CA Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban - With Video
SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court has overturned a gay marriage ban in a ruling that would make the nation’s largest state the second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings.
The justices’ 4-3 decision Thursday says domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. Chief Justice Ron George wrote the opinion.
The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco’s monthlong same-sex wedding march.
The case before the court involved a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
With the ruling, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.
“What happens in California, either way, will have a huge impact around the nation. It will set the tone,” said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California.
California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. It’s therefore unclear what additional relief state lawmakers could offer short of marriage if the court renders the existing ban unconstitutional.
A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine California’s current laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.
The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signature to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.
The cases before the California court were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco’s monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom’s direction.
(AP)
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
California is so cool that they now change the definition of words. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. there is nothing mentioned about homos in that.
not a fan of this decision
May 15th, 2008 at 10:02 amAnother reason to hate my state
May 15th, 2008 at 10:10 amAnother nail in the Old School American coffin.
Down is up. Up is down.
More insults added to the year of Obuma.
Is their anything left in life to tear down?
How about bestiality is that going to be codified into law?
May 15th, 2008 at 10:14 amNow u have to make a choice Kurt? Are u a defender of the Free Western world in which adults are allowed to make their own decisions and in which they have the freedom to think for themselves as long as they do not force their opinion on others?
Or do you belong to the group of Nazi’s and Moslims that favour a forced (one) way of life ?
Frankly, I dont give a shit what consenting adults decide to choose as a life-style, as long as its voluntary and as long as its within boundaries of respect and decency. (That means no sex in public space etc.)
Within the civilised Western society you have the right to disagree and agree with gaymarriage. So thats your choice, but do we have the right to forbid people to enter a gay marriage?
Curious about other peoples opinions on this…
May 15th, 2008 at 10:24 amWay to usurp the will of the majority of Californians, judicial douche bags.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:25 am@Quincy
Consenting adults are persons that are fully aware (physically and mentally) of their actions. Unlike animals AND children!
So disgusting bastards that abuse animals and children will never be codified in law.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:28 amAre u a defender of the Free Western world in which adults are allowed to make their own decisions and in which they have the freedom to think for themselves as long as they do not force their opinion on others?
———————————–
well for one thing thats a horrible way to put it considering muslims and nazis would hang you for being gay. I on the hand have no intentions of doing anything to a person for being gay, not even disliking them for it.
and adults are allowed to make their own decisions. and being gay is legal. i just dont think gay marriage should be. it has been defined as being between a man and a woman.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:37 amIn this man’s humble opinion, all male cocksuckers should be float tested in the Atlantic about 500 nautical miles from the closest land.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:38 amSo thats your choice, but do we have the right to forbid people to enter a gay marriage?
Curious about other peoples opinions on this…
The state defines marriage. If we have representative
May 15th, 2008 at 10:41 amgovernment, than the people can decide what that definition is, not a minority of perverts. Judicial fiat, is judicial tyranny.
wonder how long before “groups” demand marriage rights? If the one man and one woman tradition is broken, its a slippery slope downward.
next polygamy and we workers will be paying beneifts to one dude and four or more women - who are not working and their kids. aka England.
Another reason to not build a company in freakifornia.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:43 amIP727(varón blanco típico)
So thats your choice, but do we have the right to forbid people to enter a gay marriage?
Curious about other peoples opinions on this…~~~CHRIS
Of course we have.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:44 amThe state defines marriage. If we have representative
government, than the people can decide what that definition is, not a minority of perverts. Judicial fiat, is judicial tyranny.
Chris
Discussing Gay marriage rights is not one my strong points.
It kind of passes me by like a silent fart
May 15th, 2008 at 10:47 amI honestly don’t see what the problem is.
My church will never consider gay people married - and the marriage before God is what matters. Why do I give a shit if the state of California says two gay people are married? It’s not like it’s going to turn people gay. I don’t have a problem with this decision.
Let’s not forget that states like California actually pay more in federal taxes than they receive back in federal spending (they get back .78 of every dollar they are taxed) - so let them do what they want. Unlike “welfare states” like Mississippi, Alska, New Mexico, and Louisiana, which get back almost two dollars for every dollar they are taxed - California is supporting those states.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:52 am@ Kurt
Thats what I mean and as I said everybody has the right to agree or disagree with gay marriage, so I have no problems with the fact that u dont like gay marriage.
