This June could really be a month for weddings

June is always a month for weddings between a man and woman as it should be. More power to the gays as they make a mockery of our state/country. Its just howbI feel about it.

Pity the poor 'society page' reporter who will have to cover 'gay marriages. Right curious to see snaps and words to describe the 'lovely bride' wore a smart silk dress offset by the heavy beard and hairy arms. Not sure how one would describe the 'bride' in a lesbian marriage......is she the one who is 'fem', rather than 'butch'.

Oh dear, just when you thought you had it right, life serves you a curve.

If people find same-sex marriages so personally distasteful, they can always decline an invitation if they get one. Otherwise, I don't see how it's anyone else's business.

There was a time when people might have used similar words about my interracial marriage, calling it a "mockery" or worse. But thanks to the legacy of those "activist" courts that overturned discriminatory laws, my wife and I have been happily married almost ten years now. Why deprive some committed, loving same-sex couple the same comfort and joy we share?

To those who say "Why should we even bother to vote when some "liberal court" in San Francisco can overturn the will of the people?" YOU MUST show up at the polls this November, when the people have a chance to amend our state constitution, defining marriage between a man and a woman only. If successful, we will not only revoke the decision of these four rogue judges, who unfairly overturned the will of the people, but will solidify the sanctity of marriage in our great state.

The ban on gay marriage came about thru Prop 22, which was approved by 61% of voters. The problem is, a proposition is subject to judicial challenge. However, a Constitution Amendment can only be overturned by a majority of voters. The beauty of this is, these same rogue judges will be forced to conduct themselves according to the constitution, and the new amendment. Judges cannot overturn an amendment.

Nearly twenty states have passed such an amendment. It is imperative California does the same. Why? Because historically, the institution of marriage existed before the USA did, every major religion on earth recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman only, and allowing same sex marriage is a huge leap toward the road to perdition for our country. Think of what it would do to future generations. . . before we know it those with heterosexual values will be seen as racist, advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded as hate speech, and laws passed to enforce it, engagement ring ads with the hands of a two men, films that show man-women married couples will be regarded as antisocial, traditional Judeo-Christians will be marginalized, the wedding businesses (photographers, churches, caterers) will be forced to provide service to same-sex marriage or be sued.

The ultimate goal of the gay rights advocates is to turn our society into a genderless one, where genetalia is the only real difference between a man and women, and that can be switched at will. Sounds like something out of a science fiction horror flick, to me.

redpeach, with the heterosexual divorce rate over 50%, how will denying same-sex couple the right to marry "solidify the sanctity of marriage in this state"?

And where did you hear that nonsense about gays wanting to turn us into a "genderless society"? Do you know any actual gay people?

There seems to be a trend among anti-gay marriage activists to try to demonize and dehumanize gay people. To me that is far more scary than the prospect of two men or two women getting married.

Isn’t it amazing (and sad) that the media and various special interest groups are desperately trying to build a case for:

1. What God clearly and specifically forbids;

2. An assault on marriage by redefining it to placate militant homosexuals;

3. What history has determined will act as a debilitating decline on (any) culture (see Romans chapter 1);

Here’s a prediction: With media complicity, the whole homosexual marriage issue will be framed as a civil rights issue rather than what it is - a moral issue.

Marriage (one man, one woman) and family is revealed in the Bible as God’s chosen building block for a moral and godly society. Societal well-being ought to be the primary concern in issues like this. Court decisions can’t change what God has said and beforehand determined.

Part of the problem is that the media and special interest groups have become so radicalized, so willing to distort the "real" issue and so determined to force any and every opinion on us, that "truth" has been obscured, and so confusion reigns.

Even many so-called believers - evangelical Christians - seem willing to compromise their cherished beliefs just to "keep the peace" or to cultivate an appearance of "tolerance."

The issues are bigger than us. We need clarity of thought and purpose. This can only be found in God’s holy and inspired Word. We need to run everything through the grid of truth as found in the Bible. Only then can we be assured of truth and accuracy as we seek to find our way in a perplexing pluralistic society where seemingly "anything goes."

TC and Redpeach,
A church I used to belong to once did a book study on the book "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality," by Daniel A. Helminiak. It looks at all those biblical passages that those who oppose gay rights always cite, but examining the language in the context of what the words meant in the time the Bible was written, rather than how we've chosen to interpret it today. According to Helminiak, a Roman Catholic priest, God was speaking against the abuse of power that often took place in same-sex relationships of that time, not the acts themselves. It's a very illuminating book, for those whose minds aren't closed.

T.C., can you explain why you think state law should conform to your personal religious beliefs?

And while you're at it, can you name one nation/civilization that declined as a result of same-sex marriage? It's easy to throw around claims like that. Can you supply evidence?

Couple of questions for you, T.C.:

1. Do you shave your facial hair/trim your beard?

2. Do you wear clothes made from a combination of cotton and linen?

3. Do you swear?

4. Do you eat shellfish or pork?

All these things (and many others) are prohibited in the Bible. Should there be civil laws against them? How do you, as a believer in the infallibility of the Bible, reconcile your repeated breaking of one or more of these laws? (Somehow I don't see you as a beard to the belly kind of guy.) I'm not asking to be sarcastic: I'm genuinely curious how a Christian who believes as you do in the infallibility of the Bible deals with the archaic parts of the Bible. Who gets to decide what we should follow and what we should ignore?

I have no problem with interracial couples as they are still a man and woman. Anyone that truly loves another can be together but that little piece of paper I just be;lieve should be between a man and woman. I support them having entitlements as domestic partners. I will ask if your position will be the same if you child comes home to announce they want to marry their partner? Will you dstill want to throw them the big gala wedding?

To me, there is no difference between an interracial couple and a gay couple, except that gay couples in our society have suffered discrimination longer than interracial couples. And my position will not change if any of my children find out they are gay or lesbian. Other parents?

Some where along the line I picked up a theological tome containing some writings of Nancy Friday - the name of the book escapes me at this time - Friday, is of course a noted feminist and pro-homosexual activist. I was interested in one thing - her take on homosexuality in contrast to what the Bible says. Her "take" (her interpretive methodology) - and I’m paraphrasing - was, "it really doesn’t say and mean what it says."

How do you deal with a person who, in a debate, basically says, "it’s in the Bible, but it really doesn’t mean what it clearly says"? That faulty interpretive methodology is a recipe for disaster and deception. It also represents a deliberate, wilful, and malicious attempt to rewrite what God has clearly said.

I would suggest that the Scriptures on homosexuality found in Romans 1 and I Corinthians 6 are clear and unambiguous; that only a mindset seeking to distort truth, possibly for ulterior motives, possibly for hidden, devious and impure agendas, would suggest otherwise.

It always comes back to: Do you believe that God’s Word is true? II Peter 1:20-21 NIV "Above all, you MUST understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

Daniel Helminiak, referenced by Ms Boyles, and a reputed Bible scholar, makes some serious mistakes when he states things like:

(1)"The sin of Sodom was inhospitality, not homosexuality. .....(2) Not a single Bible text indisputably refers to lesbian sex. .... (3) Biblical figures like Jonathan and David, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel may well have been involved in homogenital relationships. (4) And Jesus himself said nothing at all about homosexuality, not even when face to face with a man in a gay relationship." (What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality, Daniel Helminiak, in part, Summary and Conclusion).

1. Refuted by: Genesis 19: 4-5 NIV "Before they had gone to bed, all the MEN from every part of the city of Sodom——both young and old——surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the MEN who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us SO THAT WE CAN HAVE SEX WITH THEM.'"

2. Refuted by: Romans 1:26-27 NIV "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

3. There is no Scriptural support whatsoever for such wild speculation. It’s interesting to note that Helminiak doesn’t even attempt to twist Scripture to fit his beliefs - probably because there is nothing that even comes close to such a ridiculous suggestion.

4. I wish he would have provided a little Scriptural guidance here. For the life of me, I don’t know of any such incident in Scripture (but then I don’t know everything); the only thing that can remotely hint at any such relationship is when Jesus described John as the "disciple whom Jesus loved." Hey, Jesus loves all of us! To take that any other way is a big stretch!

Another quote: "Simply that 'God said it is wrong' is not a good enough answer...." (What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality, Daniel Helminiak, chapter 2). Why not? Sounds pretty good to me! It seems to me if God said it, that ought to be the end of the debate!

It appears that much of the so-called agenda-driven, pro-homosexual, pseudo-interpretation of the Bible is really a "situational interpretation" that is looking to manufacture a "theology" that offers anything and allows for any "act" no matter how bizarre or deviant.

BTW, a better Biblical perspective on important 2008 election issues is found in the book, "How Would Jesus Vote? - A Christian Perspective on the Issues" - by the late pastor, D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe. (Available at Barnes & Noble).

Hey Gail...can homosexual couples produce children compared to interracial couples? Doesn't that shoot a hole in your only difference theory.Through abortion and homosexual activity the left's numbers are decreasing while conservatives(mostly against abortion and homosexual activity) see their numbers increasing.As far as your children being homosexuals...how does that discussion go? Do you have that talk with them before or after the normal sex talk? Other parents?

[I lifted this out of another page on this same topic]

...Since referring to God seems so offensive these days, let's see if a factual biological approach might support the gay rights perspective.

The sexual act is how animals produce more of their own kind (correct me if I'm wrong on that). And without making more of their own kind, any species will eventually go extinct as the old and weak specimens die off without being replaced (again, corrrect me if I'm wrong). And except for some lower invertebrates, a male and female are required to complete the sexual act in order to reproduce more of the species (at least that's what I've learned over the years in various biology classes). So, it's probably safe to conclude if two females or two males mate, no offspring will be produced.

Medically speaking, the female reproductive system is designed with a different epitheleal and muscle structure than the end of the digestive tract (to state it delicately). A little more bluntly, the female reproductive anatomy is designed for the reproductive act, while the "backside" is not. For more info, go here: www.rbc.org/questionsDetail.aspx?id=45768&Topic=598, and pay close attention to the last few paragraphs; it gives a graphic medical description of why the homosexual act is wrong.

Conclusion from a biological perspective: a homosexual human race will go extinct within a generation or two, and--like smoking, drugs, or overeating--homosexual acts dramatically increase the risk of damaging the physical self.

Unlike obvious traits beyond our own control such as skin color or physical deficiencies, homosexuality is a matter of psychology that goes against behavioral norms (hence the title--used by many gays themselves--"queer"). If the issue is touted as a restriction of personal happiness or pleasure for a small number of participants ("minority"), then it becomes a matter of personal self-control, not equal rights.

To Lisa Maria Boyles:
Concerning your claims that the Bible does not denounce homosexuality: Throughout the Old Testament and into the epistles of St. Paul, homosexual sodomy is an abomination leading to personal destruction and damnation, and one of the five sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance.

Also, can you think of any bigger way to denounce your God, than to rebel against the very sex he created you as? You are his creation, he is the creator. Who are you, the created, to challenge Him on his design?

To Mike D:
As a matter of fact, I do have friends and coworkers who are gay, and love them all the same. Still, I do not want them dictating to me what is common sense: The very definition of marriage is the union of a man and woman, first and foremost, for the procreation of children (two men or two women cannot procreate).

Also, Christianity is the cornerstone of Western civilization, and Judeo-Christian values are written all over our nations founding documents.

Declaring the social opinions of a radical, minority fringe group law, is absurd, when that law renders the ideals of marriage meaningless, in this very Western civilization.

TC is right on the money, in his views and values. I would like to add: With moral decay, and sexual prevertion on the rise, our society needs a moral shot in the arm, not a catalyst in the crotch.

To T.C.: Just as I was expecting, you avoided the easy (but, perhaps for you, hard) questions. I repeat:

Do you shave your beard? Do you wear clothes made of mixed fibers? Do you eat shellfish and pork? Do you swear?

Should there be civil laws against these "sins"?

How do you explain why you get to pick and choose what you follow in the Bible and what you ignore?

T.C. asks, "How do you deal with a person who, in a debate, basically says, 'it’s in the Bible, but it really doesn’t mean what it clearly says'?"

Good question. Christians do that all the time. For example, when Jesus says "judge not lest ye be judged," they will cite passages from Paul to argue that Jesus didn't really mean what he said.

Mr. Morgan does something very similar when discussing the sin of Sodom. Ezekiel 16:48-51 is very explicit in stating that the sin of Sodom was arrogance and lack of concern for the poor and needy. Mr. Morgan insists that the Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality, contrary to the scriptures.

So how can we reason with people who claim to follow scripture, but read their own meanings into it? And who claim to "love the sinner, but hate the sin," yet advocate depriving "sinners" of even basic human rights, while ignoring the fact that their own theology states that their own sins are just as bad as those they judge?

Redpeach, I'm glad to see that you have gay friends. I submit, though, that if you love them in spite of their gayness, then you don't love them for who they are.

I don't see anyone trying to "dictate" anything to you. Some people just want the right to marry the person they love. Just like Richard and Mildred Loving did 40 years ago. Were they trying to "dictate" common sense or change the definition of marriage, or defy the "will of the people"?

Brian, are you implying that the only purpose of marriage is procreation?

And I'm not sure what Mr. McIntyre's point is, or why he seems to equate same-sex marriage with anal sex. And nobody is suggesting that the whole human race become homosexual, so the "extinction" argument is irrelevant.

Mike D

I’m well aware of the Ezekiel quote. But that’s not the ONLY thing revealed about the "sins" of Sodom and Gomorrah. My quote from Genesis is also relevant to the discussion.

BTW, Jesus did NOT just say, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged..." - that is out of context and the favorite verse of any unbeliever trying to justify his own actions. Let me give you all the Scripture in it’s proper context: Matt7:1-5 NIV "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

What Jesus clearly forbid was the hypocrisy of condemning (judging) someone (or something) while doing the same thing themselves.

An aside: Isn’t it amazing how those who don’t believe that God’s Word is really God’s Word use God’s Word to defend their own opinions - even if out of context? Is that the ultimate hypocrisy or what?

The Bible says many things about "judging." It lays it all out - under what circumstances it is forbidden and when it is permitted. "Judging" is also often used in the Scriptures in the sense of discerning or self-judgement. Jesus had some interesting things to say. "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." John 7:24; "Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" Luke 12:57. Another interesting verse: "The spiritual man makes judgements (discernments) about all things....." I Cor 2:15.

We dare not insult or demean centuries of honest hermeneutics by twisting and taking out of context the Word of God.

Back to our original point: The Scriptures are clear on homosexuality. There is no ducking the issue; there is no word play that suggests an alternative meaning. It is clear. It is specific. It is so carefully stated in simple, easy to understand words, that a third grader, a college grad or even a functional illiterate will come away with the same understanding. That is, if they are intellectually honest and really want to hear what it says. To suggest otherwise is to offend every rule of English word usage, every rule of grammar, every principle of Biblical hermeneutics. To suggest otherwise is to over-rule 2,000 years of theological studies, demeaning some of the greatest scholars (of all times) and the greatest names in all of Christendom.

Simply put, if you are a redneck boob, you can understand what the Bible says.

Why then do some misunderstand the plain, simple, clarity of the Scripture? Because they choose too! Or the unregenerate mind does not want to hear what God’s sin-convicting Word has to say. "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned." I Cor. 2:14.

T.C., yes you provided a quote from Genesis. But that quote does NOT say that is the reason Sodom was destroyed. That's an example of you reading your opinion into the text. Are you implying that the Sodomites would have been spared if they had taken Lot's suggestion to rape his daughters instead? That result would be absurd.

I am well aware of the context of Jesus' instructions about judging. Nothing in that context provides permission to disgregard his plain instruction. (As far as "ultimate hypocrisy," that would be claiming that the Bible is the Word of God, but seeing the need to interpret it to support your own opinions and prejudices.)

Saying the scriptures are "clear" on homosexuality is just wishful thinking. It appears to be declared an "abomination" in the OT, but so is eating shellfish. Paul appears to disapprove of it in Rom. 1, but he doesn't actually forbid it (note what the scriptures actually say - that God "gave them over to" what Paul calls "shameful lusts.") And you can't point to one solitary scripture that actually forbids same-sex marriage. Any sex outside of marriage is sinful according the Bible. So why not let them marry - isn't it "better to marry than to burn"?

Nice try, T.C., but all I see is someone repeating
what he has been taught by other people, and bending scripture to make it fit.

By the way, you still haven't answered my threshhold question: why do you think State law should conform to your religious beliefs?

Is there some reason you're ducking that one?

T.C. --

Still no answers! Simple questions:

Beard?

Cotton-linen blend clothing?

Shellfish or pork?

You say the Bible is "written" in language that a third-grader would understand, though of course most third-graders can't translate Greek. It says simply: "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

T.C., why can't you answer the questions? Is it because that fundamentalists are selective when it comes to the Bible? If so, it sure damages your argument.

One more time, T.C.: Do you shave?

I didn't write what was in the Bible. Just repeating it. As a believer I affirm what God said.

So, any conforming with State law would be with the Word of God not me.

Mike D.
Regarding the Richard and Mildred Loving comment: You are comparing apples to orange. The racial makeup of an individual cannot be changed--choice of sexual partners can change.

Regarding your accusation that I do not love my gay friends for who they are: Your judgement of my heart is not only without basis, it is incorrect. If your observation was true, you must also reason that unless I drive my alcoholic friend to the liquor store everyday to tank up, I do not love the alcoholic friend for who he/she is. Quite the opposite is true.

You see, I do not have to accept, or enable the behavior of anyone, if I believe it to be sinful, destruction, unlawful, or whatever. My convictions about homosexuality are biblically based, rock solid, centuries tested truths. Like most Americans, I do not have to look at some twisted argument by anyone else to decide on this subject. There is nothing wrong with knowing what you believe in.

And as far as the gay advocates not trying to dictate to me or the rest of society....dahhhhh! Why do you think we debating this? Gays are in our faces constantly... trying to redefine the institutions that built mankind. For decades now, gay advocates have been chipping away at the social order of our nation, our culture, our values, our laws. You seek to confuse our children by parading your perversions in front of them, as if that makes it acceptable. We see it in the news almost daily, how a gay has filed lawsuit against someone who refused service to them because of their personal moral conviction--for controversial things such as gay adoption, or artificial insemination, or gay wedding services. Is that not imposing on others???

