Indexes
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
February 1st, 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
California a 'separate but equal state'
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 6:34 AM PDT
It was disappointing that the court ruled in favor of Proposition 8.
The only silver lining on that cloud was that the 18,000 couples who were already married can stay that way. Which has made California a "separate but equal" state. I thought we as the people had done away with such things decades ago!
I was in Sacramento that Tuesday for the decision and took part in the protest. I don't understand how people in the LGBT community can be subject to the laws and taxes of American society and not get equal protections and privileges under the law. How is the sanctity of marriage marred by our need to be with the one who makes us the most happy? Heterosexual couples and their divorce rate kinda did that already. If marriage is so sacred, why not ban divorce? At least then it would show that you're sticking to your guns about protecting the "all-American family."
This whole issue will go back to a vote, and everyone in California will be able to be with the ones they love.
Mike Gorman
Lodi
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Lodian wrote on Jul 11, 2009 8:20 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 9, 2009 8:30 PM:
GROW UP. "
voter wrote on Jul 9, 2009 8:14 PM:
stantaves wrote on Jul 9, 2009 2:36 PM:
stantaves wrote on Jul 9, 2009 2:30 PM:
Gator wrote on Jul 9, 2009 12:35 PM:
old Voter and proves nothing.. The only hate I see comes from you people
who are pushing this issue…One thing sure, it might come to pass in California but never in Idaho… "
Lodian wrote on Jul 9, 2009 12:18 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 9, 2009 8:20 AM:
http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2009/07/01/opinion/letters/ltr_vetica_090701.txt
Post the details. "
voter wrote on Jul 9, 2009 8:17 AM:
"Alright, it's time to go back to my 1st post relating to this subject -- I don't even know how many months ago? GOVT NEEDS TO GET OUT OF THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS!!!!!
Let's flesh out that idea, stan. How would it work? Where would people get a marriage license? No license? Then it would be OK for anyone to get married? No limitations on age to protect children, etc? Who would perform said marriages? A church? How would an atheist get married? Let's hear the details of your brilliant plan. "
stantaves wrote on Jul 9, 2009 8:11 AM:
voter wrote on Jul 9, 2009 6:43 AM:
" Voter, . . . Perhaps we are all born with some curiosity for the same sex. But the majority of us have the strength to not be tempted. "
Perhaps not, Brian. You need to seek help for your sexual confusion, and stop with the self loathing for your natural attraction for men. Could you be bi-sexual? It might be worth exploring. Brian, this notion that the majority (YOU?) need strength to ward off homosexual temptation is telling. Straight people are not tempted by those of the same sex, just as gays are not tempted by the opposite sex. Your constant fixation with the Folsom Street Fair, online searching for graphic images, and admission of a rich fantasy life involving men suggest a denial of your sexual orientation, something that cannot be changed or altered. Deal with it and you'll be happier. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 8, 2009 10:18 PM:
Brian wrote on Jul 8, 2009 10:02 PM:
Let me help you remember what I wrote.
Brian wrote on Jul 8, 2009 7:11 AM:
" " Brian wrote on Jul 6, 2009 8:22 AM:
" One could conclude that voter believes our moral code is NOT as a result of religon.
Lodian,
There is nothing in this statement
that says you have to be a Christian
to have a moral code. Nor do you have to be religious at all. But, there is no doubt that our moral code comes from religon, be it Christianity, Judaism, Bhudism, Hinduism, etc. You seem to have a problem with the fact that our moral code comes from religon. Everybody has their struggles in life.
But you seem to pick the most obviously true things to struggle with. Suit yourself. " "
Brian wrote on Jul 8, 2009 9:59 PM:
" Brian wrote "You seem to have a problem with the fact that our moral code comes from religon."
Brian: You don't seem to think that non-Christians, or non-religious people, can have a strong moral code.
-How is that Lodian? Where do you get the idea that I think one has to only be a Christian to have a strong moral code? Are you drinking? Does it not occur to you that it is foolish to make such statements? "
Lodian wrote on Jul 8, 2009 9:31 PM:
Brian: You don't seem to think that non-Christians, or non-religious people, can have a strong moral code. "
Brian wrote on Jul 8, 2009 9:30 PM:
Take marriage away from its historically recognized essence (one man and one woman) and it seems a bit haphazard and curmudgeonly to get stuck on mere numbers. From those who want to destroy traditional marriage and who see same-sex marriage as a step towards such destruction, one does not expect any arguments in response.