@IP727
My opinion? Dont have any problems with the fact that marriage will stay exclusively for man and women as long as there are alternative legal contracts for gays.
I dont see any danger to progress on polygamy ( as in some relgious groups, including Islam)
The term perverts I reserve for child abusers and rapists etc.
If guys are interested on my opinion on homosexulaty in general than I have to give you a long answer. An opinion on which Libs, Leftist and Cons might disagree, so if thats the case you’ll get that within 24 hours.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:58 amI was about to say Good send all the Gays to California.
To One Shot
May 15th, 2008 at 11:05 am@IP727
The people & state decided, yes. However, the peoples opinions can not usurp the values laid down by the constitution, which guarantees a freedom to pursue happiness for everybody. If people in a state decided tommorrow that freedom of speech wasn’t important, according to the way you see it, then that’s fine. No more free speech in that state. Thankfully, the constitution does not work that way.
Now, granted, since most marriages now end in divorce, that pursuit of happiness is largely an illusion, but the point remains. Everybody gets to pursue what makes them happy provided they don’t harm another. To argue against it is ridiculous and immoral.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:05 amIf you read the article Chris, you will see that civil unions with benefits are already allowed:
“California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. It’s therefore unclear what additional relief state lawmakers could offer short of marriage if the court renders the existing ban unconstitutional.”
This is an attack on traditional values. What other explanation could there be?
May 15th, 2008 at 11:23 am
007
Its cool just remember Pat lives here too! If only San Francisco would sink into the ocean when the big one hits! 
May 15th, 2008 at 11:40 am“So thats your choice, but do we have the right to forbid people to enter a gay marriage?”
Yes, tell them to go get married in Iran. Perfect place for rump-bumpers to try to get married. The US is my country too and I say fuck ‘em.
It is not natural and it goes against all possible decency.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:48 am“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..”
If banging other dudes makes them happy and it isn’t a crime then we cant stop them. Times are changing. This aint your grandpappy’s America. I dont really care if they get married. What harm could they do? Its not fucking contagious.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:08 pmSo is this a practical example of “tyranny of the minority”? When I state this am I talking about the Gay population, or activist Judges?
If your gay, your gay…no one is off lynching gay citizens in the streets (and for G_ds sake do NOT bring up Mathew Sheppard…getting killed by a guy who’s been high and strung out for 3 days on meth, as he beats you and robs you leaving you to die because you sold him drugs once does NOT make it a gay hate crime…it makes it a heinous drug crime between users and pushers in which you should still be locked up for life. Death is death; it takes all people in this world regardless of your sexual orientation).
No one is advocating the wholesale slaughter of the homosexual communities in the Untied States simply because they exist so we’re not Nazis (both the Islamic, and non-Islamic variety)…so anyone who pushes this argument is showing us a farce, simply by the framing of their loaded question.
Gay civil unions in most states allow for every practical allotment that a regular heterosexual married couple has, legal jurisdiction, next of kin etc. (though in certain precincts you can not file your tax returns jointly, and that should be addressed). But if your gay (married or not married) you can still live, own property, own cars, drive, vote, go out to eat dinner, smoke cigarettes, drink, be a member of a gym, involve yourself in politics, listen to music, buy DVDs from best buy etc etc… No one is stopping a gay person from living his or her life in the United States…
Do certain elements of this society frown upon gay people? Yes…
Do certain elements of this society frown upon BIKERS? Yes…
Don’t like that analogy then feel free to call the Waaaaa-mbulance…we’re all hated by someone in this world at some point of our lives. And if you’ve never been “hated”, then you haven’t been paying attention to those that live around you.
