So Cal Native wrote on Sep 20, 2007 12:47 AM:I can agree with letting gays be married with all the same constitutional rights as everyone else but, when it comes to the children, they should not be able to adopt or artificially inseminate. This would break down the root of original family values and morals. Let them get married but, have some kind of clause stipulating that they are not allowed to raise children. Can you imagine your child going to school and seeing a normal family of a man and women and what they would be feeling? Once again, I can understand them getting married for finacial reasons but, without the children. WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILDREN WHOM ARE SUBJECTED TO THIS LIFESTYLE! They have rights too!

Tony wrote on Sep 20, 2007 1:07 AM:Yes to same sex marriage. The Mayor of the City of San Diego has decided to approve same sex marriage hopefully as a a truly tolerant leader. City Councilmen Young, Maienschein, and Faulconer are a disgrace for not voting YES. We (ordinary straight people) all have family members and or friends who are homosexuals. Tolerance is lacking in San Diego County. Majority 'wins' but we must also protect minorities. Do you remember when women could not vote? when Jackie Robinson broke into major league baseball? when people of color had to sit in the back of the bus? Be a righteous citizen, not a bigot. From webster.com bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Taxpayer & Voter wrote on Sep 20, 2007 5:17 AM:Our elected officials are once again going against the wishes of the voters. Anyone surprised? Peer pressure, like we all use to get when we were kids makes even grownups change their beliefs for the cameras. This is JUST another example of political correctness gone overboard. Shame on the spineless politicians who won't do what the voters have asked.

To So Cal Native wrote on Sep 20, 2007 9:36 AM:The idea that sexual orientation is high on the list of things that make a person qualified to raise a child is laughable at best. I would be willing to bet you that there are far more heterosexual people who shouldn't be allowed to reproduce than the other way around.

Tim wrote on Sep 20, 2007 9:48 AM:What a disappointment, just another lieing politician. Our city just keeps getting better and better. Yep, our sanctuary city and now gay marriage. Can it get any better? And they call San Diego, America's finest city, what a laugh.

kate wrote on Sep 20, 2007 10:01 AM:So Cal Native you have the right to your opinion, but I truely feel sorry that you have so much disgust toward other human beings. Family values and morals would not be broken down or ruin if homosexual partners decide to start a family. Our starting families is planned and wanted unlike a large percentage of heterosexuals. Homosexuals are just as capable to raising children with everything a heterosexual couple can provide that child (i.e unconditional love, support, protection, financial security) and even something that some heterosexual couples cannot or will not always give their children, teaching them not to hate people who are different.

Hey Taxpayer/Voter wrote on Sep 20, 2007 10:40 AM:You are soooo right! How can we possibly trust the homosexual community to raise kids! After all, they are generally better educated, more affluent, and dress much better than the average person - qualities that we certainly do not want in our kids today! Much better to let them be raised by Catholic Priests!!!

So Cal Native wrote on Sep 20, 2007 10:50 AM:This has nothing to do with disgust or hatred torwards human beings but,its about the children whom might be raised within this lifestyle. To subject an innocent child who doesn't know any better is WRONG!. Yeah right, a homosexual can raise that child with everything a heterosexual family can execpt for the man and woman part which is everything to a child, to be able to have a MOMMY and DADDY. You want to have gay marriages so bid. I understand the need for protecting the rights of a gay couples but, LEAVE THE CHILDREN OUT OF IT.

To So Cal Native wrote on Sep 20, 2007 11:14 AM:A Mommy & Daddy is EVERYTHING to a child?! Wrong again. I was raised in a single parent home as was my husband and we both came out just fine. Security, Stability & Love rank far higher than gender when it comes to providing a solid home for children.

kate wrote on Sep 20, 2007 11:29 AM:What are homosexual couples subjecting children too that is so wrong?? Love, Compassion, acceptance??? And please tell me So Cal Native what do you know about homosexual lifestyle? Have you ever lived it. I can assure you it is the same lifestyle that heterosexual couples have (we love, work, eat,breath, play, and sleep all the same way. We are no different from you.

