Protestors Explode Over Prop 8; Riots Turns Ugly

You’re absolutely right! Prop 8 is an outrage!

If Prop 8 would have passed you would have said it was a “mandate” and praised the wisdom of the voters.

Since the will of the majority has spoken, you simply nod your head and take a deep breath and tell yourself “this too shall pass”.

I mourned for our country yesterday. In my opinion, we chose the wrong “philosophy” to lead our Nation for the next 4 years. With that said, today is another day, and life goes on.

Just because you don’t get your way in an election does not give you the right to have a “hissy fit” and riot in the streets. You regroup and see what you can do differently in the future.

The people spoke. Now sit down, shut up and stop trying to force the gay agenda down everyone’s throats. In the state of CA, civil unions have the same benefits as marriage. Get over it.

This isn’t about equality. Its about a forceful agenda, one that continues to attempt to indocrtinate through the general population, through schools and pop culture. Guess what? If you are gay, you have all the rights as a heterosexual so cut the bs. Stop kicking and screaming to spite the society you despise so much. I refuse to be discriminated against for being a hetero. You live in a democracy and the people have spoke. Now shut the hell up.

WAAAHHHHHH We didnt get our way so now we are gonna tear the city down. Just think if obama would have lost. The whole country would be in flames. Grow up people !

Gee what a surprise those that espouse tolerance are intolerant of others views like spoiled children that did not get their way….

Get over it the majority spoke and do not support your lifestyle and you hidden agendas of indoctrinating the young under the color of tolerance what a bunch of hypocrites…….

You must be gay or brain washed in to believeing that this moral degradation is “normal”. The drop in moral standards that have kept this country on it’s feet has degraded due to liberalism but the fact of the matter is homosexuality is a choiceand therefore not subject to “Equal Rights”. It is not a race of people which are deserving of equal rights, it is a choice. The majority of people in Califormnia have spoken so it should be left as it is. let them go to Vermont or some other unholy state that allows it and quit trying to shove it down everyone else’s throat. Now, go ahead and claim that the other groups are the ones trying to ram there morality down the gays throat but I can promise you, the “normals” were here first and have made this country giving it stability. You won’t get that with gay marriages. I believe it was the first gay marriage in Vermont has already ended in divorce due to infidelity, etc. I could go on and on but it is a waste of breath since the people have spoken. The outrage isyour support for it.
Have a good day.

> “complete intolerance and disregard to civil rights”
Since California statue already grants complete equality of same sex unions and heterosexual marriages, there are no tolerance or civil rights at stake to protest about.

The only thing that prop 8 did was reserve the word “marriage” for heterosexual relationships. Is that what the fury is about?

Cry me a river…

Outrage? How about a bunch of activist thugs creating mayhem when their attempts to fundimentally change thousands of years of human tradition failed?

What about the fact that a marrigae is a union between a man and a woman do you not understand? Anything other than that is not a marriage. It is something completely different. Just like a window is not a door. They may both involve a hole existing in a wall, but they are completely separate things.

Nothing bars same-sex couples from seeking an attorney and drawing up the necessary paperwork to create all of the legal protections for themselves as exist in a marriage.. Survivorship. Gauardianship. Adoption. Visitation. The only thing that they or anyone else cannot do is redefine the meaning of a term which has existed throughout the ages with one meaning: a union between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Find a different word for a same-sex union. It’s not a marriage.

Well, I am glad to see that America didn’t lose everything, on election day!! I suppose we had to choose between who should we allow to riot, huh? 2500 homosexuals or 25 million blacks! You can tell a corrupt cause when the supporters are willing to behave like animals and destroy their own. THAT is the outrage, not Prop 8!!

Perhaps it’s time to show some inequality ourselves and send the governator back to Austria! Whadda bunch-of jerks!
Government should never have a say in what we do within our own personal choices and beliefs!

The majority of the people have spoken and the norm is not same sex marriage. This country was founded on Godly principals and people. This vote shows that the majority is still in control. When the day comes when this is not true sadly our country will be in a downward spiral from its intended glory by our founding fathers….and more importantly God. We have prospered under God’s protection and all of us, even non beleivers have benefited. You will see how it can be once we are not under that umbrella. Imagine our country without law and family values in which it was founded….it will be chaos and sorrow……

Thanks for posting this news. I hadn’t heard about it and am somewhat surprised that similar things aren’t happening up here in SF. But then our city/county did go overwhelmingly against 8 whereas LA County narrowly voted in favor of it. And maybe we got the rioting out of our system 30 years ago with the Dan White verdict. You are definitely right: 8 is an outrage and an affront to society and human decency–I described it as horrid. We need to start working NOW to overturn this wrong-headed, evil attempt to “protect” marriage.

