- I love living in Tehachapi, I ain't lion... - Joty's Blog - Tehachapi News

May 15, 2008 at 02:05 PM : Great!!! &...

Great!!! What did you hear? I haven't turned on the TV yet today. Can my nephew finally say I do to the love of his life???

You kind of left us hanging Joty (grin)

May 15, 2008 at 03:05 PM : California...

California Supreme Court ruled in favor - 4 to 3 - of gay marriage legal in the State of CA! We are now the second state...only 48 to go!!!!!!

Yes, your nephew can now be legally wed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

May 15, 2008 at 03:05 PM : I will say that first...

I will say that first I am against gay marriage and was one of those voters that voted for the ban. But even if I did support it I would be more concerned with the fact that the court can come in a change the law that a majority votes for. Had the vote went in favor of gay marriage I may not have liked it, but at least I wouldn't feel as if our rights were ripped right out of our hands. Those that are in support of the overturn may like what happened, but I ask you what will when your vote on the next issue get over turned by a law being created or over turned in the courts.

May 15, 2008 at 03:05 PM : This news makes me...

This news makes me cringe... but I am probably in the minority on that.

May 15, 2008 at 03:05 PM : heh....democracy is...

heh....democracy is over-rated anyway. After all, what do the wishes of millions of californians, measured at the voting booth, matter compared to the opinion of 4 unelected, robe-wearing wise people?

Can anyone tell me why we have these sham things called elections, anyway? I knew there was a good reason I stopped voting. Democracy - a bad idea back in the day and cheerfully abandoned by all progressive, forward-thinking folks now.

Long Live the King!

May 15, 2008 at 03:05 PM : Wow...I'm touched...

Wow...I'm touched at the concern - or lack thereof - expressd here for the rights of thousands of people who are no different than the rest of us except for whom they love. Tell me something - please. Just how does legalizing gay marriage affect you personally? Does it interfere with anything you do on a daily basis?

You're right PD, if democracy/voting really worked, Bush would've never been in office!

May 15, 2008 at 03:05 PM : Since I know you...

Since I know you detest Bush, I'd expect you to value elections more - but like most folks, you're only concerned with getting your way. You did this time, so you're pleased, that's all.

I'm not going to argue the issue with you. Why should I? You, and me, and 20 million voters obviously aren't the ones in charge. Argument only makes sense between folks who are trying to convince others to decide something. We're often told that the decisions are made by "the people", but in this case, it was made by four of seven people. Be their cheering section, if you want. Just don't consider yourself a democrat for doing so.

Monarchy - the most perfect form of government!

May 15, 2008 at 04:05 PM : It has always amazed...

It has always amazed me that California did not recognize gay marraige. I do think that if the majority votes one way it is not always what should be written in stone.

I love our country!!!!!

May 15, 2008 at 04:05 PM : Joty - Legalizing gay...

Joty - Legalizing gay marriage does effect me personally. It cheapens my marriage. Does it effect my daily activities? No, worse. It changes the meaning of marriage, and reduces it to merely a legal union between anyone with a pulse. How long before people try to marry their dog?

May 15, 2008 at 05:05 PM : Sunshine-Your marriage...

Sunshine-Your marriage is not cheapened. Gays have just as much right to love as you do. Maybe it's your belief system that you feel has been cheapened? I can understand that argument. I don't believe maybe what you believe in but I respect your opinion. Please don't compare animals to humans. That cheapens your argument.

May 15, 2008 at 05:05 PM : Does gay marriage...

Does gay marriage effect us?

I suggest you read this article. Is Marriage in Jeopardy?, Part 2

http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000647.cfm

May 15, 2008 at 05:05 PM : I too was very happy...

I too was very happy with this news. However, I disagreed with the way in which it came about. I was happy, though, that in the dissenting opinion the judge didn't write that gay marriage was wrong, but rather that the court "overstepped its authority". I do have a problem with 7 people overruling the entire voting population of California. It's a bittersweet decision for me.

May 15, 2008 at 06:05 PM : I am surprised by the...

I am surprised by the selfishness shown on this blog. I see some people don't want others who simply love differently than they do to be able to have any legal rights. In fact one has compared gay people to dogs.. I'm hurt by the bigotry and disappointed by the lack of compassion for people who are as valuable as anyone else here on this blog. Gays most certainly are NOT dogs, nor do they come close to being dogs. I know this is not a Republican view because there are many gay republicans and because AZ McCain's state also voted no to ban gay marriage, and our Arnold has no problem with it. So where does this hatred come from??? I don't know where or how people learn to hate as shown here... I feel great pain and fear knowing that my gay nephew lives among some of you.

