Apparently, the Supreme Court also ruled that Gays will henceforth be counted as 3/5 of a person in the 2010 census.

Screw you, CA Supreme Court.

Protest the decision and stand up for equal rights for all...

TODAY, Tuesday May 26: 6pm, Fresno City Hall.
info: http://dayofdecision.wetpaint.com/page/Fresno

SATURDAY, May 30, Meet In the Middle for Equality Rally, 1pm, Fresno City Hall.
info: http://www.meetinthemiddle4equality.com/">http://www.meetinthemiddle4equality.com/">http://www.meetinthemiddle4equality.com/

The US Constitution protects the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority. Apparently, the California Constitution does not. It's pathetic, really.

This is really a sad day. Our country was initially built on keeping religion separate from our legal/judicial system, but somehow over the decades our once open and (semi)tolerant nation has become over run by those of the Christian faith. You can see their influence on our money (In God we Trust), our flag salute (one Nation, under God), our media (Fox, ABC etc), and in other places.

What I don't get is if it's heavily stressed to keep church and state separate, then what in the hell are we doing? Where is the justice? Where is the equality?

I bet if a large group of individuals who weren't of a Christian based faith started protesting and saying that the Christian marriage was wrong... nobody would hear a word about it. It would be quickly dismissed and nobody would dare to hear what that group would have to say due to fear of a backlash.

I believe that our country should be secular. One religion shouldn't have that much sway and power over our entire nation. We are a mixture of many races, many cultures, many beliefs, and even lack of beliefs. To deem one correct and the be all, end all is pretty discriminatory and leads to problems such as Prop 8.

I shake my head at our state and country because we are supposed to be the leading example for the world. We are supposed to be the inspiration for others, yet we have failed. We have failed to protect the gay and lesbian community. We have failed to consider their wants and needs. It's like we are ashamed of them yet they are some of the most beautiful individuals I have ever had the privilege of befriending.

Hopefully one day our nation will pull it's head out of its rear end and realize what a huge mistake we have made. Discrimination is discrimination whether it's against race, gender, or personal lifestyle choices.

My heart goes out to all of the gay and lesbian couples who won't get to enjoy the same rights I do with my husband. I am truly sorry.

So, basically, California Supreme Court has certified inclusion of discrimination into our state's highest legal document. EPIC EPIC FAIL

Fighting for Prop 8 will never die!! Every one has the right to marry who ever they want! If their happy & in love with each other, let them be in peace!! Nobody protested that stupid lady from marring that bridge....lol Every one has a right to do what they believe in.

Not surprising but sad nonetheless. The judges upheld a discriminatory prop that was based on lies and fueled by religious zealots who really don't know what they're talking about. This Saturday...Meet in the Middle 4 Equality...Spread the word!

I'm not really surprised by the decision, but its great that those existing gay marriages remain valid. I'd really like to read the court's opinion on how they figured that out.

So now, same-sex marriage supporters need to get something on the ballot in 2010 or 2012. Getting the approval of the electorate instead of seven judges will be a bigger coup, stopping the argument that activist judges are establishing policy than interpreting law. The affirmation by the voters will also effectively end any legitimate push by the opposition and the divisive and discriminatory policy will be left in the past.

Lindsey, we should be a secular country? What you are effectively talking about is the prohibition of religion. Which of course would make you exactly like the people you are complaining about. Of course I'm sure it never feels like descrimination when you're on the winning side.

This debate will continue and if the system works, the people's will will be done, whatever that may look like. But let's not start broadly and indiscriminately demonizing another group of people in the same manner you are protesting. Like mom used to say; Two wrongs don't make a right.

This is not about Religion (nor) Christianity.
(how can I say this?)

-Fresno, which is a town loaded with mega-churches? Is also loaded with mega churches that (often) have teachings and beliefs that completely contradict each other (and) state clearly that 'anyone who does not believe like this, goes to hell.'
(...wonder about that?
I mean, the Mormons pumped millions into the Prop-8 thing, -and they were in with a lot of conservative churches (all) which very clearly do NOT go with the teachings of the Latter Day Saints.)

-yet these buildings and congregations are there side-by-side and do not usually say anything the least bit unpleasant about each other (out of the sanctuary.)
--why?