Then there is SB 777, a law successfully lobbied for by the gay community, which will soon require all California public and charter schools to promote homosexuality, without the permission or notification of parents. Is that not overriding a parents basic right to instill their own child with their own values and spiritual beliefs? Since gays cannot procreate themselves, they push to poison the minds of our children to gain acceptance.

Additionally, if gay marriage is allowed, based on the demand for marriage equality, why stop there? Won't we also have to allow polygamy, marrying your dog, a tree, or even yourself? If the right to marry, as you have argued, is only based on love, then why not?

You see, it doesn't matter how much lipstick you put on this pig...it is still a pig.

tnanks for taking this on Mike, you've displayed many christian virtues in your patient defense of same-sex marriage...T.C, King James didn't have a hot-line to the Big Truth.

REGARDING MIKE D's INSINUATION THAT IT IS A SILLY NOTION THAT THE GAY COMMUNITY IS PUSHING TO MAKE OUR SOCIETY GENDERLESS, THIS IS HOT OFF THE PRESS:

Yesterday, over the protests of thousands of families, Gov. Bill Ritter (D) signed SB 200 into law. The legislation blurs the sexual lines by making all public accommodations, including locker rooms and restrooms, "gender-free." In other words, anyone--regardless of their biological identity--will be welcome in the men's or ladies' room, including cross-dressers, men who self-identify as women, women who self-identify as men, and people who haven't made up their minds. To make matters worse, Colorado defines "public accommodations" as everything from malls, restaurants, and schools to small and even home businesses. The other side says this is about discrimination. But the chance of offending a few people hardly justifies putting everyone else at risk, which is exactly what SB 200 does. For every transvestite who takes advantage of this law, there are a dozen sexual predators who will see this as a chance to put women and children into a vulnerable situation.

To Jackie Krage:
You are obviously white. There is no comparison to the history of black people and the history of gay people in this country. Gay people want something way different than what the blacks wanted in the 60’s. Gay people have always had the protection of their rights. If gays went to the police they would be helped, in the 60’s if blacks went to police they would be hung, sprayed with water hoses and not treated as a citizen. The black involved in the civil rights movement of the 60’s wanted the rights that all other citizens had. Gays have equal rights. What they want is to call their relationships a marriage. This is an issue of labeling, so please, please, please stop riding the success of the civil rights movement of the 60’s. They are not the same.

T.C., you evaded my question. Let's grant for sake of argument that the Bible is the "Word of God," (although that claim is nowhere found in the text). Just to make you happy, I'll rephrase my question:

Why do you think State law should conform to the Bible?

I submit that you can love each other without a certificate of marriage as many heterosexuals have chosen to do. God created prople equal so interracial couples are still just people and it does not say in the bible that a white person shouldn't be with a person of other colors so this is not even the same as homosexuals getting married.

Mike D.
Do you even believe in God? I doubt it. And if you don't believe in the Almighty, why use and twist the scriptures to try and justify homosexuality? Why would you so visciously attack Christians like T.C., if you don't believe our faith is based in truth?

The most profound truth in this blog is from T.C., who quoted I Cor. 2:14, "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

Gay marriage takes God out of the equation. That is what the vast majority of humanity objects to.

Redpeach, I was comparing apples with apples. Richard and Mildred loved each other and wanted to get married, but state law wouldn't allow it (based largely on religious beliefs at the time). A lot of same-sex couples today want to get married, and state law didn't allow it, based mostly on the religious beliefs of the majority. It's not just a "choice of sexual partners," as you so trivially phrase it. Can you decide to be gay if you want? I can't. I could have chosen another woman, I suppose, but I could never have chosen a man.

As for judging your heart, I haven't done any of that. If you said you love me, but condemn my "choice of sexual partner," refusing to acknowledge my marriage, then you do not love me for who I am. My love for my wife is a huge part of who I am. I may not know your heart, but I do know mine. And I know that you can't truly say you love me if you hate a huge part of me.

What I see here, not just in you, is an inability or refusal to empathize with gay people. Can you imagine not being allowed to marry the person you love? Or having to be discrete about your relationship (or being accused of "flaunting")? I look at my office, and see pictures of my wife and kids all over. Is that "flaunting" or "getting in your face"?

More and more, I'm beginning to believe that the chief difference between liberals and conservatives is the amount of empathy that person has towards others who are different.

Redpeach, regarding SB 200, have you actually read it? I have (it's from Colorado, by the way - you forgot to mention that). You can find the official text at www.leg.state.co.us.

I didn't see anything in that law about making public accommodations "genderless." Can you find any such provision?

There's a lot of stuff on the internet about it, but you really shouldn't believe all the propaganda out there.

Redpeach, regarding your last post to me, I find it amusing that you would accuse me of "attacking" T.C. while saying worse things about me. Apparently your definition of a "good Christian" is someone who hates homosexuality. I see no conflict between believing in a Creator God and accepting gays for who they are. I find it extremely illogical that an all-powerful God would care if Betty loves Sue or Alex loves Bob. I give God more credit than that.

Jackie
If you read the bible cover to cover and get that male on male or female on female relations are right in the eyes of god, then that is amazing in it's self. To get married is an order from God. Like being baptized, circumcised or whatever else. The bible teaches us that there are things he wants us to do. Men marring women is one of them. How God wants us to view sex, sexuality and marriage is overwhelmingly obvious. Do not let the fact that there are many good decent Gay people in the world distort what is sin. The devil has a way of doing that.

Swift, thanks for the kind words. It is starting to get a little heated in here, isn't it? Even Jackie is taking some mis-directed flak, even though she's on the other side. Seems like some "straights" can't shoot straight.

I find it telling that, other than Dr. McIntyre's irrelevant (imo) medical opinion, the only objections to same-sex marriage being offered are religious. Can anyone offer a valid, non-religious reason to deny the right to marry to a whole class of people?

Mike
The only legal reason same-sex should not marry is because a same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. I see marriage is something that did not come before religion. Before mono-theistic religion was organized what people did was not called marriage. I see it as God, then marriage. He told a man to marry a woman. So marriage by definition is for straight people. I could be wrong, but that what I get from religious works. If Gay’s are allowed to call their unions marriage, it wouldn’t be, by definition first of all, and I just see that it infringes on people who are following their on their religious tradition. Calling same-sex unions a marriage belittles anyone who marries as a practice of their religion. That’s all I got and that’s I, and those who agree, are losing this battle. Even if we win it will now, it will be changed within the next decade.

Tyrell I am not saying anything about the civil rights of black people in the 60s so Im not sure where that came from. I have read the Bible from cover to cover numerous times and know exactly whjat it says. Somehow you got the iimpression I am for gay marriages which I am not. It is wrong in the eyes of God and many people just want to ignore God as they seem to do in many things. I choose to live by the Bible and can see that the devil is all over this gay marriage amendment. I am not sure where you got that I was for it or comparing it to the rights of blacks in 60s and yes I am white and love people of all colors and ethnicities. My 5 yr old niece is biracial and I love her and have no problem with it. God Bless one and all. Dropping religion out of everything in society is what has gotten us where we are in the world today.

McIntyre wrote, "Conclusion from a biological perspective: a homosexual human race will go extinct within a generation or two, and--like smoking, drugs, or overeating--homosexual acts dramatically increase the risk of damaging the physical self."

Unless you can cite the scientific sources that confirm this conclusion, you're no more reliable than a common fraud. I'm in my mid-50s and have been a homosexual my entire life, have engaged in homosexual acts and every trip I take to the doctor I'm told to get more exercise, not "knock off that damaging homosexual act". So, what "damage to the physical self" are you talking about that my doctor (who happens to be gay) doesn't know? Gay people would benefit to know what you seem to be an expert on. The context of your state was a "biological conclusion" so what might we dullard homos read to get up to speed on this?

Recall, Mr. McIntyre, that I've asked you to cite your sources of information, not just spew your opinion. If you are going to hold forth on the health of gay people to further a political and religious prejudice, you carry the burden of stating the facts. The fact are those produced by the scientific community. Now! Where did you get your information, Sir?

redpeach45 wrote: "

Regarding the Richard and Mildred Loving comment: You are comparing apples to orange. The racial makeup of an individual cannot be changed--choice of sexual partners can change."

Well, black people don't have to marry white people do they? I mean, weren't Richard and Mildred Loving defying centuries of tradition of one race not mixing with another to accomplish their goal? What were they trying to do, ruin civilization? Bring down the country's moral values? Hasten Arrmadaddon? They could easily have chosen someone of their own race to marry and wouldn't have had any problem, no court case. The laws in most of the southern states could have just stayed the same and all those white people living in Alabama could have gone to church and thanked God for keeping order. You see, the same argument that is being made about gays was made about blacks. Imagine! In 1961! A black person couldn't marry anyone who was white. In California a person of Mexican descent couldn't marry a white person until the Supreme Court tossed out that law.

Apples and oranges? Remember, all you white folks out there. Your grandparents and great grandparents were the very people who raised religious objections about black and white marrying. They were espousing that old time religion because, just as with gays getting married, they couldn't come up with a satisfactory reason why black people should not be able to marry white people, so they made a religious issue of it because that the only "authority" they had that didn't have to make any sense. It only had to say, "God said so."

That's what slays me about this idiotic debate. People will cite the bible all day long and the worst they can say it that homosexuality is an abomination.

Well why is it an abomination? "Abomination" means "disgusting". I've asked people about this and I've mostly heard Christians say that if the bible calls someone/something an abomination, it probably means it's like an unpardonable sin.

No. That's not what "abomination" means, folks. It's means something you don't like. And the ancient Israelites had an entire catalog of things/people they didn't like and they would kill over them. "Abomination" is the modern day equivalent of the word "disgusting" or "icky" and believe it or not, there is some actual scientific research on why people regard some thing or some people as disgusting. There has actually been a test devised (The Disgust Scale) to determine what an individual's level of disgust is for certain people or situations. For example, one of the questions asks, "Would it bother you if you knew your soup had been stirred with a used, yet thoroughly cleaned fly swatter? Some people find that so revolting they can even stand to read the question. But here's the amazing thing. The people who study study this stuff say that certain groups of individuals definitely show a higher level of sensitivity to disgusting situation than others. Who? Why fundamentalist Christians, of course. I'm not making this up. You can read it online yourself but looking it up just like I did. People who score high sensitivity ratings on the disgust scale will answer "Yes" to the following question: "If you got on a bus and sat down and then noticed you could feel the warmth of the body of the person who previously sat in your seat, would you change seats?"

Some of you might benefit by just thinking of yourselves as "high on the disgust scale" and find it within you to try not to control the constitutional rights of other people you think are "icky". Don't think this matters? Okay. Let's ask Tyrell if he's ever seen some white person recoil when he handed them food to eat out of his hand. That ever happen to you Tyrell? It would amaze me if it hadn't because even some of the most strident social liberals have a level on the Disgust Scale that would surprise and embarrass them. Some simple would eat from a black person's hand.

There's not doubting that Christian teaching has much to do with these "disgust" reactions people have. Gays know it exist because we endure the ugly reactions people have to us so often. We get fired from our jobs or evicted from our homes. Our children get bullied and taunted. We get assaulted and even murdered because of these disgust reactions. No. We're not a different color. If we were all sitting around her talking about negros and someone like Mr. McIntyre popped in with some sort of biological explanation that rendered negros inferior, at the very least Tyrell could stand up and rightly say that if you want to know about the experience of a black person - ASK ONE.

But gays and lesbians rarely, if ever, get that courtesy extended. Instead, we get just what Tyrell and his ancestors got when we asked to be treated exactly the same as any tax-paying citizen - we get God shoved in our faces because that's all the argument bigots have. And we get these so-called "biological conclusions" like Mr. McIntyre rendered earlier.

People here are just saying things and don't even know what the experiences of gays and lesbians are. What has been repeated over and over here in on form or another is, "Gays choose to be gay."

You know, I've heard that theory a gizillion times. The science on homosexuality isn't conclusive even though it points at a biological origin. All I know is that I don't ever remember choosing to be gay and I can say with a satisfied mind (because I've examined the question for most of my 50 years of life). No, I don't remember an instant in my life where I had this flash and said, "I think I'll be a homosexual from now one." All I remember is that my attraction for men just appeared in my head one day, uninvited, and it never went away no matter how much I wished and prayed for it to leave. Wishing and praying make me a mess and I didn't get rid of that mess until I stopped wishing and praying and just started living with what God gave me. It took me 30 years to stop and I now think of that time as 30 wasted years.

Mike D,

I am not a doctor. I'm just relaying simple medical and biological facts, not "opinion" as you claim.

You asked for any non-religous reason why a whole class of people should be denied a right. The facts I presented before are very relevent. How 'bout some legal precedent as follows:

A. The homosexual community has convinced mainstream society that being gay is an inborne, not acquired trait. Those of us who oppose the gay marriage issue don't subscribe to that theory. Being black or hispanic, physically able or disabled, or mentally functional or not--THOSE are inborne traits.

B. BUT... Let's run with the "inborne trait" theory and extrapolate it a few more steps. Keep in mind that those who support gay marriages are using the exact line of reasoning I present here:

1. Bisexuals would also be able to say that they're "just made that way." In order to be "fair" to bisexuals and not restrict the rights of a "whole class of people," then they should be allowed to marry one male and one female, because they are "wired" for intimate relationships with both sexes, right? (But isn't that polygamy?)

2. While we're at it, another whole class of adult citizens are attracted to young children; that's just the way they are! Who are we as upright Americans to prevent a group of individuals from exercising their right to happiness? So let's stop labeling them as "abnormal" and call them "different," and let's also "teach tolerance" in the pursuit of equal rights. They're not wrong, just different. And while we're at it, let's throw a couple of buzz words we've heard from the Bible back in the faces of those Bible thumpers who are trying to set up a fascist government (even if we don't really have a clue about the true meaning of the entire chapter or book we're referring to because we don't want to actually have to read it).

3. During the next election, let's use the courts to find some obscure constitutional loophole so the judges, who know infinitely more than the citizens, can decide whether or not the votes should count. Heaven forbid that a "mob mentality" should decide who our next president, congressperson, or governor is! Why should the rights of a whole class of people who can't read the directions on how to poke the paper out of their ballots be infringed?

4. And let's re-evaluate the U.S. Constitution. As legal precedent would dictate, since some Articles have proven irrelevent (such as the archaic idea that only male landowners can vote), let's piggyback our ideas on that reasoning in order to get rid of some of those first 10 ammendments that no longer are needed because our society is so much different than it was 230 years ago.

...Some would say, "Oh that's just paranoid thinking. That could never happen." I disagree; that's the direction we're headed if we allow this ruling to stand without further hearings.

So to address Mike D's prompt (a non-religious reason...), it's an insidious beginning to a chaotic, anarchistic degradation of our society and way of life.

DW

Your unanswered challenge to TC comes from Old Testament rules. Understanding the New Testament will address your concerns about hypocrisy.

You refer to sacrifices that were required of early believers. About 2,000 years ago many sacrifices were no longer required because God sent his first and best as our Saviour. Look back to Genesis to understand what "first and best" is all about; I don't have room to explain it.

In a nutshell, the anti-religious arguments are falsely based on the presupposition that the teachings of the Bible are irrelevent in today's high-tech world. The Bible isn't about things and material possessions; it's about human nature and God's desire to spend eternity with us. It's not simply a rulebook to which we must rigidly ahere.

Within the first few pages of The Bible, we learn that humans are innately driven to pursue their own desires for personal pleasure. That lack of self-control is called "sin." From there, it's all downhill! The New Testament chronicles the history of Jesus, as well as clarifying how society of the day needed to straighten up or suffer negative consequences. Non-religious history proves what happens when nations don't follow rational rules. They fail and drop into oblivion.

Moses was a murderer. David was an adulterer and murderer. Solomon was a polygamist. A prostitute helped save the nation of Israel. Paul was a member of the very same group who sent Jesus to the cross. Another prostitute helped spread the word of Jesus as the Saviour. Superficially, the Bible is full of paradoxes, but a thorough reading and study, in and out of context, helps one understand at least a little bit about the historical accounts and parables contained within it.

...And for those who think believers are mindless lemmings, keep in mind that nearly every single event in the Bible has been archeologically and historically validated. It really is the truth. (Before the flood of, "Oh, yeah? Prove it!" starts up, I recommend you read "The Case for Christ" first. Google it and do some research...)

This old geezer is right gobsmacked at how the name of GOD is used so freely. How GOD must feel at the number of folks who have used his name to do horrid things or believe horrid things.

I am also gobsmacked at the shrill tone of the rabid homosexuals. I have been 'bent' the whole of my life. Why I am 'bent' will have to be answered by one more clever than I. I can tell you that at a point in my early life, MOI knew he was different, and being different was going to create hardships. MOI made the choice to live an open lifestyle , at a time when it was not fashionable. Are there some who do not like MOI. To be sure. Were there opportunities missed? To be sure.

MOI lived with another man for 20 years, had very close friends, a brilliant life and in the death of his companion learned that many in the world MOI lived in honoured my companion and our life together.

Personally, the thought of 'gay marriage' is repugnant. MOI never felt the need to 'marry' and feel strongly that it but a political move on the part of some to get what they feel they need to validate themselves.

MOI is a Republican, Catholic and an American. MOI has no problem with defining his place in society.

How very sad that so many here feel the need to bang at one another.

Mike D.
It seems you are being DISHONEST regarding your challenging my evaluation of SB 200, the new law in Colorado regarding access to any public bathroom BY bisexual, homosexual, transexual individuals--RENDERING PUBLIC BATHROOMS GENDERLESS. I Googled it, and across the board, there is no mistaking it, my evaluation of the law is right on the money. Even the gay websites/blogs are recognizing it as such, and are, in fact, celebrating it. Because they were the group who financed and pushed it.