I can't believe this.... wrote on Sep 20, 2007 11:43 AM:arguement about "the children". If "the children" were so important, why do we allow "the children" to go without basic medical care, why do we allow "the children" to go hungry at school? Why do we allow "the children" to be ripped away from their illegal immigrant parents? Why do we allow "the children" to be abused by catholic priest, but when they are no longer children, we say they were just faking, and all they want is money, and it never happened anyway? I'm sure so cal native would have to agree that a child raised by an illegal MOTHER and FATHER has to be better than one raised by a natural born gay couple? No, that's just too many issues to deal with, eh? "The Children" is just a sleazy way to try and gain the upper hand in a political arguement. Come on, have the fortitude to say what you really mean.....that you're just mean.

Something for Everyone wrote on Sep 20, 2007 1:24 PM:The argument that homosexual men and women use for same-sex marriage is one of rights. If they are given all the same rights, but it is called a civil union, then what's the problem? A homosexual relationship is different than a heterosexual relationship by it's very nature, so why not call it something different? Marriage has always had a certain definition, and there's really no reason to change this, as long as no ones rights are being infringed. I believe the intentions of the homosexual lobbyists is obviously more than just equal rights, otherwise with the present legislation, especially in states like California, this would no longer be an issue. And most people really don't have a problem with equal rights. But there are a lot of people that are married, and they believe that changing the definition of marriage is just wrong. And they are right...

To I can't Believe this wrote on Sep 20, 2007 1:58 PM:WE do NOT rip children of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS away from their parents. Their parents ABANDON them to others to raise in the US rather than keep their families together. THEY ARE THE CRIMINALS no one else. The gay people I know are more loving and kinder than most of the so called Christians.

Everything is Not a "Right" wrote on Sep 20, 2007 2:09 PM:There is no such thing as a "right" to be married in the Constitution. There is no need to redefine a foundational institution of society called 'marriage' in order for homosexuals to have equal rights. They already have equal rights. Anyone at any time can enter into a 'legal' agreement with another, without regards to sexual orientation. These folks already have the individual freedom to enter into a meaningful relationship - they do not need to redefine or destroy 'marriage' to do that.

Ed wrote on Sep 20, 2007 3:30 PM:I empathize with the Mayor. I would be in tears too if I found out my child were gay. I would wish that on no parent. Regardless, I don't understand why that changes his mind about his original beliefs. Why does a lifestyle choice need to be legitimized in the law?-

To 2:09 wrote on Sep 20, 2007 3:54 PM:You missed the point by a country mile, there bucko! The issue is not the ability to enter into a contract. You're right - anyone can enter into a contract with anyone about anything - doesn't mean it's legal, and it doesn't mean its enforceable. What is going on here is that the religious concept of marriage comes with benefits afforded to it by the government. The gay community wants the same legal benefits to apply to their marriage. This ain't a religious issue, this is a legal rights issue. You're also correct in saying marriage is not a right. The government could just as easily say that married people now have to file their tax returns the same way as single people. The Bill of Rights ain't gonna help you there, sport! Just as the lord giveth, and taketh away, so does the state! Face it, you're married to religion, and the dogma that religion has taught you renders you unable to see what is really going on. Jesus never had a problem with gays - those who wrote the scriptures are the ones who had the problem. Open 'dem eyes!

So Cal Native wrote on Sep 20, 2007 4:10 PM:Kate, if God intended for people of the same sexuality to have children, then he would have made it possible for the same gender to have children. You have your beliefs and I have mine. If I remember correctly, doesn't say in the bible that this is a sin? You have every right to live the way you choose but, for you to want to raise a child in this enviroment is WRONG PERIOD! Haven't you ever heard of "You are a product of your enviroment"? This is the message that you would be sending to this innocent child and once again, THAT IS WRONG! To the people whom were raised in single family eviroments, I am truly sorry to hear that because, deep down inside when they were a very small child, I am sure most missed their MOMMY OR DADDY. Marriage by definition is between a man and a women and if your gay and want to be married, so bid but, we should call it something else and leaves the children out of the equation.