It's not in their OWN BEST INTEREST to do so.
(and)
People go to church (more often than not) because of their 'own best interest,' (and even then to churches that 'fit their own opinions.')
-it has nothing really to do with carrying out (let alone making laws) based upon their religious teachngs...)

This whole issue is about personal interest playing out in a state where personal interest is king,
-folks really don't want to 'deal' and stand for stuff, as much as they want it to 'go away.'

how can I say that?
Look at 'the decision.'

(The decision -doesn't even make sense:
'This is wrong, this is banned, this is illegal (and immoral, unethical, blah-blah-blah'

EXCEPT you 18,000 over here, --for you? It's okay.) -what if those same 18,000 people believed it was fine to drive south on North 41? (that's a law too, right?)
---if they believed what they were shovelling, they would have annulled the 18,000 married. (I'm so glad they didn't.)

--You just can't DO that with human rights,
(yet Calfornia today, has.)
-amazing.

Today?
Folks on 'this side' of the wave 'this time' may see it as a victory, (because their personal interests were upheld.)

-but what this really is saying?
It's all about trend and manipulation of the masses and building a bigger bully.
(not 'right and wrong.')

--Do you think 'anti-slave laws' -were accepted well in the South?
--Do you think 'women allowed to vote' -was accepted as a good thing?

The majority (depending on where you were, way past 99%) was overwhelmingly AGAINST these things (and others, --some remain so.)

-yet where discrimination happens, is defiined, and is gone after? (even in those areas?)
It's done because of the breaking of (ethical/constitutional) law.
(which is the standard, not: 'groupthink')

California just opted to roll over for the bully that it was 'most afraid of' (in hopes) of it 'all going away.'

Mostly?:
this was about all the people who did not see outside of their own personal interests (which include actually standing up for the law.),

('I'm not gay, my kids or family is not gay, so I don't really 'care.')
-basically doing NOTHING to recognize and support basic human rights (and the laws against discrimination, 'because' it did not affect them 'directly.'

(Sad to say) as self-absorbed and myopic as Californians can be?
-If you are the only ones voting?
-the ONLY way you're going to 'get it okay to be gay, okay to get married'
is if you have 'more glbt that vote,' period.

-Because the average individual here?
if it don't involve them 'directly' either 'stands back and doesn't care'
(or)
'is able to 'keep it in perspectve.'
and do nothng...
-which,
in this situation?
means the same thing.

When we believe in 'Us and Them'
-the bigger 'Us' always wins.

(For those who live a life '...always with the bigger Us?...'
(even though the underdogs don't make it very far, and go down early, swingng?)
-I predict short lives with premature liver failure, -cause the only way you're gonna sleep at night? Is to drink yourself to unconciousness, to make it past the guilt.

-have fun with that.

(final note)
--on the bright side?
This means that this WHOLE thing will get pushed up to the Fed. Level,
--which is really where this belongs anyway, -as we're talking about a federal right and law being broken (or) supported.

--So California can say what it wants,
--but when it goes to the US Supreme Court, --then there will be real cause for celebration (or dismay) depending on where folks are on this.
(this just makes the state look stupid, --but is not the 'final say,' by a long-shot.)

--Also: according to the Constitution: laws 'wrap-around' and 'extend.'
--so If you're from one state that endorses something?, you can't have that revoked by another state that 'does not,' when you travel to (or through) that state, (if you're not a resident of that state.)

-the states have to 'uphold each others laws.'
-So people married in one state (are) recognized as 'married in all.'
--as they're 'from' a state where such is legal.
-this applies in states (where you're visiting, at least,)
even if they don't have the same law.

Three things:

@Wet - this won't get pushed to the fed level. The act the feds passed in 1997 ensures that states get final say in their own marriage debates.

I don't hold the State Supremes responsible. This is the responsibility of 52% of the California voters. The Supremes were handed a fully vetted legal document properly prepared and presented. Their hands were tied, and their hands were tied with the 18,000 who got married while it was perfectly legal.

Final point, and this one is on the edge (I'm bolstering myself for the replies):

I have to put a ton of blame on African Americans in Fresno. Over 60%(!) of black voters in Fresno voted in favor of Prop 8's passage. Just 50 years ago they couldn't marry who they wanted just based on the color of their skin. Black people have been fighting for thier rights ever since they were involuntarily brought here over 200 years ago.