RECAP OF STORY ON 05/30/08: Yesterday, over the protests of thousands of families, Gov. Bill Ritter (D) signed SB 200 into law. The legislation blurs the sexual lines by making all public accommodations, including locker rooms and restrooms, "gender-free." In other words, anyone--regardless of their biological identity--will be welcome in the men's or ladies' room, including cross-dressers, men who self-identify as women, women who self-identify as men, and people who haven't made up their minds. To make matters worse, Colorado defines "public accommodations" as everything from malls, restaurants, and schools to small and even home businesses. The other side says this is about discrimination. But the chance of offending a few people hardly justifies putting everyone else at risk, which is exactly what SB 200 does. For every transvestite who takes advantage of this law, there are a dozen sexual predators who will see this as a chance to put women and children into a vulnerable situation.

THIS IS A TRAVESTY!!!
The first bathroom rape/molestation that occurs due to this assinine law should result in a crippling lawsuit against the gay proponent groups, and the State of Colorado.

Once the word gets out on this, women will unite against it.

Woot I scored a 9 on the disgust scale! I am pretty sure that means I am part animal.

I grew up with lots of "uncles" that are gay men. Some are in long term committed relationships others are not. One and all they are all great men who deserve to have the exact same rights I do.

It's funny one person sees this as the end of our country or the decline. I see this as the exact opposite. It is part of our growth as a country.

Fifty years from now our kids and grandkids will look back at our actions and beliefs about this very subject and feel slightly embarassed. They will wonder why it was a big deal for us.

Quote the bible all day long as far as I am concerned as an agnostic it makes not a whit of difference. Instead of using a book written 2,000 years ago to dictate your thinking look around and open your eyes. Think a bit for yourself.

Now I am going to link that cool disgusting scale test to all my friends. Have fun arguing.

R. Foster
Looking at the history of this country many would agree by saying they would rather be a gay white person than a black person. Gay people are protected by law. I think we all want that. If you do not feel it was your choice to be gay, it was at least your choice to act on it. I would not have, but hey that is you. As Christians we all should be accepting no matter your decision.
If people are using the bible to support a ban on interracial that makes no sense, that is a misinterpretation. It’s sad that people allowed that to happen back then, it was also a misinterpretation of the bible when the KKK used as well. There is no misinterpretation when people say the bible doesn’t support gay relations. That is a fact.
As a black man it just fires me up when gay closely connect their argument with interracial marriage, or the woman’s movement. When blacks marched or could not marry whites they also had a hard time walking in an all white neighborhood, joining a workers union, voting, or even eating in a dinner and moving into a white neighborhood. I may be wrong because I don’t know many gays but have they ever had that problem. 50, 60 years ago if a black had ever experienced any of the segregation issues I mention who do they go to. Not the police because they were obviously not on their side. (Watch Mississippi burning) The police protect the lives and rights of gays. This is why I say the issues are not at all related.
Just a question, you say you cannot help that you are attracted to males. But what about those child molesters who cannot help but be attracted to little boys and girls, or brothers who are in love with their sisters or mothers. When does the government have the right to stop those attractions? I and many like me are fine with your choice of lifestyle, but by definition it is not a marriage, and through the history of the issues it is way different than interracial marriage.
Please RESPOND……………………………..

Redpeach, what in heck do you mean by accusing me of cheating on my wife and kids?? (I'd use stronger language, but I don't think that would be allowed.) It's none of your --- business, but I've never had relations with anyone other than my wife. You had absolutely no basis for that libelous accusation. Doesn't your Bible say something about bearing false witness against your neighbor?

It always gets me when "devout Christians" are so ready to tell outright lies to defend what they see as "truth."

Moderator, will you please remove that malicious, defamatory post?

Redpeach, another empty accusation? So you googled SB 200. Did you look at the official text? If so, cite the provision that says what you claim. I don't care what other people say ABOUT the law. That's hearsay (double hearsay in this case - and you didn't even cite your source you claim to be quoting from). What does the law ACTUALLY SAY? You've already falsely accused me of adultery. Can you back up your claim of dishonesty, or is that another violation of the "big ten"?

The right to marry has never been allowed soley on feelings of love between two people. Society has always restricted marriage to those deemed appropriate to marry. Ex. close blood relatives are not allowed to marry—fathers to marry their daughters, polygamy is outlawed as well. And if feelings of love are the only threshold, why not let a person marry their dog, or themselves.

Few today believe it was justified to outlaw inter-racial marriage. And like Tyrell says, for the gay community to parade themselves as victims of descrimination is shameful, and comparing your experience to the plight of Black Americans marginalizes their suffering and triumphs. You are being disengenuous, and disrespectful.

Gays are protected by the law, as any other citizens, and have full access to the freedoms this great country offers. But you do not have the right to over-ride the will of the people. Government in this great republic, was created and designed to serve the people--and that means the majority rules. Yes, our Constitution trumps all. But their is nothing in our Constitution that says gay marriage is a civil right. And the Constitution specifically says that justices do not have the right, or power to legislate, like they did in California several weeks ago. They are elected to interpret law. Four judges not only overturned the will of nearly 5,000,000 citizens who voted to ban gay marriage, but created a new law that says gay marriage is allowed. Additionally, their ruling allows gays who reside outside California to come here and marry, and mandates that other state to recognize the marriage. Doesn't this imposes on the will of 48 other states, who have laws on the books banning the practice thru Propositions, or Constitution Amendments. Once again, according to the Constitution, a judge does not have the luxury, or legal right to make law. Obviously, that is exactly what these four judges have done.

The same can be said in New York, where despite the peoples choice to amend the Constitution-- defining marriage between a man and woman only, the Governor has ordered state officials to rewrite thousands of policies to accomodate the recognition of gay marriage.

Now folks, this is not how our government is supposed to operate, and in my opinion is a form of tyranny. Executive and judicial officials are not allowed to legislate, which is precisely what is happening. What next...will these branches of government decide to suspend free speech?

We need to get back to common sense, limited government, and demand that we the people, decide how we are governed.

Mike D.
I misunderstood the meaning of your post about your wife and kids. I thought you were admitting to me that you were married with kids, and having an extramarital, homosexual relationship. Apparently, my mistake.

For my misunderstanding and comment, I profoundly apologize.

Tyrell,

If you are married to a female, I'd say that was sufficient evidence that you DID act on YOUR sexual orientation. If you've only had intimate relationships with females, whether you are married or not, that, Tyrell, is a prime example of acting on your sexual orientation. It's common place for straight people to demand abstinence of gays, all the while saying how easy and simple it is to not act on one's sexual orientation. Easy, huh? Obviously, you mean for a lifetime. That's something you'd never do, but you can impose that requirement of gays with such ease and abandon it defies the experience of your entire life. Being gay and keeping it forever and always a secret is in diametric opposition to moral edicts that guide people with common sense to be truthful and honest. Hiding one's homosexual orientation has the exact parallel and consequence as it once had for a light-colored negro trying to pass as white; in both cases you are accused of dishonesty, are ostricized for not upholding solidarity with those who cannot hide. Oh yes. We all knew of the bickering that goes on among black people over having very dark skin as opposed to those who have light skin and physical feature that are closer to European than African. We all know that those black people whose skin and features are classically African are the ones who have born the burden of racial prejudice in America.
Well, there's a gay parallel to that that gays are abundantly knowledgable about that almost no straight people will even acknowledge: feminine mannerisms in males and masculine mannerisms in females. Feminine mannerisms in males are no merely affectations embraced by gay men. They are present and prominent in children as young as age two and a tremendous cause of concern to parents who have such male children. I don't expect that you would have read the scientific literature on this. It's THE hot topic in both the behavioral genetics academic area and with such stellar anti-gay groups as Focus on the Family and and Family Research Council. The jist of it is that back in the 1980s a straight psychologist, named Richard Green, from UCLA who counseled pre-operative transexuals did a study of feminine-behaving boys. Based on his experience with transexuals, the believed this tendency toward developing a desire to change sex in adulthood arose from boys being socialized to do so in childhood by their environment (in short, by their parents). So he collected a large group of these boys and was able to do so because most of them, as young as five and no older than 12) were already being counseled by professional counselors. Green had four groups of boys that he observed over a period of something like 12 or 14 years. They were from every conceivable kind of family: highly religious, not religious, politically conservative, liberal, one-parent, two-parent, mother as primary care-taker, father as primary care taker, both parents with equal care-taking responsibilities, neither parent with primary care-taking responsibility, adoptive parents, foster parents, high, middle and low economic status, black, white, hispanic, asian. In other words, these kids represented virtually combination and segment of society we see today. But the striking thing about them was their mannerisms and behaviors. Green called this study, "The Sissy Boy Syndrome" and I think you'll have to acknowledge that you and everyone else on earth have encountered children who fit this description. The were classically what people commonly think of as "sissy" boys. The like to play with the girls. They liked playing with toys associated with the opposite sex. The didn't like rough and tumble play. Mind you, these were kids who would be called an, "only child". A few were and that was necessary because Green needed to see of being an only-chlld had an impact on these kids. Most of the boys had one to several siblings who were of both sexes, close in age and, perhaps most importantly, didn't exhibit ANY of the behaviors these boys did. Green divided kids into two categories: gender-conforming and gender non-conforming.
After Green identified these boys, he basically went away and left them because his entire point was to find our what kind of adults they would become. His prediction was that they would grow up to be like the transexuals he counseled because these kids exhibited the same behaviors that his adult transexual clients told him they exhibited in childhood. Half of the boys received counseling throughout the several years the were in the study and half received no counseling. Green thought that the boys who received counseling would be able to shake the feminine mannerism and behavior and develop ordinary characteristics like heterosexuals.
After the first three groups of the boys reached age 18, Green had to end the study. Why? Because ALL of the boys became, what Green described as, "ordinary homosexuals." None of them became transexual. The case was closed with one group still not having reached age 18 but the outcome was so obvious with the first three groups that it was a moot point. These boys were BORN homosexuals. It's more complicated than this. Green had a "control group" of gender conforming boys that had as similar environmental influences as possible to the gender non-conforming boys. He had to see out his CONTROL GROUP turned out, too, in order to validate what he found on his focus group. NONE of the gender conforming boys identified as homosexual at the age of 18.
Does that sound like biological influence? It should. That's the conclusion of the study. Green had never believed biology played a role in determining sexual orientation until he did this study. Here' more news, Tyrell. This study has been replicated three times with the same results and to make it more interesting, the studies were in other countries that had completely different environments and cultural influences.
Why is this important? Because every gay person knows that effeminate men are the ones who have the greatest difficulty "hiding" and that's the parallel with dark skinned black people. Effeminate gays get identified as "sissy" in childhood and they are the ones who get assaulted, beaten, bullied, fired from jobs, evicted from their homes, not hired regardless of their qualifications or their character. So you say it's different for blacks because they can't hide their skin color. Puh-leesze! If there's one thing that gay men worry about and have a kind of life-long obsession about is this effeminacy thing. We KNOW how people react to it. It's like having black skin in the middle of a Ku Klux Klan rally. Gays call it "nelly" or "nelliness" and to be sure, there are lots of gay people who don't exhibit any of that nelliness. But we don't kid ourselves. We know there are lots of gays and lesbian that simply are clever enough to "butch it up" (so called "straight-acting" as the term is so often seen on gay dating web sites.)
So blacks couldn't eat at the lunch counter in Montgomery, right? I know that's true. My cousin used to own a cafe in a tiny Oklahoma town that had seating in the back for black people to us *if* they came in the back door of the cafe. In 1958 my companion (who is 85) was in New York City on Christmas Eve. He and his companion at that time had traveled from California to deliver a patient, an autistic man, whose family wanted to place him in an asylum in Connecticut. They delivered him on Christmas Eve than caught the train to NYC and when they arrived in Times Square it was *empty*. No one was out. Howard Johnson's restaurant was the only thing open and they went in to have dinner and they were the ONLY customers in the place. The restaurant had one of those benches for seating that extended the entire length of the room and my friends went and plopped down on the bench side-by-side, tired from having traveled six days on a train to deliver this guy to his family.
The manager came out and said, "One of you will have to move to the other side of the table." The implication was clear. This manager didn't know if these two customers were "queer". They were dressed in business attire. They weren't making love on the bench. The were sitting there reading the menu in an EMPTY restaurant. They left. They went back to California and both of them did what all gays had to do in order find other gay people to socialize with; the went to night clubs that were known to be frequented by gays. In these places, you couldn't so much as brush against someone accidently because the vice squad would haul you off to jail for such an "crime." The police in Los Angeles regularly raided these places. No, not because men were doing something awful, like holding hands. They did it because gays were such easy victims. If arrested, they wouldn't sue, they wouldn't tell anyone because it might cost them their job or get them evicted from their home. The police chief in LA did these raids just before election time, just so he could pad his record with "vice crimes." Nobody knew the police hadn't found any "criminal activity." That didn't matter to most people because they were DISGUSTED with homosexuals and they believed arresting them was morally correct. Over the course of 10 years my companion was arrested SIX times in a gay bar, and for doing what? NOTHING! He went there to socialize. It was the equivalent of "driving while black" that Chris Rock so poignantly makes lite of and with such great effect. You didn't even have to LOOK queer. You just had to be IN a gay establishment. Luckily my partner never was convicted of a crime but in the hearings the testifying officer would say, "He's a known homosexual and I've told him not to hang out in these places." That was the officer's "evidence"! My partner had just served four years in the Army during World War II !!!!!!! And he couldn't go have drink with his friends?

Tell me where the law was the night I walked out my driveway at the corner of Van Ness Extention and Sierra to find my care riddled with bullet holes. Tell me about the law's protection the night some punk spray painted "FAGGOT" in six-foot block letters on my driveway. Tell me about the law protecting me the two dozen times teenagers drove their cars through the middle of my yard! Tell me where the law was the day I went for my first interview to become an elementary school teacher, met a principal I'd never seen in my life, and then endured the most harsh hostility from a prospective employer I've ever received from ANYONE! Of God's sake! I graduate from college with honors, served eight years in the Air Force and had the highest possible performance rating the Armed Forces awards. Tell me about the law's protection the day my daughter was held hostage at school when they found out her two daddies were homosexuals. Go ahead! Tell me how the law protects gays. Tell me how the law was there the day my dear friend was riding his bicycle down the street and four teenagers stopped their car and beat him half to death because, as they later told the jury, "We looked like a fag." Tell me where the law was for Bob Hillsborough after Anita Bryant set Florida on fire by saying gays were child molesters. He was beaten to DEATH by "Christians" who were inflamed by Bryant's screed. Where was the law in the past decade when thousands of gays and lesbians were thrown out of the armed forces? About 60 of them were Arabic language specialists who could have helped decode intelligence in the war effort. Where was the law when 35 year veteran Colonel Margarith Connameyer was ejected from the service for "admitting to being a homosexual.? Where where where where?
I've recounted those stories many, many times, Tyrell. Why in hell doesn't the average straight citizen know about this stuff? Here's why? Because homosexuality DISGUSTS them and they DON'T CARE! You, a black, can't see that what happens to gay is precisely what happens to black people. The most frequently reported hate crimes are against black people and gays. We get our brains caved in about as frequently as black people do. I'm shocked at your blindness to this. These day, gays don't even have to "look queer" to get assaulted. Wearing an earring is sufficient to get clobbered and a whole lot of straight guys who wear earrings have been the victim of that abuse.

Segregation? Well, first people have to acknowledge that you exist. Before 1953, the word "homosexual" appeared in NO bible and for a good reason; because when the bible was written, there was no word "homosexual" (or for that matter, "heterosexual"). The word was coined in the mid-19th century by a German psycho-analyst to describe people who had attraction to people of the same sex. It took religion a while to catch on, but they finally incorporated the term in the bible about 100 years after it was invented. Until the 1860s no one had thought that there was a class of people who were exclusively attracted to members of the same sex. It took almost 100 years for that idea to catch on, but in the mean time gays were just considered to be people who engaged in kinky sex against their own nature and the segregation of this kind of people had begun centuries earlier and was wrought with violence and every kind humiliation. Clearly, ancient Israel permitted stoning gays to death. Later, during the Spanish Inquisition, both gays and Jews were burned at the stake. Hitler murdered thousands of people of every strip but he singled out Jews, gays and the handicapped for special treatment.
So go ahead and keep your eyes shut and keep saying that there is not resemblance between the situation gays and black people have. As time goes on, you'll find it harder and harder to justify that claim.


If people are using the bible to support a ban on interracial that makes no sense, that is a misinterpretation. It’s sad that people allowed that to happen back then, it was also a misinterpretation of the bible when the KKK used as well. There is no misinterpretation when people say the bible doesn’t support gay relations. That is a fact. 
As a black man it just fires me up when gay closely connect their argument with interracial marriage, or the woman’s movement. When blacks marched or could not marry whites they also had a hard time walking in an all white neighborhood, joining a workers union, voting, or even eating in a dinner and moving into a white neighborhood. I may be wrong because I don’t know many gays but have they ever had that problem. 50, 60 years ago if a black had ever experienced any of the segregation issues I mention who do they go to. Not the police because they were obviously not on their side. (Watch Mississippi burning) The police protect the lives and rights of gays. This is why I say the issues are not at all related.
About child molestors? Geeze. I'm with you. If an adult take advantage of a child they ought to be locked up whether they can help it or not. It's our duty as a society to protect innocent children. But consenting adults have the freedom to do whatever they want to do in the private lives, or haven't you read the ruling by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence vs. Texas.. Since you can't resist your attraction to adult females, why is it the special burden placed in gay adults to practice celibacy? At the very least, adults have the option to decline to have an intimate or physical relationship. That's why the right to consent is reserved for grownups. I never said I "cannot help my attraction". I't not beyond my ability to cease to engage my natural attraction. In fact, I did do that very thing for 30 years. It's your turn to try it. Stop all flirting, come-ons. When women pop into your head, just stop thinking about them. Pray instead of masterbating. Get a hobby. Join the most rigid, ruthless, unforgiving church you can find that forbids you to enjoy your natual attraction to females (if you can find one) so they will reinforce your desire to eliminate all thoughts of romance, lust, interest, whatever that causes you to backslide and engage your natural attraction (like I did when I joing the Mormon church). If you need counseling to help you keep your sanity while you're trying not to think about the ladies, be sure to go to that special counselor whose business card says, "Christian Counselor" because he'll never encourage you to think about women and if you get out of line in your thoughts, he'll have an entire arsenal of condemnations from the bible to inspire you to stay on the straight and narrow. I've already done all of this, Tyrell. It's your turn to be miserable. Once you've done it, then tell me how easy it is to turn off your attraction to women. Write about about it and you'll probably sell millions of copies. I'll be understanding if you fail. You see, I know you just can't help it. It's hardwired in your brain like being right handed or left handed. It's something that happens to you that you don't even have to make any effort whatsoever for your natural impulse to take command. I understand all that. That's how it happens to me, too. It's just there like the natural impulse to pick up pencil and write with it with a certain hand. You don't even think about it while, if I'm not mistaken, means "you just can't help it."

