How Getting Married Made Me An Activist

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: usmcmom143 @ 11/20/2008 8:46:48 AM

    I am sorry you feel the way you do, but as the old saying goes..."Adam & Eve, NOT Adam & Steve!!!" You want your freedoms heard, and recongized, well what about mine??? I feel you are imposing your will on me to accepted your opinion about who you choose to sleep with, and that my son has to learn to accept it too, but I DON'T want to, and I am sick and tired of you shoving your feelings down my throat, because you feel like I have discriminated against you, that???s just BS and you know it. Have you ever thought about how the other side may feel, and how you are imposing your will on us???? I'm sorry I find it offensive to see two same sex people kissing in public, and don't want to expose my 7 year old to that, on the other side I don't want him seeing two of the opposite sexes kissing either. Deal with the fact that the law of man will except a civil union, and recognize your family for what it is, and QUIT trying to change Gods Law!!!!!!

    • Posted By: rangerone314 @ 11/20/2008 9:25:38 AM

      Have you ever thought about how the other side may feel, and how you are imposing your will on us???? I'm sorry I find it offensive to see two same sex people kissing in public, and don't want to expose my 7 year old to that, on the other side I don't want him seeing two of the opposite sexes kissing either.
      *********************************************************************************************************
      That sounds like the gays in the military issue. I would never want to see two guys kissing. The reason all the retired generals came out recently to support revoking "dont ask dont tell" policy is because the regs governing heterosexual behavior are adequate to govern homosexual behavior as well. If you don't like seeing two guys kissing in public, or a hetero couple kissing in public, have an ordinance about making out in public areas.

  • Posted By: NRK00NRK @ 11/20/2008 9:22:09 AM

    I think ignorant people like toogood12 need to shut their mouths. Obviously they are childish idiots who dont know jack about the world around them. I congragulate anyone gay or not that is strong enough to do what is in their hearts and love who they love regardless. Gays are not diffrent people, they are not wrong, they are not evil. They are who they are and they love and feel pain just the same. I say good job and my best regards and wishes to anyone who can follow their heart openly.

  • Posted By: aam153 @ 11/20/2008 9:01:05 AM

    I am in great diagreement with your ideas and principles in this article. Why is it that you want to allow homosexual teachers to indoctrinate our children with a gay lifestyle but it is an outrage to teach about God in that same classroom. I think you have forgotten the fundamentals of what this country was built on..."one nation UNDER GOD". There is no questioning or misinterpretation of what it says in God's word. Homosexuality is a sin. As a Christian, I do not judge those who choose this lifestyle. That is not my job. I accept and love all those around me. But I cannot sit idly by and not fight against something that I know if fundamentally wrong. That would make me a weak believer in Christ. I am also outraged at your treatment of those who are against you. You say that you don't have to deal with being called a "***" too much anymore. Yet, your advocates are going out and harrassing those who are standing up for what they believe. Your people are literally harrassing people and demanding that they pay them an equal amount of money that they donated to support proposition 8. Then should our side not demand the same amount of money that was donated to your cause as well? Gay rights have increased immensely over the years, why do you need a peice of paper to signify your love for each other.

    • Posted By: rangerone314 @ 11/20/2008 9:20:34 AM

      Enter Your CommentPosted By: rangerone314 @ 11/20/2008 9:17:47 AM
      Comment: Posted By: aam153 @ 11/20/2008 9:01:05 AM
      Comment: I think you have forgotten the fundamentals of what this country was built on..."one nation UNDER GOD".
      *************************************************
      Refering to "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge... do you even know when that was officially added to the Pledge of allegience? 1854? Try 1954? Also you might want to take out a one dollar bill & look at the Masonic symbols on the back. If you look at the letters in the words that circle around the pyramid, they spell MASON. You can see this easily enough if you draw a hexagon (a masonic symbol) by connecting the appropriate first & last letters. Masons = anti-royalists. (Other famous Mason was Mozart, who was killed by another Mason & since he was the court composer, his being a member would have embarassed the Austrian court so his death was pushed under the rug - see, you learn something every day!)

      But I cannot sit idly by and not fight against something that I know if fundamentally wrong. That would make me a weak believer in Christ.
      ****************************************
      A strong believer in Christ would be concerned with Salvation (his own) and the Afterlife, not in Worldly concerns. That is why early Christians were pacifists and were persecuted by the Romans for this. Modern "Christians" and what passes for Christianity sincen about 200 A.D. supports "Just Wars", as if Christ would have ever advocated a "just war".