They fought for freedom and failed, until better minds prevailed. They fought for votes. They fought for jobs. For equal pay. To marry whomever they wished. To have more than 3/5 of a say constitutionally. To sit wherever they wished, and eat wherever they wished.

And all of these crucial civil rights battles they won, eventually, after much violence, death, and horror.

And then to turn around and not vote for the civil rights of another minority?

That's the epic fail right there. I expect what we got from Jim Franklin and the Mormon church.

But from those who forgot?

That's just not...right.

Wow! Stephen you just opend a big ol' can of worms. Wonderful point... but HUGE can of worms.

wait. so the people's vote actually still means something in California? this is unexpected!

shouldn't matter what side you are on, the people voted (twice) and that's that.
seems like everyone only wants the system to work when it suits their interests.

Oh, Bobby, if the people's vote were all we ever needed there wouldn't EVER be anyone to stand up for minority rights.

This is what we have legislatures for, to create representational laws. Then we have executives to check and balance the bipartisan nature of these laws. Finally, we have what's supposed to be an absolutely fair judicial review of the process and legislation.

Instead, today we had 6 republican jurists vote against 1 democratic jurist regarding this voter-approved amendment.

Most bills and laws are often far too complex for a majority of the voters, so they aren't sent to voters at all, and wisely so. Voters should absolutely have a say in who represents them, and often in how thier money is spent.

Otherwise, no thank you. I'll stick with our system of checks and balances...and this amendment failed on so many of those counts.

@Claire - I have no problem opening this particular bag. A once looked down upon minority that had to fight and die and fight and lose and fight again just to get legislators to finally stand up for equal rights for all, no matter the race, these African American voters just became the righteous majority, and quashed the exact same hopes of the currently downtrodden minority.

Last fight was for race equality. The one before that was for gender equality. The one after that was again for gender equality in the workplace. Now it's for marriage equality based on sexual orientation.

The nerve of women and black people and Japanese internment camp survivors and hispanics and even jews for voting to deny the equal rights of another minority group.

And shame on the legislature for taking the chicken sh&t way out in the first place.

"the people voted twice and that's that." Ah, the wonderfully segregated world we'd still be living in with our slaves and Al Gore as President if only the 'people's vote' counted.

*tear*

" As explained below, Proposition 8 does not abrogate any of these state constitutional rights, but instead carves out a narrow exception applicable only to access to the
designation of the term “marriage,” but not to any other of “the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage . . .” (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 781), such as the right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship with the person of one’s choice and to raise children within that family.

Same-sex couples retain all of the fundamental substantive components encompassed within the constitutional rights of privacy and due process, with the sole (albeit significant) exception of the right to equal access to the designation “marriage,” a term that — for purposes of the California Constitution as it now reads — the people have decreed is to be reserved for an official union between a man and a woman."

So far, in this discussion, I'm just going to hold a sign that points to Stephan that states "What he said".

OK, so if Proposition 8 doesn't actually remove any rights from gays, and simply governs the use of the term "marriage," why on earth is this so important that it requires government action? What horrors will result from the indiscriminate use of this word?

On one hand, gays have made immense progress. A few years ago, civil unions would have seemed impossible -- now, apparently, civil-union-as-long-as-you-don't-call-it-marriage is the rear-guard action of conservatives.

On the other hand, this spiteful refusal of a mere word isn't just bigoted, it's cowardly. The anti-gay forces know full well there is no legal or moral justification for discrimination that the public will tolerate. They just can't stand the thought of equality being enacted without some kind of slap in the face to remind gays that they are second-class citizens.

Proposition 8 and this decision disgust me. I am ashamed of California.

I WILL never stand up for the rights of MEXICANS or AFRICAN AMERICANS again. This is a FIGHT for rights. I am a well off WHITE man who protested for the rights of minorities.. NO MORE...

Very sad day in California. I blame the voters who feel that they need to use their religious views to control the lives of people that have nothing to do with their own lives. They are backing their decisions in the name of the man that taught the exact opposite. It's ridiculous that in this day in age this is still even an issue. I hope for the day when we can look back and wonder why in the hell it took so long for people to keep their nose out of other's business. Shame on you California.