Mike D:

Ah, yes, at least you libs run true to form; the last defense of a unbelieving lib, in any debate, is to plead for censorship.

Mr. McIntyre, I believe you when you say you're not a doctor. Your offense at my use of the word "opinion" is sufficient proof of that. Doctors understand what the term "medical opinion" means. It's not a trivialization at all.

Your "legal" analysis (I use quotes because you don't cite any actual legal principles or authorities) is nothing more than the old "slippery slope" argument. But as I said on another thread, that slope is not slippery at all. The "two consenting adults" standard is very easy to maintain, and I see no valid equal protection argument for polygamy, child marriage or any of your other hypotheticals.

Redpeach wrote: "The first bathroom rape/molestation that occurs due to this assinine law should result in a crippling lawsuit against the gay proponent groups, and the State of Colorado."

Why the gay proponent groups? I agree that I really don't women in the men's room, but why punish gay advocates? It's sooooo easy to look up on the internet and read who the perpetrators are in cases of child sexual abuse. We now have at least a half century of study on this issue and ALL the information and findings are online and so easily accessible. Start with the Univ. of New Hampshire Family Research Labratory. David Finklehor, who heads that department, is considered to be the most sought authority on the subject of child molestation and he was on television as an expert commentator quite a bit when all those Catholic priests were being hauled off to jail. His findings show what every single large-scale study has found and Finkelhor's study was the largest and most comprehensive too date. In his study of 1,200 day care centers he didn't find ANY homosexuals who were the perpetrators in cases of child sexual abuse. That's consistant with the Connecticut Penal Systems study of incarcerated felons. Connecticut reviewed the records of all incarcerated felons, both male and female, who were jailed for child molestation. In NO case did they find a perpetrator who was homosexual. Not enough? Go to Children's Hospital of Denver study in about 1996 which specifically sought to determine the sexual orientation of perpetrators in cases of child sexual abuse. They included ALL cases of child sexual abuse that came into the hospital over a one-year period. In the 377 case they received, ONE case identified the perpetrator as homosexual. The other 99 percent were heterosexuals.

What ALL of these studies determined was that 99 per cent of all perpetrator in cases of child sexual abuse are heterosexual. Heterosexual males account for about 98% of all perpetrators while heterosexual females account from about one per cent. The most typical perpetrator is a heterosexual male and he is either the child's father, uncle, grandfather, or other male relative or a male heterosexual friend of the family. Only about 2 per cent of all sexual abuse is carried out by strangers (people the child doesn't know) and heterosexual males account for the sexual abuse of both male and female children in virtually all cases.

So, why would you sue gay advocacy groups for that? You don't have to believe me. You can look for yourself at the the literature. I doubt you will then stop lying about gay people but at least you'll know you're lying when you do it.

McIntyre wrote: "A. The homosexual community has convinced mainstream society that being gay is an inborne, not acquired trait. Those of us who oppose the gay marriage issue don't subscribe to that theory. Being black or hispanic, physically able or disabled, or mentally functional or not--THOSE are inborne traits."
Science, not the homosexual community, has done all the convincing. It was the American Psychological Association's 100,000-plus membership that removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. Since homosexual make up only about 3 to 7 per cent of the population, they couldn't possibly have "outvoted" 95,000 other professional counselors to remove that fallacious stigma. No, those professionals knew from their own clinical experience and from reading the research literature that it was idiotic to label people as disordered when they functioned as normally as anyone, even under the daily strain of rejection. Inborn traits? First of all, the word "traits" is the go-to label for genetic markers. It's interesting to see the recent recent research that links left-handedness to a higher than usual rate of homosexuality (I'll ask all you lefties out there to hold your horses for a moment on this). Handedness, as we know, is a behavior. It's something you do that can only be identified as you're doing it. Coincidentally, left-handedness has an identical genetic trait in homosexuality. You only know if someone is left-handed or homosexual when they behave in a left-handed or homosexual way. Sure, you can TELL someone you are homosexual or left handed without behaving like you are, but the proof of the pudding is in behavior. This is how we have come to understand that behaviors are as genetically bound as physical traits like eye color and height. You can sit and watch television without behaving in a left-handed way, so the question is, "Are you still left-handed even if you're not behaving in a way that demonstrates left-handedness?" Yes. You are still left-handed. And as every gay person can tell you, this is precisely the way their sexual orientation works also. We go to work and we carry on our daily lives focused on the things we have to do. But as sure as we know the sun will rise in the morning, we, like heterosexuals, know that if we see a handsome person, we don't have to go up an kiss them to know what we feel inside. Gays react that way to other men and lesbians to other women. Straight men and women have forever and always only reacted to members of the opposite sex. See? Heterosexuality is a behavior, too! Just like with handedness, you can choose to use your non-dominant hand to do something. You can also choose to behavior in the direction of your non-dominant sexual orientation. But you always know what happens when you're on auto pilot. Your mind choose for you and it does so with no effort whatsoever. You don't have to think about each time and decide one way or another because your mind has already decided how you're going to react.
Those are purely genetic traits and they are behavioral. You can choose to dismiss them, but the next time someone hand you a pen to sign your name on a credit card form, consider that you don't even have to think about which hand you use. Gay people say, "Yeah. That's how it feels to be gay. It happens automatically and often before I'm even aware of what is going on." Religious bigots say, "I choose not to accept that explanation." They don't always then say, "...because my religious beliefs forbid me to do so." What's more common is the phrase, "That's been refuted several times." The obvious question to ask, then, is "Who refutes this information?" In recent years the most cited "authority" among religious bigots has been the Family Research Council's Tony Snow and others at that organization. You guys remember Tony Snow? He that great genetics expert whose training is not in genetics, but religion. He has a PhD in religion from Marquette or De Paul, I can't remember right now (look it up). Ordinarily, serious scientists don't seek peer review from religious organizations. They ask experts in the same field to criticize them. Religious organizations have a mandate to uphold their religious beliefs so things like behavioral genetics and evolution are almost universally "refuted". Notice I didn't say "disproved". Even the Family Research Council as taken to using the word "refute" because, otherwise, they'd be lying if they said the important word - "disproved." Matt McIntyre, who submitted the opinion I'm addressing, it a pretty commonplace example of anti-equality/anti-gay. He not really presenting facts. He's "refuting" and, my friends, you can refute all day long but refuting doesn't change factual information. McIntyre says he's "simply relaying facts, not opinion." and to prove that, he does so without citing his sources of information. In other words, he can make up anything and tell you it's a "fact" as long as he doesn't/can't cite his source, you might be inclined to swallow what he says as such. Let's not go there. If it's factual, then he should easily be able to cite the scientific literature that supports the stuff he is calling "fact." It's the only fair thing to do when you're messing with another person's civil rights.

Then McIntyre wrote: "B. BUT... Let's run with the "inborne trait" theory and extrapolate it a few more steps. Keep in mind that those who support gay marriages are using the exact line of reasoning I present here:
1. Bisexuals would also be able to say that they're "just made that way." In order to be "fair" to bisexuals and not restrict the rights of a "whole class of people," then they should be allowed to marry one male and one female, because they are "wired" for intimate relationships with both sexes, right? (But isn't that polygamy?)"

McIntyre uses the slippery slope argument here. A slippery slope argument is one of the most common fallacies of logic. It proposes that IF YOU DO "A" then "B" "C" & POSSIBLY "D" (or more) WILL INEVITABLY OCCUR. It's the most popular argument known to mankind. And he adds the implication that all gays are arguing in favor of "A" when he says "Keep in mind that those who support gay marriage are using the exact line of reasoning I present here." In other words, he wants you to believe, without citing a source, that gay people have just plain bought into the thing he's about to present as fact. Nowhere does he say HOW he knows gays buy into the thing he's going to present. He simply says we already have bought into the thing. So we're to believe that gays want bisexuals to be able to marry someone of both sexes since that's what bisexuals are wired for. Really? Where did he get that information? Certainly kinds of child molesters are thought to be "wired" for attraction to children. Does McIntyre also think gays would advocate on behalf of child molesters because they "can't help it.?" Apparently. It certainly follows the logic of the slippery slope he employees, again, without citing a source of information to see how much truth his "facts" are based on. A simple survey of gay dating web sites would easily demonstrate how far afield from reality McIntyre is about gay attitudes toward bisexuals. On of the most common demands one can see on a gay persons online profile is this one: "NO BISEXUALS". There's a long-standing reason for that. Most gay people go through transitional stages of coming out to family and friends and among those stages is one in which gay men will tell people "I'm bisexual". Why? Because gays people have discovered that the larger community is more ambivalent about bi-sexuality. Indeed. A look at the shelves in "adult video" stores will quickly show you that scores of titles have straight women performing lesbian sex scenes for the the enjoyment of straight males. Gays regard that kind of thing as the real "kink" and paradox about heterosexual sexual interests. Lesbian sex is an ENORMOUS business enterprise for the porn industry and it's 99.9 percent the domain of male heterosexuals who spend millions annually to buy that stuff. Local cable television providers sell it to people right on the television in their own home because it's so popular and lucrative. But gay people have an attitude problem with bisexuality. Since we know that many of our own friends claimed to be bi-sexual as a stage of coming out, we understand that it's just someone who is really gay, but can't quite admit it. This isn't a mere claim to a view. The Advocate published the results of research on this subject about 12 years ago. (Note the source being cited). The researchers said that 95% of men who identified as bi-sexual eventually identified as homosexual. So, that's really the basis of a bit of distrust gay men have for people who claim to be bi-sexual. Gays have been fighting a lot of political fights over the past 3 or 4 decades and there is a resentment that these guy who say they are bisexual don't have to take any of the negative flack. They can hide behind bi-sexuality to distance themselves from all the heavy lifting required to gain an inch of equality. Yet they reap rewards from gay men by having sex with them without having to take on the political load. That's a SERIOUS affront to scores and scores of gay men. It's like being a very light colored black person who can pass for white and as long as they keep it a secret, they get treated like a white person without all the jolting negativity that blacks normally are confronted with. So, as you can see, Dr. McIntyre doesn't even know what he's talking about so his "facts" are hollow and undoubtly fallicious. Once you include "those who support gay marriage" to mean people who, supposedly, advocate for bisexuals to be able to marry two people, you include multitudes of gay who, indeed, support marriage rights for gays, but don't give a rat's butt what what bisexuals want because they don't believe true bisexuality even exists out side of straight porn films.

And then Dr. McIntyre writes: "2. While we're at it, another whole class of adult citizens are attracted to young children; that's just the way they are! Who are we as upright Americans to prevent a group of individuals from exercising their right to happiness? So let's stop labeling them as "abnormal" and call them "different," and let's also "teach tolerance" in the pursuit of equal rights. They're not wrong, just different. And while we're at it, let's throw a couple of buzz words we've heard from the Bible back in the faces of those Bible thumpers who are trying to set up a fascist government (even if we don't really have a clue about the true meaning of the entire chapter or book we're referring to because we don't want to actually have to read it)."

Here's another example and another opportunity to examine the fallacies of the slippery slope argument in more depth. Remember, the fallacies of logic say that a "slippery slope argument" is one in which a proposal is made where "IF you do "A" then "B" or "C" or any number of dreadful things will inevitably occur. You've heard one of the most common of the slippery slope arguments when you read this one: "If gays are allowed to marry, what next? Will people be able to marry their dog?"

Well, no. They wouldn't able to even if there are kooks out there would would most certainly want to. And no, we wouldn't allow pedophiles to marry children and, coincidentally, for the same reason. We have this small matter of law in every state and in every nation that is incorporated into every aspect of civilized society called, "Informed consent." What's that? Well, suppose you were married to a jerk and divorced him and six months later someone from the bank shows up at YOUR door to collect for HIS credit card debts. "But I divorced him and I'm no longer responsible for his debts," you say. To which the banker replies (while he's backing up the truck that will take your car and furniture away), "So true, but when you married him, you automatically assumed responsibility for his debts. Look! We have the document right here where you signed, saying you accept responsibility for each others debts. It's called a marriage license and it obligates you to pay debts whether you or your ex incurred the debt. We don't care if he's not a jobless dead-beat. We also have the document that says you would pay for his debts. It's from the day he applied for the credit card. So, get out of our way because we came here to get our furniture and car."

Can children or animals give informed consent? No. They are intellectually incapable of doing so and our society protects them because of that intellectual limitation.

Notice, Dr. McIntyre literally uses the form, "If X happens, then Y will happen" when he says, in essence, that since pedophiles are blameless and because they can help/resist their impulses, we have to be sensitive to that for politically-correct reasons and let them have their way with children and that this logic is what logically follows the awarding of marriage rights to gays and lesbians OR "IF gays are allowed marriage rights, then pedophiles should naturally be allowed to rape infants because they can't help what they are. He simply implies that marriage rights for gays makes rampant and legalized pedophilia a foregone conclusion.

I have a child myself and I'd shoot on sight the bastard who tried to employe that repulsive logic. About 25 per cent of gays and lesbians are parents and I've no doubt they would be as happy to blow out a pedophile's brains for such an attempt as I would. But more to the subject at hand. Dr. McIntyre snipped this particular slippery slope argument off of some religious web site somewhere and brought it here and presented it as a fact. Do we make special allowance for pedophiles? Yes. We lock them in cages. That's their special treatment in lieu of death by lethal injection. We have a special moral obligation to protect children regardless of what limitations pedophiles can place on their behavior. In this regard, they are not special. They are a DANGER to our children. The law would not allow a child to marry an adult because a child has no understanding of the responsibility involved in doing so. But far more seriously, a child is NEVER able to give informed consent to an adult about sexual issues and, not suprisingly, neither can animals. That's the reason the the informed consent law exists. It's not only an aspect of the responsibilities of marriage; it's deeply entertwined in every aspect of commerce and trade that exists in this country. You MUST be able to understand what you are agreeing to and children and animals simply can't do that.

Okay. Now we can understand that McIntyre had no "fact" to present on this issue. Like so many people before him, he just copied and pasted an old, beaten-to-death, worn-out slippery slope myth from one web site to another without the courtesy of even telling us that there are REAL and IMPORTANT legal issues that make these arguments so utterly ridiculous. McIntyre has already been charged with insulting the intelligence of gays, not to mention lying about gays in saying we support some kind humane response that would allow pedophiles to molest children. Now he insults the intelligence of all readers by proposing schemes and scenarios so profoundly ludicrious - and calling them "facts" - none can help but wonder how he treats his own family. If he thinks the average Fresburger is so stupid they cannot imagine a reason NOT to permit pedophiles to molest our children and a reason NOT TO allow someone to marry their poodle, he's an incurable imbecile. We CAN think of GOOD reasons NOT to permit those things. This is in stark and diametric opposition to marriage right for gays; a situation in which we CAN'T think of a good reason that gays should not have the benefits and responsibilities or legal marriage.
The damage McIntyre has done is irrepairable. You can't call fallacious arguments "facts" and not expect intelligent people to be insulted as well as question your respect for morality. McIntyre takes a whiz on us all from his self-proclaimed moral height and expects us to respect him for it. I don't respect fakes.

Mike D.
I read the law, and I stand by my interpretation of it.

Explain to me why the gays are celebrating this as a victory, if it does not have anything to do with gay rights?

The cat is out of the bag on this.