For those who reject as nonsensical a marriage of more than two people, however, it is necessary to re-think the logic of "same-sex marriage" claims themselves. "
Brian wrote on Jul 8, 2009 9:26 PM:
You fall in the category of "Sexual Orientation Activist"
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0063.html
Bi-sexual Marriages and Polygamy
IAIN T. BENSON
Why don't "sexual orientation" activists argue in favour of bi-sexual marriage? "
Brian wrote on Jul 8, 2009 9:13 PM:
Where is your homophobe name calling to Obama? And why is your hate mongering you spew out to others missing when you refer to Obama? Why does his moral compass deserve your respect but ours don't? "
Brian wrote on Jul 8, 2009 9:07 PM:
If society went back to labelling homosexuality as a mental disorder gays would learn to live hetero lives and eventually forget about it. Perhaps we are all born with some curiosity for the same sex. But the majority of us have the strength to not be tempted. "
voter wrote on Jul 8, 2009 8:57 PM:
" Last time I checked our President said Marriage was between a Man and a Woman…"
What does that have to do with anything? Eight of the first thirteen presidents owned slaves. Does that make slavery OK? Weak argument. "
voter wrote on Jul 8, 2009 8:54 PM:
To begin, first cousins have been able to marry in California and many other states for a long time.
Your slippery slope argument makes no sense. Please scroll down and reread my post of July 3/8:45. When the voting age was lowered to 18, the debate revolved around whether these young people would be able to handle the responsibility, not, "Hey, if we allow this, then 3 year olds will be voting next year, and farm animals the year after that." There's no logical correlation at all. Let's discuss same-sex marriage on its merits alone.
As for your disgust, that made me laugh. Seriously, if you're claiming that if the visual image of two particular people having sex is disgusting, then we shouldn't let them marry, then I think a WHOLE LOT of straight people are going to have to be banned from marriage as well. "
Gator wrote on Jul 8, 2009 8:36 PM:
you both might no be so sour.. Ok voter here is where it’s at, if the state was
to legalize Same sex Marriage then you open the door for anything that
comes down the pike. Polygamy, marriage of first cousins , marriage of you
mother ,sister what the hell you allow one Odd ball law to pass then you
legally can’t stop the other…Last time I checked our President said Marriage was between a Man and a Woman… By the way Voter I did say
Odd ball and that it is… "
voter wrote on Jul 8, 2009 8:28 PM:
Enjoy your vacation. When you get back, I'll be ready to hear that ONE reason you seem unable to articulate. "
voter wrote on Jul 8, 2009 8:24 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 8, 2009 8:22 PM:
For the last time, PLEASE, give just one secular reason why same-sex couples should be denied the right to marry. "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 8, 2009 8:15 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 8, 2009 8:12 PM:
IS SEXUAL ORIENTATION A CHOICE?
No. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. And some people report trying very hard over many years to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual with no success. For these reasons, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation for most people to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 8, 2009 8:00 PM:
I wonder if the people who practice it think it is rediculous?
As for gays being born the American Phychological assosociation says "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
Are you claiming to know more about the origins of homosexual tendencies than the whole of American medical researchers? "
dyan wrote on Jul 8, 2009 7:15 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 8, 2009 6:09 PM:
AGAIN, please tell me one secular reason why same-sex couples should be denied the right to marriage. "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 8, 2009 4:56 PM:
" Why are you so hung up on polygamy, Rhodie? "
Because it is a non-traditional marriage model that a minority of people think is acceptable and thus makes for a good comparison to same sex marriage.
And while you say they are not born others believe that having a single mate for life is a non-natural state for humans. "
voter wrote on Jul 8, 2009 3:36 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 8, 2009 3:07 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 8, 2009 3:07 PM:
But that's irrelevant anyway. Polygamists are not born. "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 8, 2009 2:55 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 8, 2009 1:16 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 8, 2009 1:09 PM:
Gator uses the language of hate, but I'm not so sure that's the core problem. I think Gator's afraid. Really, really, afraid. He sounds like the old timers around Lodi who said they were all for blacks having civil rights, just not in OUR town. That's where they "drew the line." They were afraid of white guys losing all the power.
Gator, what EXACTLY are you afraid of? What is it that threatens you about same-sex marriage? "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 8, 2009 12:27 PM:
Gator the Hater said, "I have nothing but support for the gays to have all the
benefits enjoyed by most Americans. But when it comes to Marriage that is
where I draw the line."
Gator the Hater, were you born a contradictory idiot, or have you spent years learning the skill?
