Indexes
February 9th, 2010
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (75)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- President Obama's first year (45)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (45)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (44)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Time to shed the convenient sham of 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy (34)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
- Tasered suspect claims he is Yosemite Sam (25)
ADVERTISEMENT
Couples dubbed 'Party A, Party B'
Counties get set for same-sex marriages
For people getting married after this week, you won't be legally considered either the bride or groom. Instead, new couples will be comprised of "Party A" and "Party B."
That's a byproduct of the California Supreme Court's decision May 15 that legalized same-sex marriage, which takes effect at 5 p.m. June 16. The Supreme Court is mandating all 58 counties in California to issue licenses for same-sex marriages.
Some county clerk-recorder's offices will remain open after 5 p.m. June 16, while San Joaquin and Sacramento counties will begin issuing same-sex licenses the following morning.
San Joaquin County officials have had some inquiries from people interested in same-sex marriage, but not a lot, said Teresa Williamson, operations manager for the Recorder-County Clerk's Office.
In Sacramento County, the clerk-recorder's office has 70 appointments for June 17, Assistant Clerk-Recorder Wanda Dark said Monday. She doesn't know how many of the 70 couples are gay and how many are straight.
"We don't ask that question," Dark said.
Sacramento County set a record for marriages in one day with 70 weddings on Valentine's Day this year, Dark said. That one-day record may be broken on June 17, she added.
Same-sex marriage may go by the wayside, however, if voters choose to overthrow the Supreme Court's decision in the November election.
Gareth Lacy, a spokesman from the California Attorney General's Office, said that attorneys in his office believe that same-sex marriages prior to the November election would remain valid, even if voters invalidate the Supreme Court's decision.
Licenses for same-sex couples will be available at 8 a.m. on June 17 in Stockton and Sacramento. Some counties in California will remain open after 5 p.m. next Monday, the earliest a same-sex license can be issued.
San Joaquin County
When: Weekdays, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Where: Recorder-County Clerk's Office on the second floor of the Pacific State Bank building, 6 S. El Dorado St., Stockton.
Information: 468-3939, www.sjgov.org/Recorder.
Sacramento County
When: Weekdays, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Thursdays, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.; next week, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Tuesday through Thursday. In Fair Oaks, hours are 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Where: 600 Eighth St. at F Street, Sacramento; 5229-B Hazel Ave. at Madison Avenue, Fair Oaks.
Information and appointments: (916) 874-6334, www.ccr.saccounty.net/MARFAQ.asp.
Source: San Joaquin and Sacramento counties
San Joaquin County
When: Weekdays, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Where: Recorder-County Clerk's Office on the second floor of the Pacific State Bank building, 6 S. El Dorado St., Stockton.
Information: 468-3939, www.sjgov.org/Recorder.
Sacramento County
When: Weekdays, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Thursdays, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.; next week, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Tuesday through Thursday. In Fair Oaks, hours are 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Where: 600 Eighth St. at F Street, Sacramento; 5229-B Hazel Ave. at Madison Avenue, Fair Oaks.
Information and appointments: (916) 874-6334, www.ccr.saccounty.net/MARFAQ.asp.
Source: San Joaquin and Sacramento counties
"We don't think there is any reason to believe the marriages will be invalid," Lacy said.
However, he acknowledged that the future of gay marriage in California could continue to be decided in the courts.
Sacramento County will have extended hours Tuesday through Thursday next week. The Clerk-Recorder's office will be open until 8 p.m. those three nights to accommodate the large requests for marriages, Dark said. The office is always open until 8 p.m. on Thursdays.
"We have a ceremony room, and we'll convert our conference room into a ceremony room," Dark said. "We put an arch up and try to decorate it. We'll move the conference tables."
However, San Joaquin County only issues licenses.
"We do not do ceremonies and never have," Williamson said.
That might change in the next year or two, after the new county administration building is built at San Joaquin Street and Weber Avenue, she added.
One new question county clerks will need to ask same-sex couples is if either partner was registered with the state as a domestic partner with the different person, said Williamson, the San Joaquin County official. If so, the relationship with the former domestic partner must be officially dissolved with the state, Williamson said.
