A county judge has now ruled that the gay marriage ban is unconstitutional in the state of California. I find this quite interesting, especially when over 60% of Californians voted for defining sex between a man and a woman. Whatever happened to majority rules in this country? If gay marriage is legalized in the state of California through the court system, it will forever change the face of democracy. No longer will the voting voice of our citizens matter. Instead, courts will be the controlling voice in America.

I find this disturbing, not because it has to do with gay marriage, but more because it's undermining the wishes of the majority of our citizens in this so-called democracy!

Read this article below:

"Judge Says Calif. Can't Ban Gay Marriage

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional — a legal milestone that, if upheld on appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.

Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County's trial-level Superior Court likened the ban to laws requiring racial segregation in schools, and said there appears to be "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples.

The ruling came in response to lawsuits filed by the city of San Francisco and a dozen gay couples a year ago after the California Supreme Court halted a four-week same-sex marriage spree started by Mayor Gavin Newsom.

The opinion had been eagerly awaited because of San Francisco's historical role as a gay rights battleground.

Gay marriage supporters hailed the ruling as a historic development akin to the 1948 state Supreme Court decision that made California the first state to legalize interracial marriage.

"Today's ruling is an important step toward a more fair and just California that rejects discrimination and affirms family values for all California families," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.

Conservative leaders expressed outrage at the ruling and vowed to appeal.

"For a single judge to rule there is no conceivable purpose for preserving marriage as one man and one woman is mind-boggling," said Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver. "This decision will be gasoline on the fire of the pro-marriage movement in California as well as the rest of the country.

Last winter, nearly 4,000 gay couples got married after Newsom instructed the city to issue them licenses, in defiance of state law. The California Supreme Court later declared those marriages void, saying the mayor overstepped his authority. But the court did not address the underlying issue of whether the law against gay marriage violates the California Constitution.

At issue in the current case were a 1977 law that defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman," and a voter-approved measure in 2000 that amended the law to say more explicitly: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Gay marriage opponents were particularly upset by the judge's decision to nullify to 2000 proposition — approved by 61 percent of voters.

"The practical effect is the disregard of close to two-thirds of the people of California who used the initiative process to ensure that marriage would remain between one man and one woman," said Robert Tyler, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund.

The state maintained that tradition dictates that marriage should be limited to opposite-sex couples. Attorney General Bill Lockyer also cited the state's domestic-partners law as evidence that California does not discriminate against gays.

But Kramer rejected that argument, citing Brown v. Board of Education — the landmark U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) decision that struck down segregated schools.

"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts — separate but equal," the judge wrote.

It could be months or years before the state actually sanctions same-sex marriage, if ever. Kramer's decision is stayed automatically for 60 days to allow time for appeal.

Lockyer has said in the past that he expected the matter eventually would have to be settled by the California Supreme Court.

A jovial Newsom was flanked by several same-sex couples and their supporters at a City Hall news conference shortly after the ruling was announced. "We will not be appealing this decision," the mayor joked as the crowd broke into laughter.

Two bills now before the California Legislature would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot. If California voters approve such an amendment, as those in 13 other states did last year, that would put the issue out of the control of lawmakers and the courts.

The decision is the latest development in a national debate that has been raging since 2003, when the highest court in Massachusetts decided that denying gay couples the right to wed was unconstitutional.

In the wake of the Massachusetts ruling, gay rights advocates filed lawsuits seeking to strike down traditional marriage laws in several other states. Opponents responded by proposing state and federal constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

Around the country, Kramer is the fourth trial court judge in recent months to decide that the right to marry and its benefits must be extended to same-sex couples.

Just as many judges have gone the other way in recent months, however, refusing to accept the argument that keeping gays from marrying violates their civil rights.

California has the highest percentage of same-sex partners in the nation, and its Legislature has gone further than any other in providing gay couples the benefits of marriage without being forced to do so by court order. "

Well, there are at least two, and if it holds up, three amendments that will come into play here:

14th Amendment: The "equal protection" clause. It claims that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. In my mind, that extends to any individual that wants to claim the same right as another individual. For example, if two consenting men/women want to be married, they have "equal protection" under the law, and constitutionally should be able to.

