The Loving Decision

To Malena; I don't normally say this to someone. But you are a liar, and a rather pathetic one at that. No legitimate psych. professional believes what you have written. It is a pack of contemptible falsehood. And your kind may think they are 'compassionate, but all you do as legitimize violent hatred by people like denmill in the post before yours. And last I checked from the Bible; using the name of God as part of ones lies certainly takes His name in vain; and is likely sacrilegious as well. Try again when your 1)Not spouting falsehood and B) Can actually manage a modicum of Christian behavior.

Wondeful loving article. State rights in California extend to all people here not just heterosexuals. People in California cannot vote away rights of other people. Civil marriage offers over 1,000 rights, obligations and protections in the State of California. Prop. 8 will be overturned as unconstitutional there is no doubt about it.

Correction: Judith Lewis Herman
Sorry for wrong email address.

Correction: Judith Lewis Herman
Also, I gave a wrong email address by mistake, but I am new at this. I do not wish to give any email address.

Quidlen, you look gay. Are you gay? Are you trying to put your gay's agenda? Let me tell you the people of California have voted for Prop. 8 (against gay marriage for the second time). These gays bastards thought that they were going to win and decided ggggo to the voting booths. Now that they did not win, they are crying out. This behavior is so gayish. What don't they do not understand? They can be gay and they can get civil union, but they CANNOT GET MARRIED. There is nothing to prevail. We the people have spoken and we said that no gay freak can get married in the state of California. Quindlen, please go to Boston!!!!

Protests for gay rights will probably be steady over the next several months. I don't blame gay Americans for being upset. The idea that offering gay Americans the option of civil unions over marraige is just plain insulting, as well as discriminatory. It echoes the past struggles of African-Americans as they transcended from the status of slave, to a fraction of a person, to a full-fledged US citizen with the right to vote. Our nation's Founding Fathers never wanted the federal government getting involved with sacred matters of the heart such as abortion and marriage, that is why they supported a strong Separation of Church & State in our great democracy.
The controversy regarding legalization of same-sex marriage has brewed for many years now, and likely will be the next monumental civil rights case to be decided by the US Supreme Court. The gay marriage dilemma eerily mimicks the past struggles of women who fought for their reproductive rights to have an abortion, and any minority group who has similarly fought for freedom under the US Constitution.
Our Founding Fathers never wanted Washington DC to be caught in the cultural maelstrom that has erupted towards matters of this kind. If the federal government allowed itself to accept the Pro-Life opinions that life begins at the moment of conception, then it is plausible for those who believe this that somehow the pregnant mother and the physician whom she requests to perform an abortion would be commtting some form of murder in the eyes of these Pro-Life beleivers. This is why the majority views of Pro-Choice Americans and the historic case of Roe v. Wade will always be the prevailing law of this land.
Our Founding Fathers never wanted Washington DC to be caught in the middle of the arguments regarding the definition of marriage. There has never been a call for a legal defintion of marriage until gay Americans pursued that civil right. Is it really the duty of state legislators and US congressmen to define the act of marriage? Shouldn't those US citizens who want to enter into marriage have the right to do so? If current legislation banning gay marriage is allowed to stand, then it is quite safe to say that government accepted a defintion of marriage based on the views of religious groups and political parties which oppose same-sex marriage, just as they opposed inter-racial marriage in America's not-to-distant past. This is why the opposing arguments towards defining marriage in order to deny minority groups this right, will be eventually seen for what they are, which is discriminatory.

Thank you, Anna. As an attendee of the Seattle rally in support of marriage equality, as the straight uncle of two lesbian women, and friend of countless gay men and women, I celebrate the march of history. As a soldier, a citizen, a human, I believe that the rights of all humans cannot be limited by the votes of ignorant people. In time people will look at this era and wonder at the silly attitudes inherent to this age.

When you start from a false premise, your argument will be false. The concept of homo marriage has false premises.
Race is not the same as sexual orientation.
Marriage IS a certain thing; it cannot be changed just as an apple cannot become an orange.
Whether hetero or homo all human beings deserve basic human respect; this is not the same as saying that everything either chooses to act on sexually is a good thing. Love is sacrificial and someone truly in love would desire the morally right thing for the beloved----whether homo or hetero. Sometimes it must mean that you are intended to live a life without sexual activity. There is not basic human right to sexual activity no matter what. If there were then man is free to also have sex with animals and children. Sorry--but that is exactly where the false argument of sexual freedome will go!
No law which allows an intrinsic wrong can ever be true law; so even if the homos prevail and can sign apiece of paper nothing will change. They will have a piece of paper; they will not have a marriage. No one can force a Christian or other who knows this is a false marriage to call it by that name nor honor it as such.
Heteros also do not have the right to just marry anytime they want either! This is why we impose age limits and limits on sanguinity.
I could go on. Alas, it won't matter. Evil will battle for evil til the end; and until the end evil must be battled!

Comment: FRMR IRS AGENT: you need a thesaurus and two vicodin. The only "hateful ignorant bigot" in this post is you! Every single person with whom you have disagreed is immediately labeled an "idiot conservative". I for one am tired of it, and I'm sure many others are as well. Your continued use of slurs and derogatory terms is proof that you are unstable at best and irrantional at worst. You give a bad name to those on the left and only serve to fuel the rhetoric coming from the right. Unless you have something constructive to add, my advice is for you to "take two" and go to bed.

You wrote, when explaining the passage of Proposition 8, that "It's truer to say that money talks." Implying, of course, that money made all the difference. I'm not sure, although I can guess, why you failed to mention that those opposed to the proposition received more financial support than the Yes folks. Specifically naming the Mormon church as the culprit also was irritating. There were many of us not affiliated with the Mormons who gave proudly from deep pockets.

A year ago I hosted a small group for my Evangelican church. Of the three couples who attended, all were divorced and two were living together without marriage. At our third meeting, somehow the discussion drifted to gay marriage. I listened to the hypocrites rip on the gay community for about ten minutes before asking them to explain to me how divorced couples, or couples who lived together without marriage, were different from gay couples since the Bible is quite clear that any sex outside of marriage is a sin (including sex after divorce). I said that, based on my reading of the Bible, it does indeed indicate that being gay is probably "sinful", but clearly, based on numerous passages, it is no more sinful that being divorced or having sex outside of marriage.

Needless to say, that was the last group meeting. That situation was the final straw for me. Although I love the passion Evangelicals seem to have for God, I left that church because I just couldn't deal with the blatant hypocrisy.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and Thank You God for the separation of church and state.

A year ago I hosted a small group for my Evangelican church. Of the three couples who attended, all were divorced and two were living together without marriage. At our third meeting, somehow the discussion drifted to gay marriage. I listened to the hypocrites rip on the gay community for about ten minutes before asking them to explain to me how divorced couples, or couples who lived together without marriage, were different from gay couples since the Bible is quite clear that any sex outside of marriage is a sin (including sex after divorce). I said that, based on my reading of the Bible, it does indeed indicate that being gay is probably "sinful", but clearly, based on numerous passages, it is no more sinful that being divorced or having sex outside of marriage.

Needless to say, that was the last group meeting. That situation was the final straw for me. Although I love the passion Evangelicals seem to have for God, I left that church because I just couldn't deal with the blatant hypocrisy.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and Thank You God for the separation of church and state.

This article makes it sound as if all adults in America don't have the right to marry, they do, but they have to marry someone of the opposite sex. If a same-sexed couple wants to commit themselves to each other for life, that is their right, but by deffinition it is not marriage. No one is being discriminated against.