(Steph/all)
-yep, that's one big can of worms, but your later comments about (not wanting) to open it up shows a remarkable amount of insight... I thought you just liked to say stuff to piss people off,
-now you're actually making them think... kudos.

(Regrettably)
Though there are some people who see the struggle of their own people, and say
'...yeah, we know what it's like, we don't want others to go through that...' --and definitely there are those who are that way? (I bow to their grace and mercy doled out to others.)

I can tell you that (quite realistically) the attitude of 'shit rolls downhill, and I'm half an inch above you,' is all too prevalent.

(esoteric level:
'Fresno gets made fun of and is a running joke in all sorts of media. (how does Fresno handle it?)
-they piss on Coalingua, Bakersfield, (etc.) --or (various) neighborhoods simply grunch on each other.
--Are they learning 'that it doesn't feel good, so don't do it back?
-what, are you kidding?
It's barnyard pecking order and people learnng bigotry and maltreatment --then passing it along to the next weakest link...
(and that, my friends, IS human behavior.)
Everybody wants to think they're Ghandi, (-I don't even think Ghandi thought he was Ghandi..)

-When I was in case management in my homeless shelter? it was VERY pronounced
African Americans were UNREAL in their mistreatment of (actual) africans, haitians, black south americans, Islanders, (etc.) and would beat the snot out of them.
-(even Chris Rock made the comments one time in an interview '..American Blacks don't really accept african blacks -they think 'they're too into it.')

-In this vein?
The women who were case managers next to me (who were women of color) were incredibly demeaning towards the men who were African American.
-when I asked my supervisor about it, (being kind of concerned, we were counsellors and looking to rebuild folks and get them off the street?
She told me '..yeah, it makes me uncomfortable too, but I think it's cultural thing, and there seems to be a 'score' to settle there, but it's not my battle.'
(but you'd think: if these women had been mistreated (or know what mistreatment feels like?) --they'd be nicer, (nope) they were WORSE.

It goes to other cultures as well.
-As much as it's 'comedy?,'
-refer to the Simpsons when Crusty the clown (who's an unreal anti-semite) finds out that he's actually Jewish.
His response? '..all these years I thought I was an anti-semite, now I'm just another self-hating Jew.'
--how often I've seen THAT play out back east (where there are actual LARGE populations of Jews, and tremendous animosity between the varying expressions of the culture, -that gets WHITE hot, -and I've seen it break out involving camp survivors with number tattoos on their arms.)

Wanna see 'fresh off the boat' hatred?
Watch what goes down with some Asian cultures when you have people who have been here for a few years, --meet up with those who literally are coming in not knowing anyone or anything, --just are trying to 'make it.'

It also gets interesting (here) when 'established' Mexicans get going on 'worker' mexicans...

(the whole thing just sucks, and you're right, people who 'have been through it,' should be nicer, but instead 'the way it is,' can make paratrooper hazing look like a walk in the park.)

We want to think that people (in general) are altruistic,
but such is often not the case.
(Even in glbt circles...
-Do the more 'reserved and masculine/straight' have things to say about the 'swishes?'
-do women who 'look straight,' feel the same about the obvious 'butches' --and vice versa?
-Even within 'the culture,' some of the worst bitewounds come from within.

Re: Black Vote and Fresno:

I think one of the things that has to be looked further into (regarding Steph's remarks,) would be the issue of 'blacks in Fresno voting.'

-To be honest?
-in the past three and half years of living here (having been all over the area) I don't see a whole lot of african americans, (not when compared to such towns back home as (even) Plainfield, Newark, Patterson, Trenton, -in NJ.
-Very large Hispanic population,
--but not a ton of african americans, so that 60% was HOW many people exactly...?

-And why DID they vote the way that they did?

Not to take anyones voice from them,
but some of these points should be brought up:

1. In African American (and Hispanic) cultures?

There is a very strong 'church' 'traditional' current.
-That does not mean that there is not a significant population of glbt,
--it means that 'officially,' you don't have as many people who will go on record as being 'counter-culture / 'counter-norms'
-and 'going on the record' means 'voting.'

Further?