What is the common denominator for bigots...Is is rural towns, ignorance, religion, does anyone know??????

May 15, 2008 at 06:05 PM : Gillfish - So,...

Gillfish - So, don't I have a right to love my dog? Doesn't Warren Jeffs have a right to love multiple women? The problem with gay marriage is that it opens the door for 'anything' to be considered marriage. No, gay people are not dogs... and if you re-read my post, I never said they were....

May 15, 2008 at 06:05 PM : madkow, I think you...

madkow,

I think you are the only one that see it like I do here. I may disagree with you on the gay marriage issue itself, buit appears you understnd the point of my post. When we vote and it iover turned by a court that is wrong.

Joty,

Please brush up on the Constitution and you will realize that we the people have never really had a vote for the President. We have only been able to vote for the Congress who is the Electoral. So when a Presidential election happens, we vote to tell the electoral how we want them to vote. However, that does not mean they have to vote for the person we want except for in a very small amount of states where they have placed laws about the issue. At one time alll the people really vote for was for those running for the House. In the orginal Constitution the Senate was appointed by the Governor, we elected the House and both the House and Senate voted for the President in the form of Electoral votes.

May 15, 2008 at 06:05 PM : Sunshine...that's...

Sunshine...that's ridiculous. Now you are comparing gays to pedophiles and beastiality. UGH...

I hope you don't have any family members or friends that are gay who read this blog... OMG the pain they would feel reading this, it's horrible..

May 15, 2008 at 06:05 PM : Jer, I hear what you...

Jer, I hear what you are saying about voting (not on gay marriage) I have a problem with our voting system as well. Based on popular vote Al Gore would have won over Bush and many of the issues I want to pass, would pass. Because you see I kind of go with the ideas of larger states like NY and CA on issues and that is where most of the people are. My neighbor, a republican says the Electoral vote is to even stuff out for the less populated states or American would be more liberal than it already is. I don't know what I think about that, but on this issue I agree with you.

May 15, 2008 at 07:05 PM : Sparks -- I think you...

Sparks -- I think you are starting to get my point though. Can I assume you think being a pedophile or participating in beastiality is wrong?? You see.... I think homosexuality is wrong. I can not support gay marriage anymore than I would support polygamy or any other "version" of marriage.

I think I have a gay aunt out there somewhere... but I am pretty sure she won't be reading this. Regardless, I am not ashamed of my position.

May 15, 2008 at 07:05 PM : Sunshine, of course I...

Sunshine, of course I think pedophilia is wrong... because it concerns helpless children not a mature adult who should have the freedom to have sex with whoever he/she wants. Do I think beastiality is wrong... well if you want to have sex with a dog...go right ahead. But then I would have to fight for the rights of a helpless animal who has no choice in the matter.

It's not what you support or don't support that bothers me. jer is against gay marriage and I am fine with his choice, because he is not comparing gay people to pedophiles, dogs or beastiality. He is not hateful about it...it's just his belief that same sex marriages should not occur due to his religious beliefs. Some believe that marriage is a religious rite, not an American right. I know Jer...he is a good man, he would never compare gays to a dog or the act of pedophiles, or to people who do dogs.

I don't get upset when people have different opinions than I do... I do however get upset when I encounter hateful people.

I was surprised at the ruling because the court has a reputation for being conservative. Six of its seven judges are Republican appointees. This again proves it's not a republican issue at all, it is more likely to be a religious one and I can respect that as long as it doesn't include hatred. I would like to see a separation of church and state. If I had my choice, I would want that any two Americans can be united by civil unions and if people want to have a religious union they can get married and it will be recognized by the government as it always has been. Would that be ok with you?

I remember when mixed races got married people cringed.. I never did. Love is beautiful regardless of race or gender in my eyes. But again, I'm not arguing with your choice... I am only disappointed in your hatred.

May 15, 2008 at 07:05 PM : Sparks, Your neighbor...

Sparks, Your neighbor was right 200 years ago when the states were prety much the smae size and th House was more evenly balanced. Today with statesthat are much bigger and bais towards one direction or the other means the smaller states get screwed.