Chris, we’ve helped Xplane.com deliver this message to the media. They’ve created a rockin’ visual presentation that is as much about the lifecycle of a news story as it is about Prop 8.

Very cool visuals. You can read more on the News link on http://www.Xplane.com or visit our blog at http://www.RichContent.com.

As a journalist in the 21st century, it’s amazing to see how quickly stories rise to prominence, get syndicated (thank you, oh Gods of RSS) and then long-tail forever.

best,
ME

Homosexual marriage isn’t a “Right”. Civil Unions were a fair accommodation, but the “Rainbow” folks just spit in the face of society. Protest all you want, language redefinition isn’t going to change society’s verdict.

We must accept alternate lifestyles because that is only fair. I only question how far this kind of thinking will go. Will we someday be condoning animal & underage sex too? That may sound foolish now, but might not be that far off because of the rate that our morality in this country is deteriorating.

Thank you for addressing California’s Prop 8 issue! Although other states have had similar issues to deal with at hand, Florida’s Proposition 2 is another one of similar vein and similar fate which fell by the wayside…

While many of my friends, online and offline, are nearly breaking their arms in self-congratulatory pats on the back for the Obama win, some basic human issues have been forgotten.

Statistically, as a white, Florida-legally-married mother of two average teen sons, I shouldn’t have paid attention; however, I noticed it.

In the wake of the news broadcast, there in small print, they passed Amendment No.2, the “Marriage Protection Act”, in Florida.

I wrote to Wexler, in the hopes of making marked improvements in legislation: here’s the complete letter.
I hope you and those with you may have an idea as to how to draft it clearer for Congressional review…

* * *

As you may be aware, the phrasing and the title itself of “The Marriage Protection Amendment” had misled your constituents. As you well know, Congress member Ginny Brown-Waite is Republican. She is also the one who is in my district, and has already mentioned, in full detail, her approval of said “Marriage Protection Amendment”.

Democrats now own the Senate, the House, and the Commander in Chief’s office. Dems are more ready to listen than Reps are.

Now that Floridians were screwed into thinking that Amendment 2 was “Marriage Protection”, it’s time to get a way to rewrite a new amendment to propose the “Family Security Act” - write it in such a fashion as to nullify this Amendment 2.

Nobody wants to vote ‘no’ to Family Security.

Provisionals: Not just for “Married” couples, but also for those who are cohabitative - grandmothers, cousins, friends, and, yes, gay and lesbian domestic partners:

Tax Benefits

* Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
* Creating a “family partnership” under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members, whether blood related or not, in a cohabitative setting.

Estate Planning Benefits

* Inheriting a share of your cohabitative partner’s estate, including minors from both parties.
* Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your cohabitative partner.
* Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
* Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your cohabitative partner– that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your partner’s behalf.

Government Benefits

* Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for cohabitative partner.
* Receiving veterans’ and military benefits for partners, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
* Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

* Obtaining insurance benefits through a cohabitative partner’s employer.
* Taking family leave to care for your cohabitative partner during an illness.
* Receiving wages, workers’ compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased partner.
* Taking bereavement leave if your cohabitative partner or one of your partner’s close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

* Visiting your cohabitative partner in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
* Making medical decisions for your cohabitative partner if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

* Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
* Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

* Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
* Applying for joint foster care rights.
* Receiving equitable division of property if you part ways.
* Receiving child support, child custody, and visitation if you part ways, ensuring family bonds regardless of domicile.

Housing Benefits

* Living in neighborhoods zoned for “families only.”
* Automatically renewing leases signed by your partner.

Consumer Benefits

* Receiving family rates for health, homeowners’, auto, and other types of insurance.
* Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
* Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections

* Suing a third person for wrongful death of your partner.
* Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your cohabitation.
* Claiming the marital communications privilege, regardless of marital status, if cohabitative or otherwise constituted as ‘family’.
* Receiving crime victims’ recovery benefits if your domestic partner is the victim of a crime.
* Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen cohabitative partner if said partner enjoins documented agreement.
* Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

This is not as simple as same-sex marriage; it’s also to cover cohabitative relations in blended families, various partnered cohabitative situations which have shown an increase in recent years as families have taken to condensing in these hard times.