2. In some cultures?, regardless of the reality of glbt, there is an iron clad opinion and gender role definition.
-we had a heck of a time (for example) with the men who were african american spreading std's, and HIV in the shelter (and prison) system,
-why?
they weren't using protection.

-why they weren't using protection?
'because it wasn't happening,'
'because it wasn't 'sex,'
'because THAT would have been 'going queer,'
-yet they were hooking up like crazy (not unlike a prison situation,) and very much physically involved.
-(and it continues for a lot of folks,
-whether you're 'pitching' or 'catching' makes all the difference,
-because the one is seen as dominant, the other recessive,
--and guess who the 'gay' one was?

(We didn't care who called who what, we just wanted to see folks not getting sick, --but even talkng about 'the down low,' was next to impossible, -cause folks could not get past the fact that, 'talking about it,' -somehow made it 'queer.'

Even now, check the lingo and see how demeaning oral sex is, and how 'who does what,' means winner or looser.
--whole thing (obvious) homosexual behavior,
--just, whatever you do, don't CALL it that.

WHEREVER you have a culture that views males with 'machismo,'
or places an unnaturally strong and strict/rigid definition of 'what it means to be a man,'
(or)
'what it means to be a woman,'
Being 'same sex oriented,' is seen as inferior, and more often completely unacceptable.

-people are not going to 'deal' with it, and you're sure as hell not going to have anyone getting past the cultural/traditional view (shame) and voting in 'favor of it.'

It's easy to spot and say 'yeah, the church, the church,' --etc.
-Because (yeah) most churches have very strong stances against glbt communities and individuals.
(but)
when you're talking about 'why this failed' here in California
(or Fresno?)
-You need to understand how the cultures that are in California, view being glbt,
-and (even) how it plays out within the glbt identities themselves.

It's not as cohesive (nor) supportive as folks would like to believe,
(though it sort of shocks me, I've heard plenty of gays say that they don't even think 'gay marriage,' should be legal.
Why? Don't know, -but it hasn't been like only 'one or two' folks saying it.

Frustrating to say the least.

gay people get to do whatever they want to do, except marry. i'm not shedding a tear.

The blame for Prop 8 does not lie with the African American community. The initial reports of 60%+ support for Prop 8 came from exit polls that were later found to be skewed. African Americans voted in no greater proportion for Prop 8 than any other group.

No the blame for Prop 8 lies right here in the Central Valley - where Valley counties supported Prop 8 at rates exceeding 70% in some cases. The fault of Prop 8 lies in the way the Valley is controlled and dominated by white, Republican, fundamentalist Christians who epitomize the ignorance and hatred of the extreme right in alarming numbers.

The blame for Prop 8 lies here in the Valley, where the spokesman of hatred, Jim Franklin of Cornerstone church is allowed to call for rioting in the streets on local tv (KMPH Monday night) and isn't arrested on the spot -- or called out for it by local media or other religious leaders.

The blame for Prop 8 lies here in the Valley, where local media continues to treat both sides as equally legitimate voices. We don't interview KKK members for their opinions on racial issues -- and the anti-gay forces are now equally malicious and ridiculous. Instead, local media plays patsy to Jim Franklin's "allegations" of death threats, the Fresno PD plays into his hand by providing extra security at taxpayer expense, but when the case is silently dropped local media doesn't ask why? Why hasn't local media pursued what was apparently a fabrication designed by Franklin to garner media attention and asked why Fresno City Officials were so willing to use taxpayer resources to help him do it? Why hasn't anyone asked how much taxpayer money was spent on Franklin's PR? Why hasn't he been given a bill for wasting our time.

No folks, the blame for Prop 8 doesn't belong to the blacks, or the Mormons from Utah, the blame lies right here with our neighbors, families, and friends, who are eager to buy whatever right-wing load of crap is on sale this week. The blame rests with a lazy and inept local media. The blame rests with an enormous and enormously hypocritical "Christian" culture -- honestly, how can a region with so many churches still have the poverty and crime that is so endemic to the Valley? Because Valley Churches care more about Republican politics than the teachings of Jesus.

