It would be nice for all to be completely content with their own personal desires or groups desires for what is right in their eyes, and force everyone else to jump to their beliefs, but when people aren’t allowed to be and do as the dissenters do, it becomes a blight on our American Constitution that ALL are EQUAL in the United States of America.

to me, it’s a simple things as they, the conservative religious groups, think that “they” should determine what “equal” rights people in this country deserve. i guess they think that their religious beliefs should trump the Constitution.
To quote the Justice Minister of Canada; “Human Rights should never be left up to a popularity contest. Civil Rights should never be a matter of public opinion.”

….I guess they think that their religious beliefs should trump the Constitution.
It certainly seems like it. I’d like to hear a reasonable explanation from them as what they think being equal is, wouldn’t you Ron?

It simply means that there should be a vote not dictation. The constitution never mentions same sex marriage and I hardly think the writers would have even considered it for a moment, be for real. As a matter of fact the constitution supports the voting process, but not same sex marriage, you’d have to re-write it to take away the vote and force the people to accept homosexual marriage to make what is happening to happen.

The Constitution supported slavery and segregation. And no one would vote it away.
You liked the courts when they worked for you, right?

The framers (and dry wallers?) of the Constitution also chose to ignore slavery and votes for women. That was then – this is now. We know more and realize that equal rights must be simply that -equal. Horray for California. No one has to accept homosexual marriage, anymore than they have to accept their in-laws. But it is time to recognize that all people share the same rights, without regard for race, religion (or the absence thereof), age, gender, political persuasion, sexual orientation, team affiliation, choice of automobile, morning or night people, mountain or beach vacationers, fiction or nonfiction readers, NPR or FOX, soccer or football, or anything else that makes us unique, distinct, diverse, and marvelous.

While many of the writers of the constitution did support slavery, segregation, limited rights for women the document itself did not. jest in all fairness of all of the things you named in your list sexual orientation is the only one that could leave room for a lot of not so nice and illegal stuff. Race, age, gender, religion or lack of, even political persuasion are separate for “sexual orientation” insomuch as the action inferred and the unlimited parameters.

“I hardly think the writers would have even considered it for a moment, be for real”
Being completely for real here, you have no idea what they considered. In all honesty, I bet there were a lot of things they considered but feared to mention. There may even have been a few closeted homosexual founding fathers. How are we to know? They were not free to express that sort of thing back then. Now we are opening the doors for them to do so.

ck,
You have obviously never been around rabid Red Sox or Yankees fans (I am in a divided family)!
As to singling sexual orientation out for “not so nice and illegal stuff”, orientation can mean many things from homosexuality to a preference for black satin and lace. It becomes a question of power and control. If the people involved in a relationship share power and control, and are of the age to make these decisions (without regard of hetero- or homo- sexuality), then the government has n business getting involved. It is when abuse – in its many forms – takes place. Simply because you do not share the same orientation as others does not mean their preference is illegal and yours is hunky-dory.

Henrietta22,
Honestly, I don’t believe that the conservative groups really have any justification for what they’re doing other than they don’t think that gay men and women should have equal rights to marry, as they do. It appears to be some special club. Obviously, they haven’t reviewed the “club” recently because of the divorce rates. Personally, I think they couch their bigotry in religious rhetoric. They make a big noise, make lots straw man arguments and funny how no one seems to think through on their statements.
They really don’t have any reason other than it goes against their beliefs; so therefore, no gay man or woman should have the same right as they. I guess they define equality differently. This whole thing of activist judges or leftist judges is nothing more than a big noise. Activist is used when judges don’t support their view, which is silly and Leftist judges is simply stupid being that the majority of the judges on the Supreme Court are Republican, placed there by Arnold, a republican.
I congratulate the Judges for taking a stand and doing the right thing AND for doing their job. They are there to make sure that equality in the law is met out to all citizens rather than what the religious right or even a majority says. Neither has a right to say that a specific group shouldn’t be allowed equal rights because they don’t like it.

