Say No AGAIN to Gay Marriage, California

wow 10 views and no comments, I must have hit a nerve.

Ya... cant wait to show Frisco it cant bully the rest of us Californians around again.

I have a question for you before I jump to any conclusions about your stance on this issue.  Are you advocating that "marriage" should be between a man and a woman, but that such a thing as civil unions could exist in your state?  Or are you simply trying to outlaw allowing gay couples to form any kind of union to show their committment to each other?  If you are trying to get across the latter with this plea to California, then I would have to say you are a very prejudiced and intolerant person.  If you are trying to bring light to the concept of "marriage" as a church sacrament being between a man and a woman by holding that specific bond, entitlement, and ceremony sacred...then I can respect your ideals and can understand your passion for this issue. 

I personally don't know about what happened within the courts there in San Francisco, but I can't stand those who are completely against allowing gay people to enter into some type of union or bond recognized by law in their states.  Again, I'm not assuming you are one of those individuals, just thought I would ask where you do stand on the issue.

Why should teachers have to teach children the difference between a heteosecual marriage and a gay one?  That alone in itself is madness.  And that is why there will always be the confusion and why there has to be a law allowing people to do what ever they want between two consenting adults! [hows that for a discussion?! - seriously!]

I have no problem with gay marriage but agree that it should be legislated properly. 

I have no problem with gay marriage, though gay and marriage don't seem to be compatible terms from what I know of the concept in reality.

Gay = happy, and marriage and happy are so infrequently together in practice, so is a gay marriage really even possible?

How about this: I have no problem with gay marriage, gays are just as entitled to an unhappy marriage and nagging spouse as anyone else is

Can I be serious for a minute? Yeah, I guess so.  Honestly, I really just don't get that worked up over the gay marriage thing.  Don't shove it in my face and it doesn't become my business.  If two people of the same sex want some sort of legally recognized union, let 'em have it, but make sure they know that they'll be responsible for carrying insurance for their spouses, could be made to pay alimony, lose half their community property, etc.

What I will agree completely with Moderate Man on is that the issue should be decided by the people and not the judges.  The judges need to accept the outcome of the referendums and stop trying to make their own beliefs the laws of the land.

Eh, me neither. I'm vastly more interested in health care issues and social security and the price of gas 'n groceries and crime and keeping our kids off dope and...

AND TWINS!!!

~Zoo

Just over a million people, not millions, signed the petition.  A quick search revealed the population of California to be, in 2006, roughly 36.5 million people.  So a representation of 1.1 odd million people is hardly a majority. 

Having said this, I agree with Roy.  There are far more important issues folk could be concentrating their time on than this. 

Quite frankly the government, and the courts, have no right to legislate whether or not two consenting adults cannot get married. This means, by default, they should be allowed to marry just the same as straight folks. We keep hearing from a lot of conservative folks the whole "don't tread on me" song and dance about the evils of big government sticking their nose in people's personal business when they shouldn't (like religious issues, gun ownership, etc etc... and for the record I'm pro gun before you jump to any conclusions)

Yet, when a topic comes up that they disagree with, suddenly they want the same government to stick their nose in other people's private lives to stop them from doing something that they think is wrong.

The courts have no place in the home or relationship of two consenting adults. Unless there's abuse of some kind or a divorce underway (two topics out of the scope of this discussion) it's simply none of their business.

If you want no gun control and "small" government that doesn't stop kids from praying in schools that ALSO means you'll have to settle for a society that tolerates gay marriage and abortion. Why? Because at the root of all these topics is the age old argument of personal freedom vs the power of the state. If the state has the power to say who can and cannot get married (again, consenting adults, please don't use the whole "but this will mean pre-verts marryin kids and animals comes next!!!" argument) then the state can easily legislate who can pro-create, who can practice their religion and who can't, and who can have a voice in the public sphere (media, for example)

Hey, we can agree on this issue, at least without the editorial.

There is a big difference between going to the polls, and signing a petition.  A million signatures shows a great deal of interest in the issue and perhaps a majority (it can evaporate before the actual voting).  Of those 36 million, 40% are either not eligible, or will never go to a poll, leaving an actual "potential" voting block of about 20 million.  Of those 20 millions (since the petition requires that they be eligible to vote), 5% went out of their way to sign it.  Thi is not having it put in their lap, but taking an active part in the process.