Fresno - and places in the Valley - is the reason we have Prop 8, the reason we can't get a decent budget passed too. This state, and now the civil rights of a protected minority are being held hostage by ignorant, fear-mongering, so-called Christian hypocrites. So the fight for gay rights, for a new constitution, all have to be fought here in the Valley because it is the Valley that is holding all of us back.

Well, on page 99 of the decision, limiting the rights of gay people is likened to how we currently limit the rights of criminals in this State. Yes, it's true - an entire page is dedicated to this. Only here's the thing, CA - what crime was committed to cause the homosexual community the need to be punished and controlled? Criminals - REALLY? Come on people...

calm down phyllis. gays, with all the rights they now have, will be able to marry in a few years.

As one of the 18,000 couples whose marriage was "saved" merely because the supporters of Prop 8 failed to say it would be retroactive, there is no joy in the CA Supreme Court's decision. I am very concerned that equal protection can be abrogated by a simple majority. Perhaps, due to the Catholic priest abuse scandals we should pass an amendment that prevents people under the age of 18 from entering a building owned/leased/ or operated by the Catholic church. We aren't telling people what they can believe we are merely protecting children. Its a minor change to freedom of religion, and therefore and amendment not a revision. Of course, we know in our hearts that would be wrong -- as wrong as Prop 8, but it would apparently be legal. I'm disappointed in the court, and the citizens of California. The fight is far from over. Anyone who likes their civil liberties should be appalled and join the fight regardless of their feelings about gays and their marriages.

Phyllis, thank you for the clarification. I WAS using the exit poll stats, and stand corrected.

Bobby and Mdub, I'm totally with you! It's just a word, and I've always been in agreement with 'separate but equal,' baby!

Them colored folk get to eat the same food (in a different section, of course), sit in the same bus (in the back, of course), drink the exact same water (at a separate fountain, naturally), and get the exact same public education (at their own school). Yessir, 1962 works for me!

Yeah, Mdub. Your marriage is exactly the same as a gay person's union. Oh, how did that meeting go with your attorney to set up end-of-life issues, power of attorney so you can visit your wife in the hospital legally, special paperwork so you can file taxes together. Oh, wait, civil partnerships don't get a 'married' tax break.

And for those of you with kids who don't get to be married legally, don't forget to get power of attorney in case the child ends up in the ICU, cuz only spouses are allowed to visit. Don't forget to legally adopt that child first, because 'civil partners' don't have the same visitation rights as actual spouses do.

No, no, you're all right. You're one day at the courthouse is almost EXACTLY the same as those who have to garner their legal rights through hours and days of attorney meetings and court filings.

Separate but Equal, that's the way!

mdub -- I will not wait patiently for the rights that should already be mine.

Phyllis Wilson rocks. Thank you, Phyllis, for telling it like it is.

@Bill - only the Sith deal in absolutes.

Actually Bill -- YOU are wrong. The Supreme Court of the United States of America decided in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is indeed a RIGHT.

Gays and Lesbians DO NOT have all the same rights --especially federally that accompany marriage.

And for the record, I love church, I love Jesus -- I just don't like hypocritical Christians like those that populate the Valley and the evangelical machine that has turned Jesus into a pro-rich, pro-war, bigoted Republican perversion. Many gays and lesbians are people of faith, but sadly, many others do hate the church because of the spiritual violence waged against our families by people who are called to be peacemakers, who are called to love their neighbors as they love themselves, who are called to do justice, love mercy, and to be humble. If many gays and lesbians do not like church and/or Christians it's probably because they've never met a real Christian or been to a church that genuinely proclaims the Gospel -- in short, they've probably met "Christians" like you -- weak minded, intellectually lazy dolts that merely regurgitate whatever your "pastor" blathers on Sunday in your great, big, fancy megachurches.

You're wrong Bill, you're wrong about everything -- and you know it.

Where the hell has Phyllis been all this time???

I LOVE PHYLLIS!!!
PHYLLIS FOR MAYOR!

Gays should be allowed to marry because it is a right. Religion does not play a role in politics the only reason prop 8 passed was of religion. The bible verses that supported it were in the old testament, most Christians say those rules do not apply but just happened to change there mind when it came to this issue, they also forgot to mention the bible laws against eating shrimp, shaving, and how the bible promoted death penalty for women caught in adultery and various other rules. Anyways the bible does not apply to these politics it is separation of church and state.
Also now that gay marriage is illegal it is supporting discrimination because it gives the upper hand to straights, they think they are superior now because they can get married and gays cant, gays already have a hard enough time in society this is one more blow against them.

