Same sex marriages will not impact my life in anyway other then to allow me to say I live in an enlightened state.

I am now and always have been for civil rights and freedom.  If men and women want to marry someone of the same sex why not?  I grew up in an age where it was all about “you do your thing and I’ll do mine”.

In this age of epidemic and deadly STDs, the first and most effective way to survive life while still engaging in everything that makes us human is to enter into a monogamist relationship and stay faithful to one partner.  Gay or straight, marriage is the best and longest lasting of faithful relations we can have to one person.  Of any sex or sexual orientation.

As a Christian I fail to see where Jesus the Christ of Nazareth ever condemned anyone.

As an Evangelical Christian I am informed by the abomination of Jesus that if a town shall not listen to the Word of God, we should .... “dust off your heels as a sign against them.” Not that we should enforce what we think maybe His will on anyone.

As a citizen of the United States of America I would remove from the state the power to do anything else other than to issue a civil union, as an issue of separation of church and state.  So long as that civil union confers all the legal rights as a marriage.

Marriage should be an issue to be dealt with by the church I feel.  If a couple feel the need to have a civil union made a marriage, find a church that will marry you.  There are some churches that will do this.  If your church will not ... you should consider a church that will and start going there.  To borrow from the Republicans ... it’s a market place answer.

My vote will be for allowing same sex couples to marry - because of the choices available to me on the ballet this fall this is the more just choice.....the more inclusive....and the more reflective of an equal society.

But letting government confer benefits on citizens based on a personal choice in romantic lifestyle is still not being equal to all citizens, and does not reflect true diversity, true separation of church and state, or affirmation of true universal human rights.

I hope someday to live in a city, a country, a world where all citizens of this planet have the same rights regardless of their choices in their personal lives that do no harm to others.  In other words - some people in this country due to their choice to have a monogamous love relationship are getting benefits that others that do not (fiscal/legal).

I think that many citizens are still left out even if same sex couples can marry.  Why does goverment have the power to define “family”?  Why does government have the right to endorse a “lifestyle” ?  (It wants to because it gains a fiscal benefit from bolstering current economic and cultural models.)

I think this is a dangerous way to fight for equal rights - it is pandering for tolerance and inclusion - it is in essence asking to be accepted as long as I follow your prescribed lifestyle - instead of demanding equal rights based on who one is.  And it is still fragmenting minority groups into less powerful fractions instead of choosing a cause that would unite the masses into a much more powerful block to contend with.

Paraphrasing Audre Lorde - “one can not destroy the master’s house using the master’s tools”.......or if you prefer....in order to improve the our house we need a new paradigm - not re-modeling of the old one.

@michael valentine: “Marriage should be an issue to be dealt with by the church I feel.  If a couple feel the need to have a civil union made a marriage, find a church that will marry you.  There are some churches that will do this.  If your church will not ... you should consider a church that will and start going there.”

You might find this hard to believe, but I’m not too far off from agreeing with you on this. Of maybe I’m talking to the saner voice in your head, but I’m not going to miss an opportunity for a meeting of the minds.

The only difference I’d see is something closer to Israel. There the government has no civil marriage, just takes the word of whatever religious communion which claims you as a member and leaves it at that.

It’s highly unlikely for this to happen. Since the days of the Puritans, marriage has been a civil matter in this country, thus the state licensing clergy to perform marriages.

I have proposed --and I haven’t received any responses about this-- powers of attorney for gay couples. They have most of the “benefits” --if you want to call higher income tax a benefit-- without any of the costs of divorces. It also faces no political opposition from conservatives. Still no takers?

it is very disturb with the gay cherade,marriage is between a man and a woman that is the definition now the gay want to chhange that definition now what really disturb is that for straight couple should they tell their kids that it is okay to be gay ! i don’t think so ! to me being gay always a been preference and i don’t have to accept it but its okay to accept gay to the society that we live in because everyone has a right to choose whom ever they want to be in love with it would not be okay to encourage my kid or anyone else kids to be gay. remember the story in the bible sodom and gumora got destroy for that reason so i think the gay should go back to the closet like it used to be

Same sex-marriages are an issue for only one reason: The government is involved, and provides a system of rewards and punishments through taxation based one ones’ living status.