R. Foster
First off I really appreciate your sharing what seems like very personal information. I truly am thankful for your educated input. From your detailed description of your history of gay persecution I believe that you and people in your circle have had a tough time in our country. You sound like you may have some grey hair on your head. I am only 23 and I can assure you that the generation that I belong to is far less harsh than what you have experienced. I know I cannot speak for all of us but everyone in my phone is. Many gays can hide their orientation. For the ones that cannot, like those in that study, it is much tougher. But hey I really do not like a very famine man either. Not because I think they are gay but because I think that they are annoying. They tend to be loud, draw attention and too emotional. I chose not to hang out with them because their personality bothers me, not what they do on their own time. But with that said, if I owned a business and one of them could do a job much better than anyone else I could fine I would defiantly hire them. Sorry if many others would not.
You have made the best case for why the civil rights movement is close to the gay movement that I have ever heard. I almost changed my mind until I started thinking a little further back. The entire foundation of the civil rights movement began with treatment blacks experienced during slavery. Slavery in the U.S. is one of the most harmful things done to a single group of people. I say this because my great grandfather was born a slave. It was illegal for him to read. My grandfather was born on a plantation and only finished the 4th grad. My mother did not graduate high school, and certainly not college. I did, and it was harder for me than any other person at any of my two colleges. Slavery set the value of human life back for blacks and we are still paying the price today. We are probably one of the most unsuccessfully groups of people in this country (aside from Native American). There is no way my grandfather had a chance in this world, his dad was a slave and his mother an Indian. He was born on a plantation while others were born in house. How is he to succeed?
I picked up on this at an early age and soon realized that I could A. cry and be lazy, or B. OVER COME. The exact message the civil rights movement was based on. Taking your situation and making the best of it. MLK once said if the only work you can get is that of a janitor then don’t be upset, be the best janitor you can be. Clean and shine floors like no other. I may be wrong but I do not get that same massage from the Gay activists. That is why I feel the movement is much different. I am all about supporting people in their life choices. I especially don’t beat people up who don’t deserve it. You and your friends were wronged. I would support you and yours in any prosecution of those who have done those things. Please do not clump me in with all the other misguided folks out there that don’t even know why they don’t like gays. I support you in fight that you have with any injustice, except for this whole gay marriage thing. I see marriage like this. By definition marriage is god’s commandment to people to stay with one partner who is that of the opposite sex. Ever time people break or go against Gods commandments something really bad happens. There was once a time in the Old Testament when god commanded people to circumcise their children 10 day after birth. No one knew why then, but now we all know that newborns blood would not be thick enough for a surgery until the tenth day after birth. We have all kinds of medicine we can cut when ever now. But if you did not obey god then, your child would bleed out. Every time a sin is committed the world is worsened. And when sin is allowed, kind of like allowing people to drink until they are drunk, really, really bad things can happen. Look at the spread of STD’s. If we all chose 1 one partner and waited till marriage there would be virtually no STD. Where did they come from, how did they get here, who could have done that? God commands parents to sternly discipline their children; you can take a look at any middle or high school to see how disrespectful and unsuccessful kids become if their parents don’t. I see marriage as a commandment. That is why it is usually done in a church, with a priest. It is a god thing, and a gay marriage is a walking contradiction. It’s like bar mitzvahs for Muslims. You just can’t do both. It’s like being in California and Hawaii at the same time. You can say you did it but you never have. But no matter what I say the only people who get to air their views for my side of the argument are idiots and overly religious zealots. Even if gay marriage is banned this November I am sure it will pass in your lifetime.
Thank you for the good feedback, by far the longest post I ever left anywhere. You really forced me to think and that’s always a good thing.

Then Dr. McIntyre wrote: "3. During the next election, let's use the courts to find some obscure constitutional loophole so the judges, who know infinitely more than the citizens, can decide whether or not the votes should count. Heaven forbid that a "mob mentality" should decide who our next president, congressperson, or governor is! Why should the rights of a whole class of people who can't read the directions on how to poke the paper out of their ballots be infringed?"

Here Dr. McIntyre uses cynical and nonsensical proposals. In college writing classes they teach this as a method of drawing attention to one's words by proposing the ridiculous. Yet we find failure in the attempt.

A court-imposed ruling that enforces equality is called "an obscure constitutional loophole" by our teacher. In other words, Loving Vs. Virginia is law because an "obscurity" was found by legal scholars and exploited to allow gays to enjoy the marriage rights they've been paying taxes for but haven't been allowed to have benefits from.

That's the real basis of the California Supreme Court's ruling. Read the analysis on the internet and what you see being cited over and over ad-nausium is that the court didn't rule in favor of "gay marriage". Rather, they affirmed the fact that marriage is a "fundamental right".

So? What's a fundamental right? Good question. It's a right that EVERYONE is entitled to the benefits and responsibilities of. That's the plain and simple summary of the ruling. The court used case law going back nearly 200 years and, again and again, affirmed that marriage was a fundamental right and they said California's constitution forbids withholding a fundamental right to ANY citizen unless a compelling state interest was in jeopardy. That's the way ALL civil rights cases are examined and have been since the foundation of this country, so we're not talking about an "obscure" anything!

All the State had to do was find ONE compelling reason why legal marriage should be withheld from gays and lesbians. ONE REASON! The state failed to find even ONE reason to withhold legal marriage. The state argued from the standpoint that "tradition" dictated whom should be allowed to marry and when they did so, the court simply turned to Loving vs. Virginia as their guide. In that case, the race of the couple was at issue. There was a long-standing tradition in this country that blacks and white could not marry. The US Supreme Court ruled that "tradition" was insufficient reason to bar marriage in that case.

In California, the long-standing "tradition" was centered in opposition to the sex of the couples who sought to marry. The state could have argued that gays and lesbians weren't morally fit and that moral standards are a compelling state interest. Mind you, the phrase "compelling state interest" is a legal term of monumental importance and complexity. Briefly, it is actually a test used in due process and equal protection claims that require the STRICTEST scrutiny. In a nutshell it when you are deciding a case that involves a class of people who have traditionally suffered extensive discrimination, you'd better have a damn good reason to exclude that group from enjoying the same rights that every other group enjoys. The state used "tradition" as their argument. That's the argument that was used in Loving vs. Virginia and Brown vs. Board of Education and Lawrence vs. Texas. Tradition, the states said, was sufficient reason to A) prevent blacks and whites from marrying, B) segregate children in public education, C) charging homosexuals with a crime for sodomy while NOT charging heterosexuals with a crime for engaging in the exact same acts. The State of California wanted invoke tradition, in effect, by saying marriage has always been a certain way.

They probably could have won the case on that argument if, over the years, tax-supported benefits had not accrued to those who were married. But the entire history of secular marriage has been one of constantly changing and reshaping of benefits and responsibilities. Benefits reached a point, finally, where gays realized they were being barred from things they not only had to pay taxes to support, but could never receive benefit from but could reap substantial benefit from if they weren't barred from doing so. The state set up an apartheid system called "domestic partnership" that pretty much gave gays the entitlements and practically no one objected to it. Domestic Partnership was the identical twin of secular marriage in all but name and it was the name that finally created the big controversy. The name "marriage" was being reserved for straight people and in doing that, the status of "domestic partner" took on a kind of "marriage lite" persona, as if the commitments made between individuals weren't really serious, notwithstanding the marriage of people of great fame such as Brittany Spears, who cancelled her "commitment" in the space of days.
The state could have easily won the case if they could have documented the substance of such an argument. But they didn't do so because they couldn't find sufficient examples of moral unfitness that were any different from the moral unfitness that heterosexuals themselves had long-standing deficits in. So the State simply shoved "tradition" into the mix and the court handed their heads to them.

The fundamental right to marry has never been an "obscure loophole" as our Dr. McIntyre asserts. He demeans and trivializes the due process of law that brought equality to millions of people for many great and noble reasons by calling these decisions "obscure loopholes". I'm embarrassed for him family.

Finally (and at long last) our Mr. McIntyre wrote: "4. And let's re-evaluate the U.S. Constitution. As legal precedent would dictate, since some Articles have proven irrelevent (such as the archaic idea that only male landowners can vote), let's piggyback our ideas on that reasoning in order to get rid of some of those first 10 ammendments that no longer are needed because our society is so much different than it was 230 years ago."

Anyone understand this?

Mike D

You hit the nail on the head! You tell redpeach your lifestyle is "none of your business." Somebody's sexual preference is "none of your business," every bit as much as what goes on behind your closed doors. The gay community has forced this issue to be "everybody's business."

Also, it gets us devout Christian "bigots" when the Bible is quoted so grossly out of context in order to quip some line that it intended to present some falsely-generated paradox.

R. Foster

Here's my source as you requested:

pp.117-118, Straight Narrow Compassion, Clarity In The Homosexuality Debate, Thomas E. Schmidt, IVP

Never have so many said so little. Go ahead and live your lives according to your beliefs(at your own risk)and it will all be sorted out at the end.See you on the other side....Maybe.

R. Foster

Concerning your post accusing me of lying???? I have not lied about anything here. I am simply stating the facts about SB 200 in Colorado, which you have failed to read, or choose to ignore.

So you can understand the issue, I will post my information about SB 200 for a third time:
------------------
RECAP OF STORY ON 05/30/08: Yesterday, over the protests of thousands of families, Gov. Bill Ritter (D) signed SB 200 into law. The legislation blurs the sexual lines by making all public accommodations, including locker rooms and restrooms, "gender-free." In other words, anyone--regardless of their biological identity--will be welcome in the men's or ladies' room, including cross-dressers, men who self-identify as women, women who self-identify as men, and people who haven't made up their minds. To make matters worse, Colorado defines "public accommodations" as everything from malls, restaurants, and schools to small and even home businesses. The other side says this is about discrimination. But the chance of offending a few people hardly justifies putting everyone else at risk, which is exactly what SB 200 does. For every transvestite who takes advantage of this law, there are a dozen sexual predators who will see this as a chance to put women and children into a vulnerable situation.
--------------
While file lawsuit against gay rights advocates for this? Because they are the authors of the law. I guess in your dream world, only gays have the rights to protection under the law, and to hell with children.

The law allows sexual predators to search bathrooms for victims, and it is only a matter of time before this results in harm to others (kidnapping, rape/molestation/murder),

The lawsuit would hold whoever is responsible for making the bill law—which in this case are gay rights advocates who sponsored and lobbied for the bill, as well as the State of Colorado, who endorsed it. DAHHHH!

And sorry about that Jackie, I was a little too Anxtious earlier on.

T.C., Redpeach already apologized for that false accusation. Your post was out of line. I'm not going to ask for it to be removed, though. Surely even conservatives can see the difference between false personal accusations (based on mistaken reading, in this case), and political differences?

Redpeach, so you read the law? Great. Now please cite the subdivision that has the language you are referring to. As I said, I didn't see that in there. Before you false accuse me of dishonesty, you could at least extend the courtesy of telling me where the provision you claim exists can be found.

You ask why the gay community is celebrating it? That should have been obvious if you truly read it - it prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Mr. Foster,

Before I respond, I want to say thank you. No sarcasm. Truly, thank you and you partner for your service to the country. Thank you both for protecting our right to banter on this website. I strongly feel that without the efforts of people like your partner (and you?) and my uncle-in-law in WWII, the world would likely be speaking German today, and all who don't fit the ideal mold would not be allowed to live. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that fact about you and your partner. For your efforts and for standing behind your beliefs, I respect you & your partner greatly.

After reading your entries, I do feel a degree of remorse for offending you. My arguments are not intended to put down or use religion to squelch anyone. After reading your posts, any rational reader should now understand how gays feel when surrounded by others who are constantly judging. TC quoted a verse that essentially says we should worry about setting ourselves straight (no pun intended!) before correcting others. If you feel judged, I apologize...

Here's where my association of bisexuals with homosexuals comes from. There's a term, GLBTQ, that has been thrown in the face of educators for the last few years. As we've been told by downtown administration, we have to be aware of our students' sexual orientation and an "ACLU mandate," complete with a threat of a massive lawsuit, who says that we have to watch a video each year about the struggle you've described above. The yearly “workshop” implies that we are not to interfere with those students who essentially want try out whatever sexually-oriented lifestyle they wish, and decide at a later date in their life how they want to live. This is being “recommended” to students in elementary schools. We are told that these children are bullied and called names, as you have described above, and that we need to be alert for signs of bullying. My problem is that 1st through 6th graders (whether “sissies” or not) don’t need to be discussing fine details of sexual reproduction with anyone other than there parents. It is not the position of the schools to tell my children or your children the kinds of things reserved for parents.

My question to you, and I will read your answer with an open mind, is this: why do we see the term GLBTQ, and why do we see the gay community openly supporting bisexuality and transvesticism (sp?) during gay pride events? Your post indicates the gay community doesn't support such.

Another honest question: your summary of the psychological study mentions effeminate males, and seems to conclude that effeminate males are, in fact, homosexuals (I read it kind of fast, so I may have missed something else there...). I know a few somewhat effeminate males who staunchly oppose gay rights. Are they hypocrites who are leading a secret lifestyle, or should I take their actions and attitude at face value?

Regarding the "slippery slope" presumption... The outcome of A to B to C is not assumed as a given, but addressed as a possibility. My fourth point already happened in a recent presidential election. If the courts overturned a vote a couple of weeks ago, then current law prohibiting polygamy can be (not “will be,” but CAN be) overturned using the recent court decision as a precedent. It comes back to the arguable point that a minority group is being denied a basic right; the right to have an intimate partner of both sexes, not because they are psychologically “deficient,” but just a little different...

Finally, on behalf of all compassionate Christians, I want to apologize for your judgmentally negative experience with one particular kind of church. The description of your experience does not match what my church teaches in any way. While teaching that homosexuality is not God’s intended way of loving others (just as stealing, adultery, murder, worshipping idols, or any other of about 600 other actions are wrong), we are still loved by a Father no matter what. In my church are spouse cheaters, those who take from their employer, porn-watchers, and other so-called “sinners.” That’s why we’re all there! I’ve heard the pastor speak out against all sins with the same tone of voice, not just homosexuality.

…Here’s the selfish secret about why Christians are so vocal about certain issues: Remember when your brother or sister told you to knock off some rule-breaking behavior because he/she didn’t want to get dragged into your trouble and deal with the punishment your mom or dad would dole out? That’s sort of the same thing going on here; when we err, our Father wants us to say we are sorry and not do whatever action again. With that said, I’ll add that our “job” as Christians is not to force anyone into believing; that didn’t work out too well during the Crusades and the Spanish missionary period of CA. No, our job is to present what we know as truth, and hope the non-believer (or misdirected believer in some cases) makes a choice to accept the Love and Truth we call Jesus.

Go here www.rbc.org/index.aspx and follow links to “Answers To Tough Questions” or ATTQ, and do some research at your own leisure. Just as I read about what might happen to me if I don’t turn away from my foul-mouth language, or my glance at an attractive member of the opposite sex (even though I’m married), I promise you’ll find some articles that’ll make you wince and think you’ve heard enough, but as they say, sometimes the truth hurts.
Otherwise, I have a great deal of business to attend to. This thread, with its 60+ posts, can be very time consuming and, well, I’ve got a career to deal with so I can pay my taxes. I wish you well Mr. Foster (and others), as I can’t take any more time to respond to what has become a lot of rabbit trails. I guess that leaves me undefended and an easy target, but I’ve made the point I want to make about why I feel how I do.

Ooops!

Thought I was done until I clicked on "post," then read more of Mr. Foster's entries.

The "...loophole" refers to the election a few years ago...

The last point about changing the Bill of Rights refers to the concerted efforts to remove the 2nd ammendment or "infringe" it, even though the 2nd ammendment says it can not be infringed. If that were to ever happen, it's not inconceivable that first ammendment rights could be deemed "irrelevent" due to the "dangerous speeds" of the internet and today's high tech criminals, thus revised for political gain, not public interest. In the past, voting privileges needed to be changed for equality's sake, but you've been around long enough to know that too many politicians seek power and control, not true representation of what citizens truly want.

Name calling ("bigots") and vicious insults & insinuations are the reason we have so much turmoil within our society. A true educated debate has no room for these insults and angry ventings. (Mr. Foster, I still respect your opinions and service, because that's how I was brought up. Please reserve the vicious attacks for those who call you names or provoke you. Thank you in advance for that...)

Mr. McIntyre, are you agreeing that another person's sexual orientation is none of your business? Great! Then can we assume you will not be voting in November to amend the state Constitution to discriminate against gays? I'm glad you came around to the side of mind-your-own-business and common sense!

And by the way, Mr. McIntyre, everybody quotes the Bible "out of context." A quote is by definition "out of context." I think it just bugs you "bigotted Christians" (your words, not mine) when someone nails you with the book you worship. (And it's so easy to do.)

Mike(D) and others...What happened in your lives that causes you to despise those that believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible?I don't see this kind of attack by yourselves and society against other faiths and I wonder why.I won't quote you scripture to try to persuade you because I believe only God can change a man or woman's heart and beating folks over the head with a Bible has the opposite effect. I also wonder what non-believers turn to in their time of need? The thought saddens me that when tragedy strikes in your lives that you would have to face it alone.Mike(D) and others...for all the crap I give you I do not feel you are the enemy.I know who my enemy is.For all the believers in Jesus Christ who have responded to this blog maybe it's time to cease with the quotes and attacks and offer up prayer that those who don't believe in Jesus Christ would be drawn to him by the love he has for them.I don't think posts have the ability to change hearts and lives but I believe prayer does.I am grateful to anyone who will take the time to respond to my questions as I sincerely(not usually my style)care to know your hearts on this matter.

Mike D.

Amazing. T.C. calls you on the carpet with your threat to have me censored, and because I did the apologizing (which you never acknowledged by the way), you accuse T.C. of being out of line?

Where is your apology for all the name calling, and judging you have done to me and others?

You have accused me, without basis, of hating homosexuals. I never said anything about hate--just because someone is opposed to something, does not mean we hate. Obviously, you are opposed to those who want to amend our State Constitution to define marriage as between a man and women only. Do you hate me because this is my position? Do you hate Christians? Sounds like a double standard.

Can no one dare be in opposition of a behavior, lest be called a hater, or bigot? That is absolutely illogical. Should society dictate that it is hateful to be against lying, cheating, adultry, drug abuse, murder, or child molesters?

You have also called me incompassionate, an outright lier, insinuated I was gullible, demonizing, dehumaninizing, and mockingly referred to me as a devout Christian.

Others you call bigots, Chritian bigots, and insinuate they are incompetant, you insult and mock our faith, and the Word of God.

My posts have been logicical, and civil, as have T.C., Matt McIntyre, and others on our side of this issue. Your posts, on the other hand, have been hostile (calling your opponents names, and addressing opponents in a very condescending manner), as well as demanding we site all our sources, as if we are writing a term paper for you. Then when a blogger does supply a source, you again go on the attack. It's funny...you do not always back up your claims with sources.

I would like to sign off this blog repeating what Brian Murray posted:

Mike(D) and others...What happened in your lives that causes you to despise those that believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible? I don't see this kind of attack by yourselves and society against other faiths?

P.S. Food for thought: All the major religions of the world oppose homosexuality.

