I DON'T THINK BLACKS SHOULD BE FREE

I DON'T THINK WOMEN SHOULD VOTE

I DON'T THINK BLACKS SHOULD VOTE

I DON'T THINK BLACKS SHOULD GO TO SCHOOL WITH WHITES

I DON'T THINK BLACKS SHOULD MARRY WHITES

I DON'T THINK GAYS SHOULD MARRY

All moronic statements.

Haha keep thumping the book Rick, just realize its a book. A BOOK! Not some kind of divine words from above. Sorry that your attention span is that bad.
I quote scripture , your beloved scripture, that you claim to live by and I just want to know if you live by the whole book, or just the ones that agree with your point of view? Way to engage in debate and fall off when called out. Typical Bible thumper!

Rick- long story short, you are entitled to your beliefs as am I. At the end of the day, in a FREE society it is not religion's job to push your beliefs (or mine) on those that dont share them. Anyone who supports laws against someone elses choices based on a religious belief, has a very flawed view of what this country is all about.

You may not like the word Bigot, but Ill define it for you-

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Rick- I would like your help with this one because as a man who stands by scripture, I would like you to tell me how exactly the Lord could explain this-""Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.""

I believe in a God, but I refuse to take seriously any book that is supposedly the "word of God" used to discriminate and keep people down. Women are constantly being abused, adultered against and killed(stoned) for adultery. How anyone could think that a loving and merciful God could condone murder, Rape and Slavery so freely in the book that is his word is beyond me.
I dont thinkk that Gods "view" of slavery and other contraversial issues has evolved over generations like humans have. A true moral , loving God knows what is right and what is wrong. This whole contention that the Bible is some kind of reference for us to live life some 500+ years after it was compiled is laughable.
For those that choose to believe that the Holy Bible is the word its your choice, but I implore you look at MAN's views of polygamy, Rape, adultery, equal rights for women and minorities in the 16th century, I believe that you will find that they are eerily similar to those of most people in that time. Coinky dink? Maybe, but doubtful.

Ten Thousand Murdered at God's Command

After Joshua died, the Israelites asked the LORD, "Which tribe should attack the Canaanites first?" The LORD answered, "Judah, for I have given them victory over the land." The leaders of Judah said to their relatives from the tribe of Simeon, "Join with us to fight against the Canaanites living in the territory allotted to us. Then we will help you conquer your territory." So the men of Simeon went with Judah. When the men of Judah attacked, the LORD gave them victory over the Canaanites and Perizzites, and they killed ten thousand enemy warriors at the town of Bezek. While at Bezek they encountered King Adoni-bezek and fought against him, and the Canaanites and Perizzites were defeated. Adoni-bezek escaped, but the Israelites soon captured him and cut off his thumbs and big toes. Adoni-bezek said, "I once had seventy kings with thumbs and big toes cut off, eating scraps from under my table. Now God has paid me back for what I did to them." They took him to Jerusalem, and he died there. The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem and captured it, killing all its people and setting the city on fire. (Judges 1:1-8 NLT)

Murder and Slavery

The tribe of Benjamin, however, failed to drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem. So to this day the Jebusites live in Jerusalem among the people of Benjamin. The descendants of Joseph attacked the town of Bethel, and the LORD was with them. They sent spies to Bethel (formerly known as Luz), who confronted a man coming out of the city. They said to him, "Show us a way into the city, and we will have mercy on you." So he showed them a way in, and they killed everyone in the city except for this man and his family. Later the man moved to the land of the Hittites, where he built a city. He named the city Luz, and it is known by that name to this day. The tribe of Manasseh failed to drive out the people living in Beth-shan, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, Megiddo, and their surrounding villages, because the Canaanites were determined to stay in that region.

When the Israelites grew stronger, they forced the Canaanites to work as slaves, but they never did drive them out of the land. The tribe of Ephraim also failed to drive out the Canaanites living in Gezer, and so the Canaanites continued to live there among them. The tribe of Zebulun also failed to drive out the Canaanites living in Kitron and Nahalol, who continued to live among them. But they forced them to work as slaves. The tribe of Asher also failed to drive out the residents of Acco, Sidon, Ahlab, Aczib, Helbah, Aphik, and Rehob. In fact, because they did not drive them out, the Canaanites dominated the land where the people of Asher lived. The tribe of Naphtali also failed to drive out the residents of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath. Instead, the Canaanites dominated the land where they lived. Nevertheless, the people of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath were sometimes forced to work as slaves for the people of Naphtali. As for the tribe of Dan, the Amorites forced them into the hill country and would not let them come down into the plains. The Amorites were determined to stay in Mount Heres, Aijalon, and Shaalbim, but when the descendants of Joseph became stronger, they forced the Amorites to work as slaves. (Judges 1:21-35 NLT)

You live by scripture? And follow a book that was compiled in the 1500s as the " word of God"? Huh? Well since you find me to be so preachy, Ill quote the "good book" so we can all see where your beliefs may be rooted and how evil homosexuality is.

God Will Kill Ethiopia

"You Ethiopians will also be slaughtered by my sword," says the LORD. And the LORD will strike the lands of the north with his fist. He will destroy Assyria and make its great capital, Nineveh, a desolate wasteland, parched like a desert. The city that once was so proud will become a pasture for sheep and cattle. All sorts of wild animals will settle there. Owls of many kinds will live among the ruins of its palaces, hooting from the gaping windows. Rubble will block all the doorways, and the cedar paneling will lie open to the wind and weather. This is the fate of that boisterous city, once so secure. "In all the world there is no city as great as I," it boasted. But now, look how it has become an utter ruin, a place where animals live! Everyone passing that way will laugh in derision or shake a defiant fist. (Zephaniah 2:12-15 NLT)

'Why is it that you cannot think of two people loving each other and sharing a life together without automatically daydreaming about them having sex? Why your preoccupation with the sexual activities of others?'