9th Amendment: Non enumerated rights (this one is not nearly as powerful as the 14th). It holds that the Constitution doesn't have to specifically grant us all of our civil liberties. It has been used successfully against sodomy laws that governed acts between a man and his wife, and things of that nature.

If it passes: 4th Amendment -- Full Faith & Credit -- That means that any marriage performed in states where gay marriage is legal will be honored fully in any state that forbids it.

Rev: It's not about mob rule here, it's about what the constitution says. In this case, there must either be an amendment forbidding gay marriage, or it will be legal under the current constitution if any judge follows what it says to the letter.

Please note, I'm not making any values statements here, saying it's right or wrong, those are just the facts as they are (of course, any interpretation of the constitution is debatable, but that's how this court and many others see it).

Also, we don't live in a Democratic state. It's a Democratic Republic that is set up by a Constitution -- I know.. common mistake ;)

I have to admit for me its not so much that gay marriage bothers me its who's next in line for the marriage movement. Will it be polygamist, incest couples, people who want to marry thier pets. After that its pretty much anything goes.



I think these judges aren't making these decisions based on providing civil liberties for all. These type cases set the stage for political careers and name recognition. I am afraid that's motivation behind these decisions. These cases make it to where a judge can sell books, make the rounds on the news shows, or stand at a podium preaching to a group of voters asking for their vote.



In my opinion marriage is sham anyway these days. People get married because they can, not because their in love and want to be with that person forever.



The divorce rate gets higher every year. One out of every three people who are married commit adultery in one form or another. Many couples live together and raise children without being married. So why even have a state sanctioned marriage in the first place? Maybe its time the churches conducted the marriages. I think if you had to follow a faith to be married. Chances are you would work harder to keep your marriage together.



All the state would need to do is make it a law that all marriages require a prenuptial agreement. That would eliminate divorce court and leave only a custody hearing for any kids involved.

I agree with oklacity. I hope I'm not distorting your position, but I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all. They should grant civil unions to any 2 people over the age of 18 for tax purposes, etc.

Churches, then should be the ones that get to call you "married", get to pass out rings, etc. If two gay people want to go to a church and get married, let them. If they want to file jointly on their taxes, own joint property, keep joint accounts, and they don't want to pay an attorney thousands of dollars to draft Power of Attorneys, etc., let them.

As for your "slippery slope" argument that if gay marriage is allowed, these other things will necessarily follow, first of all, a slippery slope (I'm sure you're aware) is something called a fallacy. A fallacy is a flawed type of reasoning, it is not logical. One thing does not necessarily proceed from the other.

In saying that, the Court's biggest US Constitutional reason for allowing this is the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Because 2 people (a man and a woman) are allowed to be married, and the law covers everyone equally, it proceeds that ANY two people, regardless of gender should be allowed the same rights as everyone else.

Okay, Reverend Bob. Since you're so concerned about a "majority rule" (regardless of the fact that any 7th grade student taking civics will tell you our country is not a pure democracy--it is a constitutional republic with a constitution set up specifically to protect minorities from mob rule), then let me bring up abortion. The majority of people in this country--even Republicans-- believe Roe v. Wade is a good thing and that women should have the right to end their pregnancies. And yet fundie Christians are constantly trying to change that. I would also like to bring up instances like the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, and interracial marriage; all of which were opposed by the "majority" in their day. Just because the majority is opposed to something doesn't make it legal for that thing to be prohibited.

You at least need to admit that your concern is NOT democracy. Most neo-cons (who are not true conservatives, btw) are simply fueling the Christian Right machine. The desire is to legislate morality and enforce Fundie Christian beliefs on the entire country. Well guess what, sir: I am not a fundie Christian. And neither are a LOT of people in this country. And we don't want your rules of moralty governing us. Luckily, the constitution is in place to protect us from you.