Recently a homosexual woman who now claims to be a man got impregnated and was billed in the publicity thrush as the world’s first pregnant man even Oprah got into the act. That whole family needs therapy and now the kid is going to need a great deal of it. If marriage isn’t already a mockery it is now. People are trying to keep it special and holy that cannot be done if it is degraded as it is in same sex unions. I already know people are going to say but heterosexuals have already devalued marriage in their divorce rate, and that is true but that is not enough reason to bring in to an even lower significance.

Ron-
Of course these prejudice-supportive groups have justification beyond what they think. They have time-honored traditions of demonization and manipulation.
Men have been successfully demonizing people who are different from themselves for millennia. And, what better way to manipulate people than to take something that is instinctual (sexual urges)and claim it is wicked/evil/etc except under very specific circumstances.
It appears to me that many/most prejudice-supportive people do not realize they can think for themselves. That they have the ability to evaluate what has been taught to them….keeping what is useful and discarding what is hurtful.
Peace!

cknuck-
“That whole family needs therapy and now the kid is going to need a great deal of it. If marriage isn’t already a mockery it is now.”
Is this your professional opinion as a therapist? I do not know whether of not the family and/or the child need and/or will need therapy. Nor, do I want to debate the merits. I am surprised are attempting to use one homosexual woman to make a case against marriage equality.
However, since you bring up marriage. Shall I list a couple (or, few) heterosexuals that perhaps are setting an example of what marriage should be: Dr. Charles Stanley, Prophetess Juanita Bynum and Bishop Thomas Weeks, Paul Crouch Jr and Pastor Melissa Scott, the Reverends Paul and Randy White, Elizabeth Taylor, Micky Rooney, Britney Spears, Sen David Vitner, former Gov Elliot Spitzer, current Gov Patterson…shall I go on?
The point is not what an individual and/or individual couple do with their marriage…the point is….in the USA we all have a right to marriage regardless of ethnic background, religion, or gender.
Do you have any demonstratable evidence to indicate that allowing gays equal rights including marriage will have any effect upon the state of marriage?
Peace!

ck,
The story is about a transsexual man – not the same as homosexual. I doubt heterosexuals will stop getting married because homosexuals can – any more than they are likely to stop many of the other things they can (or may not – as they are so inclined) do the same as homosexuals. Divorce is independent of homosexual marriage – it has been on the increase long before this became an issue.

jest, surely you must realize the difference is only a small measure of degrees and I am not inferring that heterosexuals will stop getting married but I am stating there is many differences in the idea of homosexuals marrying and heterosexuals marrying and I am saying marriage in it’s God given sense is designed for one man one woman. This just takes us farther from ever getting it right than ever before.

The courts have made their decision. Leave gay people alone. They too have the right to ‘equal’ happiness. If they are to be denied this right the courts have given them, then this would just be another form of bigotry.I am SO sick of the hatred and bigotry in this Country, and the hypocritical stand that fundamentalists take to deride gay people. Is this Christlike? I think not.

Is it Christ like? It amazes me when people think of Christ as a love peace and happiness do anything you feel type. It simply means they have not read their Bible or have opted to ignore it to form in their minds their own Christ. I have one thing to say to folk like that if you are going to view homosexuality as a Christ approved activity, read more. This is an government approved thing so it does have nothing to do with Christ anymore than the government has anything to do with Christ, so it’s not Christ like by a long shot.

It’s all a political ploy the Republican justices concocted to mobilize RR voters for the presidential election. Any signatures these people collect should be scrutinized endlessly, some of the ones they’ve collected before were probably illegal or forgeries. So much has changed nationwide since 2000, that was before queer eye, the man kiss on will and grace etc. We’ve found much more acceptance in just eight years. It would only require a little more than 1 in 10 people to have changed their minds to defeat a constitutional amendment. But, sadly, prejudice seems to mobilize people to the polls more than anything else. Out of all the issues for a Christian to get riled up about enough to decide to vote when they weren’t before, or, much less, start a petition campaign, people still choose this one. (In fact notice one poster on this board who NEVER posts anything else on another subject unless it has to do with homosexuality.)
Though, on the bright side, since California doesn’t have anti-miscegenation laws like MA, this could eventually force a challenge to DOMA under the full faith and credit clause. It will be fascinating to watch Scalian strict constructionism do mental gymnastics out of the literal interpretation that would require Alabama to honor a gay marriage performed in California.