What wrote on Sep 20, 2007 4:22 PM:Marriage is between one man and one woman, period! If homosexual marriage is allowed then all bets are off on what a marriage is. It could be between 2 men and a woman or even between a woman and a stallion or a pig. Who will be left to judge what is right and what is wrong? The union of a homosexual couple can and should be a civil union with all of the rights and restrictions such as divorce, alimony, child support etc... There are some lines that cannot be crossed and the voters have said that this is one of them!

Reardon wrote on Sep 20, 2007 6:01 PM:Mayor Sanders made a decision affecting many based, not on rational thought, but his own family situation. Basing public policy, whether good or bad as public policy, on personal and family issues is bad, bad, bad. Whether it is religion or anything else, personal experiences are part of all decisions, but should not be the ONLY reason for a decision!

What's Next wrote on Sep 20, 2007 6:19 PM:If Homosexual marriage is allowed do we start to allow arranged marriges between a man and a young girl? or do we start to allow young girls or boys to decide that they should be allowed to marry an adult? MARRIAGE IS ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!

Alf wrote on Sep 20, 2007 7:31 PM:Sort of binary thinking, "What", isn't it? I remember when Marriage was between a WHITE man and a WHITE woman or between a man and a woman of another race, but it WILL BE THE END of Marriage, nay, civilization as we KNEW it, if inter-racial marriages were allowed. Step into the year 2007, ENOUGH OF THAT BESTIALITY EXCUSE CRAP, it's nothing but the raving of an anachronistic lunatic and you know it. Fortunately, your sort die off soon enough. Same-sex marriages are happening, will continue to be more prevalent until they are accepted across the entire U.S., and civilization AS WE KNOW IT will continue and thrive, with or without you. It's only your closed-minded type that will wither on the dead vine of closed-mindedness. Regards, Alf.

To So Cal Native @ 4:10 wrote on Sep 20, 2007 7:42 PM:I've read and re-read your statements and you are a total half-stepping hypocrit. The idea that you think that same sex couples should be able to marry, but not raise children ... you think that they deserve equality but only to a certain level. That would be painfully ridiculous if it weren't so sad. What exactly makes you think that an opposite sex couple is more qualified to be a parent than a same sex couple? I am also a (hetero) product of a single parent household and at no time did I miss the absent parent. She didn't care enough about me to be there then why should I waste my time on her?! Be honest about your beliefs regardless of the side you fall on. You're either for equality or you're not.

To What wrote on Sep 20, 2007 7:45 PM:I would fully support the concept of 2 men and a woman getting married .. as long as they are all conseting what business is it of anyone else's? Your argument, however, gets stupid when you start bringing animals into it. That said, the day that a stallion or a pig can legally give their consent to such a relationship then more power to them.

To What's Next @ 6:19 wrote on Sep 20, 2007 7:48 PM:Did IQ's just suddenly deteriorate?! An arranged marriage isn't the same thing as a consentual relationship. Arranged marriages (while popular in some cultures) should never be allowed because, by their nature, they are a forced contract that is executed without consent being required. Aside from that, what does age have to do with your ultimate declaration that MARRIAGE IS ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN?!

Mayor Hypocrit wrote on Sep 20, 2007 7:50 PM:While I am happy to see the Mayor finally came around to being equal to all legal taxpaying citizens of San Diego, I find him now to be an unelectable hypocrit for flip-flopping on such an important issue for personal reasons. Should he really need a gay daughter to tell him homosexuals should not be considered second class citizens?!