Contact reporter Ross Farrow at rossf@lodinews.com.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Audi wrote on Jun 17, 2008 2:28 PM:
God created marriage in this way, one man and one woman. Just going by what the Bible says. I wouldn't call that ignorance or prejudice, it would correctly be called obedience. "
voter wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:28 PM:
Audi 5000 wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:15 PM:
God created marriage in this way, one man and one woman. Just going by what the Bible says. I wouldn't call that ignorance or prejudice, it would correctly be called obedience. "
voter wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:01 PM:
girard74 wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:37 PM:
For 'you' this is only a political debate; for others it is obviously more than that. I suggest that you let those who wish to debate the issue on these grounds do so and ignore those who offend you.
The only thing holding up the approval of the constitutional amendment for November's election is the verification from the California Secretary of State. Evidently, the amendment has already received over a million signatures. It will be on the ballot unless there is some way to determine before hand that such an amendment would violate the U.S. Constitution. "
Audi 5000 wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:31 AM:
girard74 wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:26 AM:
For 'you' this is only a political debate; for others it is obviously more than that. I suggest that you let those who wish to debate the issue on these grounds do so and ignore those who offend you.
The only thing holding up the approval of the constitutional amendment for November's election is the verification from the California Secretary of State. Evidently, the amendment has already received over a million signatures. It will be on the ballot unless there is some way to determine before hand that such an amendment would violate the U.S. Constitution. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:18 AM:
However, it is disingenuous of you to state, '[s]crew you and your decency and decorum crap!' to another who is voicing his/her own opinion. Are you not trying to 'quiet' another? It is this type of hypocrisy that fuels the flames of anger and hatred. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 17, 2008 11:08 AM:
If anyone stated what you wrote above during your exit interview from a job that you left involuntarily, then you most certainly do have a cause of action against your former employer. You need to visit a lawyer. "
fairiestitches wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:34 AM:
fairiestitches wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:27 AM:
Guess what, whether you want or need to know, I was simply giving examples to support facts in my writing. It is a very important aspect to writing. Have you not attended college? As far as employment laws in this state - this state is very simply a free wills state. They can fire you without specifically giving you a reason! However, on a side not they can also state that your chosen lifestyle is a hinderance and a common issue between the people they assist. I am most certin that it was my homosexuality. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:31 PM:
Please try and read the words that are written. I did not state that The Bible is too difficult or impossible to 'understand.' I stated that the different versions of The Bible make it impossible to 'adequately create the foundation for reasonable discussion or debate.' This has been true through the ages. "
JustTheFacts wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:52 PM:
Where would we be without a sense of humor? On the far right I assume. "
jess wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:02 PM:
No adulterers, liars, gold or mercede lovers, thieves (realtors, lawyers, and politicians), and drunks??? Geez, metric, you just kicked 90% of Lodi out of heaven. LOL. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 16, 2008 1:40 PM:
Please try and read the words that are written. I did not state that The Bible is too difficult or impossible to 'understand.' I stated that the different versions of The Bible make it impossible to 'adequately create the foundation for reasonable discussion or debate.' This has been true through the ages. "
Metric Time System wrote on Jun 16, 2008 1:21 PM:
girard74 wrote on Jun 16, 2008 1:09 PM:
papercut wrote on Jun 16, 2008 12:42 PM:
girard74 wrote on Jun 16, 2008 12:37 PM:
Metric Time System wrote on Jun 16, 2008 12:26 PM:
I Cor. 6:9-10,
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
That is not vague or not understandable. It's clear, but some clearly don't like what it says.
You may not like God's rules but who are any of us to question God. Are you saying God is wrong? "
papercut wrote on Jun 16, 2008 12:22 PM:
Audi 5000 wrote on Jun 16, 2008 12:18 PM:
papercut wrote on Jun 16, 2008 12:18 PM:
Metric Time System wrote on Jun 16, 2008 12:02 PM:
Metric Time System wrote on Jun 16, 2008 12:00 PM:
girard74 wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:56 AM:
girard74 wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:49 AM:
From what I've read here and elsewhere regarding same-sex marriage, those who have actually 'won' this battle (the war is not yet determined) are fueled by fear of those who simply don't agree with them. Why arent those who prevailed celebrating instead of cowering in fear? "
fairiestitches wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:33 AM:
fairiestitches wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:24 AM:
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
Defining the marriage as specifically between a man and a woman is sexist and based on gender profiling which is a form of prejudice in and of itself.
Isn't it funny how Spain was a main contributor in beginning the intolerance of gays and yet they were one of the first to fully harmonize the acceptance of gay marriage in their country? Obviously they saw the error in their ways. As the younger generation takes control of our country - the prejudism, sexism, and closeminded ways of the older generation will fall away and allow for broader growth and new age ideals, such as they have for centuries in the past and will continue to do so in the future. The intolerance of homosexuality and gay marriage in this country is simply one last faulty attempt for our elders to try and control liberal expansion in our country. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:08 AM:
From what I've read here and elsewhere regarding same-sex marriage, those who have actually 'won' this battle (the war is not yet determined) are fueled by fear of those who simply don't agree with them. Why arent those who prevailed celebrating instead of cowering in fear? "
girard74 wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:52 AM:
As it would become 'constitutional' to prohibit same-sex marriages or any other types of official unions other than between a man and a woman, the only recourse for those opposing it would be to either put forth another constitutional amendment to repeal the one that may prevail in November, OR ask the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether or not the new amendment to the California Constitution is unconstitutional according to the U.S. Constitution. 'Prejudice' will not be a determining factor at that point. "
fairiestitches wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:40 AM:
fairiestitches wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:40 AM:
fairiestitches wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:30 AM:
fairiestitches wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:25 AM:
girard74 wrote on Jun 14, 2008 5:17 PM:
I wonder, however how he will react 'if' the voters in California decide that they do want a constitutional amendment that restricts marriage to a union between a man and a woman only. Will he (and others) still believe that democracy is working? "
girard74 wrote on Jun 14, 2008 4:52 PM:
I wonder, however how he will react 'if' the voters in California decide that they do want a constitutional amendment that restricts marriage to a union between a man and a woman only. Will he (and others) still believe that democracy is working? "
girard74 wrote on Jun 13, 2008 9:20 PM:
It is all very complicated. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 13, 2008 9:20 PM:
To the contrary, for many this is very much a religious issue. That is why it is not as cut and dried as many would wish it to be. While same-sex marriage is now the law in California, it does not automatically follow that all will agree with it. There are many laws that run contrary to individual's spiritual beliefs. As Christianity teaches that Christians are to obey the laws of man just as they are to obey the laws of God, such an edict does not preclude them from attempting to change those laws that they believe to be wrong. (Continued . . .) "
JustTheFacts wrote on Jun 13, 2008 7:23 PM:
girard74 wrote on Jun 13, 2008 6:18 PM:
It was I who raised an issue regarding the permissibility of a human 'marrying' a dog. It had nothing to do with sex; just an analogy to question just how far society will permit any type of loving relationship to go. I prefaced my remarks that it was a silly analogy and I followed up ad nauseum that it was never intended to be taken as a comparison to any human beings loving one another regardless of gender. In short, it was taken completely out of context, as these things invariably do when the subject is so emotionally hot.
I have tried to discuss this issue with respect and dignity and have been treated to the most heinous of verbal assaults. In response I have maintained my self-respect as well as respect for all others with opposing viewpoints no matter how vitriolic their words. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 13, 2008 5:00 PM:
It was I who raised an issue regarding the permissibility of a human 'marrying' a dog. It had nothing to do with sex; just an analogy to question just how far society will permit any type of loving relationship to go. I prefaced my remarks that it was a silly analogy and I followed up ad nauseum that it was never intended to be taken as a comparison to any human beings loving one another regardless of gender. In short, it was taken completely out of context, as these things invariably do when the subject is so emotionally hot.
I have tried to discuss this issue with respect and dignity and have been treated to the most heinous of verbal assaults. In response I have maintained my self-respect as well as respect for all others with opposing viewpoints no matter how vitriolic their words. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 13, 2008 4:54 PM:
We live in a nation that permits dissent and opposing opinions on virtually every issue. And as we all know from other, less-explosive matters emotions tend to run high. While any violence, threats or other illegal acts should be aggressively prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, I would suggest those who have won this battle to savor it. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 13, 2008 4:30 PM:
As this pertains to those on the far-left, the only neighbors they love are those who agree with them. Holding an opposing idea or stand nearly always draws their ire in the form of hate-filled comments, condemnation and threats. It never ceases to amaze me how it is these people who insist that they are all for 'inclusion' and 'tolerance,' yet cannot include and tolerate anyone unless they march in lockstep with their beliefs. "
voter wrote on Jun 13, 2008 4:10 PM:
girard74 wrote on Jun 13, 2008 3:35 PM:
As this pertains to those on the far-left, the only neighbors they love are those who agree with them. Holding an opposing idea or stand nearly always draws their ire in the form of hate-filled comments, condemnation and threats. It never ceases to amaze me how it is these people who insist that they are all for 'inclusion' and 'tolerance,' yet cannot include and tolerate anyone unless they march in lockstep with their beliefs. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 13, 2008 10:22 AM:
My response to such victories is to sit back, smile and relish the success. "
Metric Time System wrote on Jun 13, 2008 7:58 AM:
Clearly, a homosexual lifestyle is immoral, according to the Bible. Now if you want to follow the Bible or not, that's another matter, but that is the standard of discerning proper behavior from wrong behavior. It also has nothing to do with hate. It has everything to do with behavior.
Some refuse to accept the fact that one can love their neighbor while not condoning sinful behavior. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:00 PM:
If anyone truly believes that I support the beating and kicking of anyone for any reason whatsoever is disingenuous at best. It becomes more and more disheartening that some folks here cannot find a way to communicate without resorting to such juvenile, asinine attacks. Again, this type of response more often than not originates from the far-left fringe, the very group that claims to be all-inclusive and tolerant. The only people that they appear to include and tolerate are those whose ideas are in line with theirs. I think the best way to describe them is to use a term coined in the movie Defending Your Life - Little Brains. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:38 PM:
And finally (again), why the fear from people who don't believe that any form of higher power exists? According to many we will all soon become dust bunnies floating beneath someone's bed.
There are many laws on the books that cause me to be disgusted and outraged. Yet, the only way I know to change these laws is through the system that has been created to govern this nation. Threats, name-calling, tantrums and the like won't effectuate any change. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Jun 12, 2008 5:28 PM:
The paper has been littered with your hate and self-righteous judgement every week.
And why anyone would be concerned about people inciting more prejudice against the "immoral" gays? Because the names of the innocent gay people who have been beaten and kicked to death, by people who think they are less-than-normal for being gay would fill the phonebook. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 12, 2008 3:19 PM:
But the question still remains. For those who have no faith in any 'god,' why should they be concerned about what I or anyone else might think? Why all the fear?
There are Muslims who characterize me as an 'infidel' and wish me to die a horrible death simply because I do not follow their doctrine. My answer to them is that I simply don't care what they think of me. I have absolutely nothing to fear from them or people like them. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Jun 12, 2008 3:05 PM:
"Any comments by me regarding 'morality' and/or 'immorality' have never been directed at anyone as a personal affront."
Well of course.
Why would anyone reading blog after blog by you, denouncing gays as immoral, take it as an affront?
Yes, an empty bag of an apology is all that is needed before a new round of name calling and judgement passing.
Let the Uber-Christianity begin! "
girard74 wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:48 PM:
Also, I have never lied about anyone or anything. If I have made mistakes due to faulty research or any other reason I have been swift to retract such errors and provide an apology if one is warranted.
On the other hand, the personal attacks and vitriol put forth by others here are fast becoming the norm rather than the exception. While I find these types of discourse to be personally repugnant, I have learned to simply consider the sources and move along accordingly. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:38 AM:
Also, I have never lied about anyone or anything. If I have made mistakes due to faulty research or any other reason I have been swift to retract such errors and provide an apology if one is warranted.
On the other hand, the personal attacks and vitriol put forth by others here are fast becoming the norm rather than the exception. While I find these types of discourse to be personally repugnant, I have learned to simply consider the sources and move along accordingly. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 12, 2008 10:28 AM:
Your astonishment that I put forth the 'wrong' is 'wrong' argument doesn't make any sense. I found your statement that '[e]veryone who opposes gay marriage does so on religious grounds' to be equally amazing. Do you seriously suggest that there aren't those who simply believe such activities to be 'wrong?' How can you back up such a claim?
And you've conveniently taken my discussion regarding the stay granted by the Supreme Court completely out of context. Yet, this is what I've come to expect from folks here who run out of steam in support of their stance.
And for those who do not believe in any god, just what is so frightening with someone believing that their 'god' IS their foundation as to issues such as this? Gay marriage is now the law in California! What worries you so much? The only problem now isn't God; it's a potential Constitutional amendment. "
voter wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:31 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:19 PM:
However, I see no reason to sit idly by while you try to lie your way to some perverse NeoCon Blogosphere victory. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 6:16 PM:
I've started this little list to remind me of those who advance the idea that the only way they can debate is through the use of sophomoric name-calling, personal attacks, profanity (transparently hidden through the use of characters such as *&%#@) or other comments and/or language that I determine to be beneath contempt.
My point is that through the use of these silly tactics used by relatively few people, serious and/or spirited debate is reduced to ludicrous ranting that accomplishes nothing.
So, those of you who know who you are you might just want to ignore me from now on. Otherwise, I'll simply ignore you. That's up to you. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Jun 11, 2008 5:59 PM:
Tell everyone, Jerry, what the real problem is. It would solve the whole situation if you would just share your insight. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:36 PM:
I suspect that when the opposition moved the Court for the stay, they knew for almost a certainty that it would be denied. Yet, stranger things have happened in our judicial system. Many convicted felons are permitted to run free while their appeals are pending thereby allowing them to either re-offend and/or flee the country never to return to serve their time in prison. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:58 PM:
I suspect that when the opposition moved the Court for the stay, they knew for almost a certainty that it would be denied. Yet, stranger things have happened in our judicial system. Many convicted felons are permitted to run free while their appeals are pending thereby allowing them to either re-offend and/or flee the country never to return to serve their time in prison. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:54 PM:
girard74 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:53 PM:
Yet it the far left that would desire to thwart any 'ideas' that run counter to their vision of America.
Here, we have the Constitution that is the ultimate test to determine if any law put forth will stand and be enforceable. In the case of same-sex marriage, the California Supreme Court sided with the Constitution to overturn what it deemed to be an illegal law.
Just as I would expect from anyone on the wrong side of the decision, there is dissention and protest. Their remedy at this point is to place an amendment on the ballot to change the California Constitution.
And regardless of how this is finally resolved, those whose faith dictates that homosexuality is wrong are still within their right to voice their opinion. "
voter wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:52 PM:
According to a poll released two weeks ago, the majority of California voters are now willing to accept same-sex marriage. Opposition is largely generational, with younger voters overwhelmingly in support of gay marriage and the oldest voters mostly opposed. So, I agree that it looks like gay marriage is here to stay. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:42 PM:
I don't believe anyone (of reasonable standing) is promoting the denial of 'basic civil rights.' Yes, there are those on the fringe who would 'like' to do just that. Yet, here we have the California Supreme Court that determined the current law to be unconstitutional, reversed the law permitting same-sex marriages to be conducted and went so far as to refuse opponents to this allowance a stay until a constitutional amendment is voted upon in November. It will be interesting to experience the reaction to that vote. Since California is considered an 'Obama' state, I suspect that the gay-marriage issue will reign supreme.