Idaho.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHHH "
Gator wrote on Jul 8, 2009 10:47 AM:
Can understand your not knowing, Mo wasn’t the sharpest tool in the shed…Anyway you and Arnold are welcome to it, the California I knew is long gone… "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 8, 2009 9:48 AM:
Gator wrote on Jul 8, 2009 8:45 AM:
around pretty freely. I have nothing but support for the gays to have all the
benefits enjoyed by most Americans. But when it comes to Marriage that is
where I draw the line.. The only Hate I see comes from the Three stooges and they tend to use it freely.. One reason a part of society has a problem with organized Religion is that it requires accountability and that is the last thing they want.. The State of California bares a similarity to the Roman
Empire before the Fall and could end going the same way…Check mate
In your dreams Curly, aw shucks, Billy… "
stantaves wrote on Jul 8, 2009 8:30 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 8, 2009 7:23 AM:
Why would you assume that a non-Christian person does not live by a moral code?
Here we go with Lodian putting words into my mouth again.
Even atheists have a moral code. Again, our moral code comes from religon. But they'll argue that this isn't true. But in the end they can't deny that a moral code must come from a higher power. They just don't call that higher power God. "
Brian wrote on Jul 8, 2009 7:11 AM:
" One could conclude that voter believes our moral code is NOT as a result of religon.
Lodian,
There is nothing in this statement
that says you have to be a Christian
to have a moral code. Nor do you have to be religious at all. But, there is no doubt that our moral code comes from religon, be it Christianity, Judaism, Bhudism, Hinduism, etc. You seem to have a problem with the fact that our moral code comes from religon. Everybody has their struggles in life.
But you seem to pick the most obviously true things to struggle with. Suit yourself. "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 8, 2009 1:03 AM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 8, 2009 1:02 AM:
That is one thing dyan is good at. She does it over and over again. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Jul 7, 2009 8:34 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 7, 2009 8:29 PM:
dyan: "Simple minded twit" or "Ignorant boob"... same difference. You sound like a nut. Try to follow along. You just made yourself look like a fool. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 7, 2009 8:23 PM:
Brian: You are telling us that it's okay for you to be lacking in morals, but that non Christians do not have morals at all. Why would you assume that a non-Christian person does not live by a moral code? Morals are not exclusive to Christians, as you would have everyone believe. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 7, 2009 8:18 PM:
So, stantaves, it's okay with you that someone is gay and conservative as long as they don't try to upset you with wanting to marry? "
Brian wrote on Jul 7, 2009 7:35 PM:
" Brian wrote on Jul 6, 2009 8:22 AM:
" One could conclude that voter believes our moral code is NOT as a result of religon. "
Brian: How do you explain your lack of morals even though you profess to be a Christian? "
-Everyone has some lack of morals. We're human. What are you, Lodian? "
Gator wrote on Jul 7, 2009 6:55 PM:
To me "
Gator wrote on Jul 7, 2009 4:18 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw like a glove.. No flattery intended Amigo… "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 7, 2009 2:14 PM:
Gator wrote on Jul 7, 2009 11:50 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 7, 2009 10:14 AM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 7, 2009 8:17 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 7, 2009 7:59 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 7, 2009 7:57 AM:
dyan wrote on Jul 7, 2009 7:51 AM:
stantaves wrote on Jul 7, 2009 6:46 AM:
Gator wrote on Jul 7, 2009 5:57 AM:
Away, if not it will be a cold day in Hell before it does… "
Lodian wrote on Jul 6, 2009 10:58 PM:
" One could conclude that voter believes our moral code is NOT as a result of religon. "
Brian: How do you explain your lack of morals even though you profess to be a Christian? "
Lodian wrote on Jul 6, 2009 10:56 PM:
Gator: Why the hell not? There is no reason you can remotely come up with that explains how a gay couple cannot love each other or have children just like millions of other couples in this country. You are so clueless it's scary. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 6, 2009 10:52 PM:
Gator: You ignorant boob! I said nothing about Texas or a bar. Try to follow along deary. Or maybe you should just sit this one out and go take another nap old man. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 6, 2009 10:48 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 6, 2009 10:45 PM:
dyan wrote on Jul 6, 2009 1:39 PM:
Gator wrote on Jul 6, 2009 1:02 PM:
your spouse, another and has been to Perpetuate the human race. Some how same sex just can’t pull that off.. "
dyan wrote on Jul 6, 2009 1:00 PM:
stantaves wrote on Jul 6, 2009 12:18 PM:
Gator wrote on Jul 6, 2009 9:03 AM:
Where some good ol Boys ran a test on a new piece of chain and drug a black man till there was nothing left.. A little more serious than a broken thumb, broken ribs and a knock on the head.. What happened in that bar
that caused that retaliation?? I don’t know , you don’t know!! As for the
other just being black had a big part in it… "
Brian wrote on Jul 6, 2009 8:49 AM:
So why must I as a conservative who sees society producing worse and worse norms accept something just because society is progressing that way? "
-We all know voter will reply that abnormal progess is just another indication of normal progess. Why should we expect anything different from him? "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 6, 2009 8:37 AM:
A couple of times lower down you state that society progresses. Two questions with sub-parts:
First, is social progression always a good thing? If society progressed twords socialism or communism is that a good thing since, after all, it progressed that way? If society progressed twords removing all public displays of religion would that be a good thing simply because it progressed that way?