Alf wrote on Sep 20, 2007 7:51 PM:Well, "So Cal Native", here comes the ever-popular EXCUSE "What will it do to the children"? Let's see, about 50 PERCENT of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, WHAT ABOUT THE DAMAGE THAT DOES TO CHILDREN? Oh they're hetero, so it's OK, right? WRONG! How about STABILITY, does that play a part in raising a child? Nah, can't be, if they're homo they can't have stability, any more than the FIFTY PERCENT of heteros who get divorced after making a child, one of the few things for which you don't need a license. All I hear from the anti-gay marriage side are lame excuses, wild exaggerations, hyperbolic crud and failure to look at the horrible state of hetero marriages. And people like you fear for a child raised by same-sex parents? Mule fritters. Regards, Alf.

cheryl wrote on Sep 20, 2007 10:05 PM:So California native ... You don't know what you're talking about. All the studies show that a child raised by two women or two men are no better off or worse off if raised my a man and woman. What does matter is if the child is loved.

rg to socal native wrote on Sep 20, 2007 10:35 PM:according to you, we are products of our environment. and i know what you're thinking: gay parents = gay children. WRONG. because by your own rationale, if people were products of their environments, the inordinate amount of gay children who have straight parents would be an impossibility. straight parents can have children by accident. it happens all the time. many of these children are abandoned, abused, etc. because it's physically unfeasible for gay people to have a child, it is NEVER an accident. it's well-thought out, well-planned, and most of all, done out of love. a good parents is a good parent.

Gay Male wrote on Sep 21, 2007 4:00 AM:...As a gay man, I rather think that my straight parents had it right that their sexuality and mine, was god given and private. They taught me respect, and love. Incidentally that can be taught in any family where love and respect exist. The gender and the mechanics of the parental coupling behavior is incidental.

Tony wrote on Sep 21, 2007 4:03 AM:This is an example of a "Profile In Courage" I have enourmous respect for the Mayor. Good Luck, Sir!

Joanne wrote on Sep 21, 2007 5:01 AM:How incredibly refreshing to see a politician actually stand for something he believes in, regardless of the consequence. We don't put people on the back of the bus in San Diego, this is a loving community. And this is a civil right issue these people are fighting for and I'm proud to have this man as mayor. That speech sure beat the hell out of anything I've seen from our current presidential candidates. Lead with your heart Jerry, you'll end up on the right side of history. PS - Look at Massachusstettes folks - the sky didnt fall when they legalized gay marriage three years agao (hello, we've all forgotten about it) - who cares!

To Alf and the Other wrote on Sep 21, 2007 5:11 AM:Intellectuals out there: Many of you condemn people for their beliefs, both personal and religious. However, consider some of the things we see today that we never saw even 10 years ago. For instance, the language, swear words and dress used on prime time television these days. It is nothing to hear GD... or many other objectionable words. Or to see women in tong bikinis or underwear. All for our kids to see each and every day. And how about the fact that it is legal according to our courts for a teenage girl 12 and older to get an abortion without her parents being informed. Are these changes in our society OK with you? Does this make sense to you? As a parent struggling to raise teenagers I can tell you they are NOT OK with me! Now, another step, eliminate traditional marriage, open it up to any and all forms BECAUSE that is what will happen somewhere down this road we are currently on. Think about the consequences of our actions today that will affect future generations. This is one of them.

Alf wrote on Sep 21, 2007 11:30 AM:I guess that you, "To Alf and the Other", would willingly inflict carrying a baby to term on a 12 year old. Some of the societal changes are not OK with me, the worst is having a president who has no idea about how to wage a war, never served in battle and is giving himself and all future Presidents powers that defy the core of our Constitution. Imagine the worst President that could possibly be, forgetting GWB for a moment, having the powers of NSPD 51 or the Executive Order allowing seizure of assets BASED ONLY ON A SUSPICIAN and attested to by 3 MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE WHO ARE BEHOLDEN TO THE PRESIDENT. That same E.O. allows seizure of assets of anyone who helps a person whose assets have been seized. Do you want your most despised person, someone morally, ethically and politically repugnant to you to have that power over you and every person in the U.S. WITH NO OVERSIGHT? Compared to the rape of our Constitution by GWB, everything seems ALMOST trivial because without our Constitution BEING INTACT, we have only the despot who gets in office and takes that final step. "First they came for..." Regards, Alf.