One more thing. The founding fathers were not Christians. They were deists, born from the age of enlightenment. The concept they cherished is that the government has no right to make any laws except those that protect life, liberty, and property (which a true conservative would agree with in order to keep federal government small). They realized that this country was formed BECAUSE of religious persecution in England. And they set up a government to prevent that from happening here. Keep your religious laws in your church. They have no place in a secular government. Having a secular government is the very thing that keeps your religious beliefs safe anyway.

Midtowner is absolutely right. Marriage licenses are personal contracts. Nothing more. And the federal government doesnt have the right to interfere with my entering into a contract with another man. A true conservative doesn't WANT the federal government to have these rights--because it flies in the face of everything our constitution stands for. If your church believes homosexuality is wrong and will not allow gay marriage ceremonies to be performed in their church, I RESPECT THAT BECAUSE IT IS A PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEF (also protected by the constitution). But the license itself is another thing entirely. And according to the previously mentioned full faith and credit and equal protection, gay marriage WILL be legal fairly soon. I think you know this deep down.

You're not mourning the death of democracy. You're mourning the fact that our forefathers had the insight to protect our government from becoming a theocracy.

And for that we should all be grateful.

I just wanted to add that the US Supreme Court did have a similar case in front of it back in the 60's.

Here's the heading from findlaw.com

U.S. Supreme Court
LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
388 U.S. 1

LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.
No. 395.
Argued April 10, 1967.
Decided June 12, 1967.

Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 4-12.

I believe a very similar argument could be made about any laws barring same-sex marriage in the U.S.

The anti-gay marriage types know they are fighting a losing battle. Let them moan and groan about it. It's all they have :)

I'm actually a firm believer in majority rule, regardless of the issue. And yes, that even applies to abortion.

Oh, and the state government DOES have the right to interfere with your entering into a contract with another man if it violates a state amendment passed by over 60% of citizens in a given state, the state of Oklahoma as an example.

The law is the law is the law. Religion really has nothing to do with it. The law should be followed as it's written and voted for by the general public.

In regards to the previously mentioned full faith and credit and equal protection.....it depends on if you're looking at state law or federal law. Eventually the Supreme Court will probably give their two cents on this, and I'm willing to bet that a more conservative Supreme Court will leave the issue of gay marriages up to the states to decide. Many states have already decided by passing marriage amendments defining marriage.

By the way, if you open up marriages to gays, you open the door to other types of marriages as well. Anything will be fair game. Expect to see marriages between humans and animals, etc. Sound crazy? It could and will happen.

The more we open up marriage, the less of an institution it becomes, and the more of a joke it becomes.

We won't get that far. Christ will come back before that happens.

But does this really follow? Does the full faith and credit clause allow a state to "export" its marriage laws?

Such logic surely has not been followed when "full faith and credit" is applied to any other subject. For example, in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Nevada v. Hall that, "The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State's law in violation of its own legitimate public policy"....".1 Similarly, in April, 2003 the Court stated in Franchise Tax Board of California v Hyatt that, "The Clause does not compel a State to substitute the statutes of other States for its own statues ...".2 In these and numerous other cases, the Supreme Court has made clear "full faith and credit" means that states must recognize contracts and court settlements and the like from other states, but only as long as they are consistent with the states own laws and policies.

Suppose that some chemical used in industry was found to present a health hazard. Suppose that, say, New York responds by completely banning the use of this chemical, while Pennsylvania decides that the appropriate solution is to require anyone who uses this chemical to have a special license, presumably not issued until after they demonstrate that they can meet various safety standards. This is surely not an outlandish scenario: States have such differences in their legal response to various situations all the time. Now, suppose that someone who has a license to use this chemical in Pennsylvania moves to New York. Does the full faith and credit law allow this person to use the chemical in New York, even though New York law explicitly prohibits its use? Is New York obliged to recognize the Pennsylvania license? I strongly doubt that any court would take such an argument seriously. And if a court did force New York to recognize it, surely the New York legislature -- if not the populace in general -- would be outraged. Even those who didn't like the original law would probably be angry at this imposition on their right to make their own laws.