Here we have a group of individuals who would also like the same benefits as those who are married.

But for people who believe in equality, why not make everyone equal and eliminate all barriers of living. Each individual should pay a very small amount of taxes ( I say NO taxes but I’m willing to compromise) and not have deductions based on this or that.

For those who want and believe in equal treatment, prove it by advocating for real equality.

@frantzi civil, as one who opposes gay “marriage,” it doesn’t help to cause anger and pain to our homosexual friends.

Yes, marriage is between a man and a woman. And changing the definition is not a matter that 4 state Supreme Court justices should take upon themselves.

As I’ve said before, all of what our homosexual friends call marriage can be better achieved --and lawfully recognized across state lines-- through a power of attorney.

@Jesse Thomas, so long as the governed are involved, so are the governed. If you ever read the dissenting opinion of the state Supreme Court case, the minority justices said that the will of the governed must take precedence over the court when it comes to defining what marriage is.

You want equality? Power of attorney. Power of attorney. Power of attorney.

the way i look at this is its against the nature and against all religion therefore should not be allowed.

Power of attorney isn’t enough. The ‘majority’ once thought it was okay to enslave and hang black men from trees or set them on fire. Does that make it right?

If I was ‘straight’ I wouldn’t have to pay $10k a year in extra taxes, not to mention pay my accountant for managing four tax returns for my partner and I (1 for California’s civil union clause that say I must file as a commited couple and 2 for federal because we’re second class citizens and 1 more as a ‘pseudo’ federal couple filling pretending that the Ferderal government treats us with equal rights, to get the calculations to do what California recognizes.

We’ve committed to life together and we hope to live long lives together. Unless the US governement is willing to cough up trillions of dollars to make up for this in equality to the millions of couples denied equal rights, I won’t settle for anything less then equality.

LET FREEDOM RING!

@Steve, first of all, thank you for replying. You’re the first person who’s actually responded. This is what a conservation is and not just writing on the bathroom stall, which this has been so far.

Now, unless you’re Black man, I don’t think it appropriate to compare the protection of marriage to slavery. I’m married to a Black woman, a Kenyan in fact, and my son is African-American. They have permission to make that analogy, although my son is too young to make anything but a mess. Unless you’re Black yourself, please remember that membership has its priviledges.

I don’t know where you pulled the “extra taxes” from: we file jointly and, were she working outside the home right now, we would be paying about 3.4k more in taxes filing jointly over filing separately, the difference in our numbers coming from the possibility that you make more money than we do (but I’m not mad at you for being richer than we are). Since you didn’t mention any children, I assume both of you are working outside the home. If my assumption isn’t right, please tell me. So far as paying for an accountant, TurboTax and H&R;Block’s software handles multiple returns for multiple filers, and it’s all done for under $100. If I can afford that, you can, too, as rich as you are.

Now, California’s marriage law only has standing on California. Like it or not, fair or unfair, federal law will not change any time soon, because marriage, for everywhere outside of California and Massachusetts, hasn’t change its definition and, if the constitution changes in November, it will revert to only to the Commonwealth. So, if you and your partner try to buy property across state lines (e.g. desert property in Arizona, timeshare in Maui), you’ll be S.O.L. unless you have a power of attorney.

Powers of attorney also allow for the aforementioned property shares, end-of-life determinations, and adoptions, to name but a few things. It has provisions similar to pre-nups in that you can limit their scopes. As well, though you may not like to think of this possibility, powers of attorney are easier and cheaper to rescind than a marriage, with its messy and ugly divorces. As I said earlier in a different post, this aspect of powers of attorney was enough to convince a lesbian friend of mine of marriage’s limitations.

