By shovel: Gays have a much richer heritage throughout the history of this planet than all current religions, especially Mormonism! Why anyone takes Mormon myths and legends with more of a grain of salt than Scientology is beyond me.

Give one example of anything that you say. In Sodom and Gomarrah the homsexuals inherited death, because the wages of their sin was death.

In every civilized society, the collapse and destruction of the society coincided with the perverse growth of homosexuality and incest.

Besides, every gay person on this planet owes their origin to a heterosexual activity. To the contrary, not one single heterosexual can contribute their existence to homosexuality.

When homosexuals are able to procreate and populate themselves then they can be called a race. Until then it is just a sexual activity particpated in by 2% of the population. I would guesstamate that asexuality is an activity participated in by 98% of the population.

Since a lot of lesbians and gays can be clinically termed paraphilias, should they be given the right to marry the object of their affection. I think not, because marriage is defined, and despite what one may desire, just like a drivers license they must meet the qualifications.

By fauxfetus:In the case of incest, a person is not predisposed to fall in love with a relative the same way a person is predisposed to fall in love with a member of the same, or opposite, sex.

First, you are just making things up as they pop in your head. In regards, to pedophiles marrying kids. In some countries the age of consent is 12 and is Hawaii it is 14, that means that they can not marry in California even though they are predisposed to fall in love and want to marry.

In the case of incest, a person is just as predisposed to fall in love with a relative, and it has happened many times before, as a person is to fall in love with the same sex. Many psychiatrist have defined both as neither sexual or eros, but projections of disorders rooted in trauma.

Yet, I have known lesbians who were in love with a woman, but fell in love with a man and married that man. Ask Ellen Degeneres about that. I personally knew a lesbian, living with a girl, who fell in love with me, while I married to my wife.

Do your research, this matter was already addressed. It was not a revision, but an addition. If the constitution had said that marriage is between any two consenting adults, accept blood relatives and those who lack mental competence, then it would have been a revision.

It carried the same weight for approval, a all the other ballot initiatives, including the one that said that a child does not need her parents permission to have an abortion.

What homosexuals have done is what paraphiliacs do, they have attached love to an object and attached affection to that love. The father who loves his daughter,paternally is sincere in that love, when perverted it slips into eros and the sexual boundary is penetrated.

In regards to under age girls, I may look at a 15 year old girl, who is fully developed, but I have control and discipline so as not to even entertain that thought. My sister may be attractive, but all she will ever be is an attractive sister who I love as a sister.

Facts and truths lead to knowledge:

A common argument is that an inclination to homosexuality is inborn and immutable. It is widely believed that the public will become more accepting of homosexuality if they are convinced that it is inborn and immutable. For example, neuroscientist and homosexual Simon Levay stated: "...people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights."[3] Research into the issue of the origins of homosexuality suggests that adoptive brothers are more likely to both be homosexuals than the biological brothers, who share half their genes which suggests that homosexuality is not genetically caused. [4][5][6] This data prompted the journal Science to report "this . . . suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families".[7][8][9] However, in regards to psychosocial and biological theories in regards to the origin of homosexuality, Columbia University psychiatry professors Drs. William Byrne and Bruce Parsons stated in 1994: "There is no evidence that at present to substantiate a biological theory. [T]he appeal of current biological explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data".[10] Dr. Tahir I. Jaz, M.D., Winnipeg, Canada states: "The increasing claims of being "born that way" parallels the rising political activism of homosexual organisations, who politicise the issue of homosexual origins . In the 1970s, approximately ten percent of homosexuals claimed to be "born homosexual" according to a large scale survey....However, in a survey in the 1980s, with the homosexual rights movement increasingly becoming active, thirty-five percent claimed to be born that way.[11] Roman 1:26

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

27-And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly (not good or suitable but perverted), and receiving in themselves that compense of their error was meet.

28- And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.

29- Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers,

30 -Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents

"It would be like the gays trying to prescribe their only meaning to Hannuka and asking the courts to support it."

This comparison makes no sense. The holiday has no legal significance whatsoever. If the handicapped wanted to redefine the meaning of it to replace your paddle balls with meat balls day, they sure as hell could do it, and it really wouldn't change anything at all.