      Gay rights have increased immensely over the years, why do you need a peice of paper to signify your love for each other.
      ********************************************
      Maybe they want to be able to visit a dying life partner in a hospital, share family health insurance, do we really want to list all the tangible benefits of marriage (as if the intangible benefits were also not significant)? What makes you think they value the "piece of paper" any less than you apparently do?

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 9:12:46 AM

      "I think you have forgotten the fundamentals of what this country was built on..."one nation UNDER GOD".

      Show me a jury trial in the bible.

  • Posted By: treider @ 11/17/2008 5:02:13 PM

    My partner of 15 years and I were also married in CA on August 28, 2008. It was a wonderful experience and I also broke into unexpected tears when the time came to say our vows. Recently, we attended a rally in Las Vegas against prop 8, and I have to say I haven't seen this kind of energy form the gay community for decades. This time they pissed us off. You don't give rights and then take them away. That's unAmerican and it's wrong. I'm not going to stop now until all my gay brothers and sisters have the right to marry the one they love - in all 52 states!!!!

    • Posted By: Jmon @ 11/17/2008 7:10:52 PM

      If you wanted to be "married", why don't you just find a gay church and gather all your friends and family and have a wedding? Just because the state doesn't recognize it as a marriage (that's what civil unions are for and the state of CA grants the same benefits towards civil unions as they do marriages) doesn't mean its any less meaningful to you or your partner. So is it an issue of "civil rights" or just language and taxes?

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/18/2008 12:30:15 PM

        We've tried "separate but equal". It didn't work.

        • Posted By: emilyam @ 11/18/2008 3:40:34 PM

          I'm so tired of the "separate but equal" argument. This isn't about rights - it's about hijacking a name and changing its long-standing meaning. Black americans were truly seeking equal rights. They weren't asking to call themselves white, which is a better equivalent to gays seeking to call their unions marriage. Just as white is no better than black, or vice versa, marriage is no better than a domestic partnership. Both already have equal rights and responsibilities under the law of CA. Calling the relationship what it is isn't discrimination. It's classification.

          • Posted By: summer4077 @ 11/18/2008 3:49:21 PM

            So what about people who get married and divorced 6 times, or for just a few weeks? What about illegals who marry citizens to gain citizenship?

            • Posted By: emilyam @ 11/18/2008 4:41:27 PM

              What about them? What about gays who enter into a domestic partnership or civil union and later end it? Or those who do this (gasp) more than once?

              Again, heterosexual union: marriage. Homosexual union: domestic partnership. Not discrimination, classification.

              There's something really pathetic about trying to steal not only the name of marriage for gay unions, but also the emotionally-charged phrase "separate but equal" from the black civil rights movement, especially considering what a poor analogy it is. If your "movement" can't stand on its own merits, it doesn't have any business proceeding.

              • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/18/2008 4:46:52 PM

                "Again, heterosexual union: marriage. Homosexual union: domestic partnership. Not discrimination, classification."

                "Separate but equal". I've heard this joke before.

                • Posted By: emilyam @ 11/18/2008 6:43:36 PM

                  Churches can teach different doctrine and call themselves different names and still have equal treatment by the law.

                  Calling a cow a horse doesn't change the fact that it's a cow.

                  Different. Already equal.

                  • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 10:45:09 AM

                    "Different. Already equal. "

                    Invalid on its face. Also, what do churches have to do with it? We're discussing individual rights. If churches want to get involved, fine...let them surrender their tax-exemptions and jump in the fray.

                    • Posted By: emilyam @ 11/19/2008 2:41:44 PM

                      "Different. Already equal."
                      "Invalid on its face."

                      Not invalid - this is the central point and the heart of the issue. Heterosexual marriage and homosexual unions are fundamentally different, no matter how much the gay community wants to claim the title and therefore change the meaning of the word marriage.

                      There is nothing more to this than that. Nothing. Gays repeatedly fail to acknowledge that according to Cal. Fam. Code §297.5, enacted in 2007, domestic partnerships in CA already have all of the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. So this cannot in fact be about rights. Advocates like Doc Howl seem intent only on having the last snarky word, either by personal attacks or by steering the subject away from this legitimate point.

                      So I have no problem repeating myself with confidence, as this is the essence of the issue: Different. Already equal. Attempts to claim otherwise amount to nothing more than lies, and changing the subject only emphasizes the legitimacy of the point, if only by trying to use smoke and mirrors to keep others from seeing it.