People are still entitled to their opinion regardless of whether or not others believe them to be wrong. However, the First Amendment, as it relates to religion exists to deny the government from forcing any religious requirements upon the citizens. Over time it has been opined to cover much more than what was originally intended. "
voter wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:42 PM:
What is farther right than, "God says it's sinful, so I want a law to make sure you can't"? Everyone who opposes gay marriage does so on religious grounds. Is there a secular reason for denying gay couples the right to marry? If so, I missed it. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 1:14 PM:
I don't believe anyone (of reasonable standing) is promoting the denial of 'basic civil rights.' Yes, there are those on the fringe who would 'like' to do just that. Yet, here we have the California Supreme Court that determined the current law to be unconstitutional, reversed the law permitting same-sex marriages to be conducted and went so far as to refuse opponents to this allowance a stay until a constitutional amendment is voted upon in November. It will be interesting to experience the reaction to that vote. Since California is considered an 'Obama' state, I suspect that the gay-marriage issue will reign supreme.
People are still entitled to their opinion regardless of whether or not others believe them to be wrong. However, the First Amendment, as it relates to religion exists to deny the government from forcing any religious requirements upon the citizens. Over time it has been opined to cover much more than what was originally intended. "
scout wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:48 PM:
girard74 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:41 PM:
The 'some' of which you speak are more than likely in equal numbers of the 'some' on the opposition that seek to silence those with differing opinions.
Certainly the fringe on both sides somehow gains much of the attention because of their outspoken and outlandish presentation of their views of the world. To include all who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds with those on the far-right of the issue is as unfair as it is to include the more rational folks to the left with those on the far-left. There are distinctions and simply by listening to them it isn't too difficult to identify them and therefore give them the attention they deserve, which is no attention at all. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:37 PM:
voter wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:43 AM:
girard74 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:24 AM:
While there is an abundance of hate and vitriol here on these blogs, it is mostly advanced by those who demand that others accept the concept of same-sex marriage. A person's deep-seeded faith in God and His expectations of us is without a doubt a well-thought out reason (IMO). Yet, those who do not share in those beliefs are the first to hurl the insults and expletives against not only their opposition to same-sex marriage (and homosexuality in general), but against their basic faith. Clearly this is not the rational behavior expected of a group that has espoused 'tolerance' as their hallmark, is it? "
scout wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:09 AM:
And where are these well-thought out reasons? I haven't seen them. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:07 AM:
Most Christians won't argue about the command to love one's neighbor, but there are many in the faith who actually use the Bible and its teachings as a guideline by which they live their lives. Clearly homosexuality is forbidden in Christianity; it is considered a 'sin.' However, as with all sin (and we are all sinners, by the way), the Bible teaches us that God hates the sin, but loves the sinner. This is where we need to follow more closely to God's expectations of us. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:02 AM:
Actually it hasn't been 'proven' at all. There are studies that suggest that homosexuality is something people are born with, just as there are reports in support of the opposite. This general disagreement is partly what sparks further debate on the matter. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:54 AM:
Sure, there are those who are fueled by these emotions. There are others, however who truly believe that homosexuality (and any marriage between two homosexuals) is just wrong. They have rational, well-thought out reasons for believing this way. There are those who disagree with their positions who also spew forth 'hate, irrational fear, and prejudice' to support their positions for gay marriage.
Are those who vehemently believe that abortion is wrong also limited to 'hate, irrational fear, and prejudice' in support of their opposing views? There are always those on the 'fringe' who get the most attention, but debate on any issue is not always based upon irrational emotions. Both sides need to open their eyes. "
scout wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:03 AM:
Honestly, I have no idea why anyone is against gay marriage. The arguments I read from people who are against it are filled with hate, irrational fear, and prejudice. These same people cite my Christian religion as a justification for their hate which I find annoying because as far as I am concerned they are not acting very Christian at all. "
Metric Time System wrote on Jun 11, 2008 8:18 AM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:48 AM:
What might that concern be?
Further from Girard:"As far as why anyone would be against gay marriage, surely you're kidding!"
Kidding? No. Why should it be assumed anyone is "kidding"? Your implication is clear - that of course people should oppose gay marriage.