Another reason prop 8 passed was because of the logic " I like them as a person just not there lifestyle" That is like saying to a black person " I like you, just not your skin color" That is horrible logic discriminating others for something that cannot be controlled. Also Majority is not always right. Remember how interracial marriage was illegal due to popular vote? We think of that as absurd now, its the same thing for gay marriage. Also remember slavery? Popular vote thought that was right, now we think its horrid, I think in the near future we will look back and wonder why this was even an issue. Until then it will be a fight to earn equality for all.

This doesn't have anything to do with politics but think of how the LGBT community feels? If you are straight imagine YOUR MARRIAGE in vote its horrible to be told by the law and the majority of society that they do not accept you. It is horrible to constantly have your basic rights in legal limbo.

2 Main points on why Gay marriage should be legal. (I dont have enough room to make the rest)

*Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions).

* Homosexuality is NOT a choice, think about it would people choose to be discriminated on? Gay marriage should be legal to reduce discrimination.

Phyllis rocks.

Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors. Not a lot of love coming from these "Christians".

All my thanks go to Phyllis, too. As a gay black woman, I'm sad to see so many turning on the entire Black community when just as many of every other ethnicity voted in the same numbers. Saying you're not going to support Black and Mexican rights just because things didn't turn out the way we'd all hoped.

We're part of your minority, too. Just keep that in mind.

Phyllis, are you really saying this?

"Christians" like you -- weak minded, intellectually lazy dolts that merely regurgitate whatever your "pastor" blathers on Sunday in your great, big, fancy megachurches.

You're wrong Bill, you're wrong about everything -- and you know it.
You are right Phyllis. I should be more loving like you and not degrade anybody, love everybody...that is, unless they disagree with me. Thanks for teaching me a lesson on what "real" Christians are all about.

Oh I love YOU Bill, I just hate your "sin" of arrogance and hypocrisy. But I totally love you.

Sound familiar?

And while we're on the topic of "Christian" hypocrites -- WTH is up with KMJ giving God's favorite riot inciter and chronic liar Jim Franklin his own radio show this week? I realize that KMJ is kind of like life support for wingers, but shouldn't Franklin be in jail right about now?

This is the point where Christians claim that they are an oppressed minority if they are not allowed to oppress minorities.

The key question in civil rights is this: Do you believe in a pluralistic society, where people of many different opinions coexist and respect each other's rights? Or do you believe in a values-based society where authority promotes particular people and opinions as valuable, and discourages other people and opinions as harmful? Note that to create a value-oriented society, you must practice discrimination; that is, you must give greater privileges to the people and opinions you want to promote.

If we believe in pluralism, we must recognize that people we detest have rights too. One can recognize that Nazis have a right to free speech, even if one detests (and openly opposes) their opinions. One can recognize that gays have a right to marry, even if one personally disapproves of homosexuality.

But if we believe in a values-based society, we see all cultural conflict as a zero-sum game. Either society is promoting my values, or it's promoting the values I detest. The religious right seems to believe that if gays win, religion will lose, and that gay marriage is a stepping-stone to religious persecution.

I have heard some religious conservatives claim that if gay marriage is legalized, this will inevitably result in Gestapo-like raids on churches that refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, and that the government will arrest ministers who preach that homosexuality is a sin.

If you think it's the government's job to give a seal of approval to certain lifestyles, religious values, or concepts of marriage, you're endorsing a policy that will tear American society apart. We are too diverse, and you cannot promote an exclusive set of values without discriminating against large numbers of citizens.

To anyone who opposes gay marriage, I ask that you consider that a pluralistic society is the best protector of everyone's freedoms. Keeping civil marriage religion-neutral is the best way to defend the diverse ways that each particular church defines religious marriage.

(Jag/All)
In the interest of facts (and) fairness, (if we're even moderately interested in that?)