This is an government approved thing so it does have nothing to do with Christ anymore than the government has anything to do with Christ,
Then why, oh why, try to keep injecting your view of what you think Christ would have wanted into our government?

ck,
so if it is of the government and not a concern of Christ’s, why the protracted and heated battle against it. If it is only a secular concern, keep religion out of it. This is why I don’t think clergy should be agents of the state – which we are if we sign wedding licenses. I would rather each church decide for itself, and battle this in secular halls. The ramifications go far beyond homosexuality.

I engage when I see misinformation. People claim that it is of God then I have the right to say it is not. God does not honor homosexual activity and when one says He does, they need to prove it to me for me to just accept it. Also when people speak for MLK to the support of homosexuality I find that a cowardly act on a man who cannot speak for himself because he is dead. The Bible is clear about homosexuality, when Jesus talks about the form of love that is relational in a sexual content it is always, always about one man one woman. Fornication on the other hand covers all other forms of sexual relations including homosexuality. That may be one reason it is important to homosexuals to call their unions marriage, but Jesus never did and the word of God says it is an offense to Him.
You say you would rather that each church decide but it matters not what you would rather nor the churches it is what God desires and His desires is clear in the design of man and woman and his holy word. So you can have it secular but you can’t have it both ways and be right.

ck,
I think I agree with you – sort of. I think the Church ought to be out of the state’s business. So having clergy validate marriage licenses is not a great idea. If the clergy were to represent their church/Church only then the decisions of the state are less of a concern. The state could then tend to civil rights and not get so involved in sacramental concerns. Gay marriage is a civil concern. That it is a religious concern is for each denomination or congregation to work out. I would have no problem blessing marriages – and even doing the pre-marital counseling – if there was a civil “wedding” as well.

I do agree with you that a civil exchange is even in disagreement profitable and name calling is never profitable.

What about the rights of the church who believe that homosexuality is a sin. Are they being forced to perform these mariages? I do not know enough about the ruling to make an informed comment.

“What about the rights of the church who believe that homosexuality is a sin. Are they being forced to perform these mariages? I do not know enough about the ruling to make an informed comment.”
No church is being forced to do anything. This ruling only means that homosexuals can be granted marriage licenses by the state, and that they have the full rights that heterosexual couples have. It’s up to individual churches whether they want to recognize these marriages.
I’m happy that people’s rights are being protected. I have no doubt that the same bigots who want to deny the right of homosexuals to marry would deny me the right to marry because I’m an atheist.

Rev Kev
At no time am I compelled to perform a wedding. If in the course of pre-marital counseling I discover some incompatibility or simply lack of readiness, I can recommend that a couple not marry. If I simply choose not to officiate at a wedding, that is my perogative. I hope no one ever told you that every request that comes your way is an obligation or requirement.
No one is now or in the future required to officiate at any wedding. It is by our choice and agreement alone that clergy serve in this role.

Rev. Kev. “What about the rights of the church who believe that homosexuality is a sin.”
Your church is right according to the Bible, churches that don’t believe so will have to change the word of God. But watch out because if these people have their way your church will be penalized for your belief eventually. It won’t change facts about God’s design for man and woman but it will be an attempt to change what you believe to accommodate certain practices.