As for the gay marriage goes, true I don't believe in it, but do recongize that there should be something on the same level. I thinkmost would agree with that if they believe in the Bill of Rights and the Pursuit of Happiness. Marriage to me is something between a man and a woman as it is in the Bible. That is where I think most people are coming from and why they feel it is invading to the traditional marriage. Just as Sunshine said, I believe homosexuality is wrong so I can't support gay marriage. However as a American who believes in the Constitution, I also realize that there should be something the government can agree on.

May 15, 2008 at 07:05 PM : Jer... I...

Jer... I understand how you feel about gay marriage, we have talked about this issue before. I respect your beliefs, as you know.

As for voting. Ah, interesting, I didn't know that. Hmm, maybe it's time we change the voting system in America.

May 15, 2008 at 07:05 PM : Sparks, you may have...

Sparks, you may have misunderstood my "tone" -- which is something I hate about online communication. I'm simply saying what I believe. I don't hate gay people....never said I did. I just morally believe it is wrong. Ever heard the expression, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner" ?

May 15, 2008 at 08:05 PM : I think it's...

I think it's wonderful that everyone can be married! Thats how it should be...who cares what sex someone is? If they're truly in love thats all that matters. It's their business if they want to be married/happy and they have that right as Americans. If you don't like it you don't have to be happy about it...but don't ruin someones chance at happiness and don't judge someone by their personal choice, after all we aren't the ones to pass ANY judgement :)

May 15, 2008 at 08:05 PM : Sunshine ...

Sunshine Hmmm well comparing gays to pediphiles, dogs and beastiality doesn't strike me as a loving statement, no matter what the tone. I don't think you are suppose to HATE at all, not even the sin. In fact I forgive the sin as the Bible encourages people to do. But then, that's me. Sunshine, I simply hope that you will not hurt anyone else, gay or straight with the statements you have made above like you have hurt me and my nephew today.

May 15, 2008 at 08:05 PM : I think your neighbor...

I think your neighbor may be getting things confused, Sparks. As I understand it, the electoral college was created because it would have been too difficult to go by popular vote back when there wasn't adequate technology- ergo the general idea that the electoral college is obsolete. I think the thing about evening out the big states and little states was the decision to have the House reps divided by population, but all states having an equal number of senators (Connecticut Compromise).

May 15, 2008 at 08:05 PM : Madkow... Oh, I...

Madkow... Oh, I see...makes sense. Thanks for the info.

Well, there is adequate technology today...so we need a change.

May 16, 2008 at 06:05 AM : Sparks, I think our...

Sparks, I think our post crossed each other so I didn't see yours until after I hit post for mine.

As for the electoral verses popular vote, I believe it was created for two reasons. Speed of communications and as madkow said, was the way the House was set up. The problem of today is that the speed of communication is so quick and transportation is so easy that people of like minds tend to stay together whereas in the 1700's people tended to stay in their hometowns. So today you have big states that end up have 50 electoral from the House verse a smaller state having a hand full. To make things worst was the fact that the Constitution was amended to have the Senators also elected instead of appointed by the governors. But would a true popular vote work any better? I am mixed on it myself for one reason. Take California as an example, how much of a vote does the population of Tehachapi have compared to LA of San Fran? Even better, what about the voting power of Northern Cal verses SoCal? I have read many times that in Northern Cal they feel as if the SoCal controls the entire vote and that they get nothing.

Madkow,

Thanks for explain it more indepth. As I mentioned above, I have a feeling that neither the electoral or popular vote will work completely right. Both hae their problems and maybe if combined with laws that dictate which direction a elector must vote in regards to his/her district would make a more even field. I believe in Maryland they have done that. If the popular vote is fifty-fifty then the electoral is fifty-fifty. That way the people get more of a say.

Sunshine,

Although I believe that you didn't mean to offend the Pro-gay people here, I can understand why they would be upset by your comments in regard t the dog and pedophiles. In fact it kind of hurts our view of gay marriage with that type of comparison.

May 16, 2008 at 07:05 AM : Jeremy... true. I...

Jeremy... true. I don't think Tehachapi would have much of a vote compared to much larger cities in CA if we went by popular vote. It's difficult to predict what would happen if we did away with the electoral vote. I don't think small towns like Tehachapi would like it much now that you have brought this to my attention. I guess if there were a clear and completely fair way of deciding votes someone would have come up with the idea by now. After reading this blog...all I can say is ... "I don't know"

I'm for whatever is fair... only thing is... I'm not sure what that would be now... thanks for the confusion Jeremy... lol.

May 16, 2008 at 09:05 AM : For those of you who...

