LET THE PARTY wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:21 PM:BEGIN. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

Infidel wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:22 PM:Wedding gifts for everyone! I suggest islands. Men on the first, girls on the second and men and women on the third.

Let's come back in 50 years of marriage and see who has survived. After all it is "natural" right?

Now that is fantasy island!

to Infidel wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:46 PM:Some of us live in the real world, where about 15% of humans (and other species) are homosexual, but there's more than enough "third island activity" among the 85% to keep the species going, no problem. In the real world lesbians have babies too. Read a book sometime and maybe you'll find out more about the marvels of the real world.

Harry wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:52 PM:A day that shall live in infamy!

My Marriage wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:54 PM:. . doesn't need protection from narrow minded religious fanatics who want to make everyone think and act like them. Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one!

robert wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:23 AM:this is sic very sic why dont you people go get an island you people are very sic thanks calif for allowing this garbage

Save Marriage wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:25 AM:Outlaw Divorce!

Knowing wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:29 AM:This should correct the real travesty of gays marrying straights just to fit in. It will save a whole lot of folks, a whole lot of heartache. Having fewer people living a lie will benefit all of us.

Howiek wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:06 AM:Couldn’t agree more My Marrage! I have no time for the narrow minded religious fruit-cakes out there!

bodecea wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:40 AM:Interracial marriage was never voted for either. Those who want CIVIL RIGHTS to become a matter of majority vote better be careful what they wish for. We're ALL unpopular minorities in one aspect or another. But fortunately, we have the Constitution and Judicial Review to save us from the Tyranny of the Majority.

Appalling wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:00 AM:It is amazing what a five to four decision the liberal CA Supreme Court can accomplish, isn't it? What a bizarre spectacle this is.

Policy Guy wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:12 AM:To "To Infidel": You claim to live in the "real world" where "about 15% of humans (and other species) are homosexual". I hate to burst your bubble, but there is no way in this world that 15% of the population is homosexual. Having done a great deal of study about this topic as it relates to the issue of gay marriage and public policy, I can say that virtually every reputable study that has been done on the prevalence of homosexuals in society has placed the number somewhere between 1.5% and 4% (with lesbians on the lower end and gay males on the upper end of that range). Even the Kinsey studies--the ones that used a high number of homosexuals and sex offenders in the research--noted results somewhere in the neighborhood of 10%. And Kinsey's numbers were greatly skewed because of his less than scientific techniques. This is the number that many homosexual groups and "educators" use in health classes at schools. That number is nowhere near accurate. Also, if 10-15% of the population was homosexual, they would represent a significant voting block and would likely hold more political power than they currently do. In fact, if the number fell towards the higher end of that 10-15% spectrum, they would outnumber African-Americans as a percentage of the population and would most certainly vote in greater numbers than African-Americans. Perhaps "To Infidel" should take his/her own advice and read a book about the topic--preferably a book with real research and fewer pictures.

Religion wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:36 AM:= intolerance.

John wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:11 AM:This Sexual Special Interest Lobbying Group has lots of power. Even though I don't agree with them, the churchs & Christians opposing them should learn how to succesfully navigate the laws to get what they want

Abomination wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:14 AM:Perhaps we should lighten up on this gay marriage issue, and focus on those ignorant sinners down at Red Lobster.

Leviticus 11:12 clearly states that eating shellfish is an abomination, and yet there they sit, sinning away, unaware that the Easter Bunny in the sky is a fixing to smite them most mightily for their transgression.

Atheism wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:15 AM:= I don't think I will ever have to stand before God.

Oh yeah wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:52 AM:...now they can be as miserable as most married hetero couples I know. And just think of what a boon this will be to divorce attorneys!

I think wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:54 AM:We passed a law that said lets not do this. Why is it that the people are not heard.

Jesus wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:55 AM:= love unconditional. Loves the sinner, hates the sin.

To Atheism wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:04 AM:Duh!

Ballot Initiative wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:04 AM:We need a ballot initiative to stop those sinners down at Red Lobster!