Second, why must people accept things they believe are morally wrong simply because society tells them to? Society (through hollywood) is removing the negative image of a cheating spouse by showing it as a normal event. Society is telling teens to have sex younger and younger, should we just accept that because society is progressing that way? Some social progressions have been good like rights to minorities and women's rights. Other progressions have been bad, acceptance of porn, sexual promiscuity, drug use, devaluation of family (careers come first and letting others raise kids), high debt.
So why must I as a conservative who sees society producing worse and worse norms accept something just because society is progressing that way? "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 6, 2009 8:23 AM:
" Still waiting for anyone in the homophobic crowd to post a secular reason why gays should be denied civil rights and should not be allowed to marry."
it answers no needs and removes no inequities in modern societies. we limit marriage based on age, species, consanguinity (family ties), disability (some too impaired to legally consent), sex, and quantity. "
Brian wrote on Jul 6, 2009 8:22 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 6, 2009 8:18 AM:
People's religious views have a big impact on how they vote. This is not going to go away any time soon. Don't let the facts get in your way that no matter how much you try to secularize government there will always be religon
in our lives. "
Brian wrote on Jul 6, 2009 8:15 AM:
" Can any of you bigoted folks give any secular reason for denying gays civil rights? I doubt it. You fear "others" because your church tells you to, not because there is any real threat. It's intellectually dishonest.
-Voter,
I don't look forward to my kids having to learn the aspects of anal sex in school because some radical gay activist
lawyer has lobbyists in high places that welcome him lining their pockets with money. "
voter wrote on Jul 6, 2009 8:10 AM:
voter wrote on Jul 6, 2009 8:05 AM:
Still waiting for your brilliant and earthshaking secular reason to deny gays the right to marry.
You keep avoiding that. "
Gator wrote on Jul 6, 2009 7:58 AM:
rights as to social security, death benefits, right to buy rent or lease a place to live, right to work in a job of their choice is wrong and should be corrected. Where the rub comes is when you throw the word Marriage into the works, that fly’s in the face of a great number of people in fact the majority of people.. Had they chose to except the title of Civil Unions then
work to make sure those benefits were included for both parties this would be Moot.. Lodian, you slay me, a person can hide being Gay, people of Color Can’t hide.. Walk down the street, pass twenty people, pick out the Gay’s, Simple you can’t.. I love the old Man remark, If you had said that in the work place I could file a discrimination charge on you(Grin) Could get
your a** Fired (Bigger Grin) "
voter wrote on Jul 6, 2009 7:36 AM:
Meanwhile, over the weekend in Fort Worth, Texas, a horde of police officers descended on a gay bar when no complaints had been made and no wrong doing was taking place and beat the patrons senseless. One man is still hospitalized with serious injuries. Hate crimes against gays are on the rise at a time when all other hate crimes are down. You gay bashers give them permission. And then you publicly claim Jesus wants it this way. "
voter wrote on Jul 6, 2009 7:27 AM:
" .. I don’t think you give a damn one way or the other."
You couldn't be more wrong. I have close friends and family members who are gay. Most people do. But here is a universal truth: When citizens accept and even applaud the denial of civil rights for any group, then my rights are not safe either. Let that sink in, old man. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 6, 2009 1:04 AM:
" Can any of you bigoted folks give any secular reason for denying gays civil rights?"
voter: I am still waiting for that reason too. I haven't heard one yet. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 6, 2009 1:03 AM:
Gator: FYI... Gays have been treated worse than dogs, tortured and murdered... just for being gay. "
Gator wrote on Jul 5, 2009 8:54 PM:
It’s self with Black Americans and their struggles for equality from Slavery
to the Civil rights act of 1964 you are sadly mistaken. You have a people who were ripped from their country sold into slavery treated like dogs, murdered just for being black and you want to say it’s the same for the gays
as for fear, Zero, My church , none, Marriage a civil right ,Not so…Racial
Minorities, you need to rethink that statement, Whites will be the minority
In California in less than 10 years… "
voter wrote on Jul 5, 2009 6:45 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 5, 2009 6:32 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 5, 2009 6:28 PM:
Rhodie wrote on Jul 5, 2009 6:22 PM:
" Rhodie, you miss the point. Polygamists are not born."