For those of you who yearn for another chance to ban same sex marriage, fear not. I'm sure the religious conservatives will have a ballot measure in November to amend the California constitution, and in record time. This is really how the matter should have been handled in the first place. Don't blame the California Supreme Court, folks. They were doing their job & determined that the will of the people can't override our constitution. It's the constitution that should be changed.

Remember that, please. These aren't "judicial activists". They did their job. They were asked to decide if this is constitutional, and a majority ruled it wasn't. Get over it...

;-)

According to this article, it looks like a new vote could be close.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9279652

"Meanwhile, the California electorate is growing more Democratic and, polls show, more comfortable with the idea that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. A June 2007 survey of likely voters by the Public Policy Institute of California found gay marriage losing, but by a slim 48 percent to 46 percent. In 2000, the margin was 55 percent to 38 percent."

As I've said before, if the government insists on giving married couples certain benefits denied to couples not allowed by law to marry, then it's a legitimate governmental concern & should be addressed. If the government wants to step out altogether & leave marriage strictly to religious institutions & issue civil union licenses instead, then I'd be happy too. But this co mingling of religious & governmental responsibilities has got to stop. If the reason(s) gay marriage is wrong falls into a "the Bible says so, so that settles it" category, then the door is opened to all kinds of religious arguments influencing public life, and that includes Sharia-type laws if taken to an extreme. I prefer to stay with our current separation of church & state. I know you conservatives hate that concept, but it works better than religious edict.

You folks who've listed your various concerns about gay marriage have got to realize every single one of your arguments have been used before: when race barriers were lifted in granting marriage licenses. Every single one. Now, if the world culture hasn't crumbled as a result of mixed races marrying over the last 50 years, why should we believe you when you say the same thing will happen now? What is the difference, if the arguments have always been the same?

May 16, 2008 at 09:05 AM : I was shocked and...

I was shocked and disappointed when I heard this news. I know my opinion is not the majority here but I don't believe that gay's should have the right to marriage. I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I don;t have any issue with homosexuals, to each thier own, but I do have issues with the term marriage being used. I think they should call it something else, a civil union, commitment ceremony, whatever you want to call it...anything but 'marriage'.

May 16, 2008 at 09:05 AM : Smokey if marriage is...

Smokey if marriage is a religious rite only... then I agree with you. As Oochild has pointed out a separation of church and state would most likely fix this problem. I am sure most gays wouldn't mind having a commitment ceremony or civil union instead of a marriage, if they were entitled to all the benefits and rights of a religious marriage. As for my nephew, he is very religious and would prefer to be married, but he has mentioned that in order to keep the peace he too would be willing to be unitied with his partner of 6 years via a civil union, if civil unions had all the rights of marriage.

I have said many tmes before... I think people are entitled to their beliefs and should embrace their religion, but I don't think a certain religion should be force on all Americans. There is just too many religions out there, and it wouldn't be fair to force everyone to stick with one certain religion. that's why we have Religious Freedom.

May 16, 2008 at 09:05 AM : OhhChild, I agree...

OhhChild,

I agree that is should have been done in the form of an amendment in the first place. However, neither the US or state Constitution mentions marriage in them, so most Constituional lawyers from both side have been coming out saying that the judges oversteped their powers and made law. Abou the closest part of the US Constitution that may cover the marriage issue is the Pursuit of Happiness.

Now let take this from the perspective that the judges were right and it is within their powers. What about multiple marriages? Why is it that a man or woman can't marriage multiple people of either sex? I know I am stiring the pot, but if they were right in the judgement Jeff Warners (or whatever his name is) should be free if all the women were free to choose.

Now, do you really think the issue is dead if the amendment is passed? I don't because the same people that won this battle now will just take it to the US Supreme Court for round three. Although the issue is not a federal issue as it is within the states rights and powers to make marriage laws and not the federal.

May 16, 2008 at 10:05 AM : Good point Jeremy......

Good point Jeremy...

Now I know this time I will be in the minority, and I expect some negative reactions...

Because, I wouldn't mind if people had more than one spouse. My boyfriend has always joked about how he wants to get married and settle in Tehachapi but doesn't want to live with me in AZ 4 months out of the year. My response is.. Well if polygamy was legal I could just get another husband that would stay with me in AZ. lol

Of course I wouldn't get another husband even if it was legal, I am totally and madly in love with my boyfriend and I simply wouldn't want another husband. But, if people want to go through the added responsibility of two spouses and it works for them...why not? I don't have a problem with some Mormons having many wives, Although, I think it is only fair that woman can have many husbands as well. It's not marrying multiple people that I oppose, it's marrying children that I oppose.