                      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 3:19:56 PM

                        "Not invalid - this is the central point and the heart of the issue. "

                        No, totally invalid. The churches you mentioned operate differently, but are treated equally in the eyes of the law. The point made no sense whatsoever.

                        As for the rest of your article, you claim that "separate but equal" works. This has been PROVEN to be false during the civil rights era.

                        • Posted By: emilyam @ 11/19/2008 6:40:39 PM

                          The churches comment - I was naming an example of where different institutions are treated equally by the law. So in that instance, "separate but equal" does work.

                          And since we're back to "separate but equal," (thank you for staying on topic, by the way) it's not a simple case of three words "working" or not. Since you seem to have missed it, my original comment further explains why the analogy is so poor. But here is the historical backup and context for a term you appear not to understand.

                          The ???separate but equal??? argument doesn???t hold water when you try to apply it to gays and domestic partnerships. Plessy v. Ferguson established that separate but equal facilities were to be provided for blacks, but over a half century later, the US Supreme Court found that those facilities (including schools) were in fact vastly unequal in quality. Hence, Brown v. Board of Education. For the analogy to work, you'd have to show that somehow domestic partnerships are not the same quality as marriage, a case which you may have been able to make before 2007. But since the enactment of the law giving domestic partnerships all rights and responsibilities of married couples, you no longer have that to stand on. You are equal.

                          In California, regardless of Prop 8???s passage, domestic partnerships are both

                          Separate - in name from marriage (satisfying Prop 8???s proponents), and

                          Equal - in terms of rights of responsibilities, which should satisfy Prop 8???s opponents if this were indeed an issue of rights alone.

                          What gays are fighting for is not the "equality" half of this concept, but the "separate" half - they would make marriage and domestic partnerships indistinguishable by name, in spite of their vast difference in practice.

                          So throwing around a politically and emotionally charged term such as ???separate but equal??? does nothing but inject feelings and passions related to an entirely different issue into the current debate in an attempt to lend it the credibility it lacks on its own merits.

                          So if you want to reduce it to very simple terms, yes, I am arguing that in the case of marriages and domestic partnerships, they should remain separate because they are quite different. They are already equal in every way in the eyes of the law, but name. That battle has already been fought by gay advocates, and won.

                          • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 9:18:16 AM

                            "I was naming an example of where different institutions are treated equally by the law. So in that instance, "separate but equal" does work."

                            The law is the same for all of them. They are not separate but equal, they are equal in the eyes of the law.

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 11/18/2008 2:58:18 PM

        "Just language and taxes"...really? Ok, so it's ok for nutjob Britney Spears to get married for 2 days, yet it's not ok for gays that have been in loving decade long (sometimes longer) relationships to be married?

    • Posted By: maxxygrrl @ 11/20/2008 4:49:54 AM

      Ummm...as of this morning, I checked....there are still only 50 states that make up the United States of America. And what right did the 4 judges in California have to overturn the voice of the citizens of CA? What right did they have over the voting citizens of CA? I think you need to check your facts and do more research on this subject. Why is it so important for gay and lesbians to have marriage? What's the real motivation here? No one has told you, you can't be together. In fact, CA gave you civil unions, domestic partnership - really, what's the big deal??? God's not in favor of it. And when you get married, you get married at an "altar"(as stated in the article). A-typically, when you think of an "altar" don't you think of some sort of religious ceremony? Possibly in a church? So, are you really trying to have "marriage" so that you can stand in the house of God or before Him(at the altar, mind you) and say to Him, Hey! I don't care what you say or have commanded me not to do, I'm going to do it anyway! Or, are gays and lesbians just being defiant because they don't believe in God and just want to piss all over the sanctity of those of us who do believe that "marriage" should be between a man and a woman. And let's face it, in the theory of evolution, gays and lesbians wouldn't have a chance. Based on your same sex preferences and natural selection being what it is, you can't perpetuate a species if everyone who wants to be together is the same sex. I guess unless we're all asexual, right?

    • Posted By: emilyinaz @ 11/17/2008 6:17:14 PM

      "You don't give rights and then take them away."

      Actually, we didn't. Four radically liberal judges did, going against their three colleagues on the bench as well as the majority of Californians, who had already spoken on this issue in 2000. Now we've spoken again. And since nearly 30 other states have passed similar initiatives to Prop 8, all the talk from gays of "time is on our side" is delusional, at best. The cause for the preservation of marriage seems to be marching forward unyieldingly, as time goes by. If you couldn't defeat 8 in CA during with everything you had in your favor this year (huge Democratic turnout, biased wording in the title of the amendment, etc), it's just not going to happen.