Many anthoplogists and sociologist disagree with you. Many feel that having only one mate for life is an unatural state for humans. "
voter wrote on Jul 5, 2009 6:17 PM:
Gator, the Folsom Street Fair is a BDSM event, not a "gay" event. A significant percentage of the participants are straight--leather fetishes appeal to some straight people too, I guess. People have to pay admission to get into the fair, there is security and SFPD officers patrolling, etc., but obviously it is not a Sunday School Picnic. I wonder why you are not outraged at the straight participants--why only blame gays? Ever been to Mardi Gras in New Orleans? Some crazy stuff happens on those balconies--where's the faux horror on that one? So, if you want to rage against public nudity and alternative sex preferences, that's fine, but singling out gays for behavior conducted side by side with straight people is bigoted. Please do not transfer your distaste for a few people's actions into prejudice against an entire community. "
dyan wrote on Jul 5, 2009 5:21 PM:
Gator wrote on Jul 5, 2009 3:46 PM:
Infer.. I just don’t believe performing every natural and unnatural sex
act known on the side walk, on the grass and in the doorways garners
them little support if any, in fact it’s just the opposite. In your wildest
Dreams don’t you ever compare this folly to the Civil rights of the
Blacks.. It’s not even close and it’s also one reason why the vote
Failed, Blacks, Latinos and Muslims helped in the defeat.. If it had been
a young white vote it would have gone the gays way.. "
gray cloud wrote on Jul 5, 2009 1:47 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 5, 2009 1:03 PM:
And here we go again with the Folsom Street Faire. What is up with the wingnutty fascination? "
Gator wrote on Jul 5, 2009 12:30 PM:
News and yeah another shining example of the G&L front the Folsom Street
Fair. That my friend is an albatross around the movement that won’t go away.. Get huffy all you want, Fly under the Radar and win or act like the
aforementioned and lose…Over and over!!! "
voter wrote on Jul 5, 2009 10:03 AM:
Gator wrote on Jul 5, 2009 8:50 AM:
the Radar and work within the system they will succeed.. If they choose to
continue to act out and rub folks nose in the dirt on the subject of marriage
they will continue to loose… "
voter wrote on Jul 4, 2009 4:53 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 4, 2009 4:34 PM:
" Brian, articulate for us in secular terms why you are opposed to same-sex marriage. You've already stated that an inability to procreate should not be a factor in granting a marriage license. "
We're all listening. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 4, 2009 4:32 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 4, 2009 4:31 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 4, 2009 4:29 PM:
" Lodian wrote on Jul 4, 2009 1:44 PM:
" Brian wrote "And, us breeders, for the most part, don't have to rely on a turkey baster and or a surrogate mother to have a baby."
So what? Millions of heterosexual couples try desperately to have children using other methods of conception. Should they not be allowed to marry because they cannot conceive the old fashioned way? "
No, the issue is not conceiving a baby at all. The argument is why should we redefine marriage for a small percentage of society. I thought this was understood, Lodian. For you to say that someone is suggesting that hetero
couples should not be allowed to marry
because they cannot have a baby is as asinine as it gets. "
-----------------
No, Brian, that was your asinine suggestion. Get it right. "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 4, 2009 4:27 PM:
So you are willing to have legal discrimination against polygamists because it is in conflict with what you think is right. Why is your discrimination better or more justified than the current legal definition of marriage? "
Lodian wrote on Jul 4, 2009 4:19 PM:
Exactly! So why do you keep on with the same ignorant arguments? "
Lodian wrote on Jul 4, 2009 4:18 PM:
I actually got the same, and intended, result as usual. It goes over your head every single time, Brian. Too funny. "
voter wrote on Jul 4, 2009 3:53 PM:
Your "circle" is small (very small, see below) and living in Arizona, it's doubtful you have any clue how feelings are running here. I have not heard anyone at my workplace, in my Lodi neighborhood, or among my friends and family who wants those marriages invalidated--not a single person. They pose no threat to anyone. How do they pose a threat to you? That's a serious question.
As for a majority opinion--was not heard on election day. Only 70% of adults eligible to vote are registered. Of those, about 79% cast ballots, and 52% of those voted "yes". Roughly 29% of the eligible adult population favored prop 8. That's hardly a majority opinion. "
Brian wrote on Jul 4, 2009 3:24 PM:
" Brian, why do you feel it is outrageous for me to suggest that the public vote on the status of you marriage? You seem to feel you have a right to vote on the status of other legal marriages. "
-Hmm, My hetero marriage is legal. Unless you have some evidence that is should be null and void, it will stay legal.
Now that same sex marriage is illegal in CA I can only conclude along with the thousands who voted in favor of prop.8 aren't that it is not ridiculous that they should question the validity of these marriages. Maybe in your circle of friends you hear conatrary to what I say. But I have yet to hear anyone in my circle of frinds that these people should be able to remain married now that prop. 8 has passed. "
voter wrote on Jul 4, 2009 2:45 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 4, 2009 2:42 PM:
Brian wrote on Jul 4, 2009 2:36 PM:
" voter wrote on Jul 4, 2009 1:20 PM:
" I think we should all be able to vote on the validity of Brian's marriage. "
I think we've got to start with deciding if he's really a heterosexual man first. "
-Here we go again. Character assassination. So predictable.