Patrick wrote on Sep 21, 2007 11:37 AM:There are so many unwanted children in this country and for all you hate spewing christians to deny them parents who actually want them, is truly evil.

Tony the first wrote on Sep 21, 2007 1:23 PM:To Alf and the Other 5:11 AM. I am Tony Sep 20 2007 1:07 AM; I am not Tony Sep 21 2007 4:03 AM. Our generation was raised to do what our parents told us to do. No junk food. No radio and later on, no TV at certain times. This was when 1 adult family relative was home all the time. When neighbors knew each other and spoke out to any youngster doing wrong. There was little money, but lots of time to read, learn, play informal ball games, etc. And children did not tell their parents what kind of clothing to buy nor what they wanted to eat. Most of us did not go to a restaurant until we were older teens. Responsible adults were in charge, not the youngsters. In our time a handshake was all that was needed to agree on a business decision, not a 30 page contract with signatures. None of our current problems are because of sexual orientation or same sex marriage. Do not blame, guess, and point fingers until you have investigated and have absolute accurate proof, which includes understanding and listening to all sides. Do set a good example, be educated (keep in mind, history repeats itself), rational, tolerant, and plant seeds of wisdom.

To Alf wrote on Sep 21, 2007 1:34 PM:What a rant! I, as a parent, do not think my daughter when she was between 12 and 16 at the earliest had the ability or maturity to make a decision as important as having an abortion NOR should she have the right to have an abortion without my knowledge. How dare you and the courts try to take that right away from parents! I can only assume you are not a parent! I can also only assume that the other issues I raised either went over your head OR you don't have an answer to them. And since when is homosexual marriage or lack thereof, the fault of the president. All I was attempting to do was provide some analogies about why we cannot let our society errode further. Get a grip, reread my posting and then answer if you want. Good Grief!

To Tony, wrote on Sep 21, 2007 1:42 PM:I agree with all you said except that about not blaming! I was also a part of that same kind of generation/family that you have described. However, I do blame our society for allowing the language and sexual inuendo on TV. I do blame our society for forcing us to have those 30 page contracts because we can no longer trust each other. I do blame the public, the politicians and the media for the hate that is spread each and everyday. AND I do believe we need to stop the errosion of the family and of our morals to help stop the errosion of society! I am by the way the 5:11 person!

jeffrey wrote on Sep 21, 2007 1:50 PM:I can't wait until polygamy is made legal. After all if I can marry whom ever I want , then i can marry how ever many I want. It is the next logical step. I know you all think I'm nuts, but tell me who thought 20 years ago that same sex marriage would become legal. It will happen.

To Jeffrey wrote on Sep 21, 2007 2:57 PM:I would support that under the condition that all parties are consenting.-

Alf wrote on Sep 21, 2007 3:03 PM:Oh, "jeffrey". 20 years ago it was 1987 and there were already people who were "common-law" married, they just had no rights. There was no legal kinship status, etc. Adding ALL the legal aspects, the RIGHTS and the RESPONSIBILITIES is what they want. You want to exaggerate the RIGHTS while not mentioning the RESPONSIBILITIES, which marks you as a twentysomething... Regards, Alf.-

to jeffrey wrote on Sep 21, 2007 3:57 PM:the polygamy discussion is a different issue...why is it that everyone just pulls in random arguments without trying to present a coherent argument against same-sex marriage itself?

