Equal protection

Jamie,
I agree with you. If 2 people love each other let them marry without difference of sex. But I will also say, welcome to the real world and that includes divorce and all the ugly court proceedings that go along with divorce. Divorce will no longer discriminate against gay couples. It will rear it's ugly head and cause woe for all. We are now all created equal and lawyers will be making a good living.

MS. Floyd, First of all the people voted to ban gay marriage, then the courts overturned the peoples will. So where's their right for their vote to be counted. THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE SPOKE!!! I suppose those who don't agree with the Presidential election results should sue and and throw temper tantrums and commit violent acts to get their way? THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE SPOKE!!!! And you CANNOT POSSIBLY compare slavery and the civil rights movement to this. Blacks were beaten, held against their will, hosed, bitten by police dogs, lynched and many more attrocities and injustices they have suffered. PLEASE. How can you say you are a christian? If you read your Bible it says a marriage is between one man and one woman. For 5,000 years this has been the definition of marriage . Jews, Muslims and Christians alike feel the same and we don't want the definition changed. You people keep trying to change the bible and it's words to suit your lifestyle. It does'nt work that way. Give them the same LEGAL rights in a CIVIL UNION but leave traditional and the biblical definition of marriage alone.

I voted yes on prop 8, because it was the right thing for me to do. I was brought up in the church, and the bible did not teach me that marriage between two men, or two women was right. All I know, is that it says that a man is to toil the fields, and a woman was to bear children so that this world could pro create. It did not take me long to come to the conclusion to vote yes, on prop 8. Prop. 8 is very delicate for some, and not for others. I am not here to judge their life style, that is their business, however, I would not want anyone teaching my children that it is okay that two men be married or two women be married, because morally, that is not how it is supposed to be. A Civil union between two men and two women I think is the proper name for it to be called. I guess my most important worry is, if they are allowed to adopt. children, would that child be told that their parents, relationship is not the traditional one that God set forth in the bible.
I guess for me, it is not natural having sex with another woman, and for two men to have sex is truly not natural. But I guess for those who choose this life style, that is their business, as long as it does not cross over in to mines, I will neither judge them, or condem them, that is for our Lord and Saviour to do, not me.

Get real...I lived in MA and now live in CT....niether state would allow the people to vote on the issue...Thats why CA got it right! Civil Unions with all the same rights is more than fair. Marraige ...Man & Woman . period........

Sorry, Skullnrose, might want to double check your facts. Civil unions do NOT give the same protections as marriage. The protections they actually do afford are ONLY at the STATE level and do not apply to a couple that travels outside of the state whereas a married person's does.

For all the bible citers... The bible has slaves and women were/are less than second class citizens. Haven't we determined that is not right ? Also, what about a man and woman married at the court house ? They are not wedded in a ceremony overseen by ANYONE representing clergy or religion so does that mean they are really married or are they really only civil-ly unionized ?

Less than 50 years ago, non-white people were not able to vote in the US and the law of the land was separate but equal. Haven't we learned and agreed that "separate but equal" didn't work ? Why should the tyranny of the majority rule the land anyway ?

Some wonder as what the meter should be for who can marry? It's actually simple... are the two involved able to make an informed decision to do so? If they can answer yes, then it's okay. This would preclude marriage of two children, an adult to a child, and/or marriage of people to animals.

Very nice, Anna.

It's hard to type the thoughts running through my head. I'm for the gay rights, hell they've been through enough, give them the wedding ring.

But, uh, there was a state (I don't remember, sorry) that legalized gay marriage, but they are still forbiden to adopt a child, or have a donor.

What?

Alot of thing's need to be worked out still,
even more people need to grow up. Still.
Come on people, we are in the 21st century.
It isn't the 60's anymore.
CHANGE.

To show that the gays got their way is one thing but to show them on tv kissing in front of kids is wrong!!! Please don`t show that.

We agree on something finally Jamie Floyd!!! FINALLY!!! You got it right in your last word because you realize that the bottom line is this country about "equal protection for all Americans."