The point is that within one generation we have a politically correct idea that will destroy and undo one of the cornerstones of Western society that has stood for thousands of years…
That cornerstone is that marriage is between one man and one woman…
Does traditional marriage always work? No. Is it always a fair marriage (50-50)? No. Does the idea being involved in a marriage help keep the man from giving into his biological impulses and of running around trying to screw everything that moves? In the case of the virtuous man, YES!!! Does the failure of one marriage destroy the virtue of every other marriage? No…take that argument and blow it out of your ass…for each marriage that fails, I can show you another that will prosper until the death of one of the couple whether that couple is in their fourth marriage, or high school sweethearts…
This argument not withstanding, for years in the gay rights movement was about sexual freedom and doing what you will with your new found gay freedom (think late 70’s)…now instead of “no marriage, no labels, no worries” we get activists that demand “marriage” and the “stamp of approval” from society as a whole upon the actions of the gay community.
You want gay marriage? Fine! Feel free to recreate the suffrage movement that we saw with women’s rights…get out there in the streets and get the people to back you up. You can get a constitutional amendment without a problem, IF the American people want this idea…but that does not seem to be in the general populace’s conciseness. So we get a minority of the populace screaming at the rest about how the majority will “impose your values on my way of life…” unrenowned to them that they then shove the values of their lifestyle upon the rest of the majority in a hypocritical repartee…
But that’s not how we’ve gotten gay “marriage” in the United States, now is it?
We’ve gotten it by having lawyers turn to other lawyers in black robes and ask them for help in usurping the power of the people. Once the will of the people is tossed aside for elements of precedent and judicial fiat, we blindly acquiesce our rights as Americans from self governed representative republic into a judicial oligarchy: A power structure in which the small ruling party is one that needed to go to law school and get appointed as a judge-for-life, in order to wield the keys to the kingdom…
Fan-Fricking-tastic…
Do I hate gay people? No. My executive director is gay, and she is the nicest and most intelligent woman I have ever met in my professional career. Do the rest of us at the station scoff about her dating the office manager? Only for the fact that it’s a conflict of interest at our small company, the same way we would scoff at ANY relationship between close levels of upper management. Being gay has nothing to do with it.
Do I want to change the definition of marriage and destroy a cornerstone of my values? No…I’m not even married, and have no plans to get married (got to find a good woman to do that…) but I STILL will not acquiesce to the destruction of my values simply on the whim of a politically correct leftist ideology, or the idea that “it seems fair”.
I’m not a Nazi…nor a “religious” thug…nor married…
But I’m someone who wants to leave this earth with an America that is better than the way I inherited her…meaning I will not agree to destroying a fundamental element to the family, and destroy one of the 4 legs that hold the stool, that supports the ideals of America, upright simply because I wouldn’t speak up.
Judicial fiat is a farce, and just might be one more stepping stone that eventually leads to chaos in our land as Americans turn on each other due to fragmenting national values…we must be wary of political judges creating new laws at ALL times, no matter if we agree to what these laws state.
You might ask what is my solution to this whole argument? It is simply this…the federal government, the state, and the local jurisdictions would no longer be able to give out marriage certificates or enable a justice of the peace to preside over a marriage ceremony. Only religious institutions could actually marry people. Does this mean that certain religions would allow for gay marriage? Yes, but then we’d have gotten the power to affect our own destinies away from judges, and away from the asinine whims of government bureaucrats.
Just a few thoughts for the Pat Dollard community.
Pit Bull
May 15th, 2008 at 12:38 pmindy
@IP727
The people & state decided, yes. However, the peoples opinions can not usurp the values laid down by the constitution, which guarantees a freedom to pursue happiness for everybody.
The constitution also guarantees representative govt. This bravo sierra is pure judicial fiat,as the people have the right to determine what constitutes marriage. Legitimizing sexual perversion via codifying it into law, makes a mockery of the will of the people. There is no constitutional “right” to sexual degeneracy.
What if their “partner” of choice was a collie dog? Would you support their pursuit of happiness in that regard?
May 15th, 2008 at 12:51 pmThe constitution is not a social suicide pact.
Spitfire
“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..”
I dont really care if they get married. What harm could they do? Its not fucking contagious.
They can pursue all the butt holes they want, but they haven’t the right to demand that society sanctify it through legislation. Homo marriage cheapens the institution thereof.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:56 pmThe harm is the debauching of the culture. The sodomites of gomorrah learned the hard way.
There is no judicial activism in the state of California, I tell you!
-Badhdad Bob
May 15th, 2008 at 1:16 pm1madpitbull,
Good post - I agree with a lot of what you said.