      Since this isn't about rights (domestic partnerships have equal rights in CA, as stated in the article), get your own name for your the institution you've concocted. It's a lot of things, but it isn't marriage.

  • Posted By: rangerone314 @ 11/20/2008 9:03:52 AM

    Never thought I'd be defending gays or gay rights but I've seen so much stupidity on display, I just had to say something:

    1) A) Its outlawed in the Bible, like in Leviticus: so is mixing two kinds of fabrics together in clothing, so is eating meat of pigs or rabbits, growing two different crops in the same field. So farmer John, you ate pork & grew corn & wheat in the same field, you're going to Hell!
    B) Not everyone uses those rules.
    2) Its unnatural. Ever see a wholpin? (half dolphin/half whale) How about a liger? (half lion/half tiger) How about halfgoat/halftiger? Ever see a dog mount another male dog, or a female dog mount another female dog? How about the youtube video of a dog and a duck? (search youtube & dog humps duck) Apparently NATURE is pretty "unnatural".
    3) Gays spread diseases... true to some extent. But so did all those good Christians who came to the New World & brought smallpox and killed millions of Native Americans. Oh, maybe we MIGHT want to encourage monogamy among gays by encouraging marriage. With a little luck, maybe homosexuals will manage a divorce rate lower than the roughly 50% that heterosexuals have.
    4) Family values. Seems like the gays WANT to have family values, which is why they want to get married. If you want to look at what's wrecking family values in America, its not gays marrying in Massachussets or Connecticut... which have low divorce rates. Its nice good Red states like Oklahoma, which have the highest divorce rates.

    • Posted By: rangerone314 @ 11/20/2008 9:17:47 AM

      Posted By: aam153 @ 11/20/2008 9:01:05 AM
      Comment: I think you have forgotten the fundamentals of what this country was built on..."one nation UNDER GOD".
      *************************************************
      Refering to "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge... do you even know when that was officially added to the Pledge of allegience? 1854? Try 1954? Also you might want to take out a one dollar bill & look at the Masonic symbols on the back. If you look at the letters in the words that circle around the pyramid, they spell MASON. You can see this easily enough if you draw a hexagon (a masonic symbol) by connecting the appropriate first & last letters. Masons = anti-royalists. (Other famous Mason was Mozart, who was killed by another Mason & since he was the court composer, his being a member would have embarassed the Austrian court so his death was pushed under the rug - see, you learn something every day!)

      But I cannot sit idly by and not fight against something that I know if fundamentally wrong. That would make me a weak believer in Christ.
      ****************************************
      A strong believer in Christ would be concerned with Salvation (his own) and the Afterlife, not in Worldly concerns. That is why early Christians were pacifists and were persecuted by the Romans for this. Modern "Christians" and what passes for Christianity sincen about 200 A.D. supports "Just Wars", as if Christ would have ever advocated a "just war".

      Gay rights have increased immensely over the years, why do you need a peice of paper to signify your love for each other.
      ********************************************
      Maybe they want to be able to visit a dying life partner in a hospital, share family health insurance, do we really want to list all the tangible benefits of marriage (as if the intangible benefits were also not significant)? What makes you think they value the "piece of paper" any less than you apparently do?

  • Posted By: RandyHiggins @ 11/18/2008 10:40:53 PM

    Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Empowering same sex marriage as a right and backing it with the power of the constitution is a bid for absolute power. People of faith have rights; to vote, to say it's unholy, and to follow traditional historical religions. This is not a legal issue, it's an attempt to gain absolute power over ideas. When a small minority dictates to the majority, democracy is corrupted.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 10:42:51 AM

      "People of faith have rights; to vote, to say it's unholy, and to follow traditional historical religions."

      You can follow your traditions all you like. You cannot enforce your traditions on others.

      How hard is that?

      • Posted By: crusader*mom @ 11/20/2008 3:31:09 AM

        And by forcing silence on others who don't agree with you by mandating that your lifestyle choice be accepted, isn't that doing the same thing? The difference is that freedom of religion, freedom of speech are explicit in the Constitution; freedom to "marry" is not. Don't try to take away others freedom because you want what you do in bed to be accepted out in the general public.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 9:17:03 AM

          "Don't try to take away others freedom because you want what you do in bed to be accepted out in the general public."