You'd think they'd come up with a better way to counter the argument.
We all know what the definition of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is.
Given that there will never be a ban on hetero marriage speaks for itself. "
Brian wrote on Jul 4, 2009 2:26 PM:
" Brian wrote "And, us breeders, for the most part, don't have to rely on a turkey baster and or a surrogate mother to have a baby."
So what? Millions of heterosexual couples try desperately to have children using other methods of conception. Should they not be allowed to marry because they cannot conceive the old fashioned way? "
No, the issue is not conceiving a baby at all. The argument is why should we redefine marriage for a small percentage of society. I thought this was understood, Lodian. For you to say that someone is suggesting that hetero
couples should not be allowed to marry
because they cannot have a baby is as asinine as it gets. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 4, 2009 1:45 PM:
" I think we should all be able to vote on the validity of Brian's marriage. "
I think we've got to start with deciding if he's really a heterosexual man first. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 4, 2009 1:44 PM:
So what? Millions of heterosexual couples try desperately to have children using other methods of conception. Should they not be allowed to marry because they cannot conceive the old fashioned way? "
voter wrote on Jul 4, 2009 1:43 PM:
It's unlikely that any of these circumstances will reemerge in the near future. The Mormon groups which still promote polygamy oppress their women and almost always banish young men from their communities. Abuse of women and children is commonplace for a number of reasons. This way of life runs counter to the direction society is progressing. Any notion that gay marriage will create an environment where straight men and women will suddenly revert to a male dominated primitive view of marriage is ridiculous. "
voter wrote on Jul 4, 2009 1:31 PM:
" So where is the line in the sand for you? Is it enough to get you your right to marry or should marriage be opened to anyone and everyone? What group do you think is too far beyond justification? (I'm thinking solely human participants in marriage here) "
I am confused about what you mean, but I think any pair of adults (assuming not close family) who are mentally able to comprehend the contract they are entering into should be allowed to marry. This sounds equitable.
As for drawing a line in the sand? Society progresses. It would have once been unthinkable to allow women and blacks to vote and own property. It was a monumental change when whites who were not landowners were allowed to vote. Who knows what the future will bring? The culture and it's needs change slowly over time. Having said that, I do not ever see polygamy reemerging as a cultural need. Polygamy was a solution for the past, not the future. "
voter wrote on Jul 4, 2009 1:20 PM:
Brian wrote on Jul 4, 2009 10:34 AM:
We know Flamer doesn't apply a derogatory label to same sex breeders. "
Brian wrote on Jul 4, 2009 10:32 AM:
You wouldn't be here if your parents weren't breeders.
That being said, does the derogatory
label you apply to breeders still stand? "
Brian wrote on Jul 4, 2009 10:22 AM:
That's why I have mixed emotions.
And, us breeders, for the most part, don't have to rely on a turkey baster and or a surrogate mother to have a baby. That being said, don't be so quick to conclude that same sex breeders won't throw their same sex married friends under the bus just to make a point. "
flamerinlodi wrote on Jul 4, 2009 9:59 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 4, 2009 9:02 AM:
Brian wrote on Jul 4, 2009 8:58 AM:
The only silver lining on that cloud was that the 18,000 couples who were already married can stay that way.
-Oh contrare,
As applicable by the current marriage laws. It may be just a matter of time that the state of CA will render these marriage licenses null and void. Perhaps we will see discrimination lawsuits against the state of CA for allowing those same sex couple the same rights as married couples by same sex
partners that may never be able to get married in CA. I'm not too sure these dsame sex partners won't demand that those granted a marriage license, before
the vote on prop 8, be declared null and void. After all, there's nothing more appealing to a liberal than EQUALITY. "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 3, 2009 10:08 PM:
Wait a minute here. Many sociologists argue that monogamy is an unatural relationship for humans. That multiple spouses is a more normal state for humans. "answers no needs"? Your kidding here right? No needs? (Aside from the sex) It has a built in support network of people who understand what you are going through.
"removes no inequities" You mean aside from it is illegal and not recognized for tax, insurance and will purposes? Sound familiar?