Something to note is that if couples are in a same-sex marriage in Massachusetts or a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, many of the benefits of marriage won’t apply to them, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, gays may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if their state allows them to file jointly. And other federal benefits, such as COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply.

It’s not just gays who have the hardships: how does a cohabitative friend of either gender file partnership benefits as described above? In short: they don’t.

This is why I would like to see someone write the full “Family Security Amendment” or some such - for those whom the System has left behind. Any ideas on how to write it, and to propose it to the appropriate offices?

Feedback always welcome, whether smart answers or intelligent replies
Max
The K-car

I think a “marriage” as defined by ancient law, the Bible, and by GOD, should be the union between one man and one woman. This is not about freedoms, or rights, or whatever the heck else the bleeding heart liberals want to call the funny business between two people of the same sex. It should have stayed in the closet where it belongs, instead of in our faces on every other TV program on the air today. We just banned same-sex unions in Florida to the point that it is now written into the State Constitution. Don’t get me wrong… I don’t condemn these people, and count some among my closest friends., I just think that it should NOT enjoy all the EXTRA molly-coddling these people enjoy just because they’re different. Where is this country going??

What happened to the rights of the majority? The people have voted and that is what they want. If gays want to make legal agreements concerning property, health issues,etc., they have that right already. To cheapen the definition of marriage does nothing except lower even more the garbage heap that society refers to as morals. ]
Live the way you wish, but don’t expect us to make you feel good about it. I don’t accept it and obviously the voting public does not either.

For all of our history marriage has been between a man and a woman. The state (all governments) have acknowledged this and have made laws to help the couple exist as a family. The problem is that the people (gay and lesbian) are trying to make marriage a right (which it is not). A gay or lesbian can marry, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex (so their right to marry is not infringed as they insist).

They can have a marriage in a church (if the church will allow it) or at home (using a preacher or other religious person), and can call it a marriage. The law will not allow a gay marriage to be done by the state or allow the state to acknowledge a gay marriage.

To allow gays to have the benifits allowed a married couple, the state has developed Domestic Partner laws. These laws allow people of the same sex who live together as a couple to have the same benifits a married couple would have (for tax, surviver conditions, and other conditions).

The point of all this is that marriage is NOT a right. It is an institution. The fact that government has got involved is the only reason it is being challenged.

America may have just elected its first African American president, but it hasn’t gotten over its homophobia yet. Domestic partnership may have the same benefits as a marriage in CA, but to the people that would be getting them, it is not the same; there is a certain connotation behind the word marriage that “domestic partnership” does not have.

Segregation was legal about 50 years ago. Although gay marriage has been rule legal (as bans on it ruled unconstitutional) in several jurisdictions already, maybe in 50 years America will be ready to accept it.

To believe that the majority, who voted THREE TIMES to make this a law, are out of sych with the world only shows that real intolerance is on the Gay and leftist side of this matter.

Each time the vote was made and passed, Gays and leftist used the black robes to legislate THEIR morality, which is non, to be forced on the majority. To claim that this is legislating morality is foolish in that all laws are of that nature. WHo says it is bad to run a red light? THE MAJORITY, and the law is passed to make that illegal.

This is another attempt by the correct thinkers to bring sanity back to the marriage issue. Let the gays riot and show their lack of respect for any laws - isn’t that what defines the left/liberal ideology - Disregard for ANY law that isn’t in support of their cause?

Congrats to California majority that voted Prop8!

Ask a supporter of gay marriage if polygamy should be legal. 90% of the time they will say no. Then you call them intolerant, polygaphobic, hateful, evil, etc. It drives them nuts!

Just one comment:
What would happen if all the GAY would be put on an Island???? How would you all reproduce???? Who would extinct first you or us??

The claim has been made that a NO on Prop 8 interfered with religious freedoms, but making marriage a governmental function is what is inappropriate to begin with. Marriage is a sacrament administered by churches, and as such, ANY marriage, straight, gay, or bestial, is none of the government’s business. Civil contracts are all that the government should be involved - through the courts - in administering or enforcing. Religious freedom was never meant to mean that the government had any place in defining religious practice. The “perks” of such civil contracts should be for everyone, or for no one at all. Committing to love another person in the sight of G-d within your church, whichever one it may be, is marriage; tax breaks, adoptions, and so on is not.