Simple logic would say that the same principle would apply to homosexual marriage. If one state changes its laws to provide for such marriages, that is presumably their legal right. But two men married in that state would not carry that states law with them when they moved to another state.

Equal Rights and Marriage Rites
Advocates of homosexual marriage today routinely frame it as an equal rights issue: They are being denied rights that are available to others.

What are they talking about? I am not aware of any state that prohibits homosexuals from marrying or restricts them in any way that does not apply equally to heterosexuals. To the best of my knowledge, in every state a homosexual man is perfectly free to marry any woman who will have him. A lesbian woman is free to marry any man who will have her. The law gives them exactly the same rights that everyone else has.

No no, I'm sure the homosexual marriage advocates will reply. As a homosexual man, I don't want to marry a woman, I want to marry another man. And the law won't let me marry another man, it limits me to marrying a woman.

So how does the law discriminate? Homosexual marriage advocates are saying that "equal rights" means that they must have the right to do something that no one else has the right to do. The law says that others can do X. They don't want to do X, they want to do Y. So they say that "equal rights" means that if others are allowed to do X, they must be allowed to do Y. Huh?

The law says that paper money issued by the U.S. Treasury is legal tender that must be accepted in payment of any debt. Suppose that I don't want to use U.S. dollars, that I prefer to use French francs or pretty yellow and orange beads. Does the principle of equal rights under law really mean that store owners should be required to accept whatever I want to use as money? If others can use the money they want, that I should be able to use the money I want?

Indeed, the law has never said that any male may legally marry any female. I cannot marry a six year old girl. Could I argue in court that, as other people who are over the legal age are allowed to marry, that therefore age limits violate my civil rights? Surely the reply would be that "equal rights" means that the same age limits apply to me as to anyone else. I cannot legally marry a mannequin, or a poodle, or a character in a video game, even if she is female. Does this violate my equal rights? Indeed, there is at least one circumstance where I would not legally be allowed to marry a woman even though another man would be legally allowed to marry this very same woman. Surely it is a fundamental violation of the principle of equal rights if my neighbor is allowed to marry this woman but I am not. Right? But what if I am already married and he is not? Every state in the United States forbids bigamy.

The laws of every state place certain restrictions on marriage: You must be a certain age, you must have been a resident of the state for so long, neither of you can be married to someone else ... and you must be of the opposite sex. These same laws apply to every one. Whether you are white or black, Democrat or Republican, Christian or Buddhist or atheist, heterosexual or homosexual. The same laws apply to every one. There is no discrimination in present law.

When I was in college, my sociology textbook included a discussion of marriage, and mentioned that an effort in one state to make marriage legally become a three-year contract with options for renewal "was treated as a joke by the other legislators". When I read that I couldn't help but think, It was a joke. I mean, suppose that someone said that he thought that football would be a much better game if instead of using an oblong ball, we used a spherical ball; and instead of kicking or carrying the ball, we hit it with a heavy stick; and instead of playing on a rectangular field, we played on a diamond-shaped field; etc. We could certainly debate whether or not such changes would make a better game, but surely if we made such drastic changes, what we would have would no longer be football. It would be a lot more like baseball.

Marriage has historically been understood to be a permanent union between a man and a woman. To the best of my knowledge, every culture in the history of the world up to 1990 has understood this to be the definition of marriage. Even in those few cultures that have viewed homosexuality positively, I cannot find a single example of a culture where a homosexual couple would be considered "married".

Yes, there is variation in the marriage laws and customs of different cultures. Some have allowed a man to have more than one wife; a few have allowed a woman to have more than one husband. Some allow marriage of an adult to a child or between two children. A few have prohibited or discouraged marriage between people of different social classes or races. There have been different rules for for when divorce is permitted. (Other than bigamy, which has been widely accepted in many places at many times, all the other variations have usually been controversial wherever practiced.)