I repeat from earlier comments, just in case you haven’t read them, that powers of attorney face no opposition --none-- from any place in the political spectrum, including me. Now, I’m one of the more peaceful supporter of the sanctity of marriage, but, even from the more lunatic fringe, there is still no opposition. The Seven Habits teach to look for a win-win solution. A power of attorney is just such a solution.

And there’s another aspect. You write about marriage as though it’s a measure of equality. One does not need to be married in order to be treated equal. Both the Dalai Lama and the Pope are not married, and no one thinks any less of them because they are not married --they may be hated for other reasons, but not because of their marital status.

I lived 41 years of my life as a single man, and, were it not for my wife, I would have gone on that way. Being single is not second-class citizenship.

I appreciate the exchange of ideas and hope to read your response.

Hi Matthew,
I didn’t think it was fair to respond to your comments about power of attorney here (I have posted my ideas of same sex marriage elsewhere and don’t want to bogart the space, so to speak.)

I did have some thoughts about the POA option.  They were also in response to Gloria Penner’s recent blog on the governor’s economic stimulus plan via gay marriage ("Same Sex Marriage to Arnold’s Rescue").  If you’re interested in seeing more, check out her article and my response at http://blogs.kpbs.org/index.php/politicalfix/comments/same_sex_marriage_to_arnolds_rescue/

POA doesn’t address every aspect of the issue, and honestly, I think it’s a compromise—not a win-win solution by negotiation standards.  If the goal is to halt political opposition, POA would probably work well combined w/civil unions.  If the goals are to set a precedent, and uphold the separation of church & state, then POA fails.

I think I made my point in that I’m not single. I’m partnered for life. But thats not recognized, and I’m not happy about it. Nor should I be. Regardless of how much more or little money I make. The bottom line is that our hard work and effort is not considered equal with others. Regardless of its hundred dollars or a million. Its just not right -and I’m sure the Dali Lama would agree (but, perhaps not the Pope).

I don’t think that the color of my skin in America should grants special priviledges (I’m not African American, I’m Asian for the record) . Although I shouldn’t have to reveal my whole tax history, but let me just say that I’m a consultant that pays dearly in licensing fees and liability insurance to conduct business. My partner cares for the elderly (and has the biggest heart in the world). Because we’re not a ‘strraight couple’, we can only write half of our shared expenses off in Federal taxes. Forced to pretend we’re single, while our straight counterparts enjoy the priviledges we probably will never know. In our lifetime, that will equate to hundreds of thousands of dollars at least. For Americans across this great nation it will go into the billions (at least).

As far as California is concerned, we already have civil union status. But the marriage status will send a message to the Federal level.

@Alma Sove, Thank you for replying. I don’t agree that POA doesn’t belong here, but I’m big enough to respond on the post you desired.

There are, however, some points that you make here and not the other post that I want to address. You say compromise as though it’s a bad word. Compromise may be a bad word, morally speaking, but it’s a good word, politically speaking. Compromise forstalls and sometimes prevents wars from breaking out. Compromise, like diplomacy, is war by other means. Compromise is the subtle art of governance. If the POA statute doesn’t cover everything needed as written now, amend the statute rather than redefine marriage. That’s compromise. If you don’t like that compromise, truth be told no one on my side of the debate is thrilled about it either. A good compromise is one that both sides don’t like. And how do you think you get to win-win situations? More oftentimes than not, compromise. I hope I’ve written the word enough times in order to take the sting out of the word.

You want to set a precedent? What you have done (and by “you,” I’m not accusing you personally, but referring to you in a corporate manner) is instill a backlash, a backlash that will only end up hurting my homosexual friends, by setting up their hopes of marital bliss only have them dashed away by voter nullification (kind of like how the Cubs treat me every season). Given that probable outcome, compromise is not a bad thing.

I have to take you to task over the issue of separation of Church & State. Let me re-establish my original position from the old “Current Conversation” days. If I had my way, I wish the government wasn’t even involved in marriage. Let me write that again, in case you didn’t read it the first time. As one who supports the amendment, I wish that the government wasn’t involved in defining marriage (I know, I wrote it differently the second time, whatever). In my original post, I blamed the Puritans, because they removed matrimony as a sacrament and made it nothing more than a civil contract. After watching the overly fictionalized Showtime series, “The Tudors,” I’m starting to think that Henry VIII may be the original culprit.