Hey, If I can’t have two wives, then why should the gays get what THEY want. One would think that in the natural course of social degradation that plural marriage would come long before homosexual marriage. Lets be fair to EVERYONE, not just the overly vocal gay-rights groups. They can get in line behind ME.( but not in a gay way,ha.)

Some of you sound like you would fit in back in the day. “Those d@#n women thinking they can vote. Why don’t they quit whining and get back in the kitchen.” Etc…. I think their protests were worth it. Keep it up eventually this will be right.

Wow, if reading the responses to this blog is to be believed, there is a lot more ignorance and hatred in our society than I thought there was. The majority is not always in the right: the majority of Americans believed in slavery; the majority of Americans thought women should be second-class citizens. The majority is merely strength and power…not right not morally correct. The rights of the minority (be it an ethnic minority, sexual minority, cultural minority, economic minority, etc.) needs to be protected and that is why there are constitutions and laws, ineffective as they often are, which attempt to do just that. This vote to make discrimination a part of the CA state constitution subverts the ethical right and mandate to protect the few from the many.
And, believe me, we do not want to go to a model of “Biblical marriage” in this state or nation: marriage in the cultures from which the Bible came to us (basically, Ancient Hebrew and Middle Eastern cultures of 2000+ years ago) was an exchange of property. The property was of course the woman, who had no rights, had no say. She was transferred from her father’s household to her husband’s household. If there was a divorce, it was all up to the husband. Examples of marriages in the Bible were polygamous, filled with adultery and betrayal, one-sided, misogynistic and often filled with lust rather than love. In the early Christian church, in the Roman Empire, marriage was a thing of the state only–the church had nothing to do with it. But there is evidence in those early centuries of the Church blessing unions–between those of the same gender. So before you start claiming that God and the Bible and church history are on your side of this argument, get your facts right. But of course, having lived through the battle over prop 8 in CA in the last few months, I found out that the Yes on 8 side cared little about facts. There were lies, distortions and fear-based pronouncements…all from “Christians.” As a Christian myself, I am offended at the way this campaign was carried out and deeply embarrassed for my faith. I give thanks to God that I worship a God of Love and Grace–not a god of fear and hatred, which was evident by those who fought for enshrining discrimination and second-class citizenship on a particular group of the population.

For the ignorant RevGer:

The facts clearly show that the faithful church never countenanced adultery, nor did the nation of Israel though there were exceptions. There is murder in this country such as the murder of one homosexual against another  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cuna…); this still does ~not~ mean that it is countenanced as good by society nor by the church.

Deu
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

As for your accusation that divorce prevailed in the faithful church, the teachings of God clearly show God both hates divorce and expects marriage to be between a MAN and a WOMAN:

Matthew 19
3 ¶ The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Mt 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Which examples are you thinking of in the bible, where often the marriages were filled with lust, not love?

Homosexuals will someday gain respect and the same legal rights afforded heterosexuals.
There is no rational reason to bar any two people from forming a marraige that is supported by the goverment with full legal rights. This should be true regardless of whether homosexuality is a choice or is natural. In fact, scientific evidence supports the fact that it is not a choice.

Any of you offended by these protests: You would be pissed off too if your basic civil rights were lost in a popular vote. What if it was your marriage that had just been annulled by a slim majority of strangers? What if your family had just suffered real and tangible damage because of the unlawful political intervention of a tax-exempt church? Is it really that hard to put yourself in their shoes?

This initiative targeted a small minority and challenged them not on political beliefs, but as people. Of course they lost…they’re 10% of the population…THATS WHY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AREN’T SUBJECT TO POPULAR VOTE. If we voted to deny Jews unemployment, or left-handed people drivers licenses, would you understand then? Or would you callously tell an angry mob of lefties “majority rules, get over it crybabies”?

If you can’t tell the difference between this and any other political race this season, then you are dense.