“meaning I will not agree to destroying a fundamental element to the family, and destroy one of the 4 legs that hold the stool”
I’m having trouble with this part - how is my marriage or family, personally, cheapened or destroyed by the state of California marrying some gays? I don’t think my marriage or family will be weakened in any way. One of the “legs” supporting my family is not “gay people not getting married.”
“You might ask what is my solution to this whole argument? It is simply this…the federal government, the state, and the local jurisdictions would no longer be able to give out marriage certificates or enable a justice of the peace to preside over a marriage ceremony. Only religious institutions could actually marry people.”
I think this is an excellent idea. I’m not sure why it doesn’t get more traction.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:22 pmIP727(varón blanco típico),
Have you ever read the Dred Scott decision, where the Supreme Court refuses to recognize the rights of slaves as individuals (in a decision every admits is wrong these days)?
While I’m not saying it’s directly (or at all) applicable in this case, it’s a depressing example of following the idea you’re talking about to the extreme.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZS.html
May 15th, 2008 at 1:27 pmMore to the point, I think this is an issue with little real impact or importance that the Repulicans trumpet out to get us riled up and ignoring the utter failure of the Republican party to live up to the Conservative economic policies embodied by Reagan - these principles have been all but wholesale abandoned by Republicans today. These are the “big” issues we should be focusing on.
Rather than have us focus (rightly) on that, they distract us by throwing the sand of meaningless (relatively) “hot button issues” in our eyes. The idea is that they can do this to “unite” us whenever they see fit for some purpose.
I guess what I’m saying, in summary, is this: whether you are offended by gay marriage or not, that issue is dwarfed by real economic issues - decreasing the absurd tax rate, keeping the Federal Government out of our lives, reigning in hideously jaw-dropping federal spending, and generally pounding the Federal Government back into the small, sleek, efficient shape that was envisioned by the framers.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pmB. Verner
IP727(varón blanco típico),
Have you ever read the Dred Scott decision, where the Supreme Court refuses to recognize the rights of slaves as individuals (in a decision every admits is wrong these days)?”
I see no correlation to the present case. The dred scott decision was not an attempt to overturn the will of the people through judicial fiat, in that it only sustained what was a common practice of the times. The cal.decision on the other hand, is clearly an oligarchy ignoring the choice of the people in today’s society . One lousy judge can negate millions of voters? We are no longer a rep. govt.
(wasn’t dred scott before the 14th amend)? If so, they had no such rights constitutionally speaking.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:22 pmThis is why you can’t let shit like this happen…
If there was no more anal sex…there would be no more Democrats born.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:28 pmCan anyone name one positive contribution that gay “marraige” will have on our nation?
rewarding lifestyle choices, great. fuck this homo shit.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:30 pmIf people in a state decided tommorrow that freedom of speech wasn’t important, according to the way you see it, then that’s fine. No more free speech in that state. Thankfully, the constitution does not work that way.
INDY
Sophistic bravo sierra. The cons clearly spells out freedom of speech. It does not spell out the freedom to suck cocks and force the rest of society to accept it vis a vis fag marriage. Apples and oranges, typical lefty shit.
Suppose some lefty court mandates that pedophiles can molest children as their right to happiness, is that acceptable to you. Enoy your slippery slope.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:51 pmPit Bull, thank you. Life is about fight or flight. I can’t fight the crazies in my state anymore, so I want to flee. I am sort of stuck here in Cal. because of certain obligations. “Gay marriage” is a frontal assault on traditional values. The civil law more or less “seconded” what was a sacrament of religion, marriage. To stretch the civil law to cover gays changes the definition of marriage. The people of Cal. voted to clarify the definition of marriage in their Constitution as between a man and a woman. Marriage is not a fundamental “right.” The court had no business invalidating the will of the people. This is also about money–extending government benefits to “spouses” of gay people.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:54 pmVerner
Perhaps in my strange ramblings I didn’t convey the necessary thought process that I envisioned…
With the seemingly all inclusive “commerce” laws within the United States this marriage that is certified in California will have to be honored within the other 49 states of the Union. These laws simply state that one state must uphold the agreements of another. It WILL be arriving to a town near you, and that is simple fact…not a scare tactic.