Whether it was fat Harry or those fun-loving Pilgrims to blame, the State (notice the capital letter so as to refer to all levels of governance) has imposed itself on the Church (note capital, to refer to all faiths, including those of no faith at all) as the authority on who can or cannot marry. This is why priests, rabbis, ministers, monks, gurus, and imams have to get licenses to perform wedding ceremonies, as if somehow the State authorizes them to perform weddings in their own churches (notice lower case to refer to particular polities). The licensing may be pro forma, but that’s not the point. The point is that the State has already imposed itself on the Church in regard to marriage.

The State defining marriage in ways detrimental to different church’s teachings has a negative effect on those church’s ability to define marriage as their polity sees fit. One need only look at the case that the state (notice the lower case since I’m referring to California) Supreme Court used as precedence, Perez. In that case, both the man & woman were Catholics, and the Catholic Church does not forbid a bride & a groom of different racial backgrounds to marry (that may explain the mestizo nature of predominantly Catholic cultures, but I digress). The State’s anti-miscegenation definition of marriage imposed upon the Catholic Church a doctrine that was in contradiction to the Church’s doctrine that, “in Christ, there is no Greek, nor Jew.”

And, though the state Supreme Court overturned the anti-miscegenation part of the state’s definition of marriage, the present-day traditional definition of marriage, even the one defined in the original initiative, continues to impose itself on different church’s doctrines, including the aforementioned Catholic Church, surprisingly enough. Implicit in the traditional definition is that marriage is between one man and one woman AT ONE TIME. This definition allows for serial polygamy. Now, if some churches, like the Catholic Church, teach that marriage is indossolable save for death of a spouse or fraud in the vows, the state’s definition, along with the ready availability of no-fault divorce, makes those churches’ message of sanctity of marriage undicipherable amid the din of serial polygamy. Granted, those churches should do a better job instructing their members, but the state should do a better job staying out of their way. Separation of Church and State should work both ways, and, when it’s comes to marriage, the State has imposed itself on the Church for far too long. With the state Supreme Court’s latest decision, this redefinition by the state has further imposed itself on even more churches than before a form of marriage that will never be acceptable to them.

So, though I am voting for the amendment, it’s more like a poison-pill type of vote, in that it’s my hope that the State gets out of the marriage business once and for all and have Clerks offices work on more important matters. I’ve said this on other forums, I wish we were more like Israel. Israel has no civil marriage. The State takes the word of whatever religious organization you or your spouse claims as a member. I wish we didn’t have civil marriages. That way, if a church marries men with men, women with women, men or women with themselves, that’s the church’s business, and the State just takes their word for it. As for those who have no religious affiliation or are atheists, they should learn a new word: Unitarianism (and I’m not a Unitarian). Okay, one more word: Universalism (they merged).

Until that glorious day comes when the State gets out of the marriage business, some semblence of dignity must be restored to or at least maintained for the institution, and, regretably, the only way that’s done is through the legislative and constitutional process. It may be hard to imagine that “dignity of marriage” as something other than an oxymoron, given the way celebrities use the license as something resembling toilet paper. Be that as it may, there are those of us who disdains the State’s imposition of its definition enough that we want to push back, and I’m one of them.

In the meantime, I think that my proposal of POA --an amended and even a strengthened POA-- along with your recommendation of civil unions would do the trick for my homosexual friends. You call it compromise. I call it statesmanship. Potato, pot-ah-to.

Again, this is good topic, and, though some of us on both sides are overly emotional about it, I believe we can disagree without being disagreeable. Thank you again for the response.

@Steve, Thank you again for replying. I don’t care how money you make. I was trying to keep the tone light so that no one’s feelings would be hurt. Apparently, it didn’t work, and I’m sorry if you took offense. None was intended.