It is not conclusive, but it is significant.  And part of it is that regardless of personal views, Americans hate to be dictated to.  When judges make law (as they have done here), people naturally rankle at the thought of having no say.  So even some that would normally be on the fence (as many are - they just dont care, or see other issues as being more important), will vote on it just to take back their rights.  A knee jerk?  Sure.  But part of the process that those who seek to circumvent the electorate through the courts have brought upon themselves.

I think that "marriage" should be between one man and one woman. I have no problems with civil unions between gay couples.

I hate Sanfran freako and its anti American stances.

That is the problem, they are teaching "there is NO DIFFERENCE"!

How many times have we seen this happen? over and over again activist judges overturn what millions of voters wanted.

ya, it's called judicial tryanny.  The solution?

Get rid of those judges! 

They are afraid to let it come to a vote because just about everytime it does, these issues don't go the way they want. 

yep, as in, nailing it to the tree. 

And a happy yogurt to you too baybee!!!

These are San fran freako Judges elected by the voters of San fran freako who have a track record of extreme LIBERAL bent, anyway the folk of san fran freako can shove their wagging cocks and pussies into the face of the entire nation they will do it with no regard.

As opposed to minority/majority tyrrany? Doesn't make either right. It's all the same; same wolf, different sheep costume. Until people as a whole can learn to truly live and let live, and not SHOVE their opinions, then nothing will change. It'll be a game of tug of war.

For that matter, just because the majority says something is wrong (or right) doesn't make it so.; just take a gander at Nazi Germany, or WW2 America for examples of what many people felt was "right."

I'm personally completely for GLBT rights/marriage. Sorry, just no way on earth, heaven or hell that my mind will change on it. Call me whatever you wish.

This is what makes America so great you are allowed to think and vote the way you want to, so am I. I am sure you would not like to see something you and your like thinking voters passed into law, wiped out by ONE JUDGE who thinks he knows better than million of foll that voted just like you, would you?

Something I'd like to add to this is something i've mulled over.

Seemingly, those elements who wish for gays/lesbians to gain the same rights do not acknowledge the idea of gradual emancipation, whether through education or just letting time and nature do its thing. They seem to want it now, which, as history shows - is unlikely and absurd. Example being, Black and women's rights. It took years for these issues to be (somewhat) settled.

I seriously think it's the best plan, educate people, and gradually things will change. I'm confident of that.

Do a million people know any better? Do half a billion people know any better? Again, take a gander at America during WW2 or Nazi Germany. It's like the saying, "If Jimmy told you to jump off of the bridge..." Well, if a million people told you to jump off a bridge, does that make it right?

And yes, you are, but does that give you right to impose your standards, or your morals on them; to negate their will/choice in the matter of marriage. I'm sorry, but no. Just as you cannot legislate an official religion, you cannot legislate marriage rights.

Just as you have rights, so should gays have them. I don't buy the cock-a-bull comment, "Sure they have the same rights...to marry someone of the opposite sex." It's completely ludicrous.

I think the biggest problem is that it is a MORAL issue. That's when the line hit's the weeds, otherwise this issue would more than likely have been settled.

As so far as my interpretation of the law, and the constitution, the case against gay marriage/rights falls flat. All men and women are supposed to be treated fairly under the law, and that just won't be so if P8 passes.

Why not? After all marriage has a legal value. Why shouldn't government legislate a title that comes with privileges before the law?

What you mean is perhaps that government have no righ to legislate whether or not two (or any number of) consenting adults cannot live together and do whatever they want. But whether government will grant such a combination special tax status or not is certainly a matter of legislation.

So what is the difference?

And what business do teachers have teaching children about the morality of certain lifestyles? And which morality should they choose? And how do we reconcile the fact that we choose a certain system of morality to be taught with the constitutional requirement of keeping state and religion separate?

I find the pagan Greek system of morality fascinating (and wrong, but my opinion is besides the point) and I would like to know why an American teacher should not teach the Zeus religion's stance on homosexuality rather than the Abrahamic religions' stance?