Loving and consenting adults (not pedophiles or animals) should be able to love and commit to whomever they want. Period.

May 16, 2008 at 10:05 AM : My husband thinks...

My husband thinks about it in an interesting way. He says that it isn't just gay people's rights that are being trampled on. If I wanted to marry someone of the same sex, I wouldn't be able to even though technically I'm straight. Really, it's a limitation on all of our rights to marry whomever we want to marry (as long as we're talking about consenting adults).

Jer, about the multiple marriages, I don't see a problem with it as long as everyone is over 18 (or whatever the legal age of consent is in the state of residence) and there are no other issues coming into play like incest or abuse (like the strange things going on inside the FLDS). I don't understand the objection to plural marriage.

Oohchild, I think that's a fantastic idea to rend marriage from government business. Civil unions to acquire all the rights and privileges, marriage within the church of choice. In fact, I remember an article a while back (help me out if anyone recalls it) about some countries in Europe thinking about limiting marriages to something like 7 years. Then if you're happy with each other, you can get married again. Not happy? No problem- just go your seperate ways. I'm very split on that. I can see a lot of good and a lot of bad coming from it.

May 16, 2008 at 11:05 AM : There's a...

There's a difference between the government granting benefits & responsibilities to a union of two adults & the government trying to figure out the equality of benefits & responsibilities among a union of more than two people.

The main reason gays want marriage rights is to level the playing field when it comes to government involvement & support. In a multiple marriage, who has parenting responsibilities? Who pays spousal support? Who can sign medical documents, in case of incapacity? How are taxes filed? All of these issues have gray areas, when it comes to gay couples vs. straight couples. The government has an established set of laws covering these issues, when it comes to married couples. Gay couples shouldn't have to abide by a different set of rules.

All of these concerns would have to be negotiated in seperate agreements, should plural marriage become legal. There's no "catch-all" set of rules that could cover all polygamist relationships. All of these unions would have different numbers of men & women involved. Every one would have a different set of considerations to account for, should an officially recognized marriage occur. A contract would have to be negotiated; a simple marriage license isn't sufficient for those folks.

Personally, I think if several adults want to enter into such an agreement then they should be able to, with the appropriate protections for all parties involved put into place. I don't see how a simple marriage license can accomplish that.

May 16, 2008 at 11:05 AM : Apparently I am a...

Apparently I am a little late on this discussion. But I haven't been on here lately because I was getting tired of the pi**ing contests. But I couldn't stay quiet on this one.

Sunshine, are you serious?!! You first stated that gay marriage "cheapens" your marriage. HOW?!! Then you stated that you disagree with gay lifestyles. So from how I read it, it really isn't about the actual union of marriage, it's your view and beliefs on gays period. You just needed a way to show how it affects you personally which frankly it doesn't.

Now my personal view as far "cheapens" marriage....please. How many gay people do you know that is in a committed relationship? Just like "straight" people they date, and play the field until they find that one special person. So why is that wrong? Marriage is cheapened by the multiple marriages, the divorce rate, the fly by marriages because that is the right of people....ooh, that's right, gays don't have the same rights because they are not equal!! Whatever!! What cheapens marriage is people sticking their noses in other people's business. You don't have to get married in a church, so it's not only a religious ceremony. And as for multiple marriages, like others have said, who gives a crap as long as it is consenting adults. Just because it's polygamy, doesn't mean it's perverse or pedophilia. But it is what someone at one time decided was wrong. Defined marriage as a union of two. I don't see why. But I do believe what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Now I personally couldn't handle more than one husband....I would go insane. But if some other women wants more than one husband, you go girl!! As far as being gay is concern, people really need to but out. I am not gay, I like the one eye willy too much, but then again I like fried bologna sandwiches but I don't expect everyone to like them too. In my generation, the people that I know that are gay and are in committed relationships, they have been with that same person longer that any, and I mean any other friends that I know. Including myself. So lets talk about marriage be Cheapened!!

A lot of people are saying right now that we need a change in our government and country...this is from Democrats and Republicans.....what about a change in humanity? What about a change in treating people with dignity and respect. That is until you get to know a person, then you have to right to despise or not like. Old sayings are old sayings for a reason....Let's not judge a book by it's cover. We can judge after we have read that book.....but then again judging is a slippery sloop now isn't it.

May 16, 2008 at 11:05 AM : Colitas, good to see...