When anyone who’s not Black compares whatever their cause may be to slavery, I have it on good authority that Blacks, especially African-Americans, don’t take kindly to that. They feel that comparing anything to slavery trivializes what their ancestors went through. Think of it like Godwin’s Law. Eventually, someone will compare a modern-day crime with Hilter and the Shoah, and my Jewish older brothren consider this offensive. Just a word to the wise that it’s best to keep it within your own sphere of heritage. As an Irish-American, I compare things to the Potato Famine, for example.

Now, I’m not a tax attorney, but, since you have shared expenses, as my wife and I have, is it not possible to divy such things up in many that makes for the best return? I don’t know. In any event, the state Supreme Court decision won’t do a thing for you or your partner when it comes to the IRS. That ship has sailed, right or wrong.

Now, you talk about recognition and how important recognition is. As I said before, I am married in a traditional manner to someone of the opposite sex. Guess what? We’re not recognized either. Sure, it’s legal, but people still stare in ugly ways towards us. Old White people stare anthropologically at our son to see if he “looks more Black or more White.” Strangers at restaurants give disapproving grunts at my wife, either because she’s Black or, in the case of African-Americans, because she “sold out.” If you’re waiting for recognition, that’s a fool’s errand. I’m sympathetic to you and your partner --who, no doubt, is as great as you say he is-- but recognition will never happen. We’ve dealt with that, some days better than others, but recognition simply can’t be that important.

I wish we can find a meeting of the minds, but I guess it’s not to be. Though we’re on opposite sides on this issue, you’re still a brother I’ve yet to meet. I hope you feel the same way.

@Matthew
No offense taken. As a half Asian, half Irish-American, I understand your sentiments. Did you know that there were Chinese slaves in this country as well? My points are about equality, regardless of sexual orientation or skin color. I understand that you don’t care about how much I make. My point is that if you and I work equally as hard there should not be any discrimination. However, I don`t see your point about marriage perhaps you need to ask yourself why you bothered to even marry your wife. Maybe in your heart you know the answer.

@Steve, No I didn’t know there were Chinese slaves. I knew there were Irish slaves, but there were also Irish slaveowners, so that’s a push.

Point taken about taxes. The I.R.S. blows. You’ll get no arguement from anyone there.

My point is that, as loving as your relationship is, I don’t believe it is bigoted to discriminate between marriage and homosexual partnerships. I know that’s seems like double-talk --and please, please, stay with me on this-- until you remember that, in the original Latin, bigotry and discrimination were not synonyms. I’m using the term “discriminate” in the same way that a wine taster discriminates between various vintages.

Maybe you don’t argee with me on this, but I contend that, at a fundamental level, homosexual partnerships and marriages are different. If you don’t agree, that’s fine; we’re still brothers. They may share some qualities, like a loving commitment to monogamy (at least that’s my hope), the sharing of space and property --with a POA or the like, of course-- and, if they be children from previous relationships or adoptions (see, I don’t oppose homosexuals adopting), the raising of children. Be that as it may, the fundamental difference between marriage and homosexual partnerships is that men and women are different from one another.

That last statement may seem trivial, but it has more levels. Men and women value things differently, have different outlooks, and have different ways of accomplishing the same task, even to the point that when one finishes a job, the other criticizes it, not because the task wasn’t done but because it “wasn’t done the right way.” There is an inherent complementarity in the relationship between a man and a woman in marriage --and I say marriage and not couples who are just “living together” because they’re just pretending. In a homosexual partnership, there isn’t that complementarity. One partner may “play the role” of the other gender --a stereotype of homosexual partnership that’s overdone-- but he or she at a fundamental is not the other.

Now, the State, in its “infinite wisdom,” has decided to extol upon itself the authority to determine who can or cannot marry. As I replied to Alma Sove, I wish it weren’t so, but it is what it is. Since I contend that marriages and homosexual partnerships are different, they warrant different status under the law. Not better, not worse, different.