Excellent question

I see, Rick_Raff. You use the Bible that in your opinion is the "least changed" word of God and not the one that is "not changed or paraphrased" as you first stated. My original point is quite clear to everyone, yourself included.

Rick_Raff said, "I attend a Church that preaches and teaches with The Bible in hand and the word of God not changed or paraphrased to fit the winds of change."

The word of God not changed or paraphrased... Which of the following English language versions of the Bible does your church use?

American Standard Version, American King James Version, Amplified Bible, An American Translation, ArtScroll Tanakh (Old Testament), An American Translation, Berkeley Version, Bible in English, The Bible in Living English, Bishops' Bible, Catholic Public Domain Version, Children's King James Version, Christian Community Bible, English version, Clear Word Bible, Complete Jewish Bible, Contemporary English Version, Concordant Literal Version, A Conservative Version, Coverdale Bible, Darby Bible, Douay-Rheims Bible, 1609–1610 (Old Testament), Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision), EasyEnglish Bible, Easy-to-Read Version, English Jubilee 2000 Bible. English Standard Version, Ferrar Fenton Bible, Geneva Bible, 1560 (complete Bible), God's Word, Good News Bible, Great Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, The Inclusive Bible, International Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, Jewish Publication Society of America Versio, Tanakh (Old Testament), Judaica Press Tanakh (Old Testament), Julia E. Smith Parker Translation, King James 2000 Version, King James Easy Reading Version, King James Version, King James II Version, Knox's Translation of the Vulgate, Lamsa Bible, A Literal Translation of the Bible, Leeser Bible, Tanakh (Old Testament), The Living Bible, The Living Torah and The Living Nach, Tanakh (Old Testament), Matthew's Bible, The Message, Modern King James Version, Modern Language Bible, Moffatt New Translation, James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac, New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New Century Version, New English Bible, New English Translation (NET Bible), New International Reader's Version, New International Version Inclusive Language Edition, New International Version. New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society of America Version, New King James Version, New Life Version, New Living Translation, New Revised Standard Version, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1960 (single volume complete Bible), 1984 (reference edition with footnotes), Quaker Bible, Recovery Version of the Bible, Revised Version, Revised Standard Version, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, Revised English Bible, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, The Scriptures, Simplified English Bible, The Story Bible, Taverner's Bible, Thomson's Translation, Today's New International Version, Third Millennium Bible, Tyndale Bible, 1530 (Pentateuch), Updated King James Version, A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures, Webster's Revision, Westminster Bible, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible, Wycliffe's Bible (1380), Wycliffe's Bible (1388), Young's Literal Translation

Ezoner, et al: I have never seen a marriage license that orders the couple to have sex in any particular way or even at all. Marriage and marriage licenses are only about love and commitment.

Why is it that you cannot think of two people loving each other and sharing a life together without automatically daydreaming about them having sex? Why your preoccupation with the sexual activities of others?

Marriage is about LOVE, not SEX.

Hey ezoner, you know what homophobia REALLY means, right?

Some people's kids.....

Marriage is an institution between two consenting adults. Animals are not and never will be of the ability to "consent" to anything.

Courts DO decide questions of Constitutional controversy. Some folks want to dismiss the "black robes" whose job it is to interpret the law. Yet, I don't hear ANY of those same folks castigating the "black robes" of the SCOTUS for their Citizens United decision.

Judges decide the Constitutionality of laws. Period.

Rick_Raff said, "I’ll make mine based on something that does not move, that is rooted in truth and based on real moral character."

I'm not going to debate religion with you, but I do want to point out that the Christian view on homosexuality is varied by denomination and even within denominations. Additionally, the Christian churches views on homosexuality have changed throughout history by ranging from positions that find it an abomination to positions that embrace homosexuality. The Christian view on homosexuality is, historically speaking, far from something that does not move.

To base your beliefs on "something that does not move," indeed puts you in a very small denomination of Christians throughout the history of Christianity that have not changed their views on homosexuality.

Poobah: I would have jumped into this discussion but, like with so many religious discussions, specious reasoning can be totally and thoroughly debunked today only to resurface later as if nothing had ever been discussed. Repeat, ad nauseam.

This issue is not complicated. Each of us is expected to live our lives in accordance with one of two prescribed paths, depending on which one of two boxes is checked on our personal identification documents. The problem with this ancient system is that the decision on which box to check was determined entirely by one person's personal peek at our peepees. Science now knows that issues of gender identity and sexual classification are far more complicated than what can be gleaned in a glancing glimpse of a groin. But, despite overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary, some people still vehemently demand strict adherence to this ancient, legally binding lifetime classification of either M or F, as proclaimed and assigned to us by that one stranger so long... long... ago... [Cue choir over stock shot of sun beaming through small break in dark clouds. Fade to black.]

(Other excursions into the absurdity of testimonial epistemology are available upon request. ;-)

If I could poobah, I would hit retweet:)

Ezoner said, "The relationship is what I approve of, not the actions in a bedroom. There are many couples that do not have intercourse, yet are in loving relationships." If you truly believe what you said, you must believe that there are also many same sex couples that do not have intercourse. How, then, can you justify denying same sex couples the right to marry? There is simply no way you can, based on your statement.

