.

Why bother to vote if a couple of judges change things to their liking anyway. Marriage is for a man and woman. If you read the bible you will know this.

Harlan, I'm curious to hear about your expertise on the ''problems'' that having gay parents will cause for children, as you say. Because every statistic out there points ENTIRELY to the contrary.(I know, you probably think there's a conspiracy on statistics, too.)

A democracy cannot override equality or perpetuate inequity. If it were able to do that, we could one day decide to vote for legalization of murder.

And - puting aside that the current domestic partnership situation in California does NOT provide an equal benefit to marriage - what difference does it make to you if it's called ''marriage?'' I mean, is this really about exclusively owning some terminology? That's petty to say the least.

People really need to focus on their own lives and stop obsessing over trying to place limits on the rights of others. It's hard for me to imagine that anyone has the kind of free time necessary to actually plot over other people's freedoms and personal lives!

Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused.Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead. And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people, or birds and animals and snakes. So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies.Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen.That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. 28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.“Romans 1:21-32”

i thought you are supposed to seperate religion and state?
the state has no business telling people who to marry or who not to marry.
im glad they gave the gays a right to marry.. very glad!!!

its been a debate on either to take out the in god we trust on the dollar bill and also "one nation under god" in the pledge of allegance.
but yet if we said oh screw the catholics and christians who believe in god and take that out then you would have a fit right? right!!dont get me wrong, I, myself am catholic. but also not a right wing nut! i would find it offensive if they took out those sayings!!! why should i make people chant over something that they shouldnt be conforable saying?

I hope that many states follow through and the whole country should accept this and allow gay marriages. if not then what have we learn from our history? eventually its going to happen if you like it or not. its called progression not recession!!!!!
sooooooo AMEN to that!!!!!

i mean to say i would NOT find it offensive!!!

Its the 21st century, get with the program.

Response wrote:

Harlan, I'm curious to hear about your expertise on the ''problems'' that having gay parents will cause for children, as you say. Because every statistic out there points ENTIRELY to the contrary.(I know, you probably think there's a conspiracy on statistics, too.)
A democracy cannot override equality or perpetuate inequity. If it were able to do that, we could one day decide to vote for legalization of murder.
And - puting aside that the current domestic partnership situation in California does NOT provide an equal benefit to marriage - what difference does it make to you if it's called ''marriage?'' I mean, is this really about exclusively owning some terminology? That's petty to say the least.
People really need to focus on their own lives and stop obsessing over trying to place limits on the rights of others. It's hard for me to imagine that anyone has the kind of free time necessary to actually plot over other people's freedoms and personal lives!

Homosexuality is not a normal lifestyle it is sick and gross all in one!! You need to come back down to earth,the freedoms and personal lifestyle you speak of will affect those who have to see it. You don't need to be a expert to know that men were created to be men and woman were created to be woman. What a embarrassment for the child that has to call mom "dad" or dad "mom".

no need to know wrote:

i thought you are supposed to seperate religion and state?
the state has no business telling people who to marry or who not to marry.
im glad they gave the gays a right to marry.. very glad!!!
its been a debate on either to take out the in god we trust on the dollar bill and also "one nation under god" in the pledge of allegance.
but yet if we said oh screw the catholics and christians who believe in god and take that out then you would have a fit right? right!!dont get me wrong, I, myself am catholic. but also not a right wing nut! i would find it offensive if they took out those sayings!!! why should i make people chant over something that they shouldnt be conforable saying?
I hope that many states follow through and the whole country should accept this and allow gay marriages. if not then what have we learn from our history? eventually its going to happen if you like it or not. its called progression not recession!!!!!
sooooooo AMEN to that!!!!!

You probably don't even know what the word catholic means. Maybe if you blew the dust off your bible or if you had one you should read it. Than you will see how God feels about your position, homosexuality is an abomination. You also will give an account for your actions.

"I have always been under the assumption that in a Democracy the laws were supposed to follow the will of the majority of the people."

True, but laws passed by the Legislature or by Proposition need to be constitutional. The Court found Prop. 22 to be unconstitutional.

Incredibility, 6 of the 7 judges are Republican appointees is rather remarkable to say the least!

To Sick/Catholic/NoVictory/Jeff/J ames aka the Zealot poster with the Los Angeles I.P.(who is not to be confused with ''No Need to Know,'' who also has a Los Angeles IP but is definitely NOT a zealot):

Putting aside the fact that one of the most basic principles of Christianity is to not assume the role of a moral judge, you are certainly not a unileratal authority on how to interpret a religious doctrine. Nor is any religious doctrine to be a factor in determining legislation of civil rights.

You're so worried about being affected by what you ''have to see?'' It's going to BE there, no matter what it's called, whether you want to see it or not. You have the freedom to ''look'' elsewhere (as in worrying about real issues, instead of other people's personal lives).

But I can't imagine that ''seeing'' any two people together would be so affecting to another. If it were honestly that affecting to someone else, you'd have to conclude that the affected person has an incredibly weak mind....

....which I geuss, ironically, makes sense.