What's important are the laws to protect the couple, such as postmortem inheritance, hospital visitation rights, joint tax filing, and so on. To argue that it opens the doors for polygamists makes no sense because every single law regarding marriage would have to be rewritten since every single law related to marriage concerns the relationship between two people. Children are not mature enough to make legal decisions, which is the purpose of the age of consent, and thus cannot enter a contract. Anything that is not human cannot consent or sign a contract either. In the case of incest, a person is not predisposed to fall in love with a relative the same way a person is predisposed to fall in love with a member of the same, or opposite, sex. For example, a man could potentially fall in love with his sister, and he could also potentially fall in love with another woman. On the other hand, a man could fall in love with another man, but in most cases he would not be able to fall in love with a woman, completely barring him from his legal right of marriage. This is why the slippery slope argument is useless.

A revision of the California Constitution requires a two-thirds vote by the state legislature before it can be voted on by the public, which did not happen, and is partisan-neutral reason why Prop 8 should be repealed.

No on 8 constantly tries to compare gay marriage with civil rights and slavery, insisting that the will of a minority was upheld over the will of a majority. They must be referring to their racist families, because civil rights and the abolishment of slavery was not a minority decision but a majority decision.

Worldwide about 95% of the world was against slavey up to and during the Civil War. In the U.S. over 70% of America was against slavery, and the White minority group of the South opposed civil rights. The South was so over voted that they sought to count their slaves as citizens, without voting rights, so as to proxy their votes in their own interest. That is where the 3/5 person came into play,concerning Blacks.

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves at their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College; taxation was only a secondary issue. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but is still generally credited with giving the pro-slavery forces disproportionate political power in the U.S. government from the establishment of the Constitution until the Civil War. For example, in the period prior to 1850, southerners held the Presidency for 50 of 62 years, and 18 of the 31 Supreme Court Justices were southerners despite the north having nearly twice the population by 1850.

The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

In the end, the democratic process must be allowed to work. There was nothing unfair about the election. Everyone had (1) vote. Everyone cast that (1) vote according to their belief and the votes were tallied providing the final result. That is the strength of our state and nation. That is the example of democracy we demonstrate to the entire world. How foolish we must look when the world sees that the very election process we hold-up so proudly before them is really for naught and the voice of the majority is ultimately unrecognized, ridiculed and overridden.

For you bleeding idiots who think that Gay Marriage will become a norm in America, consider the facts.

DOMA- the Defesne of Marriage Act was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. not even close.

It says No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

Including the results of the 2008 general elections, two states (Massachusetts and Connecticut) allow same-sex marriage, five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-eight states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory DOMAs.

It says the Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse': In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN as husband and wife, and the word ‘SPOUSE’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Interracial marriages went on since the beginning of the emerging of multiple races. Even when the Moors, Africans, mixed with the Italians and turned that whole race into a dark haired and tanned skin people.

I know that it is hard for some like ChesterKatz, to conceive that the world existed way before the racism in America and the laws that came out of it. But, even if we use that screwed logic, when an person of African descent married a person of German or German married a person of Asian descent, it was still MAN and WOMAN or Penis and Vagina.

To compare Gay marriage with the marriages between any man and woman is insanity from the mind of a lunatic. It is more apt to compare gay marriage, with polygamy, and incest marriage. That is why the Polygamist in Utah spent millions on the losing campaign of No on Prop 8.

@ChesterKatz:The separation of church and state would actually dictate that only religious people could get married and that non-religious people could only have civil unions. The word would be a protected word and the church would have the rights to it and it would be a trade mark product.

Maybe, the Church will brand marriage with an ordained label from God, like the sign of the Cross.

It would be like the gays trying to prescribe their only meaning to Hannuka and asking the courts to support it.

By ganghiscon: Did you really just compare gay marriage to pedophilia?

I'm not sure that yo got your answer, but I a compare it. You think that your can throw out a statement intended to invoke an emotion, but offer no support.

One of the biggest contributors to No on 8 was NAMBLA, the pedophiles, and of course the millions that cmae from the polygmaist in Utah.

Also, 95% of the pedophile Catholic priests were homosexual.

for By Legalist and By ChesterKatz

DSM 111 and Psychosocial disorder in childhood identifies four groups, Gender Indentity disorders, Paraphilias, Psychosexual dysfunction, and other pschosexual disorders.

Let's look at the Gender Identity Disorder in females. A. Strongly and persistently stated desire to be aboy or insistence that she is a boy.

B. Persistent repudiation of female anatomic structures, as manifested by at least one of the following repeated assetions 1. That she will grow up to become a man 2. That she is biologically unable to become pregnant 3. That she wil lnot devlop breasts 4. That she has no vagina 5. That she has or will grow a penis. C. Onset of the disturbance before puberty.