One simply cannot take another's civil liberties away in this country because of one's moral judgments. That is really what this comes down to. So-called "religious" people do not see this as a "free and equal" right because they believe homosexuals are sinners and they judge them for being homosexual.

I am homosexual, not by choice, but because that is the way God made me. It is like being born with blue eyes or brown hair. It is simply a given that I cannot change. Believe me I wish I could and I have tried. It would be easier to be a heterosexual in a world still so full of bigotry, shame and fear.

I ask all the so-called "religious folks" this; Doesn't the Bible also say in Matthew 7:5 "Hypocrite! First extract the rafter from your own eye, then you will see clearly enough to extract the straw from your brother's." What would you do if you found out your son or daughter was gay? Would you disown them? Would you not want them to be happy? Would you want them to be treated like second rate citizens? Would you want them to live a lie about who they truly are?

Gay marriage has never really been important to me before because I am single and I am not in a committed relationship. HOWEVER, I have a BIG problem when you tell me that you are taking away the rights from a class of people because YOU don't "approve" of their morals, lifestyle or what they do in their bedrooms.

Excuse me, but what if I came into your life and told YOU that what you do in your bedroom is wrong and YOU don't have the right to marry the one you love? How would you feel about that?

The rights of American citizens to marry each other regardless of their sex is a fundamental right that can not be taken away. That is what makes our Country great. That right I will fight for whether I ever intend to be married or not.

No offense to personal faith, but anyone who relies on the literal infallability of the Bible should really do a bit more homework. The precise meaning of the Biblical passages that are repeatedly cited as "proof" that "God" condemns homosexuality (e.g. – Leviticus ) is hotly contested among biblical scholars and theologians alike. Furthermore, these passages have undergone countless revision and mistranslation over the centuries. Last, but not least, there is a specific historical context in which they were written.

The fact is that the early Christian church performed gay marriages. Modern scholarship in ancient Christian liturgical documents has revealed that there were ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex Union” (10th and 11th century) and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).

Yup. Same-sex Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th and early 13th century (as documented by the chronicler Gerald of Wales – a.k.a. – "Geraldus Cambrensis")

There are even gay Christian saints to be found (St. Sergius and St. Bacchus).

Maybe you should learn a lot more about the history of your own purported faith before you go posting comments online or, heaven forbid, VOTING.

Maybe we wouldn't have a back up of foster children (I was a foster parent for 12 years) if we allowed perfectly well balanced families the right to adopt; LIKE GAY PARENTS. The Governator, Arnold in Ca. said himself that this will go back to the courts and that it will be overturned once again. As a Rep. and related to The Camelot, the man has a lot of guts to stand up for gay rights. As a former Californian, I applaud him! Where is the seperation of state and religion here like we are told?????? There is none, the bible thumpers can't figure that one out! YOUR religion and idea's are YOURS, not mine, get over it and quit preaching the bible to me! By the way, I am a straight, Pagan, married woman.

As a Christian, then you are very much aware that God's laws supercede man's manufactured laws. God doesn't teach "tolerance": He taught us to love the sinner, hate the sin. Christians cannot pick and choose which of the Bible's principles to follow. That puts you in the position of disrespecting God and thinking that your ways are higher than His.

Wow...what shocks me is the lack of understanding for both sides of this issue. A vote by the people was made. That is democracy. Gay people do view this as a knock to their civil rights. I believe it will be back on the ballot again and someday it will pass. Right now there are a lot of people who need to come to grasp with their moral compass. People are right.... times are changing and no it is not the sixties but cut everyone some slack.....change doesn't happen overnight. For such a powerful issue to so many......please understand both sides.....it is an extremely sensitive and personal topic to most.

Miss Jamie:
I am an avid CourtTV watcher, however, these past weeks have been showing old stale cases from a long time ago. What happened to the sentence of the husband that killed the teenage lover? Did Sean Fitzpatrick got bail until the next trial? etc. etc. why not complete the cases instead of cases we already watched before or in Snapped show?

Thank you, Jami! If only everyone else in California and the rest of the United States were as wise as you. People will fight it, but eventually same-sex marriage will be legal in this country. I can only hope that I get to see it in my lifetime.

And for all of the people who throw the Bible at this... seriously? Have you actually read the book... cover to cover?!?! I dobt it! If you had, you would know that the overall theme is love... not hate.

Isn't it more than a bit ironic that, until 1967, it wasn't legal for blacks to marry whites and now the black voter turnout has taken away the right of gays to marry? The oppressed are now the oppressors. How would they feel if we voted to take away their right to interracial marriage?

Honestly people, get a grip. As a mere high school student even I realize that allowing gay citizens to have EQUAL rigths is the constitutional, christian and humane thing to do.
Voting on civil rights issues is illogical; no one was asked to cast a vote when deciding whether or not slaves should be freed or shcools should be integrated. No one was asked to vote when women wanted equal rights either.
If you feel that civil unions are ok for some people, then surely you woudn't mind if that was the mandate for all people.
And if you would mind, perhaps we should reconsider the decision made in CA.

Civil unions do not have the same benefits as a marriage license. The entire country is set up for a marriage license which is a simple, cheap legally binding contract. Even your social security benefits and taxes are all set up based on being married or not. The companies that have benefits for domestic partners do not give the same benefits to them as married couples. Married means full benefits. Partnership means much less. The ban is unconstitutional since it does not apply equally to all people. You must remember that a church wedding is not the only way to get married. You can go to city hall or have a ship’s captain marry you as an example. It's the license that is the binding document not the word marriage and it must be available to all. The ceremony is part of the marriage but not necessarily a religious one. I am not Christen or member of any other faith yet my marriage of over 25 years is recognized which gives me all the rights associated with it. – raycar – San Jose, CA

I agree with some people of the term Marriage between One man and One would. However – Marriage is a religion Term and should be removed from our government laws. Everyone should marry under the term CIVIL UNION. I'm a big believer that Religion should not be mixed with Government Laws. It political believe corruption, that is how we ended with a bad President who claims to be GOD fighting a Holy war.

have you forgot about god ? this is gods law not lawers.you have to deal with your own sins . marriage is for men and women not for gays.i don t know why you think your above gods law deal with yourself .do you think gods going to look the other way ?or do you even care?
god condems gays deal with it.

ctbeckyw, Wrong about the adult not being able to marry a minor. Many states allow marriage at age 16, others at age 14, a few at 12.

California has no minimum age for marriage. ( with parent and court approval) If Prop 8 is over turned, you may find your same gender 27 year old and 16 year old neighbors are married. If you don't think a San Francisco court would approve this, Ha Ha.

In 2003 California adopted a comprehensive Domestic Partner Act which limits partnerships to age 18 or older. That may be what this whole fight is about, the Man/Boy relationship.

California Family Code
302. (a) An unmarried male or female under the age of 18 years is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to marry. (b) The court order and written consent of the parents of each underage person, or of one of the parents or the guardian of each underage person shall be filed with the clerk of the court, and a certified copy of the order shall be presented to the county clerk at the time the marriage license is issued.

Here comes Jami and her tolerance rant again.

It sounds so sweet to advocate tolerance when you're talking about racism, sexism and gay rights, but where are we supposed to quit being tolerant. There are some things that we must not tolerate.

For example:

If we don't limit the the government sanctioned definition of marriage, will we have to tolerate multiple marriages? How about marriages of brothers and sisters, uncles and nieces or mothers and sons?

I will not tolerate those unions, will you?

Barack Obama has suggested a national police force. Sounds good in theory. A uniformed group intent on enforcing our laws within our borders and protecting us from domestic terrorism. But, anyone remember other national police forces? Like say, the Gestapo?

I will not tolerate that, will you?

Intolerance is not always a bad thing. Resisting change is sometimes required.

With respect to the Disneya Assault, it made me think of the skit with Leslie Neilson and Peter Graves in the movie AIRPLANE...Every time Neilson described a symptom of what made the passengers ill on the plane, Peter Graves was in the foreground acting it out, including the sweating, twitching, and laying an egg in his mouth.

How come Ms Krause only started with her eye-twitch after explaining her post- disney trauma to the attorney? AMAZING!!!

Macy-

Wow. We sure need that educational reform that Barack Obama has promised us.
All of those things were eventually voted on, in one form or the other. Ask your civis teacher about the ERA, or Equal Rights Amendment. It was an attempt to level the playing field for women. It was voted on in state by state elections. It failed to garner enough states to make it an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Women were truly just asking for equal rights. They weren't demanding a government sanction of the "female lifestyle". Nor were they expecting to enjoy a financial windfall from the decision. The ERA failed because the voters realized that laws were already in place providing for all the rights requested.
This is true for gays also. There are laws to prevent them from being treated as second class citizens. In some states there are "civil unions" that grant their relationships many, if not most, of the benefits of being "married". There is no reason to grant them a governmental acceptance of their lifestyle. The majority of the people voted against that, correctly. Ask your Civics teacher for a definition of "Democracy" also. You'll find many references to "the majority rules."

The voice of the people has said myriad bogus stuff over the years about people outside the mainstream. Used to be we had anti-miscegenation laws on the books. Used to be "the people" lynched black kids that looked at white women the wrong way. England castrated one of their own war heroes for being homosexual. We ripped off Japanese-Americans for millions of dollars in WWII (when a million bucks was a lot of money), with no reasonable excuse whatsoever. It was the "voice of the people" that enabled both Stalin and Hitler to achieve their sick ends.

Enough is enough.

simple ( man marrys woman ) and yes i`m from the south where most of us still believe this is the way it should be

Why is CNN or at least Anderson Cooper so biased on this subject? He should at least display some sense of objectivity when it comes to gay rights. Why don't you allow a more balanced representation of views on your blogs and television program? Anderson has shown outright hostility to guests who support Prop8 and refuses to post balanced blog posts on the matter. Instead, you revert to emotional, anecdotal accounts from gay couples or supporters. This is supposed to be journalism friend but what you are doing is outright media bias.

You are doing a great disservice to the field of journalism.

Jami is correct. It is Un-Christian and Un-American to take away pre-existing rights.

Christians should not be involved in taking away the rights of others.

How is voting away people's marriages (in CA) or voting away their adoptive children or foster children (in Arkansas) a Christian or pro-family thing to do?

Civil Rights should not be put up to a popular vote anyways.

Ignorant people talk about "activist judges" because it was so called activist judges that gave women and African Americans their equal rights and ended the ban on inter-racial marriages against the will of the majority of Americans.

It is part of the Court's role to protect vulnerable minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

The 14th Amendment guarantees "equal rights and protections under the law" and this is in part to protect minorities.

Conservatives and Republicans supposedly believe in small government that doesn't intrude into the private lives of citizens but doesn' t their stance on abortion and gay rights fly in the face of their core value?

Gay Rights is the Civil Rights movement of this generation and it is going to come down to who is for equal rights and who is not.

Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships do NOT equal Marriage in terms of rights and protections.

The Federal Government doesn't even recognize Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships.

KY bans both gay marriage and civil unions. FL bans both gay marriage and domestic partnerships.

I bet those of you who say you are against gay marriage but are for civil unions or domestic partnerships didn't do a thing to stop some of these states from banning civil unions, domestic partnerships, or gay adoption.

Gay people don't chose to be homosexual. There are even homosexual animals and studies show that homosexual sheep have the same differences in their brains that homosexual people do.

You know as well as I do that many of the Christian conservatives and Republicans do not want gays to have any rights and protections– not marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, protection from workplace discrimination or hate crimes, not adoption or foster care, or even protection from bullying in school.

It is an issue that falls under separation of church and state. The oldest historical book I have regarding marriage is the Bible which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

It is understandable that a gay couple may want same benefits provided to a married couple. Look at the laws that provide those benefits to married couples and amend the laws to accommodate any couple rather than asking me to denounce the teachings of the Bible. Separation of church and state.

christopher

You're right... the voice of the people is dangerous... we should simply have a single person responsible for making all choices in America.