Now, Alma Sove suggested POA combined with civil unions might meet the goal of righting the inequalities you wrote of. I, frankly, don’t know enough about civil unions, and I kind of let that topic slide because of that. I still believe that the inequalities you wrote of can be righted by amending either POA statute(s) or the civil union statement(s) without changing the definition of marriage.

Finally, since you brought it up, I married her because she was the right woman. If I never met her, I would have lived the rest of my life secure in the knowledge that I remained single and didn’t marry the wrong woman. That is my heart tells me.

I wish well, brother, for both you and your partner.

The long winded POA argument is a shift from the essential issue at hand. The burden on detractors of same-sex marriage is not to innovate a novel legal solution in lieu of the right to marry. The burden is to offer a sound argument as to why same-sex partners are not entitled to the same marriage rights as a man and a woman.

Inevitably, see Trina’s Post, all of these arguments are moral arguments, talking points or based on suspect studies.

And before the asinine train gets too far out of the station, since when are Americans of any race not allowed to draw on our shared history in order to make enlightening analogies? The “ I’m married to a Black woman” argument should be rephrased, “as a white man, speaking for my black wife on behalf of other black folks - I am offended.” The POA argument is “a separate but equal” suggestion. The sort of suggestion that once would have made it impossible for Matthew C. Scallon to marry his wife in more than a few states in the Union.

There were Chinese slaves all over the world. The Pacific Railroad was built with the help of paid and unpaid Chinese labor. And there was plenty of racial bigotry as with many other races, Native American Indians, etc. For me to speak about human rights is only about that, human rights and equality. You’ve made your position based on the color of one’s skin and privilege to speak about human rights. I disagree, just as I do with your feelings about ones role based on genitalia. No maybe about that!

You put forth a curious argument. However, I would like to believe your opinion is not bigoted, but rather innocent in this respect. To say that one is bigoted would indicate ignorance. For instance, the difference between an ignorant adult and an innocent child would be that the child doesn’t know any better. Where as the adult, doesn’t know any better AND doesn’t WANT to know; the later being the most depressing and perhaps most despicable of all.

And by no means do I mean to sound condescending in comparing your behavior as childish. Please take no offence! But understand that I have chosen my life partner also because he is the right one. The one I want to spend the rest of my life with.

Now, as far as government and marriage, I agree with you on the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, it is appearing more like that ship has already sailed (unlike taxes which seem to always change). Keep in mind that there is no legislature that I am aware of that imposes gay-marriage on any particular religion nor does this force a given religion to go against its doctrine. This is about human rights and equality. At one time interracial marriage was against the law. But the courts ruled otherwise and all states followed through (particularly the southern states) despite popular opinion. That is the beauty of the American justice system in contract to others. The little guy or a minority still has a voice. If the courts were not respected, your child (myself included) may not exist today, and there would be plenty of people that would be fine with that.

Land of the noble free – Let freedom ring!

@Chris, I plead guilty as charged to long-windedness. No one ever accused me of terse prose.

I suggested POA’s for two reasons. One is that a story done by KPBS’ own Scott Horsley posed that the definition of marriage aspoused by most in the gay community more lines up with a power of attorney. Second is, dove-tailing on the first, the thought that, if a POA is more what the gay community, I propose a middle between my side which support the amendment and the other side which opposes. Instead of posing the question as, “What’s your position on gay marriage, oppose or support?” By suggesting POA’s, I am saying how about a third way.

What I’ve noticed from people who’ve argued against my position (and argued politely, thank God) is that, while they don’t agree with me, and at least it’s treated as a terribly awful, bigoted, homophobic approach. That’s something so much better than the finger-pointing I saw in front of the county office.

@Steve, given a choice between being called bigoted and innocent, I will take innocent everyday and twice on Sundays. By the sight of those smiling faces in your comment, it shows that our exchange of ideas has remained friendly, which is a very good sign. And, as far as genitalia, let’s just say TMI on that subject and move on.