Colitas, good to see you again... wow... you go girl!!!! (smile)

May 16, 2008 at 11:05 AM : Laws have regulated...

Laws have regulated the sexual congress between people across all cultures and time by regulating the formation and recognition of marriages, and by regulating and restricting certain sexual practices or conditions. These regulations and restrictions cover a wide range of laws deemed necessary to serve the common good of society.

The range of specific behaviors considered by different societies to serve their common good has varied however. Accepted behaviors in other cultures have even included pedestry, however much it is condemned by the defenders of gay marriage here and now. No doubt a majority popular vote could be obtained to continue its ban today and - with the right 4 supreme court justices - have as much effect in the future as Proposition 22 has now. The ability of judges to mine heretofore unknown rights from a document the common man often swears an oath to protect, but is held incapable of understanding, should not be underestimated by those cheering the court's current action.

Unfortunately, the notion that a community cannot be allowed to recognize and promote its Common Good as a thing separate from the mere summation of the happiness of its atomized individuals is a pervasive modern notion. Significantly, it is agreed upon across the existing political spectrum, even if applied unevenly by sub-groups within the spectrum. To illustrate that on this site, Jim's rants claiming, that, whatever the circumstances or purposes, Taxation Equals Theft are little different than the similar claim here that Restriction Equals Denial of Rights. Both strip society of their long-standing, long-exercised, and proper place as a cultural arbitrater, to the detriment of us all.

May 16, 2008 at 12:05 PM : I'm just doodling...

I'm just doodling while everyone discusses this issue... continue on....

May 16, 2008 at 01:05 PM : I disagree with gay...

I disagree with gay marriages 100%, but that is my personal opinion and belief. I do not have the right to tell others who to love and how to live, that is their personal choice. And it is not up to me to judge how other's live or the choices they make, that is between them and God.

I have 2 very good friends that are gay and they both are in great relationships and they are both happy and that is all that matters to me is their happiness. If marriage makes them happy then so be it, I don't have control over their lives nor do I have the right to judge them.

May 16, 2008 at 02:05 PM : Happiness has very...

Happiness has very little to do with this, when it comes to deciding the legality of witholding certain benefits from a group because they are legally denied a license.

I don't think I would be any more or less happy with my husband if I didn't have a marriage certificate proving our relationship.

I do think I would be unhappy if I had to jump through all the hoops gay couples must negotiate in order to get the same government recognition I do, simply because I'm married.

If the religious must retain the term "marriage", then take it out of the government's control completely. You guys can have it. Won't change my union in the least.

Society may be the best cultural arbitrater, but government usually lags behind the gains of an enlightened society. Look at the age brackets of those folks who accept the inevitability of gay unions. As the age of the groups increase, so does the resistance to change. Younger folks get it, so society (and the rules set to govern) will change.

Look how far women have come in the last 100 years.

;-)

May 17, 2008 at 08:05 AM : Wow, I didn't get...

Wow, I didn't get a reponse from Sunshine. Maybe I was a little too harsh or something

May 17, 2008 at 10:05 PM : Marriage is between a...

Marriage is between a man and a woman. The judges are redifining the law. The people of California voted on the bill with almost a 2 to 1 in favor of tradional marriage It is in the Bible...a man shall not lay with another man and a woman shall not lay with another woman. I think that is pretty clear that GOD wants all of us to obey accordingly. In the Scandinavia countries they past a law allowing gays to get married. It was a horrible mistake for the heterosexual community as well as the gay one. It took away the sanction of marriage. Now, not many people get married there, not even the gays. Getting married has no value or purpose over there. When people have children, the parents don't want to be bothered and the government raises them.

We are now in the time of Sodom and Gomorrah and Noah, when GOD destroyed the earth. If you don't think this is happening, take a look around you at the earthquake in China and the cyclone in Burma, killing thousands if not millions of people. These are the birth pains that Jesus warned us about.

If you read in your history books, the fall of Rome you will have an understanding why most people are against gay marriages. I do not have anything against gays, I wish them all the best. However, I do NOT want them infringing on my blessings from GOD.

May 18, 2008 at 07:05 AM : I do not...

I do not have anything against gays, I wish them all the best. However, I do NOT want them infringing on my blessings from GOD.

All I can say is WOW!

May 18, 2008 at 08:05 AM : Oh, brother... lol

Oh, brother... lol

May 18, 2008 at 12:05 PM : How can being...