The arguments against gay marriage are the same arguments that have been used to oppress peoples’ equality. Remember before 1967 God did not want the races to mix. And then it was the courts that decided to end the laws to prevent Miscegenation. It’s a sad state of affairs for the most accepting state in the union allows its self to fall for moral minority’s pandering. What an amazing thought though my home state of Indiana had a bill come before our congress, SJR 7, and our legislature decided to not allow it on the ballot. Apparently they decided that equality shouldn’t be a popularity contest and the consequences far too great to let people chose who should and shouldn’t be respected.
Without using religion is there an argument against gay marriage?
Let’s end the practice of anti-homogenation

Michael B. Johnson–I find it interesting that you took my statement that I found ignorance in our society following and during the course of this election and then felt the need to personally attack me as ignorant. How do you judge someone’s ignorance, Mr. Johnson, as you gave no evidence to support your claim that I am indeed ignorant. There is a big difference between the two approaches of finding a general lack of understanding (or ignorance) and labeling someone as ignorant. I will not stoop to that level though. If you disagree with what I say, feel free, but what brings about your need to denigrate?

And why did the discussion turn from same-sex marriage to divorce so intently? I mentioned it and you went on with it. Throughout this campaign I have wondered why the religious right was not supporting and campaigning for a constitutional amendment that would ban divorce. Jesus said not one word about what we today call homosexuality. It is questionable whether the Apostle Paul did either. The word “homosexual” did not even exist until the 19th century and to translate certain Greek words that way as some translations do is not really right. But, as you pointed out, Jesus was quite clear about divorce. He said “don’t do it” essentially. Of course, divorce was different then–women could be disposed of and men held the power. Jesus was actually quite an early feminist in making his pronouncements about divorce. But we don’t hear a peep about divorce from the religious right. All the big neo-cons divorce their wives and remarry and not a word. But politically, of course, that amendment would never ever pass, would it? It’s easier to beat up on a minority, taking a few bits of scripture out of context and bashing people over the head with them. The laws and rules and verses of the Bible are picked and chosen…by all of us who read it. We all interpret it, except perhaps those who are very well-versed in ancient Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Aramaic (which is actually the language that Jesus would have spoken).

To answer you final question quickly, the lust-driven marriages which come to mind are David & Bathsheeba and Jacob & Rachel. Yes, we could argue those choices, especially the 2nd one (I think the 1st is undeniable), but what’s the point? What I’m trying to say is that in 21st century western culture, there is no such thing as “Biblical marriage.” That is an idea which was created and is a myth. That does not mean that there’s no such thing as a marriage filled with faith and love and fidelity. But don’t call that “Biblical” ’cause it just ain’t! And it’s not dependent on whether the marriage is between differently-gendered or same-gendered people.

I didn’t mean to go on so long again, and I apologize. And luckily, I have a sermon to write for tomorrow morning, so I’ve got to go on and do that. Blessings on all..and when I say that, I mean all.

Proposition 8 doesn’t actually “ban” anything. It simply adds a phrase to the California Constitution. “Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman.” It’s a definition. It might enrage some people and please others. But that is all that it is. Nothing changes.

God clearly condemned David & Bathsheba’s initial adultery prior to the murder/arranged death of Bathsheba’s first husband.

However, where do you read that their marriage was without love?

The fact that King David ~loved~ Bathsheba is borne out not so much in that he comforted his wife (verse 24), but how he honored her later on, in his old age.

20 Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat.
21 Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread.
22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
24 And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the LORD loved him

God gives no indication in His scriptures here that either David or Bathsheba sinned in this - and notes that He loved Solomon, the son of David that resulted from this instance.

That King David continued to love Bathsheba into their old age is evident:

1 Kings 1
15 And Bathsheba went in unto the king into the chamber: and the king was very old; and Abishag the Shunammite ministered unto the king.
16 And Bathsheba bowed, and did obeisance unto the king. And the king said, What wouldest thou?
17 And she said unto him, My lord, thou swarest by the LORD thy God unto thine handmaid, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne.
18 And now, behold, Adonijah reigneth; and now, my lord the king, thou knowest it not:
19 And he hath slain oxen and fat cattle and sheep in abundance, and hath called all the sons of the king, and Abiathar the priest, and Joab the captain of the host: but Solomon thy servant hath he not called.

If he had not loved her, why would he choose her son to be King, based on her request? Where is there any indication that this marriage as it continued its course was more full of lust than love?

Note that even this example of marriage was filled with love. So, even a marriage that was preceded by an act of adultery (and arranged killing) still consisted of love and care between the man and the woman.