I'm not advocating polygamy, one wife is all I can handle. But you do have to admit changing what the legal definition of marriage to marry whoever you want is a slippery slope. "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 3, 2009 9:56 PM:
I did not intend to compare the two but simply use two issues of marriage inwhich there is discrimination. I really doubt that people will use same sex marriage as a springboard into marrying farm animals or their t.v.'s. BUT I also doubt that the lawers in Roe vs. Wade thought their arguments for a woman right to do with their body as they see fit were going to be used years later to justify doctor assisted suicide in Oregon. I do think the marry who you want crowd is blind to the possibilities of their arguments if they think that in the years to come their justifications won't be used by other groups to justify their right to marry who they want to.
So where is the line in the sand for you? Is it enough to get you your right to marry or should marriage be opened to anyone and everyone? What group do you think is too far beyond justification? (I'm thinking solely human participants in marriage here) "
voter wrote on Jul 3, 2009 8:49 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 3, 2009 8:45 PM:
But if you want to talk about polygamy, why not. Rhodie, we limit marriage based on age, species, consanguinity (family ties), disability (some too impaired to legally consent), sex, and quantity. These characteristics have NO relation to one another and there is no cause and effect relationship between any of them. If a state lowers the age of consent, that does not mean that next they'll be allowing marriage with farm animals. This notion that if you change one parameter, then the rest will not hold is FLAWED LOGIC. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 3, 2009 7:59 PM:
Rhodie wrote on Jul 3, 2009 7:50 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 3, 2009 5:46 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 3, 2009 5:43 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 3, 2009 5:38 PM:
" At this site conservative Christians like me have been told our religious beliefs are insane and have no place in the voting process. Isn't that discrimination against religion? "
NO, that would be prejudice. "
voter wrote on Jul 3, 2009 5:36 PM:
Rhodie wrote on Jul 3, 2009 5:25 PM:
Sorry, as I read this I had **do** in place of **should** but you get the point. There are always groups that are discriminated against because of who they are or what they believe. Whether it is a legal (for now) kind of discrimination like who can marry who or a preconceived perception by society like against bikers. Is it discrimination or justifiable to for the state to tell smokers where they can smoke? How about employers, is it discrimination to tell someone who they can and cannot hire? How about who can be on the air? Right now there are debates going on about removing conservative talkshow hosts because there aren't enough liberal talkshow hosts, isn't that discrimination?
In a perfect world there would be no discrimination, but we don't live in a perfect world and we never will. At this site conservative Christians like me have been told our religious beliefs are insane and have no place in the voting process. Isn't that discrimination against religion? "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 3, 2009 5:11 PM:
Gun owners (of which I am not one).
Look at the limits and obsticles they have to go through to own guns. Why can't a lawabiding citizen own the guns they want in order to feel safe? Granted the largest group of gun owners this effects are those who fear/see a governmental and social collapse, but if you wait until it happens THEN try to get the guns you want then it will be to late. I don't understand the need for bullet piercing bullets from high pwoer rifles for hunting, but I do see logic in being properly armed for civil defense (oxymoron I know).
How about polygamists? The rights they want are the same as the same-sex marriage crowd. A right to marry who ever they want. Not only is it not a right for them but illegal for the same arguments people use against seme sex marriages. Why should one be legal and the other not? "
voter wrote on Jul 3, 2009 4:23 PM:
" Unfortunately, self-gratifying narcissistic sexual behavior that does not benefit raising children in the next generation is not one of those values. "
This sounds like a rant against masturbation. LOL "
dyan wrote on Jul 3, 2009 4:00 PM:
The culture with the strongest human values and those most dedicated to those values will always emerge the victors. Another lesson of history. Unfortunately, self-gratifying narcissistic sexual behavior that does not benefit raising children in the next generation is not one of those values. "
dyan wrote on Jul 3, 2009 3:53 PM:
You're right. "
voter wrote on Jul 3, 2009 2:34 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 3, 2009 2:27 PM:
dyan wrote on Jul 3, 2009 2:01 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 3, 2009 1:03 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 3, 2009 12:53 PM:
"Voter, a country can not give rights to everyone equally."
I'm just dumbfounded. I can't believe you posted that, Rhodie. Besides gays, what other law abiding group of citizens should we purposefully discriminate against? "
Lodian wrote on Jul 3, 2009 12:40 PM:
dyan wrote on Jul 3, 2009 12:10 PM:
Rhodie wrote on Jul 3, 2009 10:32 AM:
" Rhodie, I missed your post earlier. I'm feeling fairly confident that SCOTUS will disagree with you. YOu can't vote away the civil rights of a minority. "
Voter, a country can not give rights to everyone equally. Eventually there will be a line in the sand drawn to say this is far enough. Let's look at the abortion issue. The argument is it is my body and I have the right to do what I want to it. Based on that argument, that it is a right to do what ever you want to your body then sucide/assisted suicide should be legal as well, but a line has been drawn.
We have the right to free speech, but there are things we are not allowed to say like slanderous comments and cursing (punished under disorderly conduct).