As to my stool analogy, let us look at it this way…
Any civilization is built upon ideas, ideals, and a version of morality…all of these initial ideas are copasetic with the existence of the modern society that continues them, changes them, or obliterates them to the positive or negative impact upon the people of this modern society.
So, that being said it is intrinsic that principals of being self governed, freedom from tyranny, and distinct Judeo-Christian values shaped early American dreams goals and aspirations…
Were these values always used for good and always correct (i.e. slavery)? No. Did these values help influence generations of thinkers who could help change society for the better (civil rights movement)? Yes. Did the basis of these values create the most prosperous and generous non-Imperial society in the history of the world? You bet your ass it did.
So, if your society is biased on a particular set on influences that are essential to the maintenance of that given society, it is not a fair stretch to say that your society is much like a man (or a giant) who holds a Ming vase that is thousands of meter across standing on a stool that reached miles into the sky.
The man is us, the vase is the ideals, dreams, and aspirations we hold dear. The stool legs should be labeled with the values that helped us reach the pinnacle of existence…the top of the stool enabling us to look upon the beauty of the sky, much to the envy of the Giants that stand upon the stools that surround us.
To stand “upon the shoulders of giants” is what we do when we stand upon this stool.
The stool is the work that our forefathers did in enabling us this amazing country called America. Whether you’re a first generation American, or your family has been here for generations, the sacrifice of untold Americans has helped give you the opportunities that you hold dear. In essence each leg of this stool and the screws that hold it together are actually thousands of strands of self-sacrifice…each column of wood is a representation of millions of man-hours poured into creating a solid base that we all stand upon.
What leftist in this country tries to do is continually try to convince us how evil and malicious our society is, and how we need to change it. They are the denizens that congregate at the base of this stool, and scramble all over its legs looking for weakness. The leftists. They chip away at the stool that supports us at every chance they get. At the base of this stool they creep of the great logs that create the legs and they chip away at them with axes, chainsaws, and bulldozers. They climb the legs and set demolition charges within the crevices that are the half waypoint. They hate what we are and are determined to change us to their Marxist group think…and they are willing if not outright complicit in trying to destroy our base in order to topple the stand to erect a new one that best molds their ideals, dreams, and aspirations
If one of these stool legs is religion (in the Judeo Christian tradition) then each scandal, each acceptance of the disagreed of the ten commandants (notice I said commandments, not suggestions), and each new idea or ideal that usurps the traditional morality of these values is another axe stroke that gouges our a piece of this leg…
Once that leg is weakened beyond repair, then it can no longer sustain the weight that is pressed on it from the Giant, the Vase, and the rest of the stool.
The stool leans and starts to buckle creating chaos…this means…
The Giant can drop the vase that is so heavy, enabling him to live, but the minions below will place into his arms a new item…perhaps a hammer and sickle…perhaps a dirty used rag of poverty…
The Giant may refuse to drop the item, but places all his concentration on keeping the stool balanced. His brow beads with sweat and he closes his eyes to help the concentration. The problem is that with his eyes closed, he no longer sees the other Giants on stools below him, he no longer notices just who see he weakness…and some might act to topple his stool so they see the sky and have the others look up at him.
The stool can totally collapse in a thunderous roar, killing the giant and breaking the vase…and possibly taking down a few of the Giants to the left and the right of him…
Now all stories aside, to enable a true gay “marriage” is to take one more chunk out of the religious leg that hold us all on the stool…and if one thinks that Judeo-Christian values are repressive and a farce, I’ll merely point out that the bloodiest regimes in our worlds history practice the religion of secularism, or advanced worship of the state. T
Those societies with no foundations of morality are eager to destroy those who do not agree with their state.
Simply placed, if we destroy the same values that made us who we are, then we’ll destroy our ability to create the same opportunities for our children, their children, and their children’s children.
Perhaps this can help explain my analogy.
Pit Bull
May 15th, 2008 at 3:02 pmPerhaps I think too much…
May 15th, 2008 at 5:17 pm“Perhaps I use bad gram-mer”
PMIF
May 15th, 2008 at 5:18 pmRejoice now. Burn in Hell later.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:20 pmChris,
I won’t even try to explain the moral aspect of this because I’m afraid it would escape you - you and I are obviously from a different world.