          Which freedom? The freedom to oppress others? Try as I might, I can't find that one.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 9:15:45 AM

          The difference is that freedom of religion, freedom of speech are explicit in the Constitution; freedom to "marry" is not."

          Try amendments IX and XIV.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 9:15:13 AM

          "And by forcing silence on others who don't agree with you by mandating that your lifestyle choice be accepted, isn't that doing the same thing? "

          Nobody is forcing silence on anybody. Jabber all you like. But you don't get to take other peoples' rights away.

  • Posted By: angeladc @ 11/20/2008 9:15:31 AM

    Well, of course as many of ya'll know spiritually I'm not for gay marriage but if this is something they want to do and they are not hurting anybody then let them live their lives.I just pray that they would soon turn to God and pray for forgiveness of this homosexuality sin like everybody else prays for forgiveness of their own sins.I love ya'll nonetheless but just remember what all you will be accounted for come judgement day especially if you're not ignorant to the fact of what it states in the bible.

  • Posted By: nic@nite @ 11/20/2008 9:15:19 AM

    I think there needs to be a distinction between the issues involved with same sex marriages. The homosexual movement, as well as the author of this piece or of whom the piece is refering to need to be able to understand two things. Equality, civil rights, and discrimination laws are enacted to protect the freedoms of the individuals in this country to say "no matter what my ethnicity, what my sexuality, what my religion, what the color of my skin, what the accent of my voice, I should have the equal freedom as the person standing next to me. These rights I will get behind anyone no matter what their sexual orientation. These rights stand against an absolute that is "we are all created equal" and therefore should all be treated the same. However, to redefine the unit that is marriage whether through STATE or CHURCH, we are attempting to redefine an absolute in the same way that we would attempt to redefine that murder is not murder but an acceptable form of punishment by individuals if the individual feels wronged. We cannot redefine these absolutes for these are truths that exist outside of ourselves. You cannot argue that because you have a preference that your inalienable rights allow you to choose that an absolute must be enacted in order to not only allow you to have your own preference but to also define your own truths. There can never be a line on the sand that will separate TRUTH and STATE. I stand 100% behind you in that CHURCH and STATE must be separate, religions there are many. GOD there is one, and whether we choose to believe in Him or not, it does not allow us to redefine our own truths in order to impose our preferences on others. This is not a discrimination against any one group, as if me as a straight person if i wanted to marry someone of my same sex would encounter the same problem. IT is not a matter of discrimination but of truth, of absolute. The absolute is this, marriage is a unit created not only by God but by society in order to procreate and protect the offspring. If men and men or women and women can procreate on their own and supply the necessary protection to their offspring, then natural law would have provided for marriage to have been an election between sexes with no regard to "sexual preference".

  • Posted By: baybay @ 11/20/2008 8:32:09 AM

    "MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN & ONE WOMAN." --The Holy Bible

    YOU CANNOT PROCREATE IF YOU ARE GAY!

    YOU ARE NOT HONORING GOD IF YOU ARE GAY!

    YOU ARE **NOT** MARRIED IF YOU'RE GAY!

    David Jefferson--I'M SORRY, BUT IN GOD'S EYES, YOU ARE NOT MARRIED.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 9:13:57 AM

      " "MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN & ONE WOMAN." --The Holy Bible"

      What verse is that quote from?

  • Posted By: LizInSC @ 11/20/2008 9:09:04 AM

    I don't understand why one group of people thinks it's ok to dictate how all other people should live. I'm a hetero woman educated in the field of science and I understand completely that no one has the choice to be gay or not...it's just there. I wouldn't want anyone telling me I couldn't marry the person I love any more than I think I (or anyone) should dictate that to someone else. If you don't like abortions, don't have one...don't like alcohol, don't drink it...don't like gay marriage, don't enter into one! LIVE AND LET LIVE!! It's not difficult to do. Let grown, educated people make their own decisions! I've never been wronged or hurt by a single gay person just because they were going about their own business and living their own life. Rangerone and Marcus, I couldn't agree more! Mr. Jefferson, congratulations to you, I wish you nothing but happiness!

  • Posted By: mksm @ 11/20/2008 9:08:07 AM

    Marriage is between and man and a woman, if you want to do something different, then call it something different.

    Honestly, I do not doubt that the feelings gay people have are real, and I want them to have every right and enjoy life with thier companions. But this should not be something that is talked about in schools to very young children, that is taking their right away to be children. These are adult issues. If you say this will not happen, you are wrong, it already is happening. Books that are geared towards kindergarteners about two boy penguins, or two boy princes have too much detail about physical touching than would be appropriate even in a book about a man and a woman.