I have a LOT of gray hair on my head, Tyrell. I have a daughter who is in her 30s and a grandson who starts first grade next Fall. But I'm the youngster in my house. I was 30 when I met my partner. He was 60 then and now he's 85 and I'm 55. To use a sports metaphor, I'm in the top of the 6th inning and he's in the bottom of the 9th with two outs. He was born in 1923 and graduated high school in 1941 so he from the era of the Great Depression and World War II. I'm from the Baby Boom generation and the Vietnam Era I'm just a pup compared to him. We celebrated our 25th anniversary at the end of May but that's not the household records. He was partnered previous to a man born in 1908 and they were partners for 32 years. He lost his companion in 1981 and met me in Fresno in 1983 - before you were born! So, if you are inclined to grant credit for fidelity and longevity, my partner has a track record of 57 years of devotion to one man (at a time). We have a small group of friends who have the similar levels of devotion. We lost one friend last year who was partnered for 54 years. He was one of the scientists who put the first man on the moon. They later started a business selling aircraft parts in Los Angeles, a little outfit called "Jet Fittings" that they sold about 15 years ago for several million dollars. The gave haft of their estate to the Alcoholic Anonymous which one of them joined right after WWII. It was a gift of gratitude because it saved one's life. They both volunteered years and years of volunteer service to AA and then branched out to help victims of HIV by working at a kind of estate sale place called "Friends of Dorothy" that raised money to feed homeless, penniless people with AIDS/HIV.

My partner and did similar things in Fresno. I, more than he, because he's had a fragile heart condition for quite some time. I was a full-time volunteer and public advocate for the deaf community in Fresno for several years. Spent many hours standing before the Fresno City Council and County Board of Supervisors begging for funding. I'm deaf, myself, so I didn't do the work purely out of compassion. I worked for IBM when I first arrived in Fresno. Then I completed degrees in Early Childhood Education for a teaching credential and later in English with emphasis in creative writing.

My partner owned and ran a nursing home for almost 50 years with his previous partner. His previous partner's father was a former lieutenant governor of Wisconsin, but this partner also distinguished himself for being the president of the California Nursing Home Association and an officer in the national nursing home association in Washington, D.C. These two guys gave several million dollars to practically every charity you ever heard of and a great many you never heard of. They were the ones whom Howard Johnson's Restaurant wouldn't serve back in 1958. They had just carted a young autistic man 3,000 miles on a train. The young man was prone to very erratic behavior and they had to watch him 24 hours a day, so the trip was absolutely exhausting for them and to make it worse, there was no place to stay in the town the young man was delivered to so they had to catch the train into NYC on Christmas Eve. The young man had been in their nursing home in California and this fellow's parents wanted to save a little money, so they decided to put him in the state mental institution in Connecticut against everyone's advice. About four weeks after he was delivered to Connecticut, the young man jumped out a window in that asylum and died. You couldn't call it suicide because this guy was often very afraid of strangers. He trusted the staff at my partner's nursing home and lived pretty contently but the move back to Connecticut was too much for him.

Enough of this "my partner" "former partner" jumble. Their names were Steve and Ted. Steve was 15 years older than Ted and Ted is my partner now. Steve's was very much like one of those people I described in the discussion on the "Sissy Boy Syndrome". He was pretty girlish from childhood and he took a lot of flack from his four brothers over it. But Steve was no ordinary animal. Like his father, who was a staggering intellectual and a stellar performer in the Wisconsin Republican Party, Steve inherited his father's intellectual gifts and, according to Ted, Steve never spent a day in his life thinking he had a some kind of mental disorder. Steve was extraordinarily gifted with words; should have been a writer or play write, but he followed in his father's footsteps and became an attorney. The striking thing about Steve was his voice. It was undeniably feminine and at the same, most certainly not an adopted affectation. People would call on the phone and ask for Mr. Jones (not his real name) and he'd say, "This is Mr. Jones speaking." And as often as not, the caller would then say, "Oh no. I don't want to speak with Mrs. Jones. I'm calling for Mr. Jones." Steve's voice was like Truman Capote's, without the dragging lisp (which, by the way, was Capote's natural voice). But Steve also had every gift for conversation that Capote had. I never met Steve but I spent the first 10 years of my partnership with Ted meeting people who knew him very well and I heard this stuff about his eloquence in conversation many, many times. He was much loved, highly regarded by so many people I often (and still do) wish I'd known him myself.

Ted was from a completely different environment. He was a small town boy from Indiana and very much a child of the Great Depression. His father ironed shirts in a dry cleaning business and make $25.00 a week and Ted started working when he was 10 years old. As an adult, he would support both of them. He bought them a house and sent them half his pay check and both of them died in their 90s in his nursing home. As a boy he delivered groceries and scrimped and save his money to buy a bicycle so he could make more deliveries. Once he got the bicycle, his boss had an order for a case of matches from another business and sent Ted on his bicycle to deliver them. On the way, someone driving a car hit Ted and knocked him down. He wasn't hurt but the case of matches went flying into the street and ignited and completely burned up. Ted's boss make him pay for that case of matches and Ted worked for NOTHING for the next two months to repay this crook. That's really the story about Ted. He always shouldered his duties and responsibilities and just kept moving. If you have a sister, you'll appreciate this next little tidbit. Ted's sister was 2 years older and like a lot of young girls she just HAD to have the latest in style which, in the early 1930s was permed hair. Ted had been working delivering groceries and had saved up something like six dollars over the course of three months and he listened to his sister cry for a couple of days about her hair. He couldn't stand it. He was very sensitive and he felt sorry for her so he handed over his three-months pay to his sister. Ted was another version of this "Sissy Boy" profile. He didn't have the feminine-sounding voice or mannerisms. He was/is more like the majority of gay men: disinclined toward rough play; preferred girls as playmates; liked playing "house" and dressing up to play "daddy and mommie" when he was a child. The notible thing about gender non-conformists boys is they will play the part of "mommie" as readily as they will "daddy". Me? I played Miss America Pageant in the back yard with my sisters all the time! I grew up on a farm in Oklahoma and that's where Anita Bryant was from. She was Miss Oklahoma/America one year and captured the attention of every girl (and quite a few boys) so I had great fun doing it. I didn't wear dresses (and didn't want to). We just did the talent competition and I sang every Loretta Lynn songs I knew. Bryant, in case you're not aware, headed a landmark initiative to bar gays from teaching in Florida. So there's quite a bit of irony in my mind over having held her in such high esteem when I was growing up.

When Ted and Steve were young men, there was no gay community; no gay flag, no gay advocacy groups, no gay parade, no gay publications, no gay anything. "Gay" was a common term at least from the turn of the 20th century but It was a "code" word that was used in the shadows by gay people trying to find other gay people. Unlike black people, whose march for civil rights was preceded by 100 years of work by northern abolitionists, gays had no social movement whatsoever until they created them. That's because homosexuality had always been regarded as a mental disorder or sin, depending on whom you asked. Indeed, while black people had the abolitionists to precede them, the first advocates for gays came from the mental health field that only came about in the 1960s and '70s. After Alfred Kinsey dropped the bomb on American with his report on male sexuality, a psycho-therapist named Evelyn Hooker decided to look into the state of mental health of gay men. In the 1960s she gave gay men the standard tests that any man, gay or straight, would be administered when they were being evaluated for counseling. No one had ever tried this before. The medical establishment knew that Sigmund Freud believed there was nothing especially wrong with homosexuals, but that had no impact on the psycho-therapy establishment with regard to their beliefs about gays. Hooker was the one who delivered the shocking news that gay men were indistinguishable from straight men in terms of their mental health and ability to deal with daily life. She was the first to say that homosexuality should be removed from the APA's list of mental disorders.

Steve's parents were Catholic and they attended mass every Sunday. His mother was stridently religious but his father spent no small amount of discourse, but publicly and privately, mocking the Catholic church and it was often said that his mocking attitude was the reason he never became governor of Wisconsin, a heavily Catholic state that was well aware of the criticism Steve's father engaged in. Nonetheless, Steve's mother insisted her children go to church, but the father would let Steve sit in the car and read if he wanted to; something Steve was happy to do. Ted's family were Methodists and they were church-goes but especially "churchy" people. His parents were well-read and encouraged education but they weren't like Steve's family - opinionated intellectuals. Ted did have some experience with Catholics. The diocese of Los Angeles "retired" a priest back in the 1920s who hailed from Ted's little Indiana town. This priest retired to his brother's home which was half way down the block from where Ted lived and he proceeded to do there what he was "retired" for in Los Angeles - molest the neighborhood boys and girls. Ted was sexually abused several times when he was only six years old and he said he and the other kids didn't know it was wrong. But Ted's father, not knowing it was actually happening to his own son at that very moment, had a conversation with a neighbor in Ted's presence in which he told this neighbor why the priest had been "kicked out of the Catholic Church." Ted says he was pretty shocked to find out that what this priest was doing was wrong, but like so many kids over who-knows-how-long, Ted never told his parents or anyone else what happened. I asked Ted once if he thought that experience had anything to do with his being gay. He said, "Are you kidding! I wanted to dress up for halloween as May West in kindergarten and my mother let me." Lots of people question whether childhood experiences are a factor in someone becoming homosexual. Ted didn't think so because he thought of that experience as being no different one of those "you show me yours and I'll show you mine" experiences that practically all kids experience. He said Steve simply didn't have any experiences like that so there was no way to confirm that.

I never did, either. I was a lot more naive and "unsophisticated" (stupid) as a child than both Ted and Steve. I never met anyone who was gay until I was 30 years old and I spent a great deal of time in my early years wondering just exactly WHAT I was. I remember finally hearing about the word "homosexual" but I never imagined that had anything to do with me, and for a good reason. I had romantic interests in grown men when I was young, sort of like what people call a "crush". These were local farmers I admired and, yeah, I thought they were handsome men. But "homosexual" in my neck of the woods was always described as some kind of hideous, deranged baby strangler type of personality so I simply saw no relationship between what I felt and that kind of description. I certainly knew I couldn't talk about my feeling around anyone and it was my father who that imparted that knowledge. We were like any Okie farm family. We worked together and we entertained each other because we had no money to do anything else. One night we were sitting outside, I and my four siblings and our parents, all of us shelling black eyed peas from our garden. Our parents were playing with us and teasing us a little asking each of us, "When you grow up, who are you going to marry?" We each got to answer. I got my dad's leather belt across my backside for my answer. I said, "I want to marry Joe Dewey." (a local farmer) I had told this to my younger sister several times before and thought nothing of it. My mom was pretty sweet about it. She said, "You can't marry a man?" And my parents laughed. But I wanted to know why and there simply was no challenging my father on something like that. I started crying and he got upset and the next thing I knew, off came his belt and I got butt beaten. I NEVER talked about that subject any more, but I thought about it many, many times when I was growing up.

My dad had lost a leg to diabetes so he was always at home. I and was the middle kid so my mom and two older siblings picked cotton and worked for neighboring farmers while I stayed at home and cooked, cleaned house, washed clothes, watched my two younger siblings and did everything my dad wanted done, like feed chickens and pigs and take care of the garden. One day we had this rare moment of sitting together in our kitchen, sharing a glass of iced tea, and my dad said to me, "I noticed you don't hold a glass like other boys do." Oh boy! That comment from my father floored me. He sat there and gave me a lesson on "how real boys hold their iced tea glass" or maybe, "how to not look so sissyfied when you drink tea." I was forever self-conscious about my mannerisms after that. My dad was enormous. Six foot seven inches tall and I was always afraid of and intimidated by him. God! I felt I'd broken his heart that day and I still had no idea of what he was getting at outside of not quit being BOY enough to please him. I thought he meant I ought to get muddy and dirty more; maybe learn to drive a tractor or grease a combine or castrate a pig. That's not what he meant. I didn't feel like a girl, but at some point later on in my life it did occur to me that IF I were a girl, I wouldn't have to worry about being infatuated with men. I could just do what girls do to. I could marry a man and my dad wouldn't be upset about it.

These days, when people bowl you over about "gays CHOOSE to be gay" these memories from my childhood and Ted's stories about himself and his partner, Steve, are what I go back to. These are the moments I remember being attracted to men. They didn't occur in my adulthood. They were there in my childhood, just like my left-handedness. Just - there. And they never left me. Ted had a very similar memory of the first man he had a crush on. In his day, ice was delivered by horse-drawn wagon and the guy who delivered to Ted's house had lost an arm in World War I. Ted and his mother would hear the bell ringing on the horse's neck and go out to meet the ice wagon. Ted said this guy was just a friendly guy whom everyone knew and had a friendly regard for and he told his mother he wanted to marry him some day. That was that. Just a memory Ted had from a very young age. We both smile about these things in the context of this argument over marriage. For as far back as we can remember we both had memories of having a high regard for marriage and we told the people who were the most important to us about that - our parents. You already know what they thought. My parents were upset. Ted's just dismissed his talk as that of a child saying something he had no understanding of. We're not children any more and marriage matters a great deal to us. We don't have much time left together due to Ted's age and health issues so we feel a sense of urgency about getting married. We will be doing that on the first day allowed by law, June 17. It's not our anniversary date but it's a day we look forward to more than anything we've ever had to wait on. Our daughter, grandson, son-in-law and our friends will be there. It's already the greatest day we've ever had and I hold my breath all the time thinking how horrible it would be if Ted's heart gave out and we missed our big day. I don't want to even think about that.

McIntyre wrote: "Here's where my association of bisexuals with homosexuals comes from. There's a term, GLBTQ, that has been thrown in the face of educators for the last few years. As we've been told by downtown administration, we have to be aware of our students' sexual orientation and an "ACLU mandate," complete with a threat of a massive lawsuit, who says that we have to watch a video each year about the struggle you've described above. The yearly “workshop” implies that we are not to interfere with those students who essentially want try out whatever sexually-oriented lifestyle they wish, and decide at a later date in their life how they want to live. This is being “recommended” to students in elementary schools. We are told that these children are bullied and called names, as you have described above, and that we need to be alert for signs of bullying. My problem is that 1st through 6th graders (whether “sissies” or not) don’t need to be discussing fine details of sexual reproduction with anyone other than there parents. It is not the position of the schools to tell my children or your children the kinds of things reserved for parents."

The "Q" in "GLBTQ" bugs me, but that's a generational quirk. Young gay kids are just like young straight kids when it comes to that overwhelming urge to distinguish themselves for the previous generation. "Queer" is very 1990 or 2000, like "Gen X". It the word du jour for this generation of gay kids. I'm pretty literal in my tastes. "Homosexual" suit me just fine. "Gay" is quicker to say and type and it doesn't bug me. "Fag" leaves me pretty much like the "N'" word does with black people. It's always meant to hurt so I don't like it. But kids today call each other FAG when they're best friends and not even gay; like a term of endearment. i was once standing outside a 7-11 and this kid there was shouting across the street to his friends, "Hey you faggots. Get your ass over here and buy me a Coke." It was all in fun. But you can TELL when it's meant to inflict damage. The problem is that kids usually reserve the real insults for times when they're out of earshot of teachers.

Matt, my training is in early childhood education (ECE) and I see reason to agree with you on several levels in terms of "teaching" this complex stuff to very young kids. I don't think K-through third grade kids would even get it. I also have issues with it as a parent. Bullying should be addressed in EVERY grade but it doesn't have to be specific to gay sensibilities for the younger (K-3) kids. Teachers are very wise people and they know name-calling goes on all the time. For very young children they also know that a general "zero tolerance" applied to ALL name-calling is very effective no matter what "name" is called. I think that ought to be the standard. My daughter's sixth grade teacher was gay and one of the fourth grade teachers was gay. Her fifth grade teacher had a gay son and in all of these grades we had such devastating hurt inflicted on us as a family that, in all honesty, we have never gotten over. It STILL hurts and it all started with teachers permitting it or actually being the ones creating the environment that results in indescribable hurt. My daughter's second grade teacher was so stunned about us being gay, she could hardly look at us much less speak to us. That was an awful situation to be in because my daughter was, at that time, going to special education classes an hour a day for assistance in reading. The classes brought her up to grade level but we were pretty much locked out by this teacher because she was overwhelmed by us.

We're not dress-wearing, nelly boys. We are both as ordinary and conventional-looking as any straight man on God's green earth. We don't priss or talk with a lisp or have ANY of those cliche-laden characteristics that horrify so many people. We lived next door to Fresno County Supervisor Sharon Levy and her multi-millionaire husband Joe Levy in the most affluent neighborhood in all of Fresno County and we chose that neighborhood because of the academic record of the Bullard district as a whole. But, oh God! We never told ANYONE we were gay. Our daughter outed us and we might as well have been rainbow colored from that point in terms of the horrors we experienced in relation to our daughter's education and our family life. Our daughter was damn near suicidal from all the hateful shit kids said to her and there was, with a couple of exceptions, not a damn move to stop it by school official no matter how much snorting and screaming we did over it.

It was TERRIBLE. Our daughter's education was RUINED by the abuse from other students, the neglect of teachers or the aid and encouragement of school officials. We had students walking by our home calling us FAGS, driving by in cars screaming "FAGS"! People shooting guns at our cars, diving over our lawn, spraying painting our driveway.

My partner and i never marched in a gay parade in our lives. We were too busy making a home and working. We didn't have rainbow (or any) bumper stickers plastered all over our car. All we ever did was be good neighbors and good members of the community and we got SHIT on by the children of the wealthiest families in Fresno Unified. My daughter's elementary school principal STALKED ME throughout my teacher training to make sure everyone knew I was "around the children" and when I went to my first job interview, Oh God! That was the most painful, humiliating experience in my entire working career. That principal LITERALLY screamed at me within five minutes of my arrival. No mention of my being gay was ever uttered. I could not for the life of me understand what was going on with this guy. I had go breath in bag after I left that interview. I was sick for days after that. I had just finished seven fucking years of college so I could make a living as a teacher and that was my FIRST opportunity to do anything besides substitute teaching. It completely destroyed my chance and I and my family suffered for months - real pain - over that. There was just no way in HELL I was going to work in that environment, having to constantly worry about WHEN the hammer would drop and some fag-hating principal would write a bad performance report on me just to get rid of me.

The best thing we ever did was get the hell out of Fresno. We all have tremendous sentimental feeling about friends and experiences we had there and we miss those things, but the horrors we went though damn near did us all in. It really wrecked the harmony in our house and that harmony was unrestored until we got as far away from Fresno as we could get.