How can being gay infringe on YOUR blessings from God? Aren't we ALL judged in the end according to what WE do in our lives? I just don't get your thinking? Or I just don't care. I will live my life as I see fit and IF there is truly a judgement day; at that time; I personally will pass or fail by the ONLY entity entitled to judge me GOD not and YOU.

I agree with Sparks and Colitas in what they said in their previous posts I can't add much more. I have no problem what-so-ever with gay marriage, it doesn't affect me personally, I am no one to judge or impose my thinking on someone when it doesn't effect my life in any way. If my child came to me and told me they were gay I wouldn't love them any less and if they wanted to get married to someone they loved I have no problem. I would rather they were happy with a lifestyle of their choice than to get married trying to prove to the world they are something they are not and be miserable. That goes for inter-racial marriage as well. I want my child to marry a decent, good, hard working, partner, that is my criteria for my child's happiness not their sexuality, racial background or religious preference. There are just to many people now a days trying to stick their noses into others business and frankly it annoys me.

May 18, 2008 at 05:05 PM : Colitas - I'm...

Colitas - I'm still here... I just don't feel like arguing with you when we obviously have such fundamentally different beliefs. I believe what the Bible teaches. I don't know how you decide right from wrong... but I turn to the Bible as my standard. There is no point in discussing any moral issue with you when we have such different standards.

As for judgment... I hate when people use this "Don't judge my sin" defense. So, we should encourage sin by allowing gays to marry?? Yes, God Himself will be the judge of all of us.... and I fear His judgment if we as a society fail to obey and protect His commandments. Moonshadow is right - God's only going to allow so much... and I think we're pushing the boundaries of His patience. He may choose to punish gay people individually, or punish the whole society collectively. I think that's what Moonshadow meant by gay marriage infringing on her blessings from God.

You can cheer that I am done commenting on this issue. There's really no point. We're not going to change each others minds... and that's ok. I'll just retreat to my 'bubble' and hope I can shelter my children from this world that is becoming more and more like the world Jesus warned of.

May 18, 2008 at 06:05 PM : Alright Sunshine...no...

Alright Sunshine...no cheering, just sadness. You are entitled to your opinion as am I. I was just trying to figure out what the "Real" reason was and you stated it loud and clear. It's not the marriage that offends you, it's the fact that someone believes, acts and feels differently than you....and that's ok. That's all I was trying to make clear, the fact that someone else's marriage doesn't affect your personally and that it doesn't disgrace your marriage....only you or your "spouse" can do that. So no, I am not going to cheer but I will pray for you. I know my heart and conscience will be clear when I meet my maker, because in the end it is between us.

May 19, 2008 at 09:05 AM : Christ - who hung out...

Christ - who hung out with 12 men all the time, Christ who is all about love - never said anything about homosexuals. Sunshine, to use your own word, it makes me cringe that you use Christ to justify your bigotry.

My gay friends who didn't have the right to marry have stayed together for over 30 years. Not one of my straight friends have made it 10. Hmmmm. Why don't all you sanctimonious "we've got to protect marriage" hypocrites use your time and energy to fight what really threatens and cheapens marriage? How about making it harder to dissolve a marriage? Or are multiple marriages and divorces a la Liz Taylor ok because she's straight? How about Eddie Murphey's two week "marriage", or better yet, Brittany Spears' 50+ hour "marriage" - wasn't that just precious?

And I just know Sunshine and Smokey would prefer living next door to a brothel rather than a nice law abiding gay couple. That wouldn't threaten their marriage at all would it?

By the way - when the Constitution was drafted - it wasn't written with the blacks, women or Indians in mind, was it?

May 19, 2008 at 10:05 AM : Do you expect me to...

Do you expect me to speak in favor of divorce or brothels? Make a better straw man than that, Joty...

Divorce and prostitution, of course, do threaten and cheapen marriage. But somehow, I doubt if you will join me in advocating for an end to our current divorce laws which have proven to be such a disaster for families and marriage, and especially women and children, since their misguided establishment in the 70's. Nor do I expect you to favor more rigourous and effective enforcement of laws against prostitution, despite their ugly effects on society and the serial exploitation of young girls on which it depends.

No, you are much more likely to just accuse me of being a religious bigot, same as now.

And all your homosexual friends have stayed together 30 years or more? How many homosexual friends do you have?? I'm guessing a number between 1 and 3....you are hilarious!! I guess I could introduce you to some promiscuous ones...

May 19, 2008 at 12:05 PM : I know at least a...