    Please live your lives and do not infringe your way of life on others. Children are entilted to be born to a father and mother, and to be children while they are young, not be exposed to adult issues.

  • Posted By: mustangman00 @ 11/20/2008 9:07:38 AM

    We can bring religion into this debate, but was it not the voters of California that voted it down? You know there would be no debate, at all, if everyone would choose to make their life right with God. A deeper relationship with God, and all these issues would be gone. What I believe makes little difference! What you believe makes all the difference. If everyone would try to have a great personal relationship with God there would be no debate, and no war, no discrimination! So, get right with God, and everything will fall into place. Also, Religion is an Organization. God is a spirit.

  • Posted By: thewill @ 11/20/2008 9:06:04 AM

    Thank you for pointing out that God made Adam and Eve for a reason; it's no coincidence. When we, as a society, start to change God's will, we are working in dangerous territory. No one is telling anyone how to live; we're simply speaking what we believe to be God' word. I do not believe anyone is born gay; no one is more subjected to it then the next; being exposed to that lifestyle is opening them up to a sinful lifestyle. Compaing a person's religious belief of what is right and wrong is nowhere near comparable to a racial situation. Let's focus on the situation at hand instead of changing the subject to make it seem acceptable. Whose will are you going to follow? God's or man's?

  • Posted By: Pirate Grrl @ 11/20/2008 9:02:19 AM

    To usmcmom143 - What will you do if your son wakes up one day and realizes that he's in love with Steve? Will you find his happiness offensive? Will you deny him the right to share his life with the person he loves? Seeing people of the opposite sex kissing won't make your son gay, but it may make him more tolerant than his mother. As it says in the bible, judge not, lest ye be judged.

  • Posted By: Vino64 @ 11/20/2008 9:01:19 AM

    Maybe Gays should not have to pay taxes, since we don't matter. My marriage should be recognized by the very government that happily takes my tax dollars. The majority of voters are against gay marriage, but that does not make them right. Voters were against interrracial marriage years ago, should that vote be over turned too?

  • Posted By: hankiee @ 11/20/2008 8:52:36 AM

    It's one thing to be born in the wrong body and make a change. and another thing saying I a man who likes men and want to marriage a man. if you feel you in the wrong body than change it Don't play this little word game.... there a different being gay and being the wrong person.

  • Posted By: marcus1 @ 11/20/2008 8:50:04 AM

    We are now entering an age where the rights of the individual is actually conflicting with most religions.
    I've always tought that religion was used to control people, and this is a classic example. No matter if you're a Christian, Athiest, Muslim, or any other belief, no one Organization or individual has a right to tell someone how to live. Gay individuals have a right to be married! If churches feel that they will be forced to marry people, or otherwise they are discriminating - the bottom line is, their entire belief system is discriminatory! Religion is used for fear, hate, and war! Only through religion can a decent human being kill another human being, all in the name of his religion!

  • Posted By: rangerone314 @ 11/20/2008 8:49:20 AM

    Posted By: NSWann @ 11/20/2008 8:35:40 AM
    In California, a Christian Doctor was recently taken to court and lost for refusing to perform artificial insemination on a lesbian, isn't that infringing on his first amendment right to practice his religion?
    ......
    If a white doctor who works in a crowded city ER, who is a white supremecist and has the religion of "White Identity" (yes there is a white supremicist religious affiliation) believes that blacks are monkeys and it violates his religious beliefs to operate on a monkey, should a black person shot by criminals be allowed to bleed to death in the ER because the White Identity doctor refuses to operate?

    If you say "yes", it is his religious belief, then maybe you should build a time machine, don a white hood and robe, and travel back to the good ole days when they lynched people they didn't like on trees.

  • Posted By: mas75mle @ 11/20/2008 8:37:00 AM

    The people of California have the right to amend their laws anyway they want to. And for any reason they see fit for that matter. More people voted for the ban than against. Never fear, there are states that allow it. take a trip to one of them and do as you wish. This is another example of the founders wisdom. The federal government should not be allowed to regulate most things !

    Under 18 and need an abortion in Virginia ? You are going to have to tell mom and dad..... Don't want mom and dad to know? Take a short car trip to Maryland, problem solved.

    Live in Maryland and want a smoke? It's gonna cost ya $5.75 a pack! Think thats too much? Go to Virginia and it's $3.25.....You can even take the metro....

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse