"the REPBLICAN PARTY... THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!

Wake up... Obama's a Democrat - and he holds the exact same opinion as Huck.

co-founded by Fredric Douglas - let's face the truth, Democrats can no longer blame it on the N-----s, so the use code words. Republican means N-----, and Neo-Con means JEW.
So, the party of the KKK - a Democrat Terrorist Organization, tries to project it's own views on the other side.

Sorry folks. Us "teabaggers" are "out of the closet". We're here - "get used to it".

I am however, extremely excited that lesbian Wanda Sykes was the keynote comedian.

OOOOOOOHHHHHHHH MMMMMMYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!

Wanda Sykes, oh my! She just RIPPED big time on Dick Cheney, Sean Hannity, and Boss LimpBaugh. WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, we're o.k. to make jokes about, but not to make sure we have our rights! Also, I watched the dinner, too, and I was disappointed that Wanda Sykes didn't say anything about gay marriage, or any other gay issue. She was funny, but I was still saddened.

Yes... Obama also made light of the way he terrorized New Yorkers with that flyover. The man is about as warm as Hitler... and gets the same adulation from ignorant masses.
He's made fun of the disabled, eliminated the 'cost of living' increase for the elderly and disabled on Social Security - whereas Ronald Reagan gave a 60% increase, and taken YOUR MONEY and handed it to multi-national corporations - all while convincing a bunch of greedy fools that he's working for them.

I guess it's too bad for you that we live in a republic and NOT a democracy.

CJ,

How does affording same-sex couples the right to marry hurt the integrity of marriage, family and society? There are same-sex couples who DO have children, biological and adopted. There are same-sex couples who have been together for decades. By them wanting to be treated equal under the law is somehow wanted "special rights".

You don't think we've heard your "special rights" rhetoric before? How is wanting EQUALITY under the law "special treatment"? You are trying to force YOUR opinion (which currently happens to be the majority - but that is quickly changing) on the rest of society.

Would you rather that all of us gay men and women seek some unsuspecting heterosexual to live in misery like half of the heterosexual married population currently does? (If people weren't miserable in their heterosexual marriages there wouldn't be a 50%+ divorce rate.) You would rather we LIE to ourselves and to those heterosexual spouses because our being true to ourselves makes people like you uncomfortable.

A perfect public example of this is former Gov. Jim McGreevey. Who got hurt because he wasn't able to LIVE the life he KNEW was natural for him? Yes, he did, but the unsuspecting victims were his wife and children. If you were so concerned about the children, then you would see that forcing people into the closet and marrying people they do not have a sexual attraction, deep emotional connection and love for is a recipe for disaster. By not affording all the same rights associated with marriage to same-sex couples, we are in essence saying that their membership in our society is less than that of heterosexuals. This despite that we are productive, loyal, tax-paying citizens of this country. Through higher taxes we pay more to keep our schools running (although most of us don't have children), we pay more toward law enforcement, fire and rescue departments, and other government agencies because we have to file our taxes as single.

I know this is a long post, hopefully you read the whole thing, somehow I doubt that you will, but I'm almost done.

Back in 2001, I was working in a law firm (which is normally very successful in estate law) were a friend of mine sought the council of the attorney's in the firm. His partner of 18 years was killed by a drunk driver. They had all their legal documents in order, registered domestic partnership here in California, living wills - which everything was left to my friend, medical and financial powers-of-attorney, both of their names were on the title of their home, and were both the primary beneficiaries on each others life insurance policies.

His partner was not considered DOA at the scene of the collision, and was put on life support. My friend called his partners parents who live(d) in Pennsylvania so that they could help make the decision to take him off life support (he honored their wishes to keep him on until his mother got here). My friend then made the decision to take his partner off life support. He made and paid all the funeral arrangements, etc. What did the parents do? They filed suit in FEDERAL court. Why? Because if they filed in the California courts they would have lacked standing.

They sued for his parnters half of the house, and the life insurance policy (which was only $50,000). The activist judge in the matter decided to take it upon himself to find in favor of the parents because they weren't protected FEDERALLY. So my friend had to either buy out his partners half of the house or sell it and give them half, he opted for the latter. He had already paid out thousands in attorney's fees and couldn't afford to appeal the decision. He hadn't even had the time to grieve his loss as he had to fight off his "in laws".

If you don't think that a court battle like this could ever take place, think again. There was a famous court battle that took place in the public spotlight, think back to Anna Nicole Smith. Where the same activist judges nearly overturned her husbands wishes until the US Supreme Court ruled in her favor. Well my friend didn't have a lot of money like Smith to appeal. He and his partner lived a comfortable life, but weren't considered wealthy.