Leviticus 11:12

Knowing wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:06 AM:is right. My friend Dave had to split his childhood between two households because his mother decided that she couldn't live the lie anymore and left his father when Dave was 13 or so. I suspect this kind of thing will happen a lot less often once we let adults decide for themselves who to marry. I wonder what the "protect marriage" klan would say if the divorce rate falls by a couple of points.

Sam wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:23 AM:Horse pucky.

To Appalling wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:29 AM:"It is amazing what a five to four decision the liberal CA Supreme Court can accomplish, isn't it? What a bizarre spectacle this is."

At least we are not relying on you, someone who cannot even correctly note the number of CA Supreme Court Justices, to hand down opinions. If you understood the judicial system better, and read through the opinion, you should easily see how the mostly conservative CA Supreme Court came to such an "appalling" conclusion. Just so you know, there are seven justices on the CA Supreme Court.

The majority opinion held that marriage is a fundamental right, one which cannot be denied to citizens without justification capable of withstanding strict scrutiny. Opponents were unable to provide such justification, and lost as a result.

Wayne wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:37 AM:"It is amazing what a five to four decision the liberal CA Supreme Court can accomplish, isn't it?"

Liberal????? 6 of the 7 judges were appointed by REPUBLICANS. Funny, I always thought staying out of people's personal lives was a CONSERATIVE value.

Wayne (who will be getting married today) :o)

To Policy Guy wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:41 AM:Doesn't the 1.5% figure represent those individuals that self-identify as gay but excludes those that may engage in, etc., and yet do not self-identify as gay.

As I recall Asian-Americans during WWII were a significant voting block but that didn't prevent California from putting them in camps.

Ugh wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:49 AM:It's just paperwork anyways... Keep it in your closets... Nobody cares anymore

Sleeping but Awake wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:57 AM:To: Police Guy - Assuming that the number of 1.5% is correct that would mean that ~4.5 million individuals are gay. So, let them express their love by marriage and mind your own business.If you find these folks offensive, well, to bad for you.And, you may well be called on to enforce the law and make sure these people can marry without interference or harrassment.

They can play wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:19 AM:husband and wife until November when the voters will strike this law down. Enjoy the honeymoon while you can.

Isaiah wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:26 AM:The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

Alf wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:55 AM:Well, "Isaiah" at 10:26AM or the person posting under that handle, you are a perfect example of why there is, and should remain, separation of church and state. Regards, Alf.

Bill One wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:00 AM:I don't care what the gays do. Just leave me alone so I can smoke my cigar.

Margaret wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:10 AM:Means absolutely nothing. Marriage is just a contract on paper for tax and legal reasons. You don't need to get "married" to get basically the same contract terms. I am not religious so this is just changing the definition of marriage. By changing the definition, it now becomes null and void. I will never recognize marriage other than between one and one woman, otherwise what is the point?

to Alf wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:18 AM:Separation of church and state is merely an opinion of the court.

Because of this, all that is left in education for God-fearing people anymore is to home-school. Supposedly, secular society cannot dictate beliefs, yet it continues to do so every day in the schools. Those of us who believe that God does not condone homosexuality are left with fewer and fewer options.

Finally, it's rather ironic that so many of you are tripping over yourselves trying to be nice to gay people, when, in fact, you could provide them and yourselves so much more by being good to them.

Well if everybody wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:34 AM:is so happy with the tax breaks, what are you going to do about the single taxpayer who takes it to court for discrimination?

To Ballot Initiative wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:40 PM:When Jesus came along he relieved his followers of the burden of following Leviticus 11:12. Read Mark 7:14-22 to discover what Jesus says makes a person unclean; it isn't what a person eats.

To Well if everybody wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:46 PM:"Well if everybody is so happy with the tax breaks, what are you going to do about the single taxpayer who takes it to court for discrimination?"

That's easy ... tell them to get married. It's what everyone else has to do to get them.

Alf wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:55 PM:Well, "to Alf" at 11:18AM, The First Amendment cuts both ways, the separation of church and state is to keep the "state" from telling you which religion to practice and ALSO to keep religion from dictating government (laws). You are free to practice your religion, whatever it is, or to practice no religion, if you so choose. "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" and your belief system cannot dictate law, especially a belief system that gives rights to some ADULT citizens but not other ADULT citizens. Inequality under the LAW is in opposition to the U.S. Constitution. As a great man, the inspiration for Christianity said "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s". Even Jesus recognized the difference. Regards, Alf.

I just wonder wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:25 PM:what will happen when divorce rates go even higher. It has been discussed that homosexual men have many partners. So when divorce rates (and I hope not many more kids will suffer) sky rocket will people still be jumping up and down because they brought marriage down to their level?

and Alf wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:30 PM:today the thing that was rendered to Gays (ceasar) is marriage. Some think that was a pact between a man and a woman (God) ,so now that God's "things" have been rendered to Ceasar what now?

Janet wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:50 PM:Jesus said and did a lot of things that superceded the Old Testament. Either it does or it doesn't. You can't pick which you like and which you don't (unless you are God). Jesus had a positive message of love and tolerance. Maybe you hatemongers should go back and read his words again.

Anyway this is a decision by the GOVERNMENT not by the CHURCH.

Yes Sir wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:59 PM:Just finishing emailing my California lawmakers advising them that the single TAX PAYING voters of California are extremely unhappy that they will not be given tax breaks and reminded them there are millions of single voters and this is an election year.

Not everyone wants wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:00 PM:too be gay and not everyone wants to be married, but all deserve the equal taxation.

Well Alf wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:05 PM:When Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's", he was speaking specifically of surrendering one's tax money to the government, not one's belief system. A judiciary has used its belief system, which either denies the existence of God or selectively ignores His will, to dictate law. In effect, a judge's belief system trumps my belief system and declares my religious beliefs to be invalid.

Not genetic wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:09 PM:Homosexuality is not genetic. If it were, it could not be altered by mere choice. (You cannot "choose" to be brunette, Chinese, or tall. But homosexuals can choose to alter their behavior. Homosexuals have been known to change ("International Journal of Psychiatry," March 1972, p. 119), which proves it's not genetic.

No Reliable Evidence wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:17 PM:There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person’s genes. To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person’s tendency toward homosexual behavior, the existence of that tendency does not excuse this behavior. Some people have a strong tendency for stealing or alcohol abuse, but they still choose to engage or not to engage in this behavior. A person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity. The Bible is clear that sin involves choice, and it condemns homosexual behavior as sin.

Ridiculous wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:38 PM:Get over your bible. It doesn't run this country. If you think we are all going to hell, leave us be so we can burn there happily. But for now, we would like to enjoy equality in California.

Alf wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:38 PM:Well, "Well Alf" at 2:05PM, you are wrong when you say "In effect, a judge's belief system trumps my belief system and declares my religious beliefs to be invalid.", the Judges ruled on Man's Law, their highest rule as Judges, they made no ruling withrespect to God's law. Man's law and God's law are and must remain two separate things. While it is your choice to view a LEGAL ruling as being a ruling on your religion, that is not what it is. Say what you will, the Bible is not our system of Justice nor is it our Constitution. You are trying to mix the two and the Constitution precludes that mixing. Thank goodness that neither what you call your religion nor any other religion controls our country. One more thing, do you ascribe to the New or Old Testament? Or do you do as many others do, pick and choose whichever part or chapter or verse suits your position at any given time without understanding the whole thing, the evolution from the Old to the New? Do you eat pork? Do you stone an adulterous woman? Regards, Alf.

to no reliable evidence wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:57 PM:What does this have to do with allowing gay marriage? Are you saying that only people who are free of sin should be given certain civil rights? Are you saying that anything the Bible considers sinful should be against the law? Have you read the Ten Commandments? You are free, of course, to consider homosexual behavior a sin, as any other behavior. But why should your beliefs dictate the law of the land? In other words, even if you were GRANTED the idea that it's a choice and a sin, that would have no bearing whatsoever on the matter at hand. From my point of view, if this were a sin, it would be WAY down on the list of severity. Greed would be up there. Coveting would be up there. Now if you want a couple of sins that really wreck the social world, start with those. When that is gone from the earth, let's talk about who someone decides to love and sleep with. Deal?

Sad story wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:12 PM:Isn't sad that of all the countries that one could be living in, these religious zealots would pick (or be picked to be in) the USA? There are and have been so many countries that have had theocratic governments, though at the moment, most happen to be Muslim. Pity the irony that these folks were not born in Europe in the dark ages, when the states, such as they were, knew that the Bible was the Law. Bad luck, I guess, or maybe a test of some kind from their God.

Genetic wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:18 PM:There is absolutely no reason to think that actually engaging in any behavior is anything but a choice, except perhaps reflexes. That said, the evidence that being attracted to one or the other sex is a matter of choice is almost nonexistent (some, very few, people do choose this). As automatic as most people are interested in and attracted to individuals of the opposite sex, that's exactly what it's like for homosexuals regarding their own. The faux-religious folks say that you should just live with that automatic sense of attraction and never, ever act on it. In the same way that they never, ever act on any impulses and desires that they have that are considered sinful. What? What's that? They DO act on those impulses frequently? Oh. Well, that's interesting. So what do they think is so special about the homosexual, then?

Policy Guy wrote on Jun 17, 2008 4:26 PM:To "To Policy Guy", I would not agree with your statement on several levels: One, Asian-Americans were not a significant voting block in California during WWII. In fact, even now they only make up 12% of the population, and that’s after several major immigration waves of Asians into the US. Also, it wasn't all Asian-Americans but rather Japanese Americans that were placed in internment camps. Beyond that, no one is suggesting or has suggested putting homosexuals in internment camps, so I fail to see the analogy.

To "Sleeping but Awake", perhaps you can point to the section in my statement that speaks against gay marriage. In fact, I did not indicate a stance one way or another. All I spoke to was the validity of the 15% statistic that was quoted in an earlier blog. Your response seems to prove my point: People will read what they want to read, and the truth shall not get in the way of rhetoric and ideology. By the way, it's "Policy Guy", not "Police Guy". There's a big difference—one helps make the law, the other helps enforce the law.

Tyler wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:27 PM:I don't see why people want to insert religion into politics. The law is clear: religion will not dictate law. If religion dictaed law, the state would be in violation of the Constitution, and we're back to square one.

There also seems to be a simple solution to the problem for the anti-gay Chrsitian/Republican crowd: don't get one. If we lived in Iran or Saudi Arabia where religion was law, these marriages would not be legal. However, we do not have an official religion dictating law, but a secular judicaiary.

What these Christian and Republican groups fail to realize is that America is not just for Christians or Republicans, and as such, I do not want to have their doctrine govern my life, or others.

Roberto wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:14 PM:I have known several gays to change over the years. One thing they had in common is an absentee father. I do agree that if someone is happy together in a long term relationship, they should be allowed to marry under the law as long as they pay taxes!. Gay or straight, getting married for reasons other than pooping out children should think long and hard before committing or as I say after 35 years of marriage....being committed.

Alf wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:34 PM:Well, "Roberto" at 8:14PM, you seem to have an open mind and a great sense of humor. Regards, Alf.

Straight jacket wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:24 AM:Gays and straights have more in common than they realize. Some commitments are longterm and some are short. Attraction doesn't dance to religion or politics. Bow to Cesar. The only sure things are death and taxes.

i have a question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:05 AM:how do they decide whos last name to use after their married????

Mary wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:09 AM:It is hard enough to find someone you love enough to stand by unconditionally. If you find that person...no matter what the sex kudos for you. It is nice to have someone to share the weight of this world. Congrats on all the new married folks.

Great debate wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:08 PM:Kudos to most of you for thoughtful comments on both sides of this issue. Particularly to Alf, Policy Guy and "to no reliable evidence". My personal feeling is that science will eventually demonstrate conclusively that homosexuality is BIOLOGICAL and not merely a "choice". No one said that it had to be genetic. Indeed, the best evidence of a biological root for homosexuality involves the amount of testosterone that the fetus is exposed to in utero. Granted, the link is tenuous but it is there. For all the religious people out there I pose this challenge: The next time you see a person that you believe to be gay, just ask yourself a question: WWJDA? That is, who would Jesus discriminate against?