We have the right to public transportation but are limited on what you can bring with you.
All "rights" have a line where we, as society, have said this is far enough and the rights don't extend beyond this. Otherwise we would live in an anarchy society where "rights" justify any behavior" "
Billy Rubin wrote on Jul 3, 2009 9:26 AM:
Although when posting as Brian, he does admit to some healthy man watching. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Jul 3, 2009 9:23 AM:
Rhodie, Jerome Kinderman and the rest of their torch & pitchfork mob have always said gays choose to be so. Gays choose to sin against their bible; they choose to be corrupt and immoral. The cross-waving, GodHatesFags sign carrier crowd always equate it to crime.
In their view homosexuality never occurs in nature and, since it is a choice and a crime, there is no need to treat gays with anything but aggression and contempt.
Their votes have always intended to re-criminalize homosexuality and stamp it out - that is their agenda. To these ignorant, closed-minded haters, there is no possibility that two persons of the same sex could possibly love one another and form a strong family unit. "
dyan wrote on Jul 3, 2009 9:08 AM:
How do the expect to continue the integrity of families if we're not allowed to destroy them? "
voter wrote on Jul 3, 2009 7:40 AM:
voter wrote on Jul 2, 2009 7:08 AM:
Giovanina wrote on Jul 1, 2009 10:42 PM:
" Your Prop 8 vote is nothing but tyranny by the majority, something our constitution and form of government are supposed to protect against. Mike, you are absolutely correct in your observations. If equal marriage is such a threat to so-called "opposite marriage" then why aren't we seeing the negative effects in Massachusetts? Connecticut? Iowa? How about the mass divorces and abandonments of straight couples in Canada - shouldn't that have happened already? "
Move to Canada and show them how it is done. Then we wouldn't have the state waste money on continued voting on the majority decision that you refer to as tyranny. What I see is attempted tyranny by the Socialist minority. "
flamerinlodi wrote on Jul 1, 2009 10:01 PM:
Cogito wrote on Jul 1, 2009 5:56 PM:
Billy Rubin wrote on Jul 1, 2009 5:31 PM:
Cogito wrote on Jul 1, 2009 5:03 PM:
Aimee wrote on Jul 1, 2009 2:57 PM:
Gator wrote on Jul 1, 2009 2:50 PM:
danielh wrote on Jul 1, 2009 12:45 PM:
danielh wrote on Jul 1, 2009 12:44 PM:
It is not marriage under god** at all.
It is a re-definition of the god's word of marriage.
Just go get married. Don't enter into the contract.
** no uppercase in written language until the ROMAN empire, for the purpose of capitalizing upon people. "
LodiEye wrote on Jul 1, 2009 11:31 AM:
We could just dump marriage altogether and make everyone declare a domestic partnership. Would that be better? "
Rhodie wrote on Jul 1, 2009 11:01 AM:
So is the tyranny of the minority a better way to run things?
If the tyranny of the majority is such a flawed system then why do we have the vote at all? It is because, as a voting society, we are governed by the majority rule. It gives us our elected officials, laws and funding for social services (bond issues and tax limits we vote for).
So I suspect that it is not the tyranny of the majority that you are against, just the reality that the majority disagree with you. "
yabajobu wrote on Jul 1, 2009 9:21 AM:
When properly framed, it is clear that the government should not be forced to subsidize relationships that it does not view as most beneficial to society. Just like other areas where the government spends its money, it has complete discretion to do that as it wishes. Moreover, here in California, all those benefits have already been extended in the domestic partnership laws. Thus, it's not clear to me what the LGBT community is complaining about. Indeed, the incessant complaints come off as a childish tantrum. "
Stella wrote on Jul 1, 2009 7:53 AM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Jul 1, 2009 7:19 AM:
For all of the commotion over government waste, considering how much it costs to bring anything to a state-wide ballot, I wouldn't be surprised if on the next one the total of Californians against same-sex marriage will be much higher, if for no other reason than to state unequivocally that enough is now enough.
It should also be noted that there is no law here that prohibits the LGBT community from "be[ing] with the one who makes [them] most happy," as Mr. Gorman suggests is now the case. False statements like this only hurt the cause of any movement. "
t jefferson wrote on Jul 1, 2009 7:13 AM:
This is nothing but an attempt to poke a stick in the eye of religion and dumb down morals to the point where they are meaningless.
If this was truely an issue, change the name of a homosexual union to KIBLIZ and have a Shamen perform the ceremony. Get the legislature to approve KIBLIZ for the same privileges as marriage and domestic partnership and the deal is done.
Simple solution to a complex problem. The fact it has not been done this way tells me there is a different agenda. "
Comments on this story are now closed.