Why? "
Mollyfen wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:31 AM:
lodi boy wrote on Jun 10, 2008 10:12 PM:
I mean, haven't they suffered enough?! "
jay dubb wrote on Jun 10, 2008 9:27 PM:
Two of the most corrupted institutions in these great United States. "
jay dubb wrote on Jun 10, 2008 9:24 PM:
Also people who are mentioning here that gay people choose their lifestyles are mistaken. That has been scientifically proven. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 10, 2008 8:14 PM:
As far as why anyone would be against gay marriage, surely you're kidding! This subject ranks up there with religion and politics - it's best not to begin an argument because no one will be persuaded one way or the other (ever). "
cmd wrote on Jun 10, 2008 8:08 PM:
marie wrote on Jun 10, 2008 7:59 PM:
Be careful, anyone wanting to stay with tradition will be labeled a racist bigot. Trust me I know. "
JustTheFacts wrote on Jun 10, 2008 7:08 PM:
one tin soldier wrote on Jun 10, 2008 6:20 PM:
let the voters decide SJCO will take much heat on this one!! "
sam wrote on Jun 10, 2008 6:16 PM:
If gay couples want to enter into a marriage, it by no means makes a mockery of our commitment. More power to them. Peace out. "
parishioner wrote on Jun 10, 2008 5:52 PM:
parishioner wrote on Jun 10, 2008 5:50 PM:
girard74 wrote on Jun 10, 2008 5:19 PM:
As far as why anyone would be against gay marriage, surely you're kidding! This subject ranks up there with religion and politics - it's best not to begin an argument because no one will be persuaded one way or the other (ever). "
jay dubb wrote on Jun 10, 2008 5:04 PM:
53% of American children grow up with BOTH biological parents in the household - The lowest figure in the western world.
I just do not understand why so many people get so outraged by a same sex marriage. "
girard74 wrote on Jun 10, 2008 4:36 PM:
Making such a claim doesn't necessarily make it true. Yes, there are hypocrites and often they complain against those very things in which they themselves indulge. But attempting to silence those who do not fall into that category by somehow labeling them as such is equally 'typical' of those on the opposing side of any issue. "
lodi boy wrote on Jun 10, 2008 3:38 PM:
That's the explanation. Now you can stop wasting energy on others and direct it towards perfecting YOUR life. "
jay dubb wrote on Jun 10, 2008 3:37 PM:
Much like the preacher in the mid-west who constantly blasted gays, and was then caught with a male prostitute - the people who yell the loudest are typically the biggest hypocrites. "
Metric Time System wrote on Jun 10, 2008 2:47 PM:
boonablis wrote on Jun 10, 2008 1:48 PM:
"pitchers and cathers"
"on top, on bottom"
"QB and reciever"
"dolphin noses & open faced roast beef Sandwiches"
Or, they could have said One is Tony Danza as "the boss", and the other could have judith light as "Angela" "
marie wrote on Jun 10, 2008 1:26 PM:
Peeps wrote on Jun 10, 2008 1:24 PM:
girard74 wrote on Jun 10, 2008 1:02 PM:
Perhaps so, but this new designation applies to ALL couples receiving marriage licenses. Gone are the 'bride' and 'groom' designations that have been in place since practically forever.
Does anyone not believe that this poses a very real problem? "
papercut wrote on Jun 10, 2008 12:43 PM:
marzo2008 wrote on Jun 10, 2008 12:37 PM:
DavidD wrote on Jun 10, 2008 12:30 PM:
cmd wrote on Jun 10, 2008 12:09 PM:
marzo2008 wrote on Jun 10, 2008 11:41 AM:
girard74 wrote on Jun 10, 2008 11:17 AM:
girard74 wrote on Jun 10, 2008 11:16 AM:
Just who will be designated in the 'superior' 'A' position and who will volunteer to be relegated to the more 'subservient' 'B' slot? Or will it be up to some minimum-wage country clerk to decide who goes first?
This ain't over yet. "
scout wrote on Jun 10, 2008 9:08 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.