That's about it for the variety. I don't know of any culture that has ever viewed marriage as a three-year contract with options for renewal. I don't know of any culture where it was viewed as normal for a married couple to not live together. I don't know of any culture that allowed a person to marry himself. And I don't know of any culture has ever allowed a man to marry any sort of creature or being other than a woman: No culture has ever allowed a man to marry a goat or a box of rocks.

One final thought: For at least the last 30 years, American liberals have been telling us that marriage is a constraining institution, that monogamy is unnatural and unhealthy, that trying to hold people to vows they made in their youth condemns millions to lives of misery, etc etc. Indeed, the feminist left routinely argued that marriage was oppressive, that it was a tool used by authoritarian men to dominate women.

Now all of a sudden these same people are telling us that homosexuals should marry. Apparently they want to abolish marriage, except for homosexuals.

I've argued this over and over and my stance on the issue is well known. But here are some highlites:

1) Midtowner may be better at explaining contracts than I am, because I only had basic training in them as they apply to insurance laws, however, there are 4 rules that apply to entering into a binding legal contract. One of those rules is that BOTH parties must me of sound mind in order to enter into a contract. So that rules out your little slippery slope argument of people marrying pets or children or other such sick things. Children and animals are not adults of sound mind. It would not be possible to "marry" them.

2) The other slippery slope arguments: incest and polygamy. People who are related would have no NEED to enter into a marriage because--as they are already family--they already have legal rights to one another. A gay couple doesn't have that right. Also, it is far less of an abridgment of rights for me to tell a man he can't marry his sister. You're ruling out an entire gender for me. And that simply isn't fair. Also, I would like to point out that in several states it is already perfectly legal to marry a first cousin. Look into it. And as far as the polygamy thing goes, I sincerely doubt anyone (with the alimony and child support laws the way they are) would take ANY risks marrying more than one person. Most reasonable people would know that divorcing just ONE person is enough to drive you to bankruptcy. Your slippery slope arguments are illogical scare tactics. They are a last ditch effort to defend a position you know is unconstitutional.

3) Equal protection DOES apply, because I do not have the right to enter into a marriage contract with any member of the gender to which I am attracted. Yes, I have the right to marry a woman. So what? I am not romantically or physically attracted to women. Are you saying that I should marry a woman just because you think that would be better for me? I think gay men and women marrying members of the opposite sex when they are NOT in love is a far more severe blow to the institution of marriage. Living a lie is a sin, you know.

4) Stop calling me a liberal. It is insulting. I am not a liberal. I am a true conservative. I believe the government should be small and that it should stay out of the private lives of individuals. I believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution w/o being swayed by modern ideals or religious beliefs. I believe in interpreting the law of our land as it was intended. And I think you will find that--in the end--our constitution will be interpreted to allow gay marriages.

5) You say God will never allow this to happen and that Jesus will return before gays are allowed to marry. Fine, then. Why not let God take care of it and keep your religious beliefs out of government? For all your paragraphs of arguments, your point is simply that you want gay marriage banned simply because you believe homosexuality to be immoral. Sorry, bucko, but that isn't enough to justify a nationwide ban on gay marriage. In fact, the reasons you list to ban gay marriage could just as easily be applied to banning divorce.

Like I said, if your church wants to believe homosexuality is wrong and if it chooses not to allow gay marriage ceremonies to be carried out, then I will respect and defend your churches right to believe that. But no one religious group has the right to control the federal or state government. The government is to be impartial and fair and interpret the constitution--as is-- in an unbiased manner.

Gay marriage will soon be a reality. Moan and groan about it all you want.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of my views, I'm standing behind them.

In my opinion gay marriage has opened a pandoras box on our society.


That is all I have to say about this topic.

From this day forward I will not post on threads that are intended to set fires amoung the members like this one and a few other ones.

Enough Said........

Regardless of what anyone thinks of my views, I'm standing behind them.