Curtis wrote on Sep 21, 2007 4:23 PM:The divorce rate among straight couples is about 50% so why are people worried about the children of gay couples. What about opposite gender couples where one person is bisexual? Should they be allowed to have children? Who cares how many people voted for Proposition 22? People used to believe women shouldn't be allowed to vote; they were wrong even though they were in the majority. Of course it is easy to be in the majority when you deny civil rights to the minority. Why does gay marriage bother many of you? How does it personally affect you? What goes on between consenting adults is their business. If two opposite gender people can marry and gain legal protections and financial incentives then why should benefits be denied to a gay couple. If a gay person works all their life and dies, their social security money doesn't go to their partner; there is a good chance the government will keep it. A married individual can die knowing their partner (spouse) will receive their social security. Does this sound fair? Both paid into the system, but one dies leaving their partner no social security even though they worked hard and paid into it just like everyone else. This is a civil rights issue.

To Alf wrote on Sep 21, 2007 4:32 PM:Your 3:03 post just left you revealed as someone not worth discussing things with. You will argue any point without any hope or logic REGARDS, not!

Alex wrote on Sep 21, 2007 5:06 PM: Legalize same-sex marriage! The next thing you know politicians will allow millions of illegal criminal immigrants to have their marriage legally recognized, to adopt children without fear, to keep their jobs, to care for their loved ones when in hospital, to qualify for tax benefits…. What…Oh, amnesty…..nevermind.

fedup wrote on Sep 21, 2007 6:45 PM:shame on the mayor! he does dot represent the voters!

Alf wrote on Sep 21, 2007 8:36 PM:Well, "To Alf", it appears that you would inflict full term pregnancy on a 12 year old. Your version of "family values" is what is perverted beyond belief. Regards, Alf.

jeffreytg wrote on Sep 22, 2007 1:47 PM:To alf: I did not say I was against same sex marriage. That is an inferance on your part. I simply said, and I will be provn correct, though there is no point in argeuing about it now, that plural marriage will be legal in the US someday. I look forward to that day. I thank the homosexuals for opeing up this opportunity.

To jeffreytg wrote on Sep 23, 2007 8:55 AM:I counter your conclusion by asking you to envision a future society that is unbalanced from endless war and left with a multitude of women and a scarcity of men. In order to maintain the population and also maintain civil order, plural marriages would be encouraged. If this was to happen, your thanks to the homosexuals for opening up this opportunity would be genuine./

cndbanks wrote on Sep 23, 2007 4:15 PM:This is supposed to be about an elected official, one whom was voted in by virtue of the principles in which he stood for. If he can't stand for them then step down. -----BEGIN RANT----------------------- As a Christian (frequently discriminated against, just watch the comments) it is not the gay community I dislike rather than the practice. So saying that marriage is alright between same sex is saying the practice is right. Just as premarital sex is wrong. As for homosexual couples raising kids...PERSONALLY, I find it wrong. After sitting through all of the homestudy and adoption classes I came to a PERSONAL realization it is better to have stability and security than to be stuck in limbo in foster care. So if you want to say no to homosexuals adopting and you want to take a stand against abortion then put your money where your mouth is. And someone posted they were raised by a single parent and turned out fine? Yeah well so was I and I also came out fine, but the experience is something I would not wish on anybody, parent or child alike. And JeffryTG, don't worry about your society there is already research out there making sperm cells from stem cells in bone marrow. -----END RANT-

God invented straight marriage. wrote on Sep 24, 2007 10:00 AM:How can Sanders speak on behalf of the entire city? I am against gay marriage. Let?s set the record straight: God invented marriage. He invented sex between a man and a woman. It was God himself that made it necessary for a man and a woman to have sex in order to produce children. This family unit is the basis of every society. Humans came along and tried to alter the natural order. Then they justified it with a bunch of fancy, albeit illogical, words. No to gay marriage. Yes to God?s perfect plan for everyone. No, I don?t hate gay people, I know that God loves everyone equally and has a perfect plan for all people, but they need to go to him first and see what it is that He wants before they start making up plans that go against His will.-