So, let’s talk about the practical aspects:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7188741.stm But I think you and I would agree that the BBC is hardly a bastion of Bible Thumpers.
Since dollars and cents seems to be about the only thing not considered amoral in America anymore, perhaps that might be an eye opener. And please don’t tell me about the loving, monogamous relationships…that’s a rarity too.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:30 pmI tried real hard, and have heard all the arguments, but just can’t seam to give a chit about this.
I been married 3 times, if they want in on the hate, discontent and lack of sex so be it…
May 15th, 2008 at 7:08 pmPit Bull, you are right: the gay lobby is trying to get these laws passed in separate states, and then they will try to make other states give “full faith and credit” to the marriages in the gay marriage states, and then it will go to the Supreme Court to decide if they should be honored. This is why Supreme Court justices matter so much. If no no other reason, and there may be no other reason: a vote for McCain this fall is the last best chance to keep more crazies off the Supreme Court. The Cal. decision by four judges, who decided they were smarter than tens of millions of Californians, who voted to keep the definition of marriage what it was–these four people said they “didn’t want to legislate social change from the bench”, but that is exactly what they did.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:41 pmOh, and this fall, Californians get to vote again for a proposition to OVERTURN this decision. So…we will see.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:42 pmTime to wade into the Gay debate!(Puts on swimming trunks)
My reasons based on my societal perspective for opposing gay marriage:
It tears away at the fabric of our western civilization that is based upon a mother/wife and a father/husband raising their biological children, caring for them and preparing them for adulthood. Whether people want to believe it or not the family unit, as I have described it, is one of the most important foundations in our society.
Once you start tearing away at that, it goes downhill. Of course gay marriage isn’t the only thing that tears away at the family unit. Some others are:
Divorces - leave emotional and psychological scars on all parties involved. The adjustment to a family by the addition of a new husband/wife/siblings/children all cause their own issues.
Abusive parents - I work at a residential facility for boys and the abuse that some of those kids have gone through just boil my blood. Whether it’s sexual, physical or emotional abuse, the repercussions of it last a lifetime.
That’s my view from a societal perspective. Of course, resilient people can overcome those stressors and end up leading a successful life, but I chose to err on the side of caution; promoting only a heterosexual family unit since it worked rather well for the last several hundred years in western civilizations.
To be fair, my social perspective is derived from my Christian faith. I believe God created us and that we’re designed for heterosexuality. God is fairly specific about that in the Old testament. New testament doesn’t talk much about homosexuality, except for 2 mentions in Paul’s letters.
Jesus never said anything about it. Interestingly enough, Jesus only ever spoke of marriage in a heterosexual context.
Disregarding my religious views, I can be fine with homosexuality. What two people want to do in the privacy of their homes is up to them. I can even accept that two homosexuals can get married and lead a long, happy life. However, as a Christian, I have to be more concerned about the life after this a.k.a. people’s immortal souls. What I know about God’s will for mankind is that homosexuality is a no-no.
Given that, I can never support homosexual agendas, political movements, or a homosexual lifestyle. However, I will keep them all in my prayers. Well, in a generic way, I don’t think I’ve gotten to know every homosexual in the world yet.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:26 pmWow 41 reactions, I guess its a sensitive subject. And I never said that there should be a gay marriage
, only same civil rights.
@ Nathalie
If you put or people put themselfes in a ghetto like Castro and you’ll only practice (unsafe) sex you’ll get diseases. Castro/SF is a very extreme example. I can give you Bangkok as a wrong straight example or the drug addicted hookers on the streets of New York etc etc.
The cornerstone of society is a healthy marriage, and seriously willing to grow old together. Downgrading the institution of marriage is more a threat to traditional values. People are divorcing too easily cause they are spoiled these days in this Paris Hiltonized society and are not willing to invest long enough in eacht other and learn from eacht other, leaving their kids emotionally damaged.
The divorce rate in the US is very high. I think thats a more important discussion…
About downhill arguments: straight guys, stay straight, so gay civil unions will stay a minority group, no need to fear that.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:21 pm