Rev Kev-
Don’t worry, prejudice-supportive people can continue to blame God and the teachings of your church for your prejudices. The California Supreme Court ruling does nothing to change that. Supporting prejudice is between the individual and God. Just as it is with those that continue to treat females, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, etc as second-class citizens. That does not mean prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination are correct or good….simply that you and anyone else can continue in your ways. Have you thought about what you will say to God to explain why you used the Almighty to justify your actions and beliefs?
Matt 7:1-3
Peace!

ck wrote, ” if these people have their way your church will be penalized for your belief eventually.”
I don’t see how you or your church will be penalized for acting in accordance to your beliefs. There has been nothing proposed that will make you do otherwise. On the other hand, churches that may want to bless and sanction same-gender marriage are prohibited from enjoying the same rights. So what’s the problem? What dark cloud do you see on the horizon?

“The remedy is a constitutional amendment.”
Ya gottta love it. They have to change the Constitution in order to make same-sex marriages UN-Constitutional. Doesn’t that mean they are/were Constitutional to begin with?
cknuck,
“It simply means that there should be a vote not dictation.”
Except, of course, popular votes simply expose the tyranny of the majority. Some 81% of people were against eradicating slavery. The court simply showed that ‘what the people want’ can be quite contrary to the Constitution (the one you have, not the one BushCheney wants to change it to).
“The constitution never mentions same sex marriage’
I’d be quite surprised if it mentioned heterosexual marriage. You seem to focus on “rights” (and in this instance, the Court did not “create a right”; they simply ensured that the same rights applied to all people – which is their job).But what about the freedom to marry? Didn’t America used to be known as the “land of the free”? What about “liberty and justice for ALL”? What about the right to the pursuit of happiness?
Why do you so glibly, blithely want to trample on other people’s rights, liberties, freedoms, equality and personal lives, ck?

“in all fairness of all of the things you named in your list sexual orientation is the only one that could leave room for a lot of not so nice and illegal stuff. Race, age, gender, religion or lack of, even political persuasion are separate for “sexual orientation” insomuch as the action inferred and the unlimited parameters.”
Don’t see much application of the “fairness” you tout in what you wrote, ck.
Plese feel free to elaborate on what you mean by “leave room for a lot of not so nice and illegal stuff”, and what actions might be “inferred” by these so-called “unlimited parameters” (whatever those might be).

“People are trying to keep it special and holy that cannot be done if it is degraded as it is in same sex unions.”
ck, do you really believe that being insulting is going to convince anyone?
I’m sure you will feel free to explain how my legal marriage has ‘degraded’ the institution of marriage. Unless of course, you can convince others through your charm that you are, in fact, a betterosexual.

” I am saying marriage in it’s God given sense is designed for one man one woman.”
According to YOUR “church”. Mine has an altogether different take on the matter, as do many other faiths.
Be that as it may, the CA decision wasn’t about “religious” (i.e. what you ‘think’ God designed) marriage; it was about civil marriage – an institution God had no hand in.

“Is it Christ like? It amazes me when people think of Christ as a love peace and happiness do anything you feel type.”
Oversimplification (to which you are obviously prone, ck) will win you no arguments.
First of all, no one (except you) has said anything close to “do anything you feel [like]“. I think you are incorrect that Christ (and His message) wasn’t about love, considering His only Commandments were about love (God and neighbour – guess you have no gay neighbours, huh?). The central theme is to do to others what we would have done to ourselves, so I guess, (since you accept the Bible ‘in its entirety’) that were the situation reversed, you would have us deny YOU access to the institution of marriage, eh?
“It simply means they have not read their Bible or have opted to ignore it to form in their minds their own Christ.”
Unlike you, who seem very comfortable selectively ignoring certain passages in the Bible!
Try again, but DO BETTER!