Also, I fail to understand your point that there is no “biblical marriage” in the 21st century: you’ll have to elaborate.

As for Christ saying nothing with regards to homosexuality - How do you know? Were you there…? No.

We know the Jews never countenanced homosexual marriages. Jesus was a Jew and kept the law.

Reading from out of the law of Moses:

Lev 20: 13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

So, the fornication of the type of man with man was punishable by death, under the law of Moses.

Because you state that Jesus said not one word on homosexuality, what makes you so confident that Jesus will approve of your teachings on the Day of Judgment? We ought to do what he said, not presume and suppose what we might dream up, ourselves.

There is ~no indication~ that homosexual relations /are/ approved whatsoever, in scripture; neither by Christ, nor by the Apostle Paul, nor by any prophet.

Since you agree he said nothing to approve of homosexual relations, there is no reason to believe any Christian (that is, any follower of Christ) could approve of it, either.

Therefore, since the example of Christ does not provide with the approval of homosexual acts, neither can we codify that marriage should approve and include it.

@Johnz (”This country was founded on Godly principals” sic):
Please see the first item here:
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/163437715.html

@MARY (”What would happen if all the GAY would be put on an Island???? How would you all reproduce????”)
Paraphrasing Neal Stephenson ‘there must be some advantage so a society who has members that cannot reproduce’. Remove gay people from the world and we have a significantly diminished world.
The Great Queers of History
http://rictornorton.co.uk/greatgay/greatgay.htm
Lists of Famous Homosexuals
http://rictornorton.co.uk/famous.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people

‘there must be some advantage so a society who has members that cannot reproduce’ should read ‘there must be some advantage to a society who has members that cannot reproduce’

cry me a river. the reason why our government works is because people accept that majority rules…whether its wrong or right…its not about that its about keeping the right people happy and the right people have spoken…no gay marriage is legit. so shutup already.

perhaps if the Homosexuals had no display such blatnat racism towards us heterosexual (after all we were born this way) by constantly refering to us as “those breeders” thenperhaps they might have gained more support from the MAJORITY SIDE.

James 1:27 26-27 Anyone who sets himself up as “religious” by talking a good game is self-deceived. This kind of religion is hot air and only hot air. Real religion, the kind that passes muster before God the Father, is this: Reach out to the homeless and loveless in their plight, and guard against corruption from the godless world.

And to the arguments about majority making laws over minorities, I would remind you of the Jim Crow Laws.

Have some empathy, show compassion, and evolve my brothers and sisters. Evolve.

Declaration of Independence
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–”

Notice it says “CREATOR”? Without God, you wouldn’t have reason to say you have rights at all BECAUSE the only thing you can argue is man gets his rights from other men. This leads to oppressive government.

Might makes right = tyranny, oppression, communism, mob rule, etc.

“Seperation of Church and State” is a supression and oppression of the Church.

Some people just don’t get it. They say, “you lost, get over it.”

Civil rights are not up for a vote. They should never be. This is why we have the Bill of Rights. You cannot vote away someone else’s right to free speech.

Now, I know what you are thinking… marriage is not the same as freedom of speech. Oh, but wait! In California, the Supreme Court said that marriage is a fundamental right, just like free speech, and is subject to the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. They also said that gays are a suspect class, deserving of protection against discrimination under the Equal Protection clause, just like religion or race.

You don’t have to be a genius to realize that majorities will basically always vote against a minority group, especially a minority group that is oppressed (and yes, gays are oppressed… remember Matthew Shepard?). So how can a minority group ever retain their civil rights?

That’s where the Constitution and the Judicial System comes in. Judges are there to protect the rights of all, including the rights of minority populations to not be oppressed at the hands of the majority.

The US Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights are not subject to the outcome of any vote or election. Meaning, you cannot deny anyone a fundamental right by a simple majority vote. This is how America governs. This is how America works. If you truly are an American citizen, and you truly honor the Constitution and swear to uphold the Constitution (as is implicit upon citizenship), then you cannot deny anyone the right to marriage, at least in California where it is a fundamental right.

In answer to Gary Adams’ post, dated 2008-Nov-10 @15:53:

25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.
27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

And how does keeping oneself unspotted from the world ~not~ include sexual immorality (i.e. fornication)? <<<

Giving a sinner warning about sin that is about to shipwreck their souls IS loving; it /is/ show empathy and compassion.