LONG LIVE OBAMA.... Hail Hail Hail

We live in America folks. Yes, there is the idea of equal rights for all, but the predominate idea is that the majority rules. The people of California voted to ban same sex marriage a few years ago. The majority ruled. No wait.....the GLBT movement forced the California courts to decide that the law, as written, was unconstitutional. The law was rewritten, hopefully to pass California Constitution scrutiny, and the people voted again, on Prop 8, to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Rights are given and taken away in this country all the time. Women, currently, have the right to abortions. Yet, every time there's a Supreme Court appointment, we hear about the possibility of that right being taken away. I am a smoker. I once had the right to smoke in public. That right is all but gone today. Not too many years ago, businesses had the right to put up "No Blacks Allowed" signs. They lost that right.

Every right we have is a representation of the view of the people at that time. Just because some people feel that their lifestyle should be recognized and sanctioned, that does not mean that the majority of the people agree. I wish that my intimate relationship with my cousin's brother's aunt could be accepted, condoned and allowed to accrue benefits similar to those of married people. My guess is, the majority of the rest of American would disagree with me. Guess I will just keep sleeping with my mother and accept the fact that not everyone understands.

You know, people need to get this "so called religious " saying out of their cooments when referring to God believers. this "religious " is a man made saying. Now if you want to refer to a God believing person as "Faithful" that's o-k with me. When I voted on prop 8, I voted as part of my faith in God and what He teaches us in Genesis on a one man one women marriage. God teaches us not to judge and love our neighbor as we love ourselve's and forgive as He forgive's us. Faithful peolple are simply voting according to their faith in Gods word. The Bible has nothing in it stating same sexes should be married to each other so this is simply a matter of obeying Gods word. I would've had no problem if prop 8 would've failed. Every time we wake up and open our eye's is another chance we have to glorify God and thank Him for all we have. If we're not doing this among other things, we will be accountable for all our actions good or bad as Romans 14:11 state's: we will all bow before Him and every tongue will confess to God. This life is short enough as it is. Good luck on your continued vision, just remember that Gods plans will prevail always as Obamas Presidency also may give many a chance to heal and find God while we still have a chance and stop the hate and war and foolishness.

P.J.
Even though I've always known God has existed forever, it took me to the brink of death to know who God really and truly is b/c I had to literally call on the name of Jesus to save me. Before that, I would read the Bible and not know what I had read. It was only after Jesus saved me that I have known the true love that God is and I still don't understand everything I read, but I believe every word in the Bible as Matt:4-4 states"man doesn't live by bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God. Bread being faith and the Bible being the "Word". The bible also states God "cannot be mocked."
If you'll call on the name of Jesus and be saved as most of us will have to soon,don't wait til your on the brink like I did,see ,God gave me this word for you, you too will be enlightenned to the Truth that God is.

Well said vegas,

I love all the people that are saying "well the majority is wrong". And i think somone else posted as well somthing along the lines of, well i guess this means every time the people vote on somthing and pass it and we don't agree we should protest it and have it changed. Well guess what, it doesn't work that way. This just shows a fraction of what would have happened if obama would have lost this election, scary. I guess this shows that our voting system will prob come to an end sense the majority is wrong. (didn't biden say somthing along those lines?) as vegas said go obama hail hail hail.

Does the gay community not pay taxes? How can their rights be taken away when they pay for your childrens' teachers, and yet they aren't allowed to adopt children of their own? Their taxes help pay the police who keep you safe, as well as your wages if you are a public servant. Why not give them the right to marry? They obviously help pay to protect your rights, what makes you better than them?

Ms.Floyd I must disagree w/ you my christian sister. The bible is very clear on marrige so i find it hard for you to say your a christian.This is not the same as a being black or mexican or whatever, last time I checked you where born into one of those races not born gay it's a descion thats the point .Californians made a descion. Faith is what this country was built on.

Jamie, you have been deceived into believing you are a christian. A christian trusts the word of God, believes the word of God, and lives by the word of God. Now, check your bible and see God's definition of marriage. Also, His word says that men with men and women with women is an abomination. If we go back to the old testament they should be stoned. Need I remind you of the judgement for Sodom and Gommara. The freaks wanted to have sex with the messengers of God and even when blinded they were still feeling around for the men. They even turned down probably some knockout virgins trying to get to men. Jamie, I challenge you to make sure you are in The Faith and not your own self serving religion. Remember, you will be judged by every idle word you mutter.

Cherry-picked quotes from the bible have been used to justify whatever nonsense the quote-slinger wishes to prop up since the book was in existence. In that collection of fairytales – Noah got drunk. And, in his inebriated state, flailed about naked. In the story, two of his kids thought it was a good idea to cover the naked-oldster and not look at his wang. The third, however, thought it was hillarious, and laughed. Noah-the-drunk didn't curse the naked-dad-seeing-Ham, but rather Ham's youngest kidlet Canaan, and all of his decendents forever.

Genesis 9:24-27 "Noah awoke from his drunkenness and knew what his youngest son had done to him, and he said, 'Cursed be Canaan! He shall be his brothers' lowest slave.' He went on, 'Blessed of Yahweh my God be Shem, and let Canaan be his slave! May God enlarge Japheth. May he dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his slave!'" Although this text assigns no racial characteristics to Ham – the Abrahamic religions decided that Ham and Ham's kidlets were of African descent, and the "blackness" of their sin translated to the darkness of their skin. Thus, the justification of slavery and anti-miscegenation laws. "The bible says so," they cried.

With a great deal of struggle – slavery and anti-miscegenation were rejected as the stupidity they are. Hopefully the idiots shouting that, "God says so! Leviticus! Leviticus," will be ignored this time around as they should be.

The problem is simple. The vote was a vote for the etablishment or de-establishment of religious values. Like it or not, that's wha the word "marriage", in this country, means.
The ballot propositions should be directed toward fixing the civil law governing human unions and families. The ballots should cover removal of the word "marriage" from the civil lexicon and left, where it belongs, in the variable religious and moral world.
The law of the land should establish the legal state of civil unions, with equal protection for any parties who want to pursue such a legal union.
Get "married" in your church/temple/etc.; then, go file papers in the courthouse. As far as your church/temple/etc. is concerned, the civil law is just a mechanism of controlling property and civil rights and is irrelevant to the "marriage". As far as the courthouse is concerned, the church/temple/etc. side of things is irrelevant to the legal contract made with each other and the state.
Keep marriage where it belongs ... with God (whichever you worship or not). Keep civil law and rights where they belong, in the secular courts.
At that point, every citizen gets equal protection under the law and every citizen can exercise their religious freedom. And there's nothing to fight over ... imagine that.

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling".... It is sad to see a nation born on the principles of freedom for all, seem to all to often side on the side of oppression. Tradition is not something to be praised and followed blindly, humans are the most adaptive creature on earth. Why can we not shed the traditions of ignorance from our fathers and allow are laws to evolve mich like we do.

Separate comment:

I'm hearing the sound of comments that 1) religion has a place in law, that the US is a Christian nation or 2) that the (biblical) Word is the Word.

To the first, I direct you not to the First Ammendment but to the Treaty of Tripoli, article eleven:

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

And as declared by President Adams, when signing treaty and presenting it to the nation in 1797: "Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."

To the second I ask which bible you are referring to? Which language and translation? Old Testament, New Testament, before or after revelations was added, before or after King James added and subtracted sections, with or without the gospels of Thomas and Judas ... ad nauseum. Do you teach your children "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not commit murder"? ... "Thou shalt have no other gods" or "Thou shalt have no other gods, before me" ... Do you conveniently forget that according to the Word, there were only 2 humans and from them sprung all of mankind ... then they were wiped out by flood and there were only a handfull of humans and from them sprung the current crop of mankind, while you conveniently condemn alternate families and lifestyles?

You can't have a convenient definition of your own dogma and morality. Know the source of the ink on the page. Find out who, besides God, had a hand in the writing. Stop reading just the ink on the page and start understanding the meaning of all of the words on all of the pages. People have done great good and great harm through using those words. You were giventhe gifts of free will and free thought ... use your will and your mind to decide what you believe is right and wrong.