This debate is about same sex marriage and it is not about sex. I have tried to avoid going in this direction, but it was clear from the start that your objection is not to same sex marriage but rather to sex between people of the same gender -- a homophobic fear. It is important that you understand there is a considerable percentage of heterosexual people who have what you consider to be "deviant" sex with members of the opposite sex. 36% of women and 44% of men. I'm not going to go into any more detail than that, out of respect for the Gazette's policies, but you can read the study recently completed by the CDC here: [ http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr03... ] Given that so many opposite sex couples are having what you consider to be "deviant" sex, on what grounds do you feel it is acceptable to allow opposite sex couples to marry and deny same sex couples that right?

Fear -- again -- its only narrow minded to those with a predetermined position. I equate gays as sexual deviants. Thats not to say that too sexual deviants are unable to love and find one another. The relationship is what I approve of, not the actions in a bedroom. There are many couples that do not have intercourse, yet are in loving relationships. You can love your child, but should not have sex with them. You can love the mailman, but should be faithful to your mate. Its the act of sex -- that I see as the deviance. The freinds I have know that. They do not agree, but do not hate me or call me names based upon my position. Its your pretense that you must denograte someone when they do not agree with you. This is why countries go to war. They do not take time to understand the other side. I undertstand that people are gay, I just do not agree that it is anything but sexual deviance, a mental conditoin or sickness like alcoholism. I care for those people and hope they will get well. But I refuse to accept their condition as a normal state of mind. As though it is perfectly acceptable and should be afforded the same institutions. I realize this will offend some, but that is their issue to deal with, no mine. You should never hate someone or talk down to them because of their position on a subject, I always need to stop myself especially when reading on this forum. It would be nice if others did the same, but they are so quick to hate and call names.

I wanted to say thank you to Stubby, MadCityDad, dominick, MooShoo, stout66, greatplain, tom3205, fear, mespl, Username_goes_here, westorbust, analertcitizen, WalterReuther, Bealab, JasonTh, ImJustSayin, prounion, why_think and any others I may have missed for your comments in support of same sex couples. I don't think everyone fully understands how much these words of support mean to same sex couples. Your support is an important form of validation and helps to strengthen their relationship by knowing others support and respect their commitment to one another. Thanks.

Ezoner, your comments have been so conflicted, having now gone full circle, that I'm not sure you're being sincere. You have a right to "feel" that homosexuals have a "mental condition" but that feeling runs contrary to the conclusions of all major professional organizations of psychiatrists. I don't know any gay persons that would maintain a friendship with a person that felt they had a mental condition because they were gay. To then add that those same gay friends of yours are also "perfectly happy to live as things are today" seems like a real stretch to me. Even if your gay friends were "perfectly happy to live as things are today," the probability is extremely high that they would want other same sex couples to have the opportunity to marry. It seems more probable to me that either you or your gay friends are not being completely truthful and/or have internalized homophobia. I know couples in committed relationships, same and opposite sex, that prefer not to marry. On the other hand, I also know same sex couples that do want to marry. Those couples who want to marry would be much happier and more secure being married and they want to marry for the same reasons that opposite sex couples want to marry.

You pretty well summarized your view of marriage by saying, "Marriage in general -- to me is a false pretense. People are no more or less faithful because of a piece of paper. People pre-disposed to having sex with animals, multiple partners, children, or monogomous relationsships will not change as a result of a piece of paper. Gays should not define themselves by the piece of paper." Despite your view of human behavior, many people do take their marriages very seriously and remain faithful. I've never met a person, straight or gay, that has defined themselves with a marriage certificate. For many people, marriage is a commitment, and an expression of that commitment, that is extremely important to them. That opportunity should not be denied to any couple that desires it.

Just to be clear on my position: I feel all states should issue civil union licenses to all couples that confer all of the rights, privileges and responsibilities that are presently being conferred by marriage licenses and cease issuing marriage licenses to all couples. If a couple chooses to marry in a church after receiving a civil union license, that is an issue between the couple and their church. Nobody would be forcing any church to change their policy on same sex marriage and no church would be required under law to perform same sex marriage ceremonies. Additionally, a same sex marriage ceremony in a church would confer no additional rights, privileges or responsibilities under the law.

""I personally feel that gays have a mental condition"" I feel like you have a mental condition so I guess that we are even huh? Do you tell your Gay friends and family that you believe they are mentally ill? Love to hear that one.

""If the finanical considerations were removed, then there is no reason for gays to seek a change in the definition or ability to be considered married.""
Wrong again Ezoner- Hows about a gay couple that has been in a loving relationship for 20-30 years , one gets cancer and is dying in the hospital, wants to appoint his/her partenr to makelife decisions for them, marriage allows for this. Plus like any other couple in love or married, Sex is (should be) not a dominant factor in your relationship. Love is.
I love my wife and if she were in a car wreck and paralyzed , I wouldnt leave her bc she was parapalegic, because I LOVE HER.
Your problem is that you see the world from your own narrow , bigoted POV and fail to see anything but what you want to see, and that is very sad for a generally intelligent person.
Agin where is there a place on Earth that Gay marriage is legal where polygamy has taken off? Or adult child marriage, adult dog marriage, adult inatimate object marriage? Once again, your slippery slope simply doesnt exist.
I find it funny that someone that preaches against government intrusio n supports it here.
I also think that Canada is different that the United States, it is not run by a bunch of old closed minded bigots who want to deny people care based on wealth, deny people a recognized relationship based on disagreement about sexual preference that is freedom , right?

Canada is not the US. We have attorneys that stretch the limits every day. There is no valid reason for a change or to allow gays to be legally married.

For others -- I have explained why several times, and some that have responded actually addressed my comments.

I have freinds and relatives that are gay. They understand my position, and we have a polite discussion about it periodically, but it does not define our relationship with each other. They also understand that some have a predisposed position and get far too emotional over the issue. They are perfectly happy to live as things are today, and also understand that there are people in our society that take things to extremes (marriage between and adult and a child) etc.. There are religions that allow for polligimy. So even when you drop the animal refernece (which is really extreme) the possibility of extension exists.