I guess, if I could say one last thing --as if someone’s going to stop me —my hope is that, whether or not the amendment passes, the side which wins will not take their victory as an opportunity for vindictiveness. I hope that, if I lose, that my homosexual friends won’t take my vote as an excuse to hate those who voted for the amendment, a hatred I don’t have for them. Likewise, if the amendment passes, I hope that other supporters of the amendments fix the inequalities that you and others have faced. No question, these inequalities are real.

Chris: “The ‘I’m married to a Black woman’ argument should be rephrased, ‘as a white man, speaking for my black wife on behalf of other black folks - I am offended.’The POA argument is ‘a separate but equal’ suggestion. The sort of suggestion that once would have made it impossible for Matthew C. Scallon to marry his wife in more than a few states in the Union.”

“I’m married to a Black woman” is not an arguement; it is a statement. I don’t claim to speak on behalf of Blacks because Blacks don’t need a White man speak on their behalf. Steve and I were sharing our experiences, and we’re good on this issue, no need to stir anything up.

If you believe that a POA is “separate but equal,” tell me how. I posit that it is “different and equal,” especially if the statutes written right. Obviously, you disagree, so please share why you think so.

I’m glad you brought up Loving v. Commonwealth of Virginia. While different states had already repealed anti-miscegenation laws before Loving got the Supreme Court, Loving hastened --or possibly short-circuited-- that legislative process. In any event, Loving, while concluding that the states did not have the right to determine who someone can or cannot marry, Loving didn’t change the fundamental definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Mildred Loving was still a Black woman, and John Loving was still a White man. Reading more into the decision than that is like how people on my side of debate say the state Supreme Court is supporting bestial marriage. In both cases, both sides are reading more into the cases than there are.

I look forward to your reply so long as you remember not to tell me how I should be phrasing my words. My spelling is not perfect, and I will forget some words when I comment, but I have no trouble phrasing things the way I want to say them.

“...while they don’t agree with me, and at least it’s treated as a terribly awful, bigoted, homophobic approach.” Correction: that should be “not treated.” Changes the whole meaning, doesn’t it?

I watched the PBS presentation on Eleanor Roosevelt, very interesting and well put together. She worked hard to create the definition of Human Rights for the UN. But everything was a fight. Starting with “All men… “ being changed to “All people...”.

This is progress.

At one time, woman we not allowed to vote.

My points center completely around equality and human rights which are dear to me for obvious reasons…

When my little girl grows up how will I explain what Gay and Lesbians are?  It is when two guys put their XXXXX into the others XXXXX? or when the girls rub their XXXX on the others XXXX.  To me its just GROSS thinking about it.  “And why do they do it daddy?” she says.  What should I say?  Heck I don’t know.  Pleasure?  Whatever it is I will NEVER agree with it, and will not accept it?  This isn’t homophobic talk and I’m not a religious freak.  I have Gay friends.  They have a lifestye.  GREAT!  Just don’t use our term Marriage for your convenience.  Get your own word.  Don’t sabotage ours.

By allowing Homosexuals to use the term “Marriage” will that legitimize their lifestyle?  I don’t want to see guys kissing or even holding hands in public.  What about my rights and my freedoms?  Why should I have to turn my head when this happens?  GROSSSSSSSS!!!!!!

Gay and Lesbians want to be married not because of love, but because of money and property.  Hey, they deserve to keep it, however don’t use the word marriage or Holy Matrimony.  They can’t make babies, but they can BUY them! 

Hey little boy, what’s your fathers maiden name?  GROSSSSSSSS!!!!!

How sad for the USA when special intrests are running this country.  What happend to our Democracy?  Let’s call Merriam Webster and put a vote to all this.

Wow Rob, thats speaking like a true ignorant ass. I think the diversity in that you even have a friend, much less a gay one speaks for itself.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you find Chinese people gross, well great! No one is asking you to be tolerant. But when it comes to infridging on another person’s human rights and equality… then guess what? The law says you are wrong. Your rights and freedoms do not give you a right or a freedom to reduce someone else’s rights and freedoms. Its not a ‘special interest’ its a human interest.

Too bad for you.