“I engage when I see misinformation.”
So do we. Clearly. And most of it seems to come from you, ck.
“People claim that it is of God then I have the right to say it is not.”
You most certainly do. Just don’t be surprised when people don’t believe you.
“Also when people speak for MLK to the support of homosexuality I find that a cowardly act on a man who cannot speak for himself because he is dead.”
His widow, Coretta Scott King assures us that Dr. King’s work would most assuredly have encompassed equality for gays. As did Mildred Loving (of Loving v. Virginia), and any number of other prominent black Americans.
“The Bible is clear about homosexuality”
Again with the over-simplification. If it were “clear”, this debate would not be happening.
“That may be one reason it is important to homosexuals to call their unions marriage”
It is important to call them marriages because they ARE.
“but Jesus never did and the word of God says it is an offense to Him.”
I presume you are referring to the Leviticus Holiness Code, but that scare tactic no longer works since informed people know that the Bible also calls eating lobster “an abomination”.
Regardless, this is not about religion – yours OR mine. It is about civil marriage.
“I do agree with you that a civil exchange is even in disagreement profitable and name calling is never profitable.”
Sorry if we don’t believe you (again) but just above, you engaged in name calling when you said our marriages “degrade” the institution. I believe in the end your disingenuousness over “civil exchangees” vs. “name calling” will indeed prove ‘unprofitable’ for your side.

Rev. Kev,
“What about the rights of the church who believe that homosexuality is a sin.”
They are free to continue to believe and to preach that.
“Are they being forced to perform these mariages?”
No, and they never will be. Certainly not before the Catholic Church is “forced” to re-marry divorced people.
“I do not know enough about the ruling to make an informed comment.”
That’s a real pity, since you can red the decision online.
But unlike ck, you admit you don’t know enough to make an informed decision. ck (as you can clearly see), jumps to the conclusion that “Your church is right according to the Bible” without even knowing what Church you belong to OR anything about its tenets. ck decries “misinformation” and yet promulgates much of it himself (“churches that don’t believe so will have to change the word of God”, “if these people have their way your church will be penalized for your belief”, and “it will be an attempt to change what you believe” – which are blatant falsehoods, aka lies, aka the bearing of false witness, aka a sin). Don’t fall into that trap.

recovering ex you must be recovering from the Bible because all that I stated is in the Bible; so one cannot follow Biblical teachings and believe in same sex marriage there is no such thing in there. A church would have to either re-write the Bible or discount it so there is no false statements of blatant falsehoods from me. You on the other hand in order to promote homosexuality and same sex marriages scripturally would have to create some sort of falsehood or mistaken belief system.

Coming into this late, everyone who has responded has stuck to their usual comments…good. NO surprises. My responce won’t be a surprise either. The Bible being a totally man made book, used to push an agenda, can’t possibly be the true word of anyone or anything, even a god like being. Thus it really has nothing to do with whether a man and woman marry each other or 2 men marry each other, or 2 women marry each other.
Those who feel that the Bible is THE word of a god, can follow it. Those who think it says that same gender folks who “act on their feelings” are “sinful” (that great word used to cover a multitude of acts for some)don’t have to like it, but really have no right to tell anyone that it is wrong for being in love with a person of the same gender and showing it by having a physical relationship. Lots of those Bible thunpers are just as “sinful” as the people they condemn. (and they will admit it).Good for California. As mentioned above by a poster, there were a lot of folks who thought the Bible said slavery was OK, and didn’t want the rules changed. In fact a horrible war was fought for that reason. Good thing the government didn’t listen to them and the law of the land was changed. The conservatives in CA and other places have no business denying anyone equal rights.

“all that I stated is in the Bible; so one cannot follow Biblical teachings and believe in same sex marriage there is no such thing in there”
Following that ‘logic’, one cannot follow Biblical teachings and believe in computers or the pyramids – there are no such things in there.
Do better.

Recovering,
I wish I could remember the name of the book off the top of my head – it was also a TV special – it’s called “The ??(something) Talmud”…
Anyway, it’s based on the belief, especially by Orthodox Jews, that everything that happens in the world, even today, is somehow indicated in the Torah, and one only has to search to find it. They did this really cool thing in the special where they found Osama bin Laden, the World Trade Center, and other timely, contemporary issues in the Talmud. Not to say the Torah scholars/reseachers necessarily found the prediction of the terrorism, but one could find what one was looking for and it was up to modern-day people to discover it/intepret it.
Very interesting if you ever have the time/inclination to read it. I’ll try to find the exact title. I think the TV special was on PBS.