I personally feel that gays have a mental condition, that they are not a race, religion, etc... the only thing that defines their difference is sexual preference. I do not see discrimation as not allowing 2 people prefering to be the key or the hole to be married. Just as it is not discrimination not allowing children to marry an adult. I believe the court has sided based upon special interest group and ideology pressures and not the law and that this would not even be an issue if not for tax, insurance, and other laws defining what a spouse can and cannot be. It is purely for financial considerations or unreasonable purposes that gays seek to impose thier lifestyles on others. If the finanical considerations were removed, then there is no reason for gays to seek a change in the definition or ability to be considered married.

Marriage in general -- to me is a false pretense. People are no more or less faithful because of a piece of paper. People pre-disposed to having sex with animals, multiple partners, children, or monogomous relationsships will not change as a result of a piece of paper. Gays should not define themselves by the piece of paper.

Ezoner: Why would a ruling in support of gay marriage have anything to do with animals? We limit laws all the time. For instance a dog can’t drive! A dog can be locked in a kennel however a child can not! Animals cannot speak for themselves anyone who thinks they can marry an animal would have an awfully hard time explaining to anyone how the animal feels about that. It is not discriminatory to limit marriage to humans because animals and children do not have the menial capacity to fully understand the full commitment of marriage. Animals and children and the dead as you also have brought up cannot with clear state of mind make the decision that they would like to be married, that is why there are laws to protect those groups from predatory human adults. I found one of your posts interesting “once the door is open, you cannot only open it for a group of society that YOU deem as acceptable” really because when we gave women the right to vote that was opening a door, do dogs have the right to vote now or do children? Also you keep speaking of how you know that being gay is an illness, I am intrigued to know what your medical and psychological background is to make that statement because the large medical and psychological communities have determined that it is not an illness. Also you stated “extends to an adult and a child” this will not occur because medical professionals will and can state in a court of law that medically a child’s brain is not capable of full understanding of what marriage and love are until an older age, that is why there are laws in place to protect children. This same concept is used when a child commits murder or if your five year old steals a car the child does not get punished the same as if the child were an adult because their brains cannot fully comprehend the consequences of their actions. I do await your response however I hope you state something new instead of simply the same previous posts. Also by the way I am married to a woman so this ruling has no effect on me and quite frankly if two people love each other what business is it of yours?

Ezoner has gone from-""What needs to be done is to provide support and mental coverage for gays so that they can determine what the cause of their illness is""
to-""You say its the union between 2 (you say people, but that is then discrinatory by your guidlines). So people could really be expanded to between 2 living bodies. Meaning an animal could marry a human. Any animal, or do we limit it to mamals? The reality is there are people that beilieve in having multiple wives. They supposedly love each other??""

to-"". Dogs can love, cant they? Lets get closer to humnas. Monkeys can surely love.""

and-""I will state this from the beginning.... Being gay is not a race, religion, belief -- whatever, and cannot therefore be discriminated against. It is an illness.""

These are the views of a very disturbed , bigoted person. All the fear mongering and blathering doesn't point to a slippery slope. Gay people arent ill they are people with different preferences than you . Just like many have different political beliefs.
your contention that monkeys will want to marry is stupid, dogs? Stupid. People will marry a box? Stupid. There is not one example pointing to this happening where gay marriage is legal. Other Billy OLielly on Faux news repeating it over and over it will never happen. For you to make that type of regurgitated , bigoted argument is stupid, and really there is no examples or facts to verify your fear mongering and rhetoric.
Isee you not backing down as you do with every topic, but you have not a leg to stand on here so please give it up, OR provide some examples of a man marrying a paper bag for tax benefits, just one. Thanks.

Canada approved gay marriage 7 years ago. The world did not end, Jesus did not smite us from the earth, a block hole did not swallow us whole, and people are not marrying their dogs or cats. The alarmism and closed mindedness of individuals is what led to the horrible persecutions by those that claimed a moral superiority in the past, justifying horrific behavior. People with these attitudes are an enemy to freedom.

Ezoner- I am just curious. Do you know any gay people who are in a committed relationship? I do and believe me there is very little difference between their realtionship and mine with my wife.

Sorry, Ezoner, I meant to say envision, not encompass.

Ezoner said, "Poo -- I respectfully disagree -- it would get extended and would later encompass more than gay marriage. It always amazes me that people cannot see beyond thier individual situation."

I'm really curious. Please give us a view as to what you encompass beyond same sex marriages.

Fear -- its only flawed if you have the opposite opinion.

Poo -- I respectfully disagree -- it would get extended and would later encompass more than gay marriage. It always amazes me that people cannot see beyond thier individual situation. The damage that can be caused and the impact on society.

"It's a circus of uneducated amoral twits playing tinkertoys."
.
Best description of repubs. Ever.

"My concern is that the appeals court overturned a state's constitutional amendment."
.
No. The federal judge overturned the ammendment
because it was illegal and discriminitory. The Appeals court merely UPHELD that decision because the decision was reached correctly and there was no legal reason to overturn the ruling.

"Imagine the unconscionable sex between cardboard boxes and grocery bags, probably in plain view of the public in broad daylight!"

I would pay to see that.

Third_Eye said, "In the particular case of California's Proposition 8, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals used the equal protection clause as their basis for their decision."

This is the second time I am telling you that the equal protection clause was just one of several findings of law! What is so difficult about reading the original and appellate opinions? You would be shocked by the number of findings.

To clarify my original post.
My concern is that the appeals court overturned a state's constitutional amendment.
Many of you have correctly pointed out that a state constitution ammendment can be superseded by the US Constitution.
Here is my concern in this situation.
I pick my political battles, and gay marriage isn't one of them. I do not care how gay marriage is decided one way or the other.
In the particular case of California's Proposition 8, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals used the equal protection clause as their basis for their decision.
For something to reach the level of an ammendment to a state consitition a lot of hoops must be jumped through. Proposition 8 was not drawn up by cigar chomping politicians in a back room, but from years of hearings and litigation and numerous public votes. By the time it reaches the consititutional level the wording should be pretty well honed.
My opinion is that a decision to overturn a state constitutional amendment should be on solid US constitutional grounds. The equal protection argument is not that solid ground.

Ezoner said, "Once you have extended the branch to gays for such a union, you have opended the door a little to those that will attempt to take the definition and cantinue to extend it."

Politicians used your same domino theory to keep this nation in fear and convince citizens to keep coughing up more and more taxes to defeat the evils of communism. Remember the story? It went something like this: We lose Vietnam and then Korea is next, then Japan, then the Phillipines, then on to the United States! We won't be able to stop the red plague! Well, that was the story until we lost the war in Vietnam and, SURPRISE, the communists didn't attack Korea or Japan or the Phillipines or even the United States!

Now you're applying the same old fear tactic of the domino theory to marriage in 2012. Opposite sex couples first, then same sex couples and, oh no, same sex couples marrying let the genie out of the bottle!!! Next is humans marrying animals, then humans marrying inanimate objects, objects marrying objects! Oh dear, where would it end? Imagine the unconscionable sex between cardboard boxes and grocery bags, probably in plain view of the public in broad daylight!

""But if they choose to enact legislation that I feel will affect society negatively, I need to make sure that people hear my position, just as you state yours.""
You certainly can have your position as it is your right, but please tell me how EXCATLY gay marriage negatively affects society, give an example, Id be fascinated to hear this one, from someone whom has called someone's sexual preference an "illness".

I also was wondering what "unintended consequences" you are speaking of. The absolute insulting premise of this turning into polygamy or beastiality is a talking point I have seen repeated on Fox over and over, and other than the rhetoric brought up by fear mongers there is absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up, NONE>
There are several states that have LEGALIZED gay marriage, could you please point out some examples where it has "negatively affected" that society, or there has been mass polygamy or people marrying dogs. Just one example would be fine, since we have samples now that would make your premise false.

I find your positions on this to be quite bigoted, it is your right to have an opinion, but your basis for them based on your own statements seems EXTREMELY flawed.

Poo -- my point is you only see things as being valid and true when coming from your perspective. I am looking at this completely objectively and my concern is the unintended consequences. I was bashed when I suggested it, but I know this will happen -- someone will say that the union and extension of love for one another extends to an adult and a child. Once you have extended the branch to gays for such a union, you have opended the door a little to those that will attempt to take the definition and cantinue to extend it. When gays attempt to say thats not realistic, you would have said the same thing about many other issues unrelated and related. The way I see it, we have a definition today as being between a man and woman. Most people do not take specific issue with the existence of gay relationships. But the extension of that to changing the defnition of marriage is not acceptable to most because of the far reaching implications and possible extensions beyond a gay marriage. I have my views, you have yours, in the end, I dislike people for who they are and how they act, their sexual orientation means nothing to me. But if they choose to enact legislation that I feel will affect society negatively, I need to make sure that people hear my position, just as you state yours.

Thanks for the civil discussion. It is a relief from the rhetoric. I'm just trying to make some peace here - finding ways of giving people the opportunities that you, Poobah, have fought for (thank you!) - while respecting those who honestly and without hatred, have a different viewpoint. (The haters need to take a few lessons in their own faith, I fear.)

@stubby- I'm pro gay marriage but you raise very interesting points about the comparison of the recent contraception ruling and the Catholic Church and the issue of gay marriage. Both of the issues are disapproved of by the church and now both have been recognized by law as the correct thing for the country. I disagree with the church on both issues but feel that in the contraception issue the government is actually telling people what they have to do and in the gay marriage issue, individuals make the choice.

Stubby said, "Well, Pooh, let's at least ask! All this name-calling and outrageous claims of either slavery or bigotry aren't helping."

Again, Stubby, I appreciate your calm and genuine manner and I completely support your idea and have for decades. As long as all states issue civil union licenses to all couples, and it is then the couples choice to have that attested to as a marriage by a church or whoever, fine. But all rights, privileges and responsibilities must be conveyed by the civil union and not the marriage. It has been suggested many, many times in the past. The answer has always been, that may be OK for same sex couples, but not for opposite sex couples.

You earlier also mentioned name calling and bashing. I could tell you quite a bit about name calling and bashing, both verbal and physical, from personal experiences as a part of this struggle for equal rights for the LGBT community for over 35 years. I have referred to comments, not the people making them, as being ill-informed, rhetorical or uneducated. And it truly is the case. I am frustrated by the continual, repeated comments from the same individuals, over and over, that clearly shows no attempt to have informed themselves of the issues at hand. It wouldn't take a great deal of time for them to inform themselves. But they choose instead to keep spouting one ignorant comment after another. If someone says, "My conscience tells that same sex marriage is wrong," so be it. I do not begrudge anyone their beliefs. But for people to repeatedly present something as a statement of fact or law, when it clearly is not, I do have a problem with that.

Poobah @ 3:44 p.m. Yea, whatever.

Well, Pooh, let's at least ask! All this name-calling and outrageous claims of either slavery or bigotry aren't helping.

Third_Eye said, "Uneducated? No I can point to one of many instances of liberals working to negate the will of the voter; the Walker Recall."

Another rhetorical, uneducated comment. If Walker is recalled, it IS the will of the voter.

"There seems to be a commonality among our left leaning friends that wishes to negate the will of the voter."
Poobah responds: That is clearly an uneducated rhetorical comment.
Rhetorical? Yes
Uneducated? No
I can point to one of many instances of liberals working to negate the will of the voter; the Walker Recall.
Please note that disagreeing with you or voicing an opposing opinion is not a sign that one is less educated than you. (The reverse being that they are more educated than you).
Education does not always equal the ability to analyze and comprehend.

Stubby said, "Civil unions for all and marriage only through the church. Problem solved."

I appreciate your sincerity, but it has been religious organizations that have fought your proposal. They claim civil unions are a "stepping stone" to same sex marriage. And I seriously doubt they would relinquish their state-issued marriage licenses for a civil union license, even if the church endorsed it with a marriage stamp.

Ezoner said, "Poo -- so you approve of the ruling as long as it suits your preference but not others. Thats the point."

That's your point. Not mine.

Perhaps if people could stop bashing each other and calling names for a few minutes.......(yeah - I'm not holding my breath).....you'd realize that this is an area with a lot of "middle ground' just aching to be used. Keep marriage in the churches and let the government recognize and issue civil unions. Marriage is now only under the churches...and if a church wants to marry people only of opposite gender, let them do as their faith allows. If you don't like their faith's viewpoint, you are free to choose another. Live and let live- isn't that what this is all about? Those bashing the religious among us who believe in only man/woman marriage are just as intolerant as those who are trying to enforce their religious views on everyone. Civil unions for all and marriage only through the church. Problem solved.

Poo -- so you approve of the ruling as long as it suits your preference but not others. Thats the point. You are ok with a change as long as it satisfies your definition and allows what you feel is acceptable. Cmon... think... your traveling down a road that has no limit, it has no bounds. Yet if you bound it the eay I see it, thats ok. Thats not how the law works. Regardless of what exists today, this opens up to interpretation that other unions are acceptable. We all know that there that there are people that have sex with animals, we know that there are people that have sex with children, we know that there are people that have sex with dead people. Where does it stop. It doesnt, it cannot, once the door is open, you cannot only open it for a group of society that YOU deem as acceptable. My position is -- if they want to live a alifestyle-- thats fine. I will state this from the beginning.... Being gay is not a race, religion, belief -- whatever, and cannot therefore be discriminated against. It is an illness.

Third_Eye said, "Poobah: First of all MadCityDad wondered if Proposition 8 was an ammendment or a law, so I posted the answer without comment. From that you have twice implied that I am uneducated."

I was not referring to your comment that it was an amendment. I was commenting on your statement that, "There seems to be a commonality among our left leaning friends that wishes to negate the will of the voter." That is clearly an uneducated rhetorical comment. I didn't imply you were uneducated, you demonstrated it with that comment. This is clearly a case of the voters of California violating provisions of the United States Constitution. If it negates the will of some California voters, so be it. It keeps our rights under the federal Constitution intact.

In regard to your Wikipedia quote; the judgements that have been handed down in Iowa, California and other states address the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment as just one of several aspects in their conclusions of law. I imagine you are now suggesting it is "activist" judges who are upholding the state and federal Constitutions in these decisions. I suppose you would suggest the Iowa supreme court was composed entirely of liberal activist judges. I think you need to read, or re-read, some of these decisions.

Ezoner- Your comments would be taken more seriously if you spelled the big words correctly.

I love how the liberals always bring up slavery when the issue of overturning what the people want. Then you both know that it was Ab Lincoln that started the Republican party to fight the DEMOCRATS who wanted to keep slavery and ultimately started the war between the states. The DEMOCRATS have been practicing plantation politics ever since.
It was also the DEMOCRATS that ignored court rulings to leave the Native Americans alone. Again, going above the law and gave us the famous "trail of tears" - oppressive and dictatorial.

Poobah: First of all MadCityDad wondered if Proposition 8 was an ammendment or a law, so I posted the answer without comment.
From that you have twice implied that I am uneducated.
.
In regards to the equal protection clause of the US Constitution I offer you this from Wikipedia: (without comment.)
"In Hernandez v. Texas (1954) the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects those beyond the racial classes of white or "Negro" and extends to other racial and ethnic groups, such as Mexican Americans in this case. In the half century since Brown, the Court has extended the reach of the Equal Protection Clause to other historically disadvantaged groups, such as women and illegitimate children, although it has applied a somewhat less stringent standard than it has applied to governmental discrimination on the basis of race (United States v. Virginia, 1996; Levy v. Louisiana, 1968).[30]"

Ezoner said, "Its a simple concept. You cannot limit the ruling to humans. That is dicrimantory. So once you allow for this, the definition of marriage itself and civil unions must be changed."

There are states that currently allow for same sex marriages. Please provide us with citations to federal and state law that give animals the right to marry and that provides them with protection against discrimination in those states.

It truly saddens me that people who I would hope are capable of reading and understanding do not take the time to educate themselves prior to spouting off with their ill-informed statements. In this case, it is obvious some comments come from people who have absolutely no idea of the progress of this case, of the relationship between state constitutions and the federal constitution or of the structure of our state and federal court system. And the sad thing is, instead of taking the time to research these things and educate themselves, they go spouting off with these incorrect statements as though they are statements of fact. I would think they would be absolutely embarrassed by their ignorance when they are corrected. But no, they just keep digging themselves a deeper and deeper hole instead of taking the time to inform themselves.

Judge Walker's original judgement was beautifully written. If you haven't read it, I really recommend you take the time to do that; particularly his Conclusions of Law. It can be found here: [ http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/prop8/FF_CL_... ] Although Judge Walker's judgement is well written, I still think the finest and most eloquently written judgement in support of same sex marriage is that of the Iowa Supreme Court (in a unanimous decision upholding a district court ruling). [ http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pd... ] If that ruling does not make opponents of same sex marriage reconsider their position, I doubt anything will. Perhaps not even their own child telling them he/she is gay.

Its a simple concept. You cannot limit the ruling to humans. That is dicrimantory. So once you allow for this, the definition of marriage itself and civil unions must be changed. One could also argue that you need to be of sound mind and body to enter into the civil union, and I would argue that being gay alone violates that premise.

Midnight_Ride, I see you also must been have absent from civics class the same day Third_Eye was. Or perhaps you didn't take the time to read the first or second opinions. Three judges in black robes and the United States Constitution said "too bad." The Appeals Court this was heard by has many more than three judges, but I'm sure your fellow narrow-minded patriots who like you know little about the Constitution will appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

Nice try @ distraction, MR. The issue IS about marriage. Your 2 "black robes" merely upheld the decision of the federal court since there was no viable reason to overturn the previous decision. They wouldn't be federal apeals court judges if they didn't understand the Constitution.
.
In the 1860's, much (dare I say a majority) of the south wanted to keep slaves but it was deemed to be illegal and unconstitutional. The majority is not always right.

These are great comments from both sides. The issue isn't about gay marriage. The issue is that the people of California petitioned and voted one way and 2 black robes said too bad.
..And that very VERY liberal 9th circuit of 3 didn't even have a unanimous decision.

Third_Eye, you should have learned this in junior high school civics class. Perhaps you were home sick that day. No state law, including constitutional law, can violate provisions of the United States Constitution. MadCityDad was correct, as usual.

"Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_...)

Those who believe the "sanctity" of marriage is threatened by gay mariage aren't very secure to begin with.

3rd eye - I am not sure if it was an ammendment in CA as it was in WI or if it was just a law. Either way, the right to marry was deemed to be legal, then taken away by a law that was deemed to be unconstitutional by a federal judge. On appeal, his decision was upheld. Not that hard to understand. A state law cannot take away the 14th ammendment to the US Constitution.
.
And ammendments are allowed to overrule others. Prohibtion was an ammendment that was repealed by a later ammendment. Slavery (allowed for in the Constitution) was ended by a constitutional ammendment.

I like the first comment by Why Think. It seems the best path - everybody gets what they want. The biggest concern in my mind is will the Government step in and do as was recently done to the Catholic Church and their view on contraception? I disagree completely with the Catholic Church's view, but I defend, vigorously, their right to not have to violate a well-established tenant of their faith. If "gay marriage" (which, I must say, is fundamentally different from marriage as is evidenced by the fact that we even say "gay" marriage to make it stand apart) is recognized as a civil right, will we be throwing priests in jail because it violates their faith and they refuse a ceremony?

Nope - let's just call them all "civil unions" and leave '"marriage" to the churches.

Ezoner said, "The law is supposed to be blind from a social justice perspective and that is exactly why."

Would you care to explain that comment and give us citations to constitutional and/or statutory law to defend that statement?

I love when the topic of gay marriage is bashed by the people against it they are quick to bring up marriage between animals and humans. Really? As far as I know homosexual love isn't illegal is it? But sex with animals is right? So why are they EVER in the same discussion? If two people love each other and want to be a family, I say more power to them and they should be issued rights like being able to share their earned work benefits. Just like the same people who get married for 72 days and call it quits.

Take a dog for instance. A dog is no longer property and putting down a dog could be considered involuntary homicide.

Great -- my question still stands. If you are willing to set any limits, then you are willing to say there is a limit. If a limit exists, gays cannot, as straights cannot, say that the limit is only extended to homosapiens. It must be extended to the entire animal kingdom. Certainly to mammals. You can legitimitely claim discriminatin otherwise. Once you accept that there are limits, then the limits set are not set by artificial social acceptance as some state below. So given that arguement -- it is then reasonable to say marriage is legally speaking on between a man and woman. Any Judge saying otherwise is showing bias to a predetermined set of socially acceptable terms in their own views. Thats not what the law states. The law is supposed to be blind from a social justice perspective and that is exactly why.

Ezoner: Off in Santorum Logic World. Nope. It has to legalized by humans, so if they don't want to humans marrying animals, they won't. We are talking about humans. My straight marriage is not threatened by gay marriage, or plural spouses for that matter. My faith beliefs are not threatened, (where did Jesus comment on this matter?).
Straight marrying folks need to analyze why so many of them divorce. That is the biggest problem with marriage today.

Ohh wait -- I see -- this is the 9th court. They are so liberal , they cant even see the left. This decision will be overtruned. So it really doesnt matter.

Why do we have to define marriage at all? Marriage is an artificial social construct. If gay marriage bothers you, don't get gay married.

So let me get this right -- You say its the union between 2 (you say people, but that is then discrinatory by your guidlines). So people could really be expanded to between 2 living bodies. Meaning an animal could marry a human. Any animal, or do we limit it to mamals? The reality is there are people that beilieve in having multiple wives. They supposedly love each other?? Where does it end? This extension of definition is not a valid union. Dogs can love, cant they? Lets get closer to humnas. Monkeys can surely love. My point is you cannot place artificial limits to support only your own desires and definitions, unless you can admit and recognise that limits exist. Those limits are therefore defined as being between a man and woman as defined by normal thinking and reasoning.

Fear -- actually I would agree that all tax exempt status should be removed -- period. I also believe that everyone should pay taxes, both the rich and the poor. Tax exemptions are another form of government manipulation and wealth redistribution. One question I would have is are union dues tax exempt? If they are, they should not be. If you choose to give your money to a union, thats no different to handing to a person on the street or droppong it in the plate at a church.

Gay marriage is happening, and will be legal everywhere someday. Forty years from now, no one will care.

It really is amazing how many don't have a clue about the governing structure of the USA, how it relates to states, the federal gov't and the voters.

MARRIAGE IS THE UNION OF 2 HEARTS, 2 SOULS, 2 MINDS. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "GENITALS" ..THERE IS NOTHING MORE WONDERFUL THEN 2 PEOPLE IN LOVE.

MadCityDad Feb 7, 2012 at 6:12 p.m.: So let me understand how this works. A constitutional amendment was declared unconstitutuional.
Hmmmm.
.
There seems to be a commonality among our left leaning friends that wishes to negate the will of the voter.

Why_Think "DITTO" I agree 100%.

you disagree because you don't know what a democratic republic is, why our founding fathers set us up that way and not as a pure democracy.
-

Prop 8 served no other purpose than to deny one group of law abiding citizens a legal right granted to all other law abiding citizens. That is unconstitutional. That is why a court had to deal with this. A small group of judges are much better equipped to decide what is or is not constitutional than the general rabble of the citizenry.

No surprise for the very bias 9th circuit. The good people of California get enough signatures to put this in their own hands on a ballet and voted into law, by the people. 2 individuals in black robes say you don't count. I do hope this goes to the Supreme Court.
Let's be clear to you gay activists. I am not saying I agree or disagree with the law.
...I disagree that 2 judges feel they can dictate to an entire majority of a state.
..One more reason we must vote out Obama in 2012 as he has already put into place 2 that are anti-Constitution in addition to Ruth B. who goes overseas to trash it.
http://bunkerville.wordpress.com/2012/02...

This is a very good thing for the USA.

Amen, fearandrhetoric! Oh my God! I actually typed "amen" and wasn't struck down with lightning for supporting gay rights!

Here's a question for you gay bashers out there. How does gay marriage or civil unions destroy the sanctity of marriage? I think you "straight" people have already taken care of that. Let's see...Kim Kardashian's $10,000,000, 72 day marriage...Newt Gingrich, married 3 times and cheating on and leaving a spouse with cancer...I could go on and on and on. You folks are nothing but hypocritical, judgemental, so-called Christians. I'm sure God loves that and will reward you justly.

Ezoner you need some care to figure out what makes you such a bigot. What went wrong in your life?
Let us also be clear to anyone who wishes to quote the Bible. The Bible is NOT the word of God, it is a book written by people. It was mostly written hundreds and hundreds of years ago. In times where homosexuals were largely burned at the stake or drowned for being gay!! Is that the humanity any loving God would advocate?
I also wonder how it is an illness? What do you suggest to a man who is attracted to ther men? Millions of gays are that way because that is how they were born!! Totally and completely normal upbringing. To suggest anything different is ignorant.

"". Life was meant to be simple.""
""What needs to be done is to provide support and mental coverage for gays so that they can determine what the cause of their illness is. I know this comment will catch fire, but the reality is theat somewhere something went wrong. Marriage between a man and a woman is the only thing that should be recognized""

These are the views of religious people that think they know the rules for life and want to dictate their rules to everyone. Should tell you all you need to know. These views are bigoted and the deserve to be pointed out as such. These are the views of the conservative Republicans that want total domination.
These are the views from people that supposedly want a "smaller government" yet want to dictate who you can or can not marry. This is people trying to use government to push their beliefs on everyone, period.
I propose that if gay marriage is not recognized by the state , then NO marriage should recieve any sort of tax break as it is clearly ani institute of religion, and if it is , there should be NO tax breaks given to them and I also believe that Churches who do not recognize this should IMMEDIATELY forfiet tax-exempt status. This is CLEARLY a violation of the infusion of church and State.

Ezoner - How nice of you to want to provide "support and mental coverage" for gays so that they can determine the cause of their illness. I'm sure they'd like to provide the same "support and mental coverage" for people like you to determine the cause of your HATRED, PREJUDICE, and DISCRIMINATION.

Hammerornail, The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

So if marriage is a religious event, then you just invalidated your law.

Besides, I'd rather two loving people raise a child, live a long life, and die together without the persecution of the government or some religious sect that doesn't agree. Land of the free, home of the brave.

You can leave if you don't agree.

older, sometimes the people are wrong. Prop 8 is unconstitutional and was overturned. Get over it.

Wake up Wisconsin citizens living in the dark realm of religious idiocy.
I'm just sayin'...

Why is this news? Did anyone think the 9th circuit would rule any other way?
Courts trying to overturn the will of the people is wrong. Prop 8 passed, get over it.

Its ok Ezoner - your views will fade into history, just like the other arguements against equal rights, women having the right to vote and so on, they just fade away at the same rate as religious delusions fade away from the population.

Its ok Ezoner - your views will fade into history, just like the other arguements against equal rights, women having the right to vote and so on, they just fade away at the same rate as religious delusions fade away from the population.

What needs to be done is to provide support and mental coverage for gays so that they can determine what the cause of their illness is. I know this comment will catch fire, but the reality is theat somewhere something went wrong. Marriage between a man and a woman is the only thing that should be recognized.

FINALLY!
.
Personally, I would like to see the government exit the business of marriage. Give marriage to the churches and have the government recognize civil unions.
.
A civil union can be performed via church, justice of the peace, etc... like today. the church can have marriage while the government recognizes civil union and the the legal rights of that union.
.
If a gay couple can find a church to marry them, GOD BLESS! If not, they have the option of a legal, government recognized civil union.