I know at least a dozen gay couples, and most have stayed together as long as my straight friends or longer, but, there really isn't a difference between gay couples and straight couples, they love, act, do, and commit the same way. People are people. So, why are we talking as if gay people are any different than straight people...they aren't in the least. Well, except in the way they have sex and even then they aren't much different than straight people.

How many straight people have sodomized another human being? How many people masturbate?... If you have masturbated once in your life time, isn't it true you have had sex with the same sex? For some, moral laws should only pertain to other people.... That's when it becomes bigotry. To me Love is love and love is beautiful, we shouldn't discourage it.

PD...are you saying that if a marriage is a bad one, perhaps even an abusive one you are against divorce? I don't quite get what you are saying up there.

May 19, 2008 at 12:05 PM : Of course I'm...

Of course I'm against divorce. So was Jesus, who famously toughened the rules on divorce - to the distress of the Pharisees.

In an abusive marriage, separation or other extraordinary measures may be necessary. But it is not as if easy divorce has made abuse less common. Just the opposite, I would wager.

No doubt there are many long-committed homosexual couples. But citing a single couple's 30 years is as relevant as my grandparents' 60. It proves nothing - which was the point of my rejoinder.

Your points about sodomy and onanism are true - just as Joty's about trivial marriage were. Marriage has been battered by straight people for a long time. All true dat, bad as it is! Changing the meaning of the thing is not a fix, however, and neither are additional problems. If one of your loved ones were already sick with cancer, it is unlikely you would dismiss a diagnosis of heart disease as irrelevant.

May 19, 2008 at 12:05 PM : I'm a follower of...

I'm a follower of Jesus and this is what he said about marriage in Matthew 19:4-6

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

I prefer following God to following man.

May 19, 2008 at 02:05 PM : Sparks, your comment...

Sparks, your comment made me laugh: "How many people masturbate?... If you have masturbated once in your life time, isn't it true you have had sex with the same sex?"

If you really believe that, sounds like your thinking is distorted.

May 19, 2008 at 04:05 PM : What gender...

What gender (physically) are you having sex with when YOU masturbate Job?...., or does your hand and penis magically turn into a woman during this act? PLEASE...get a grip... lol

My thinking isn't any more distorted than those who believe some of what is written in books because they want to and other things written by the same authors eg. killing your brother or selling your children as meant to be interpreted differently.

I don't believe that any of you "Live by the Bible" people on this blog have never masturbated or had oral sex, and some I believe have sodomized as well... but boy don't they all SOUND righteous and judgemental of others.

Does the Bible say you can have sex for fun, or is sex between man and woman for procreation only? If so... as PD has mentioned if you have done any of the above "you have battered marriage" as well. Why are we talking about marriage as if it is a religious thing only anyway?

May 19, 2008 at 04:05 PM : Ah PD, you are the one...

Ah PD, you are the one who is hilarious...and your name really suits you...one minute you're clear, the next post you are soupy. MPD?

Between 1 and 3? I'm sorry, that must be the number of friends you have, period. Having a gay brother, I have countless gay friends, and the majority (I never said 'all') of them have been in the same relationship for many, many years. And it is very relevant - they have to work harder at relationships - but then again, they are willing to. Sorry you can't say that about your straight friends.

I know you're not stupid PD, so I can only assume you deliberately missed my point about the REAL threats to marriage.

You don't know me at all PD, so quit trying to predict how I would act or support issues. And what's that cliche as far as the religious bigot (btw, not my term - I believe I said hypocrites)? Oh yeah - if the shoe fits...

May 19, 2008 at 04:05 PM : gee sparks as of 2...

gee sparks as of 2 hours ago I'm gay.......hahaha

May 19, 2008 at 04:05 PM : Follower...having been...

Follower...having been raised/smothered in religion I am well aware of what is attributed to Jesus regarding marriage. I stated he NEVER made a comment regarding homosexuals.

I'm glad to say I can think for myself Follower (baaaa!)

May 19, 2008 at 05:05 PM : What He said about...

What He said about marriage is relevant here, Joty. Note the part about "male and female". But your incredible rudeness really makes conversation impossible.

Conversation with you is also impossible because you don't bother to read. For example, you claim that I "missed" your point about threats to marriage. To the contrary I twice said you CORRECTLY listed them, once in the post immediately following yours and again two posts later. Perhaps you and Jim attended the same reading comprehension class.

Confirmation that any attempt to converse will result in more mindless sheep noises from you is noted.