In my opinion gay marriage has opened a pandoras box on are society.


That is all I have to say about this topic.

From this day forward I will not post on threads that intended to set fires amoung the members like this one and a few other ones.

Enough Said........

I agree. Unfortunately, a few posters are very adament(sp) at expressing their points of view, which is what this forum is for, however, from what I have seen, a few of them turn into a whiners convention. A few posters have been wearing their feelings on their sleeves, and when that starts to happen, they try to start wildfires with other posters by posting things that will push other peoples' buttons.

Believe me, I have been reading these posts very closely, and if they get out of hand (which they are close to doing now) I will step in and take care of the situation. Like you, oklacity75, I have expressed my views on this subject many times on other threads. For some reason, others keep beating this subject to death. I, also, tend to stay away from these types of threads, because nobody ever wins.

Please explain your "Pandora's Box" theory. Again, please look up slippery slope. Yup, described as "a fallacy".

I'll go further on the bestiality/polygamy theory. The current law allows any two PEOPLE, a man and a woman to marry. Since the law applies to everyone equally, any TWO people should be allowed to marry. It's not that much of a stretch considering the fact that the 14th Amendment has already been interpreted to forbid discrimination based on gender, color or creed.

This is exactly why I said these types of threads start fires. Someone always feels the need to get the last word in.

This is a discussion board not a courtroom.

I don't care what the constitution states.

I don't care if you think my theories are false.

I don't agree with gay marriage and I never will. So please give it a rest.

Its not going to kill you to accept the fact that sometimes you have to agree to disagree.

It doesn't bother me that you think the way you do. It's that you don't seem to be able to justify your position with a line of logical reasoning, or even an emotional explanation as to why you feel the way you do.

I do, however, find it disturbing that you don't care what the Constitution says (it's capitalized). In a society such as ours, that's always a very disturbing thing to hear. When people start to abandon their loyalty to our governing documents, horrible things tend to happen. How about Germany circa 1938?

I do agree that while I, and many others believe that people are entitled to equal protection under the law, that you do not feel that they should be.

I do find it unfortunate that you would believe that segregation and discrimination should still be practiced even after our society's terrible experiences with those things in the 20th century. I guess as a society, we must be slow learners.

I'm done with this discussion. I'm not going give you the pleasure to slaughter everything I post.


My views reflect my morals and beliefs. I will admit I'm not perfect nor do I intend to be. I'm not going let someone patronize me and make me feel like I'm worthless because I don't agree with the liberal lobby.



Post whatever you want paint me up as Adolph Hitler for all I care.

What is liberal or conservative about gay marriage?

Well, I think Godwin's Law has kicked in here: once you start bringing in the Third Reich, nothing useful can come of this thread.

Well, I think Godwin's Law has kicked in here: once you start bringing in the Third Reich, nothing useful can come of this thread.

The only reason I did that was to bring to light the fact that some don't feel that this is a nation of laws -- that is -- unless they agree with those laws. I say this to show that such beliefs can have absolutely disastrous results. The Third Rieich was an excellent example of what happens when "mob rule" becomes law. An extreme example, but certainly a valid one.

"I don't care what the constitution says."

At least one of you guys finally admitted it.

That one quote speaks volumes of how little respect you have for the wonderful documents that chartered our great nation. I rest my case.

What I meant was the Constitution was not relevant to the argument. The Constitution is what sets the foundation for our government. It does not regulate a persons point of view.



Here is my view on homosexuality. I think homosexuality is a choice and at most a mental health illness. People develop their sexuality through parents, the media, their peers and other adults. I think sexuality is based what you experience prior to and through the process of puberty. Homosexuality develops through one of a few ways. It’s introduced to the person through experimentation or peer pressure. The person is sexually abused by someone they trust. A person has trouble finding a heterosexual mate so they convert as a means of coping.



In my opinion homosexuality is a perversion. Homosexuality is just bad as incest, bestiality, pedophilia, or necrophilia. I refuse to condone any of these behaviors.