"African_Americans went 70-30 for Prop.8, which passed 52-48. Why don't those gay "Pink Panthers" attack a Harlem Methodist church instead? Pussies?"

Maybe because California is 76% White, and only 6% black?

@nik13, you know who pointed out the same thing? Bill O'Reilly. The reason he gives is not that the pink panthers are pussy, but that it would be politically incorrect.

Politics does make strange bed-fellows. It's been mentioned in comments on other posts, but I think we've got it all wrong when it comes to looking at our political views through the right/left, conservative/liberal paradigm. Alternatives...

NYTimes article quotes Philip Tetlock, suggesting that both political conservatives and political liberals are akin to dogmatism ("conservatism," "fundamentalism" in their conceptual, not political definitions).

"Philip Tetlock, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who reviews the evidence of cognitive differences in his 2005 book, “Expert Political Judgment,” said that while there were valid differences, “liberals and conservatives are roughly equally closed-minded in dealing with dissonant real-world evidence.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/science/04tierney.html?em

Similarly, The Rockridge Institute (a progressive psycho-socio-political thinktank) suggests that all people are both conservative and liberal (conceptually) to a certain extent. "Biconceptual."

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/thinkingpoints/ThinkingPoints_Chapter2.pdf

Both are informative and fun to read, and I think sorely needed in the heat that goes on in these blogs.

African_Americans went 70-30 for Prop.8, which passed 52-48. Why don't those gay "Pink Panthers" attack a Harlem Methodist church instead? Pussies?

Politics make strange bed-fellows. Reps/social conservatives/ AAs. Obama really brought us all together.

The people of California, Arizona, & Florida have already voted to ban gay marriage- its only a matter of time before all of America bans gay marriage. No amount of protesting will allow you to escape from that reality.

Jterry....wanna bet?

Stop acting like this is a civil rights issue- this is a moral issue- Men have about the same right to marry men as men do to marry multiple women, or men have the right to marry children.

Gay marriage is illegal and will remain illegal for the next 250+ years. Both the American people will vote against it, and the Supreme court will vote against it. Whining about it wont help- so just do us all a favor and move to one of the 6 countries in the world that allow it.

ChesterKatz, I agree, and that's what I'm saying. Those who have supported the ban don't understand the separation of church & state / marriage/legal union, and therefore seek to try and uphold a religious institution through political means. This whole controversy exists because this country has long upheld religious rites through governmental institutions (i.e. we've legislated religious beliefs), and they still hold onto that. That's a problem in the present pluralistic society we live in.

@legalist:

Separation of church and state would actually dictate that we not legislate our religious beliefs on others -- which is exactly what the gay marriage bans do.

@jterry121:

It most definitely has not always been "one man and one woman". Marriage was traditionally "one man and one or more women" far longer than it was 1x1.

And allowing interracial marriage definitely did change the so-called "definition of marriage" insomuch as a union between a mixed-race couple was outlawed prior to the oh-so-evil Supreme Court ignoring the will of the people to overturn those laws.

For those of you who are wondering why Christians like Obama and Biden oppose gay "marriage" but give liberty to states to decide on gay "unions" (essentially, them saying "unions" are okay by me)... Their views are based on the recognition of two Christian truths.

One truth is, yes, marriage is "holy" - which means that marriage, in the Christian understanding, has a HUGE symbolic significance to the Christian faith. It reflects the unity between Christ and the Church. If the definition of "marriage" were changed, it would not accurately represent the fundamental Christian truth - Christ's love for people. So for Christians, preserving marriage IS essentially loving, because it seeks to maintain the love that, to Christians, is the most important and exemplary for them - namely Christ's love for sinners.

Then why don't the ignorant bastards go and ban all unions altogether? It's because of the second truth - a separation between Church & State (I'm not speaking about Catholics here). Marriage is primarily a religious institution, and not a political one. Unions, on the other hand, speak to the legal/financial rights of one partner to the others' self and possessions and love and what have you. And these rights are things that, as those who seek to uphold Christian "love" and tolerance, Christians like Obama/Biden will not deny to anyone.

Both Christians who seek to ban gay unions altogether and those who hate all Christians for their denial of marriage (a religious concept) need to understand this. It would be intolerant and hateful of both sides not to do so.

Marriage has always been defined as one man & one woman marrying. Interracial marriage didnt change the definition of marriage, which is what gay marriage is trying to do.

The American people have already spoken- California , Arizona, & Florida have all voted to ban gay Marriage. Its only a matter of time before the rest of America including New York bans gay marriage. Dont like it? Move to one of the 6 countries in the world where its legal.