My kid was being called a lesbian in the fifth grade and it HURTS. Thankfully, her teacher's son was gay because if it had been the second grade teacher, NOTHING would have been done. You don't have to be gay to receive that treatment. This is ORDINARY for the children of gays. It's the RULE, not the EXCEPTION. You don't even have to be gay or the child of a gay person to have this happen to you. I HATE that woman for that. I HATE that principal for what he did to my daughter and my family. I HATE them and I've never hated anyone in my life. We got the full dose of religiously-motivated bigotry leveled on us and it changed us all FOREVER. I'm not religious any more, as you might imagine, BECAUSE of those experiences, but I don't mind saying that I THANK GOD we had sense enough to allow our daughter to drop out of school and get away from that sickening stuff. I thank GOD we left that horrible town. As much as I loved some things about Fresno, I cannot but feel my stomach turn when I hear the name of that town uttered.

I'm abundantly aware of the "Teaching Tolerance" movement. It was started by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization we have been donating to for about 30 years. It began as a program to fight the Ku Klux Klan and about 100 other violent hate organizations and that's what attracted us to it. They expanded their scope to include anti-gay violence and they were the ORIGINAL organization to document hate crimes against blacks, religious minorities (Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.), the handicapped and gays and lesbians. They taught the states that keep hate crime statistics how to do it. We get their reports every month so we know that violence against several minority groups is practically an everyday thing in this country. Black people STILL suffer them most and gays are virtually always second on the list of people who are being murdered, assaulted, maimed, threatened, intimidated and bullied. Most commonly, gay high school teen agers are the ones getting beaten up and the SPLC has sued school districts in conjunction with the ACLU to get their attention. There have been some HORRIFIC cases in which high school students were brutalized almost daily by other students, the bullies reported daily for doing it, and the school simply turning it's back on the kid who was getting the shit beat out of him. I'll invoke the deity again and say THANK GOD my child didn't get beaten up but other kids. But to this day she talks about school just as if getting beaten up was all that ever happened to her.

Somebody has to protect your child when they are in school and they can't discriminate. Bullying, for ANY reason, should be dealt with swiftly and with justice. If a child can't refrain for knocking other kids around or taunting them, that kid should not be allowed in that school.

Bless you Brian. We only need to plant the seed and God will nurture it in growth. May God Bless everyone on this blog no matter what their beliefs.

John Witte Jr., director of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University said,
"In a 121-page opinion, the [California Supreme] Court does not offer a single shred of scientific evidence to prove its assertion that sexual orientation is a natural trait or immutable characteristic like race and gender."

To see more of the CT article & their perspective, and information on how it will affect all faith-based organizations and churches, and the probable legal problems that will arise: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/2.18.html

TC: Are you still poking around on this thread? Why didn't you answer my question: Do you shave?

How do fundamentalist Christians justify their rigid adherence to some parts of the Bible but not others? If, as a fellow commenter has suggested, it was because the New Testament supersedes certain parts of the Old Testament, who gets to decide? Sounds like relativism to me.

...on a recent Sunday morning at my church, the Fresno Gay Men's Choir sang, and it was lovely,...eternity is a long time T.C., but by God, we'll have good music brother, Amen.

TC,

Tell DW you shave!!! Tell DW you shave!!! He/She won't understand an explanation anyway!!!

Tell DW about your baked clam and bacon sandwich the other day!!!

(DW, as anyone reads and studies the Bible, they can address your concerns...)

...I know, I said I wouldn't answer, but I had about 5 minutes between doing laundry and washing the dishes...

Mr. Murray--thank you for posing what I believe is a heart-felt question.

I certainly don't dislike all Christians. However, I have problems with folks who: (1) want their religious beliefs to determine policy, to the exclusion of all other viewpoints; (2) call those who don't share their religious views "evil" and "agents of the devil"; (3) take over a "National Day of Prayer" and attempt to exclude all other faiths, including those Christians they don't agree with. And, that's for starters.

This temptation for certain Christians to meddle in political affairs has been a problem for several centuries. Elizabeth I of England had to keep a firm thumb down on certain Christian sects.

I was taught that questions of religious faith were best left in church and in people's hearts, to be practiced on an individual level. Along with that came the lesson that politics and religion were subjects best discussed in private. When people lost sight of that homily, the seeds of religious dislike were planted.

DW / Matt

I don’t mind an honest debate - that’s what free speech is all about; but then there are those whose sarcastic and mocking comments distract from the discussion.

Maybe the following verses have a bearing on such situations:

[The Message] Prov 26:4 "Don't respond to the stupidity of a fool; you'll only look foolish yourself."

Prov 29:9 "A sage trying to work things out with a fool gets only scorn and sarcasm for his trouble."

More Religious Bigoty before California Supreme Court:

What now? Will doctors now be able to refuse medical treatment to gays and lesbians on religious grounds? That's what the North Coast Women's Care Medical Group wants. In a case being heard today by the California Supreme Court, the group is at its last stop in trying to refuse treatment to a lesbian who went to them for treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome because the Group was the provider for Guadalupe Benitez's insurance coverage. The Group refused to provide the service, citing religious grounds.

The Group was the contractually exclusive provider for Benitez' insurance coverage and after Benitez filed suit and won based on California's non-discrimination laws, an appellate court overturned the ruling saying religious freedom trumps discrimination laws.

If the Group prevails, this opens the door for professionals and businesses to deny service for a host of medical services, including pharmacutical services to homosexuals on religious grounds. People with HIV seeking medical treatment and medication could be turned away on religious grounds; a practice that has already cropped up in businesses throughout California and other states. Treatment of any disease whatsoever could be denied on religious grounds and invite wholesale and massive collapse of healthcare coverage for virtually anyone seeking treatment from a provider who exercised their religious freedom rights. That could mean a backlash for Jews, Moslems, Jehovahs Witnesses, Catholics and others from the religious faiths who need only cite their beliefs to shield their decision from the law.

We look forward to the Constitutional Amendment from the religious right to insure their beliefs always trump the rights of anyone they are in dispute with, regardless of the consequences to the health of those individuals. This new amendment can be modeled on the one that will be voted on in November which seeks to exclude gay and lesbian taxpayers from receiving any benefit from the taxes they pay to support the benefits of marriage, regardless of how much tax gays & lesbians have paid. You can call the new law the "Care and Compassion Amendment" and say it is employed to "Protect our state from homosexuals who are trying to live too long, have fewer, cavities, and use up all our Viagra."

A letter to the editor of my local newspaper:

"J.B expresses her fervent hope that Californians will overturn the Supreme Court's decision to authorize same-sex civil marriages. She seems unconcerned that, to accomplish this, voters must amend the state's constitution to rescind a civil right already granted by the state's highest court.

This has never occurred in the history of our state or, for that matter, our federal courts. When the court struck down the ban on interracial marriage 60 years ago, it was highly unpopular, but the decision prevailed as did those on school desegregation, equal voting rights and a host of others. No amendments were passed to overturn the new rights.

To embark on this new and dangerous path is to open the door to other possible withdrawals of civil rights via the amendment process. Might divorce be the next to go or immigrant rights or tax exemptions for religious institutions?

J. B. should be careful what she wishes for. Other groups have other priorities, some of which migh affect her.

D.R.
Southern California"

To this letter I would add that when the ban on interracial marriage was struck down, sentiments against the court's action were running 80% against to 20% in favor - not the 51% in favor of same-sex marriages to 49% against we are seeing now. Add to that, that some 58 per cent are against amending the constitution to bar same-sex marriage and you have the current state of the public's thinking.

To all who have commented, there are so many comments my head was spinning trying to read them all. This is for sure a contraversial issue to say the least.

But for those of you so set on passing this ammendment, I ask you to take a moment look up the ammendment and see exactly what it says regarding the rights of gay and lesbian people and the rights they continue to lose.

The right to health and medical insurance, the right to make decisions should their partner become incapacitated, the right to pursue a wrongful death case, the right to be a stepparent, the right to child support, the right to alimony.

I would like to suggest a simple solution to the problem the gay and lesbian community call theirs an Equal Marriage, why not take that concept and use it to denote a same sex marriage. Then the Marriage License could be written specifically designed to them and the bride and groom spot on the original license does not have to read party a and party b. The Equal Marriage should entitle them to all the privileges they currently do not share with a man and woman marriage. What do you think does it sound feasable to both parties of the first part and second part or not? Just a thought to resolve a very serious issue for many people on both sides of the debate.

Fred,

Pardon my noticing but what you've proposed is what Brown vs. Board of Education forbids - separate by equal is not equal. It would still imply that "Marriage" is superior to "Equal Marriage" and set up a different class. What you propose is the same as calling education "School" for white kids and "Equal School" for black kids; "Vote" for men and "Equal Vote" for women; "White-Only Marriage" for whites and "Mixed-Race Marriage" for couples of mixed race.

I think you can see the problem. "Marriage" describes the level of commitment two people promise to each other. You could call it New Super Fantastic Just As Equal Marriage like you pitching the latest breakfast serial but we are admonished by our junior high school English to "beware the incomplete comparion." The question? Newer, more fantastic, more just as equal than what?

Well, "Equal Marriage" as you describe it is exactly the same as plain old "marriage". You can give it another name but do you really think people, when asked about their marital status, are going to say, "I'm equal married." ? No. They'll drop the "equal" part and say they are married and they can do that without lying. If someone presses them on the issue, they would be doing so to DELIBERATELY make a distinction between the two classes. I can just hear it. "Oh, you're in an Equal Marriage. That's different from REAL marriage." It may not be different in terms of legal benefits and responsibilities, but it would matter to, say, a healthcare provider who had a religious reason they didn't want to treat a gay person. The supreme court is looking at that very issue right now. The health care provider wouldn't provide treatment to a SINGLE (unmarried) woman. The woman was unmarried because she was forbidden by law from marrying her partner of 18 years. The provider USED THAT MARITAL STATUS AGAINST HER in addition to stating they would not treat a lesbian for religious reasons. Anyone who receives tax dollars for treating patients may NOT discriminate on religious grounds. They have the option of not providing services paid for by tax dollars. But NOBODY in the healthcare field opts out of tax-supported health care payments because they'd go broke in a big hurry. Non-discrimination has been a part of California law for a couple of decades.

The simplest thing to do is call marriage what it is and stop trying to dress it up as something it isn't.

To R. Foster,
Thank You for your lenghthy explanation, however the Gay and Lesbian community are the one's that coined the phrase "Equal Marriage".

They were the one's implying the difference in a Gay and Lesbian relationship where decisions are of equal foresight on the part of both the partners.
They made that decision based on the concept that somehow the man of the house had the final say in many marriages and cultures.

So it is the Gay and Lesbian community that have already laid the frame work for the separatest marriages. I simply picked up the term and ran with it to see what public opinion might be? People are so sensitive on the issue they can't even be satisfied with a term they developed to somehow try and make their fair and equal marriage somehow superior to regular marriage. Some people will not accept the concept that they would receive all the benefits with the exception of forcing the heterosexual community to change the marriage license to better reflect them instead. The first change being predicted is the replacement of Bride and Groom with Party A and Party B. Somehow that seems the Gay and Lesbian community are desicrating years of history and tradition to satisfy their own whims. So tell me who is really persucuted by this ruling and the emphatic resolution of Gays and Lesbians to change society to accept them? Rather than be willing to have some ratical changes but accept the principle that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The entire ceremony for marriage is based on that of a man and a woman. So why rewrite chapter and verse to satisfy one group of people.

I disagree with the ammendment as it is written but rewrite it and take out all those liberties the gay and lesbian community won't receive and I'd vote for it in a heart beat. Keep in mind if it does pass not a judicial commitee in the world can set aside an ammendment only the popular vote of the people can and we already know how that will fall 61% majority if 2000 was any indication.

This isn't about rights it's about some stupid principle to make change in mankind to satisfy the minority instead of the majority.

Take the religous argument out of it, no people should have the right as a minority to set aside the people's will/vote with their own.

If that's the case lets set aside Obama's recent victory and replace it with one for Hillary. Makes the same kind of idiotic decision as the four judges in the California Supreme Court.
Afterall everyone knows it's a woman who truly deserves a shot at President before a man of color.

Yes there are people who feel that way should we accept their decision over our own?

Should we rewrite the entire constitution because in order to run for President there resides an age requirement? Isn't that age discrimination, isn't that illegal?

Fred, That's close to the most convoluted collection of BS I've seen on this issue. Besides not being able to understand your argument because of your sentence construction, I don't know how you dreamed up these arguments. This statement for example: "They made that decision based on the concept that somehow the man of the house had the final say in many marriages and cultures."
Huh?
And: "They were the one's implying the difference in a Gay and Lesbian relationship where decisions are of equal foresight on the part of both the partners."
What are you trying to say in that sentence? Having taught high school English, i'd say you need a little experience in sentence construction. Separate, or combined, there's no way readers can understand the point you're trying to make in those two sentences. Anyone care to translate?
I don't know what the hell you're talking about. What kind of families do you think we homos come from? Our PARENTS were our role models. From them we learn that compromise is important to the success of the relationship. But we also learn that each person leading a family has talents. There's nothing mysterious or new about a man being the leader in his home but civil marriage doesn't mandate it like (we hear) some Christians saying the bible does. Nor is it unusual for a female to lead a household. And, yes, in same-sex household one partner may emerge as the final decision maker and that's not a matter of law; rather is the mutual recognition that that person is best equipped to handle the big decisions. That's a matter of the evolution of the couple's relationship. So what! Different people have different talents. One partner may out earn the other by a small or significant margin and that often has an impact on who is the "decider" but not always. It sounds like you'd be shocked to learn that people can have equality in a relationship regardless of the sexual makeup or economic clout of the people involved.

The "EQUAL" in "Equal Marriage" has nothing to do with whether one, the other, or both persons in a marriage involving a same-sex couple holds the decision-making power in the household. I'm stunned you didn't know that but I shouldn't be because I've encountered the same (and worse) misrepresentations of this issue hundreds of times in my time.
EQUAL has to do with the RIGHTS OF TAX-PAYING CITIZENS to enjoy the SAME benefits they paid for with their tax dollars and not be excluded from those benefits without a compelling reason, including calling it "Domestic Partnership". Did you ever hear of The Boston Tea Party? From that historic event arose the phrase, "No taxation without representation." Explained, that phrase means if the government is going to impose a tax, there has to be a public benefit associated with it: new roads built, public parks or buildings built, for example, would show that the money paid in taxes were being used for a public benefit, a benefit for ANY person who paid taxes and not a benefit reserved for a hand-picked group who supposedly merits some kind of special privilege. King George put a tax on tea ONLY to fill his personal treasury. Colonists paid tax on tea, in essence, to make ONE man wealthier. They got NO benefit from their tax dollars. Gays and lesbians were the EQUAL access to the benefits we pay for and not just at the state level. We do get some in California, but we are BARRED from over !,200 benefits at the federal level that straight married people get just for plopping down their $68.00 at the courthouse, often on a whim after like Brittanie Spears. Sheesh! She was GUARANTEED social security widows income even when she didn't give a rat's ass about the responsibilities of marriage. And she called that a MARRIAGE? And she got the blessing of straight society for doing THAT? For God's sake! Talk about devaluing marriage! And hey.! She can do it every day of the week for the rest of her life and no one will go out and collect signatures on an initiative to stop her or anyone else from trivializing the institution of marriage. We'll never see a constitution amendment to ban divorce, which is responsible for the failure of HALF of all new marriages and we're not talking about half of California marriages. We talking the ENTIRE United States. What's wrong with those people who divorce? Didn't their marriage vows mean ANYTHING? In poll upon poll for the past hundred years, American claim to be Christians at the rate of 90-plus per cent of the population. That means that HALF of all divorces in this country are undertaken by CHRISTIANS. Who, then, is trivializing the sancity of marriage? Gay people are but 3 to 7 percent of the population and not all of us want to marry. Why are we held up as some kind of horrible curse on this institution that Christians already treat with such distain and disrepect? Why? Here's why. Religious bigotry!
That's the position gays and lesbians find themselves in. We PAY for the benefits that accrue to married people, but were BARRED legally from enjoying the benefits of those tax dollars. Our tax dollars went into the Franchise Tax Board and NOTHING comes out. We pay for the schools your kids go to school at and gay couple with children send their kids to these schools. But we have a special LEGAL issue we have to overcome that requires us to pay more. Since we aren't married, school officials have the right and obligation to discuss a student's academic program ONLY with that child's legal parent or guardian. That means we have to pay a lawyer to get parental or guardianship status so that person can do one simple thing - talk to a teacher about their child's education.

NO religious requirement for marriage exists in ANY of the 50 states and for good reason: The STATE controls who can and cannot marry, not individual religions. If you are religious, your church may most certainly determine where your marriage will be blessed or acknowledged. Any Catholic knows that. But NO citizen of California has to ask the Pope or Pat Robertson or Billy Graham for permission to marry and none those religious leaders can decide who will or will not receive the benefits of state citizenship. Our STATE decides that and given that we have a constitutional government, we are fortunate that the MAJORITY cannot exclude tax-paying citizens from their rights as citizens on a whim, even if the whim is religiously motived.

It never ceases to amaze me when people run out of intelligent articulate conversation it always becomes and enters into a personal attack.
Now should I respond and attack you for being a lousy High School Teacher who has forgot the meaning of the word teacher? Not offering constructive critisim just critisim. I can only imagine the successes you have launched in your many years of teaching with that attitude. I guess it's a good thing Jesus didn't have a High School Teacher questioning his every word, his sentence structor might also be questionable. But should people ignore him and all his glory because of it. I've fought in war, I've Managed Business, I've attended College and never was I told they could not understand my sentence structor or the meaning of a sentence, you must be a very SPECIAL Teacher to recognize it so quickly. To use that simple fact to try and distort my over all comments is a nice ploy but not very professional of someone who claims to be so professional. Your poison pen denotes prejudice on your part and I am sure your forward moving students were all gay or lesbian.

Perhaps on the otherhand congratulate you for maintaining your position in the closet for all those many years you taught at the High School level and weren't found out. I always thought and understood teachers were held at a higher standard than the average bear. Not too many years ago you would have been dismissed from your position at once. Aren't you glad times have changed?