Lynne wrote on Sep 24, 2007 2:20 PM:My goodness, people are getting heated here. As a Christian, I was taught to love one another and "thou shalt judge lest thou be judged." Sadly so many Christians get on their high-horses and are complete hypocrites. So to those of you who believe that a gay couple should NOT raise a child, you are forgetting that most gay individuals come from straight parents. There is no correlation between a parents orientation and their child's. And when those of us who are straight get our collective act together and take marriage seriously, then we might have a straw to lean on. Until then, quit being so myopic and realize that if two people love one another, let them have the same rights as we do. I cannot imagine someone telling me that my love for my now husband was not "right" or not equal to someone else's. Knock it off, you sound like squibbling children./

To cndbanks wrote on Sep 24, 2007 7:44 PM:I am the one who turned out fine and am a little sorry to hear that you feel the parent who was present wasn't enough to fill your needs. I happen to differ and feel that my dad gave me everything I ever needed and more. That said, I also appreciate that you included you PERSONAL feelings towards the issue as well as your clarification of your understanding of the bigger picture (loving household vs a life in foster care). We should have more who are willing to live beyond their personal views and support what is best for those they'll never meet.

Rich wrote on Sep 25, 2007 1:28 PM:One of the founding principles of this country is the separation of Church and State. All of the religious arguments about what God intended have no place in state or federal law. If you are a Christian and oppose gay marriage, then don't come out of the closet and don't marry someone of the same sex. I am a straight man in my second marriage and I don't see how the gay couple down the street getting married would destroy my life and hurt my children. I believe in God, but with so many different religions he has no place in our laws. All this ranting boils down to simple homophobia, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Eric wrote on Sep 25, 2007 4:26 PM: Why is marriage between man and woman state ordained? It has nothing to do with religion or civil rights. It comes down to pure biology. It is biologically beneficial for the state to ordain Male Female Marriage. Any population that does not sustain and promote its breeding pairs is doomed. Kids are the future of any population. If the union can not reproduce nor has the potential for reproduction it should not be ordained by the state. Homosexual marriage brings no benefit to the state. Therefore the state should not ordain it. To compare homosexuality to racism or sexism is a dim witted argument. Homosexuality is related to an act not to what you are. As much as you want to say homosexuality is biological, it still comes down to a conscious act.

To Eric wrote on Sep 25, 2007 8:14 PM:Going where you started ... Why does there have to be a legal sustination of any type of pairing? I'm a hetero woman and me and my 'husband' have been happily unmarried for more than a decade. We each have children from previous relationships and, while we could continue to reproduce if we chose, see no reason to seek state sanction (as you put it) for anything. Homosexuality is as equal to racism as is heterosexuality. There is no difference there and there should be no difference in the law as it relates to any law abiding, tax paying citizen. To suggest otherwise is simply un-American.

The city is getting sued left and right, wrote on Sep 27, 2007 2:14 PM:getting ready to go bankrupt, giving sanctuary to illegals and this is all this clown can think of? Kick the bozo out of office, give him a job selling hotdogs in hillcrest!

Sicko wrote on Sep 28, 2007 8:26 PM:All the justifications for same sex is bunk. How can a man have sex with another man? Can't be done and what they do is very sick and abnormal! The Disgusting and abnormal life style they try and convince the gullible that if they are not acceptable as normal, they try and compare it to racism or a black sports player,or womans voting-not even a close anology. Then they try to sell the filthy abnormal sexual perversions by saying how educated, loving and caring they would be if they could raise a child! All the excuses in the world will never make them normal, just as the person who has sex with animals thinks they are normal. They would use the same logic and arguements I am hearing from homosexuals-like racism and all the other bunk, but it does not matter, they are still sick and abnormal people who want to be recognized as normal when they are not!

robert wrote on Sep 30, 2007 2:50 AM:right on sicko right on oh you better watch it they will say you are homophobic just because we don't agree with there sic life

American Mike wrote on Sep 30, 2007 4:01 PM:Yea, what sicko said, since my initial post was censored.