I don't hate people who choose this lifestyle. I treat everyone how they treat me regardless of race, sex, or sexuality.



What you do in the bedroom is your business not mine. (In fact, I wish everyone would keep the bedroom events out of the mainstream culture.)



What I have problem with is this sickness is invading every pure institution in the United States. Their is no place for sexuality in the school house, scouting, the church or children’s entertainment regardless if its Homosexual or Heterosexual.



This mess all started by what could have been a simple law change in how benefits are provided by employers. The government should have passed a law allowing a worker to include any one he/she supports or is living in the household to have insurance. A person should be able to use their insurance benefits to cover anyone they support.



You can quote Constitution, The LA Times, The New York Times or Jesus himself. I'm not changing my point of view. Certain things are illegal for the reason of protecting society from moral decline. In my eyes legalizing homosexual marriage would be about as senseless as legalizing the use and abuse of all drugs.



To all posters and members take this post look, admire, criticize but do not expect a reply from me on this issue. This is my point of view, I stand by it and I will not argue it anymore.





Enough Said..........

I'm actually for a serious rollback on our "War on Drugs" which has been an abject failure and cost us countless lives and tax dollars... But that's another thread.

The difference between homosexuality and incest, bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia is that homosexuality (when practiced within the confines of what a normal heterosexual relationship works) is between two consenting adults. Incest is different because children who are the products of incestuous relationships often suffer from birth defects, something that is unfair to them. Actually, the potential damage to society from homosexual relationships is far less than the risk to society when heterosexual relations occur -- homosexual relationships cannot produce unwanted children.

Also, your term "lifestyle" is incorrect, and as nurfe stated is offensive to many gay people. It is not a "lifestyle" as there are both homosexual and heterosexual individuals out there that are overly promiscuous. To say that one is worse than the other is trying to do God's job and compare the grieviousness of sins.

I agree with you that sexuality has no place being advocated one way or the other by the government. They should allow families, churches, social groups to do that. People are smart enough to figure out what truth about the matter that they like the most. When the government starts to favor one over the other, they are co-opting someone else's agenda. I don't believe that's the government's place.


I don't hate people who choose this lifestyle. I treat everyone how they treat me regardless of race, sex, or sexuality.

I do find this statement to be curious in light of your comparison of this "lifestyle" to incest, bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia. Would you treat a known necrophiliac the same as anyone else? How about a pedophile?


You can quote Constitution, The LA Times, The New York Times or Jesus himself. I'm not changing my point of view. Certain things are illegal for the reason of protecting society from moral decline. In my eyes legalizing homosexual marriage would be about as senseless as legalizing the use and abuse of all drugs.

One man's "moral decline" is another man's progress. The Constitution mediates between those ideas in our society. It makes certain that neither is able to gain absolute momentum. That's what has kept our Republic free for so many years. That's what tries to keep either group from having their way in forcing their morals onto the other group.

Once more, as when someone finally admitted that he "doesn't care what the constitution says, " the outright hostility of the Christian "right" makes itself known.

I'm glad you think a monogomous relationship between me and another adult male is right on par with molesting kids. And I'm glad you state the case so proudly. It only serves to show the middle-of-the-road folk how ridiculous your point of view is.

Keep up the rants, my friend; your arguments are working for the other side!

This is exactly why I will continue to support the efforts of people like Fred Phelps (you know, the wacko who holds up signs like "God Hates ***s" at the funerals of known homosexuals). Aside from the fact that--as a Libertarian--I will fight for freedom of speech in ALL cases (not just those i agree with) and the fact that he and his group of wackos have the right to picket wherever they want, extreme groups like that serve an important purpose.

Every time someone who rides the fence sees a guy like Fred Phelps hold up a "God Hates ***s" sign. Every time an undecided voter hears a so-called Christian equate same sex adult couples with child molesters. Every time a moderate sees someone make the statement that they "don't care what the constitution says."

Each one of these things brings another vote to my side. And I'm grateful for it.