I can't believe a teacher is complaining about a safety net that is applied for a child. Not anyone, I don't care who you are can receive information from any school until such time as proper identification and relationship has been established with said child. That is the law, and laws are in place to protect our children and I guess you don't agree with child protection. Did you understand that sentence or do I need to rewrite it one hundred times for you to get the point?

Furthermore, you become emblazened in ire when I use a term coined within "your community"? Perhaps it is your fellow gay and lesbian friends you should be angry with, instead of me? Albeit, I have noticed a lot of anger generated from your blogs, thus I must determine you are the decision maker in your relationship, are you not? I doubt your life partner, (since you still aren't in a legal marriage), seldom gets a word in edgewise?

You have significantly changed my mind, with the fire breathing attack you launch on schools for their protection of children. Your demonstrative demeanor and lashing out. I must vote yes for the Ammendment in November. So go forward with the knowledge that you just cost your group a vote in their favor on this issue. I guess it is a good thing that proper sentence structor isn't a requirement to cast a ballot?

Did you ever stop to think that your comments are costing you support, very much needed support since you lost the last vote by 61%? That sentence wasn't too complicated for you now was it?

Do you really expect me to believe it is tax law you are interested in changing? Nice thought but we both know this is about much more than benefits you are lacking. I can approve of the passing of extended benefits much quicker than I can agree with rewriting the entire marriage license. When you get through with it the only recognizable part of it will be Today's Date. No more will the term bride and groom be included and everyone knows it is not marriage without a bride and groom?

You are right about one thing the state does control the marriage laws. However, when this becomes an ammendment of the state constitution some Justice can't overturn that decision. In History we are taught only the popular vote can over turn an ammendment, then what? Do you take Governor Arnold hostage until you receive what you want? Did you not read the earlier post this is already an ammendment in twenty of the states, California won't be the first or the last to pass it. You have no farther to look than in the mirror for blame when demanding to change the will of the people of the United States. Be glad you aren't in the Middle East they have much more permanent methods of dealing with the situation.

Fred wrote: "You are right about one thing [,] the state does control the marriage laws. However, when this becomes an ammendment [amendment] of the state constitution some Justice [justice] can't overturn that decision. In History [history] we are taught only the popular vote can over turn [overturn] an ammendment [amendment], then what? Do you take Governor Arnold hostage until you receive what you want? Did you not read the earlier post this is already an ammendment [amendment] in twenty of the states, [;] California won't be the first or the last to pass it. You have no farther [further] to look than in the mirror for blame when demanding to change the will of the people of the United States. Be glad you aren't in the Middle East [;] they have much more permanent methods of dealing with the situation."

Fred: Besides a little review in English, maybe a repeat of US History class is in order for you, too. We don't live in a pure democracy where the majority can vote away the rights of citizens they don't like. We live in a *constitutional* democracy in the United States. That means our courts are empowered BY the people to prevent the majority from making minorities strangers to the law. If we didn't have a constitutional democracy, we'd still have segregated schools (see Brown vs. Board of Education) It most certainly WAS the majority's will and vote to create and enforce separate schooling for children. Maybe you don't remember seeing Alabama Governor George Wallace standing in front of the door to the administration building at the University of Alabama saying he would never allow the college to be integrated. I remember it with such horror, it still shocks me today to even think of it. We'd still have states where black and white people (in California, white and hispanic or white and asian) could not marry (see Loving vs. Virginia). We'd have no one named Barack Obama running for President because his mother was white and his father black. He would be able to campaign in any state that had such a law. Those states didn't simply overturn bad laws and begin saying whites and blacks could marry. They were FORCED to do so when the United States Supreme Court nullified laws the states would NOT change. Had Colorado's "Amendment 2" not been struck down by both the Colorado Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court, we'd now have not just Colorado, but those other 20 states that now have constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage, making laws that read "No law may be passed in Colorado granting rights or privileges to homosexuals." In other words, if you were gay and wanted to adopt the children of relatives who died in some tragic accident, you not only couldn't because you were gay, you also couldn't because the law barred homosexuals from being adoptive parents and you couldn't change the law because the constitution explicitly said "no law granting privileges or rights to homosexuals may be enacted in Colorado." (see Romer vs. Evans) We'd still have states like Texas where private consensual intimate relationships between opposite-sex adults was a right awarded by the state, but the same consensual relationship between same-sex adults was a CRIME, and not just a crime where you go pay a fine. Texas argued that the law was "merely a misdemeanor" for which same-sex couples would have to pay a fine. But at the same time this law required same-sex couples to register PERMANENTLY as sex-offenders if they were caught in violation. If this consenting same-sex couple held a state license (for example, as an interior designer or school teacher) the license was automatically revoked and the convicted persons not only could not work in the field of employment they may have trained years for, they also had to notify the state any time they changed residences because they were lumped in with rapists and pedophiles under the law and subject to being tracked. This Texas law, and the similar laws in twelve other states, was NULLIFIED by the United States Supreme Court (see Lawrence vs. Texas); not by a vote of the majority. The majority of Texans WANTED to penalize gay and lesbian adults for their private, consensual acts but specifically did NOT want opposite-sex adults to be penalize for doing EXACTLY the same thing. It's called "The Tyranny of the Majority" and that's why we have a **constitutional** democracy: because the majority isn't always right. Are you now saying that the majority vote of the people is to always prevail? If you are, then you didn't learn ANYTHING in your US History classes.

Oh! And you go further! You urge me to think how lucky we are that we don't have the death penalty, like many Middle Eastern and African countries have as a solution for homosexuality. Naturally I am grateful that our constitutional government is more evolved and fair compared to those countries who still live in the Dark Ages. I recall reading about World War II, a war my companion was a soldier in (I served during the Vietnam Era. Neither of us were drafted. We both volunteered). Alan Turning, an Englishman who was known to be skilled at solving puzzles, was called upon by the British government to try his hand as cracking the German's "Enigma Code" which they used to transmit encrypted messages to their fighting forces. Turning broke that code almost single-handedly and every history of WWII says he was the most instrumental person in the war effort because his work made it possible for the Allies to defeat Hitler. Alan Turning's home was robbed after the war and when police came to investigate they discovered that Turning was a homosexual. He was prosecuted because homosexuality was a crime in England and he was given the choice of either going to jail or accepting probation while undergoing psycho-analysis AND hormone treatment. He was fired from his job. This is the man whom computer engineers regard as the father of modern computer science. Never mind that we'd all be speaking German if not for Alan Turning. The majority of English WANTED homosexuality to be a crime. Let us be thankful that England was not burning homosexuals at the stake like the Catholic Church did in the Spanish Inquisition. England's laws had evolved to the point where homosexuality was merely a felony but not punishable by death. These days, people are a lot more subtle. With marriage the majority want to "preserve the sanctity of marriage". What does that mean? I have the highest regard for marriage. Can I not be one of the people who holds marriage up as a special and important standard of society? The majority seems to believe that opposite-sex couples are the only ones capable of "preserving the sanctity of marriage." (note to self: call 7-time married heterosexual Elizabeth Taylor) The majority doesn't have the moral fortitude to say what they really mean - that they don't want homosexuals to be able to marry. Instead, they use this Orwellian doublespeak so everyone thinks the issue is about "preserving marriage" rather than what it really is: bald-faced bigotry designed to penalize homosexuals by denying them the same right as every straight citizen takes for granted.

To R. Foster,

I also PROUDLY volunteered and served in Vietnam. Does that some how give me special privileges not anywhere but the VA in Fresno, I have found. My Dad served in WWII in the South Pacific guarding already catpured prisoners so they couldn't participate in the war any longer. Did that get him any special privileges? He was told when he went to the VA his injuries were not service connected therefore he could not receive treatment. Thank God the rules have changed. My point being we have all done things for our country because it is our country that doesn't change a thing. Nor does it entitle us to special privileges.

If the majority vote means nothing, allow me to give you a history lesson teacher. It takes 2/3 magjority to pass many items through both houses. If majority doesn't count then you better start a letter writing camapaign because throughout our history that rule has stood. That to ensure a minority doesn't thrust any unwanted rulings on the majority.

Every union bargaining session your union participated in; required majority vote to accept a contract. Had the vote not been majority you would still be on strike or trying to bargain. Were you not aware of that, in your long career as a teacher? Also was the union voted into Fresno by minority or majority? Can you answer that question? Did you protest that and tell the union you didn't want their representation or did you vote yes on the contract and accept the increases?

Every Office on the Fresno City Council and even the position of Mayor is a majority vote by the people. Do I need to go on or do you see the correlation here?

You are fine with those practices but yet when it doesn't work in your favor you scream foul! That's a pretty jaded point of view if you ask me.

Does it not take confirmation by the Congress for every important position in Government such as Chief of Staff for the armed services? Wouldn't a confirmation by the majority of Congress be the same as the will of the people in an election? I see you living on a two way street and only you are in charge of the direction of traffic. How biased can you get.

Make all important decisions by majority but when it comes to me marrying my significant other I only need the approval of a minority? The absolute rule of thumb for hypocracy. I think you should think twice about your condeming comments regarding all of humanity.

You left out one very important part in your story of WWII. Did we not free a minority that was being led to slaughter (to the tune of six million people) by the majority on the European continent? I don't know how you can compare the relentless death machine by Adolph Hitler to your illegal marital status and expect the community of Fresno to buy that comparison. You talk about apples and oranges, your persecution if there is any is dealt to you by your own choices. The Jewish Community certainly didn't have a choice, now did they?

I will place my pride in my service to my country equal to but no more important than anyone else who served. That isn't what service is all about and volunteering means you were willing to go; therefore all complaints are disallowed.

Perhaps that will be the next amendment change no more majority rule allowed?

Funny you should mention Texas, they and Utah offer more freedoms to the public as a whole than any other state in the union. Two of the more affordable places to live, also. Isn't Texas where the Space Program is, I guess they can't all be dumb hicks, right?

You just reminded me of why I did poorly in English, the teacher was boring and not worth listening to! Just a nitpicker with many obvious hangups with society. He was constantly trying to force his idiology on the entire class. Not unlike your class perhaps?

I notice when I inquired about your students accomplishments you didn't respond with any Nobel Peace Prize Winners or Astronauts, how about a good car salesman?

By the way the last job I had paid me $1700 bi-monthly and no one had any problem understanding me when I signed my name to the back of the check. How does that compare to your tenured salary Teach? As for me, I just laughed all the way to the bank. As for the owner of the company, he knew he was getting a bargain.

To R. Foster,
Another attempt, I lost the last blog while trying to review it so will start anew.

You are the one who brought education into this discussion so I would like to further critique it since you had your say.

Education has been in a tail spin in society ever since the introduction of New Math which was contributed by your generation of teacher. It drifted away from the basics to a point that the average High School student working in a fast food store can't even make change. Case in point, you take away that computer cash register or simply cover up the amount of change it says the customer should receive and they are out of business. Not to mention handing them $20 and exact change in a transaction costing $10 and whatever the change is, they can't figure out to give you a $10 bill. I've seen this time and again.

We are currently spending 50% of the California State Budget by mandate on the School System in California. We are not getting the best bang for our buck. We are spending far more and teaching them far less than in anytime in California's history of education.

If we must teach them a test for graduation lets change it to include the necessities in life like math basics. We are performing a disservice to our children by not providing them with a competitive education equal to students in other parts of the world.

The United States use to be the country with the answers to space exploration and the solving of many diseases that plaqued man for years. Now we can't even graduate basic math students.

California at one time was the leader in education, I would hate to think how we rank today. Fitness is no longer the more important part of the curriculum. I remember when John F. Kennedy brought out his educational exercise program for schools and we were all tested; we took pride in passing it.

That practice has long since disappeared and let a person get a hang nail and they no longer have to dress for Physical Ed. Who suffers, our children do.

You as High School teachers turn your heads and pass these students through the system knowing full well they don't possess the basics.

Sometimes a mechanic has to trace a problem back to square one in order to fix the problem farther down the line. Especially with the advancements that have been made. Aren't are students as important as our automobiles to us?

You want to throw a student for a challenge, ask them how many ounces are in a 1/2 pint, pint, quart, half gallon and gallon of milk? Better yet ask them how many liters are in a gallon of gasoline? Furthermore, approximately how much a gallon of fluid should weigh?

Answers: 8 ounces, 16 ounces, 32 ounces, 64 ounces, 128 ounces, I believe there are 3.3 liters per gallon, 8 pounds. Did you know all the answers? If you did thank your math teacher.

I do have to commend you for your service in Vietnam. Many teachers became teachers to get out of the war effort, it is my pleasure to meet one who volunteered to serve there.

Fred, I'll just put you down in the "Majority-Rule-Only-no-matter-whose-rights-get-trampled" column and let you work out the problems in the school system. If you don't know what compelling state interest is served by excluding your fellow citizens from benefits they pay for, you're not alone. Nobody else knows, either. I encourage you to continue to throw your majority weight around until California looks like the Taliban state of Afganistan where, they say, there aren't any homosexuals. There's little wonder. Who would admit it under penalty of death. And go ahead and beat the drum that your service to your country, state, community and family is forever and always superior to any service a homosexual has contributed. Lying to yourself about your moral superiority has become the standard for so-called "Christians". You'll feel a lot better staying on that band wagon. You'll have plenty of company.

To R. Foster,
What the school system hold a particular sore spot for you or something? You failed to respond to a single category where I pointed out the instances when you readily accept majority rule, but now can no longer do it. You are a hypocrit when you say you don't believe in majority rule yet take an increase in pay because of it. All other laws and bills may stand that the Senate has passed; just not those directly in conflict with your precious interests.

At any rate I really wish you wouldn't lump me into a category you very well know I do not fit into. That is like saying all Gay men cheat and blanket all Gay men with it.

I believe in your rights until you try and cram them down my throat and force me into voting for them, then I take acception, do I force votes down your throat, I think not. Part of being a Democratic Society begins with each person having a say and seeing which column the yays fall in and the nays fall in, it's a democracy.

You aren't the exception to the rule you are the rule within the gay/lesbian community. I had another person on the same subject in another blog try and tell me that driving a vehicle is a right not a privilege. When you open the handbook the first few paragraphs tell you driving is a privilege and that is why it can be revoked if you don't follow the rules of the road. People are so confused about their rights and privileges anymore, they don't realize which is which.
I honestly think; that your community,has your will or wants confused with your rights. There are lots of people who want to be married who for one reason or another are not qualified. It stood between a man and a woman, before these Justices went on sabbatical and got their vote wrong.

You don't like having the Christians as you put it down on you; but you can be biased toward them in any manner you choose. Once again the hypocracy runs rampant in your poisonous pen. It was Christians, Jews, Protestants, Catholics alike who have fought in every war every waged or participated in by this country. Yes, I know they all included homosexuals as well but we readily admit that, it is the military who has the do don't tell law, not society.

Best Report to come out of the debate:

Legal experts say that even if California passed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex couples from marriage rights, all marriages performed between June 17 and the date of the amendment would remain intact. That's setting aside that the current odds of amending the constitution to ban are 50-1 against, and that no California or federal court has ever moved to take away rights granted in the history of the United States

Reason? They are legally performed marriages. Therefore, the approximate 100,000 marriages solemnized will remain valid regardless of any legislative action, even if the couple is from another state.

There's more bad news for the Religious Wrong: To enact an amendment to the state constitution requires a convening of a constitutional convention where a two-thirds majority is required to amend the constitution. That's the death blow to any attempt to ban marriage rights for same-sex couples and we know it because a constitutional convention is made up of the members of the state assembly and senate. Our current and most recent previous senates and assemblies both PASSED laws to permit marriage rights for same sex couples. That means the likelihood of them voting by a 2/3 majority to BAN marriage for same sex couples is worse than a snow ball's chance in hell. Those in the convention wouldn't be able to even approach a 51% vote, much less a 67 percent vote. We saw the same thing happen in Massachusetts. And, hey! The sky didn't fall in Massachusetts. No fire and brimestone reported as religious bigot "prophesied". I recall one of Rev. Pat Robertson's television prophesies of several years ago when Disney World opened its gate for a special gay & lesbian day. Robertson "prophesied" that the hurricane that was in the Gulf of Mexico at that time would hit Orlando as punishment for Disney World's action. Well, the hurricane missed. It swept up across Alabama instead and drove a path right through the middle of Vienna, Virginia where, unfortunately for prophets, Pat Robertson's television headquarters is located.

The bigots can no longer scare Californians into trampling the rights of good citizens.

To R. Foster,
Well when the 2/3 falls short we'll do as your did when your vote fell short in 2000 and work eight years to have it overturned by some true heterosexual judges.

I don't understand how you continually detest the fact that I bring up our overturned vote, use my own argument that 2/3 is often used as a yardstick and then defend your right to overturn a popular vote of the California Populous? You use the same strategy to make your point right, that I made to use my point and yet you didn't accept my original point. The hypocracy truly runs to the bone with you now doesn't it?

When you return your raises over all those contracts that were voted on by you and other teachers I might be willing to listen to you. But until then talk to the hand.

The legal system is not designed in this country for you to only obey the laws you agree with you must obey them all or you are a criminal. What is criminal is to have the majority will of the people overturned on the basis of four closeted bigots who finally came out during this decision. They have no other reason or justification for their vote, whatsoever. It was just too near and dear to their particular choices in life.

As for the marriages do you honestly think that the other states don't have a choice in this, in your statement even if they are from another state they can't do anything. Yes they can the other state can fail to recognize a California Gay Marriage and legally do so. Don't believe it take your gay marriage license to the heart of Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Idaho, Montana do I need go on and set up stakes as a legally married couple, I dare ya. You'll get recognition but it won't be the kind you'd hoped for that's for sure.

What about all those gays who married here and in other states prior to this will they be arrested for violating state laws that were active, legal and on the books at that time.

Watch the popularity of Ellen Degenerous(erate) on this issue this time next year she won't even be on the air any longer. Some Preacher will probably take her place during the week on prime time.