It needs to be recognized that there ARE a significant amount of Chrstians,
(and Jag, you know this, because we both know several of them,
(you most definitely know me, and we've dscussed this several times in the past at length,)
-who are NOT hard core 'right,'
-who DO strongly support and advocate for the rights of all, (includng those who don't even see much use in faith/religion at all.)
-and (actually, speaking for myself?)
can be quite vocal (with no sign of stopping,)
in voicing that beng a Christan (and) promoting hatred (OR) being apathetic (or) a 'social chameleon Chrstian,' as wrong, spineless, and counterproductive.
(you can deny this,
but all you have to do is review past writings even here on BeeHive.)

(Further fact 'Christian' wise:
-This area has been 'ground zero' for one of the oldest Christian Denoms (Episcopal Church USA) where a Bishop and several Priests 'up and left'
--and tried to take a ton of properties and holdings with them
--this was because they did NOT like that the main Denom was accepting openly gay and lesbian Priests and Bishops (as well as congregants,) and had horrendously outdated and bigoted views of women.
(Note: Pretty much everywhere else in the country? We've had Gay and Female (or both) Priests and church leaders in the denom, and it's not seen as unusual.)
-Fresno? Huge issue.

--(STILL) A small (yet growing) number of Episcopal churches in the valley, (which means a number of Christians who I personally know,)
Facing unreal social, religious, and legal pressures?, held out,
-fought the departing Bishop, (and) have effectively re-built a gutted Diocese.
-and are still fighting, To keep their doors open to all, an are quite blatant about supporting everyone (including glbt.)

A number of other (Denom) churches (again, populated by people that you also know,)
-are preparing for the same battle (if/when) they are pressured to no longer provide sanctuary (and)
profess and demonstrate unconditional love to ANY people group (includng glbt.)

-And yes, they all (these churches, and several denoms)
completely concur that civil-marriage is one thing,
--and that religious institutions are expressed in different (and protected) manners, and that the two are to be definitely respected, (most of the time on a very basic level, in according to constitutional levels.)

I'm sorry you've had issues with 'Christians' in the past, (but)
that should in no way broadbrush the entirety of 'Christians' or even area 'Christians,'
-again, you're excluding many who you personaly know, at least one who is quite vocal about where the faith is being missrepresnted, speaks against that, seeks to demonstrate the opposite, (and) who is part of far from a 'tiny minority,' within 'Christian' followers.

Now, there are a lot of area Christians who will
-go to churches that (are) very homophobic,
-caustic, and outright damnning,
-who are not at all for any form of gay rights,
-who then hang and are friends with openly glbt folks,
(their right to do this, but it baffles me, --and I think creates more confusion and fury at 'Christians' because of the hypocracy,)

-but there are plenty (also) who are able to be 'the same person,' (regardless of who they're with,)
-who are a part of congregations that openly support gender rights, (and) are people of definite faith.

-If you do some fact checking?,
you'll also find that among (even) evangelical churches on a national level?,
there is a pronounced trend and seeking to understand/be in fellowship with, (no longer 'judge,') glbt,
-who consider it 'quite normal,' for somebody to be gay, (and this from churches and denoms that I myself would consider to be quite 'conservative.')

--You just don't hear of it locally, here in Fresno,
(why?)
-it's easier to lump people together to 'sell' the point.

-If any real progress is to be made here?
We need to deal with fact, (not bias) and need to recognize the true efforts where they are happening,
--and not buy into (nor) further 'hype,' and smearing.

@wet towel: Yes, I know there are pro-gay Christians, like the admirable Phyllis who has posted on this very thread. When I said "Christians" above, I thought it was clear by context that I was referring strictly to conservative, anti-gay Christians.

I'm not trying to demonize anyone here; I think the solution to this, and many other current social problems, is for everyone of good will to work together.

But Christianity does have a certain image problem with some people of progressive opinion, because a very vocal faction of your coreligionists have spent the last thirty-odd years trying to persuade the country that "conservative" and "Christian" mean exactly the same thing. I, for one, would like to hear stronger voices from liberal Christians more vocally criticizing the bigotry that some present as Christianity.

Also, let's keep our eye on the ball here. One loud-mouthed atheist with a prejudice against religion is not as big a problem as homophobia. When my influence with the masses is so vast that my mere disapproval will create a wave of anti-Christian discrimination throughout the land, I promise I will choose my rhetoric much more carefully.