17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

But the foolish will NOT hear the rebukes:

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

They have a form of godliness, but they DENY the power thereof and refuse to follow in God’s holiness.

Did Jesus ~hate~ Peter, when he rebuked him?

33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

Whereas there is no commandment in the Holy Scriptures to “Evolve”…

13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Yes, HOLD FAST, don’t “evolve” (nor devolve downwards, for that matter) to the ways that cause you to err from the words of knowledge.

Ah, Michael B. Johnson, how you love to fling your scripture around proving that you are holy and right. But this argument is not a religious one. There is no place in the state constitution for religious arguments. This is not a theocracy. We are guaranteed freedom of religion which implies a freedom, if we so choose, from religion, including a freedom from the forced imposition of any religion’s dicta. Neither Judeo-Christian scripture, nor the Koran, nor any other faith’s holy text should carry any weight in this argument. So to those who voted for 8: without a religious backing or using scriptural arguments, what is your objection to same-sex marriage? It’s a question of civil rights.

@stephanie: cry me a river. the reason why our government works is because people accept that majority rules…whether its wrong or right…its not about that its about keeping the right people happy and the right people have spoken…no gay marriage is legit. so shutup already.

No, we won’t shut up. We should not accept majority rule when the majority is in the wrong. That is not what makes our government work. Gay marriage is indeed legit: the state of California made that decision back in May. The marriages performed here in the ensuing months as well as the marriages in Mass & Conn are legit. Get used to it.

RevGer:

What I have done is show in the scripture that marriage is not what you falsely said it was.

The argument *you* made WAS a religious one. I answered accordingly and God’s holy scriptures expose you for what you really are… You can no longer cloak yourself as a false fountain of biblical knowledge: people reading this will see right through you after careful study and carefully weighing the arguments.

If those sham marriages were truly “legit” as you claim, you wouldn’t be pleading on this board for us to approve of this sin. “Keeping the right people happy” at the expense of morality, is unjust, inequitable wickedness. Do you really not know any better than this?

As for anyone getting used to sin and providing encouragement for it, is that what your knowledge of the scriptures teach you?

Don’t you love the scriptures? They are pure, clean and tried words, very precious!

11 For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.
12 ¶ I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.
13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Yes, the fear of the LORD is to hate evil. So no, I will ~not~ “get used to it” as you wish for. I will continue to condemn wickedness for what it is: I urge you to turn against what you have promoted here, because it is contrary to the word of God and to holiness. Without holiness, you will not see the Lord…

14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

If I at all shut up (as you desire) and refrain from peaceably pointing out the flaws in your arguments, it would probably be because 1) you have revealed yourself as past being reasoned with, or 2) because I’m no longer able to avail myself of my First Amendment Freedoms.

MBJ–I did not tell you or anyone to shut up…another poster wrote that to those of us who support same-sex marriage. And believe it or not, we do agree–I will not refrain from condemning evil and wickedness either. And, as a Christian I have every right to my understanding of scripture and God’s love for all which impels me to condemn the wickedness that you and others have espoused here and in public. Don’t forget that perfect love casts out fear…so just let go of your fear (fear of whatever it is that blinds you and turns you into a rather unpleasant person, I’m figuring). And I am not “pleading” for anything. God’s truth shall eventually shine through and same-sex marriages will be a matter of law and fact in this state and in this country. If you can’t get used to it, I wish I could say that it’s not my problem. But your attitudes, fear, and hatred cause violence–psychological, emotional, physical, and life-threatening violence–against me and my GLBT brothers & sisters everywhere. So as much as I would just like to ignore you and others who pervert the scripture I hold dear and close, I cannot because God calls me to do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with God. I find no justice, love, kindness, or humility in your words.

RG> I find no justice, love, kindness, or humility in your words.

Should I care for what you think? I do not understand what you think it is I fear, not that I care that much. I know far better than you what I actually do or do not fear and what I do love. Do not project your feelings on me, it won’t wash.

As for what I love or do not love:

15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

All will observe that you /still/ have not proven your original thesis. <<<

Who is to say what the “right majority” is? I am against Prop 8 and glad that it did not pass. Marriage is something special between a man and a woman. They claim that they are protecting their rights, well what is wrong with us protecting our own rights? Stop being so childish.