Janet wrote on Oct 1, 2007 7:26 AM:I could not have said it any better, Sicko.-

Awful Idea wrote on Oct 1, 2007 5:08 PM:The problem with homosexual marriages, aside from the religios aspect or many others are the legalities that would need to be addressed. Say if 2 men or 2 women decide to divorce and have children then who would have to pay child support who would legally asume the role of the father? if that were defined in a homosexual marriage then than it would have to be defined in a hetero marriage and would leave many of those mother without children and no child support and the federal government would have to pay for them to live. it's all about the money

Bill wrote on Oct 4, 2007 2:37 PM: kate wrote on Sep 20, 2007 11:29 AM: " What are homosexual couples subjecting children too that is so wrong?? Love, Compassion, acceptance??? And please tell me So Cal Native what do you know about homosexual lifestyle? Have you ever lived it. I can assure you it is the same lifestyle that heterosexual couples have (we love, work, eat,breath, play, and sleep all the same way. We are no different from you. " kate; Having been molested as a child by diseased, deviant, immoral people; I have a tendency to agree with you in that you're all the same. Sad commentary on our times!

Parenting wrote on Oct 8, 2007 1:39 PM:Why because ALL HETEROSEXUAL couples are such great parents? Have you not seen the divorce rate? While we're at it let's outlaw single parents as well since all kids should be raised by one man and one woman...oooh, and no grandparents since they are too old. Kids should immediately be put in foster care where they can be molested by moral, heterosexual people getting a check for it each month!

Vista Granny wrote on Oct 9, 2007 7:56 AM:I'm confused! Did God really invent marriage? Where does the Bible say marriageis between one man and one woman? The Bible is full of men with multiple wives, and not just ordinary men either. And men could "put away" wives at will, or have them stoned to death if they were "unfaithful". In the beginning marriage was strictly a "property rights" arrangement. Since only men could own property, they could have as many wives as they wanted. But, women had to be FAITHFUL, only one man. per lifetime. Why? Becasue that might-

Vista Granny wrote on Oct 9, 2007 7:59 AM:Whoops! Accidentally sent my message away before it was finished. Anyway, Biblical marriage was a man's way to secure his property for HIS offspring. So, one man, with multiple wives was fine, but not the reverse. Got it? Marriage has not always been one man and one woman. What church do these people attend?-

Levi wrote on Oct 9, 2007 9:17 PM:If you believe the Bible, God invented marriage between one man and as many wives as he could maintain. If his brother died he had to marry his sister-in-law and bring her into his family as an additional wife. Wives were so much property and had no rights and could be dismissed at will. The Biblical marriage was akin to slavery. I don't think you want to go there. God also commanded that we stone a woman who wears a garmet made of polyester blend or mixes more than one fabric. A man who cuts the hair over his ears is an abomination and deserves to be killed. Don't even think of eating a pork chop or sausage and milk gravy or shrimp cocktail is reason enough to be killed!

ambassador of Christ wrote on Oct 22, 2007 7:51 PM:Becareful in what you wish for. For what you wish may come true and all its consequences. For lust and pride will lead to distruction. The Beginning of knowledge is the fear of God. To denie truth is foolish. For a foolish man builds his house on the sand and a wise man builds his house on the rock. The sand is the way of the world has chosen and the rock is the way of God. Becareful of false talk with out support of truth.

I wrote on Oct 27, 2007 3:06 PM:Yes, I'm a late-comer to the scene here, but as I read the comments on this page, I had to laugh a little bit. Through all of the whining and name calling all I see are accusations made by the same-sex marriage supporters of prejudice and cries for equal treatment - and for what? A gay man already has the exact same rights that I do. He can either choose to legally marry a woman or not. A gay woman can choose to legally marry a man or not. Those are my rights and those are theirs. In addition, I can legally have sex with whomever I want to (of age and no relation) any time that I want to. So can anyone who is gay. There are no rights being infringed upon, there is only a very loud minority wanting to make the majority reshape the rules in a manner that better suits their sexual choices. That so many people have decided to define themselves solely based on who they decide sleep with is a joke that would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.