No matter how many people have re-translated, added to, subtracted from or altered the words ... ultimately it will be your interpretation of them ... your subsequent actions and choices that will judge you.

P.S Ron you are the reason I have no faith in this country. The sheer thought of you being allowed to walk in to a voter's booth and cast your ballot puts the fear of Buddah in me. I mean the fear of Mickey Mouse, or Zues, or whatever you want to pray to at night.

Jami Floyd and others have espoused that gay marriage is somehow in the Constitution. I have read it many times and there isn’t any “right of marriage” whether heterosexual or homosexual.

I don’t see anywhere that these persons are aren’t receiving their “rights” and am tired of hearing that this is “their right” to be married. Well, let me tell you they really do have the freedom that the rest of us enjoy! They are more than welcome to marry in a heterosexual union just as the rest of us!

It is also believed by the ignorant that the “Courts of California gave gay people the right to marry” However, therein lies another fundamental problem when the Judiciary tries to legislate from the bench rather than perform their duties expressing Judgment.

If the homosexual community and sympathizers want to put forth a federal initiative to define marriage, then please bring it forward and get a Constitutional Amendment. Until then, we don’t have to do anything but tolerate your behaviors so long as they don’t infringe upon the ‘Rights’ of others!

I am against gay marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman. I am also against civil unions. Call it dogma or call it values, marriage is between one man and one woman. If you gays want to live together, then that is fine. But, live with the consequences, that is you all are not married. You never had a marriage, and you never will have a marriage.

People keep saying "Times are Changing", yeah, that may be so, but the Bible does not change. The Ten Commandments do not change. Will God suddenly decide, oh, okay, I think I better change my laws since we are living in the 21st century now?? I think not. With that being said, The vote was not about the constitution of marriage, but more about equal rights, period.

With that being said, Times have changed, but the Bible will never change!! Remember this, After Moses left to receive the ten commandments, he returned to see his people full of sin and adultery. You all remember what happened after that???

John 1:1-In the beginning was the "Word ", and the "Word" was with God, and the "Word" was God. He (Jesus Christ) was with God in the beginning. God was/is/always will be the same; God is the Truth, the Bible is Gods true "Word" to us that cannot be added to, and nothing can be taken or changed. Romans 14:11 states; "As surely as I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God."

It is certainly true that the US Constitution does not expressly protect people on the basis of sexual orientation. But need it? The history of the US is that it is a place where citizens have the right to act as they see fit in the absence of some compelling social reason to the contrary. What is the compelling reason to preclude gay marriage? Pepole often point to the Bible, but is that an appropriate basis? On its face, it seems that a statutory scheme bent on enacting the rules in the Bible would run afoul of the First Amendment. Moreover, if the Bible is the fountain head of all law, are we not equally compelled to follow its other tenants? Shoud we then pass laws closing all stores on Sunday, stopping Sunday football, etc.?

I do not suggest that those who believe in the Bible as a higher law are somehow misguided in their personal beliefs, generally or with respect to gay marriage. Rather, I suggest that those personal beliefs should not spill over to government. If a particular religion chooses not to recognize gay marriage, so be it. As a private organization, that is its right. The question is why our government – one that all of us support through our tax dollars – should deny rights to one class of law abiding citizens while providing them to another class. What purpose is served by doing so? Is that purpose truely compelling?

Certainly, the fact that the people voted against gay marriage is indicative of general feelings on an issue, but it is not dispositive of the question. Much of the purpose of the Constitution is to protect those with little political power. If the people voted to deny the right of marriage to those with an IQ under 90 – or those who liked vanilla ice cream – would that make the policy Constitutional? It is in part the job of the courts to protect the least of us from those who would, for no compelling reason, deny those citizens rights enjoyed by the majority.

People argue that civil unions are just as good as marriage. Legally this appears to be suspect. But it is also clear that separate but equal is not always adequate. Witness the debates about education in the south.

In short, creating a diminished, second class of citizens is a serious matter and should not be done without compelling reasons. I have not heard any compelling reasons to deny gay marriage.

[...] rights of all Americans — black and white, male and female and yes, gay and straight. http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/12/equal-protection/ 0 Replies   [...]