When I hear people like you say that we are seeking "special rights" it takes me straight back to my friend and his partner whose parents nearly destroyed my friend's life. Until marriage equality is achieved there is NOTHING that can prevent this scenario from happening again in the future.

What "special right " do you think we want that you don't have? We want our civil right, the right to marry the person we fall in love with- which we only have in 5 states, by the way! You really need to know what you're talking about before you open your mouth!

Sorry, but same-sex couples cannot produce kids biologically. They can only adopt kids. Again this isn't about equality, but about the definition of marriage. There is no right to marry. Marriage is a privilege as anything that requires consent makes it a privilege. I don't have the right to borrow something from a person or enter a person's home, because they require consent. That makes them privileges, just as marriage does. No one is talking about forcing gay couples into the closet via marriage; that is a lie. What people are talking about is what is best for raising the next generation: Should we put 2 moms/ 2 dads en par with a mother and father or are kids entitled to both as that is how they enter this world? Should we put hetersexuality which leads to the bearing of children en par with homosexuality, when doesn't? Should we tell kids that they may marry equally of both sexes and ask them, "Will you marry a boy or a girl?"

And frankly there is no need for gays to have the privilege of marriage as they can get them same benefits of marriage per civil unions or domestic partnerships. They had that in CA Family Law 297.5.

Marriage is not a "right" - it's a privilege. Heterosexuals have more privileges than anyone else right now. What you want is to keep that special set of rights. Every time homosexuals try to obtain the same rights you have, you smack them down. Allowing gays to marry would leave you feeling like you weren't Mommy's Speshul Lil Babies anymore.

Although I think it will eventually happen because judges and politicians will come to understand that human rights are not up for a frigging majority vote.  Unless, like, you're in high school or something.

Look, not wanting a more intolerant society has nothing to do with hating anyone. It's just that your sexual preference should be a private matter. It's not who you are.

So don't have kids anymore either.  Because, ew, then we have to think about sex every time we look at you.  And the planet is, like, WAY overpopulated anyway.

*smacks bubblegum, tilts head, rolls eyes*

(Actually, I'm not lesbian.  But this was a fun writing exercise.)

Are you for real? How in the hell is the right to be married a special right. Oh yeah, that's right-- for people like you, ANY civil rights gained by the LGBTQ community are special rights. Thank the goddess that more and more people are coming to see that marriage equality is a danger to no one but haters such as yourself and the others who have posted your mean-spirited crap here.

I'm not sick of hearing it.  I care about people's rights.

I am sick of people making unkind statements about others, though.  There's been a lot of that in the movement towards granting marriage rights, and it reflects poorly on the people making the statements too. 

Well, John, you're going to hear about it until we are granted our rights, the same as you have, as every other tax-paying citizen of this country should have! Get over it!

I see things from the opposite direction, John. 

Its a mess, IMO.  How do I say what Im thinking without getting lit on fire here.  hah.  I do NOT think the word "marriage" is a right. 

I feel that IF the majority in any democratically represented government wish to maintain marriage as the institution known traditionally for hundreds, even thousands of years, then so be it.  The people have spoken.  But this only goes as far as traditional marriage, since traditional marriage is what they are voting on.

You have to understand where the traditionalists are coming from.  By taking one of their core values and giving rights to it to relationships which most traditionalist people DO see as wrong, repulsive, "sin" (bleh, I hate that word)... in their mind it takes away from something they cherish. 

Mind you, I am not one of the people who feel this way.  I only support the right of the people to choose their destiny.  The only thing that would upset me about the alternate lifestyles would be someone trying to push it on me or kids; let the children grow up before they are forced into this muddled world - if they can.

John, your point of taxes, etc., are exactly what I DO feel that any domestic partnership DOES have equal rights to.  Especially "next of kin" rights.  A few stories Ive read about a gay trying to get to their partner in the hospital or trying to authorize medical treatment, and cant - are a disgrace to human rights.  I feel for these people, I honestly do.

Estate rights as well.  I read one story about the parents of a gay, who resented the gay partner, who completely cleaned out the partner in the death of their son, because he had no legal rights to the estate.

Hence "civil union".  Altho, I am neither married NOR gay - this mere phrase makes me sick with the acrid taste of some bureaucratic contrivance.  If I was to be involved in one of these controversial marriages, I should as hell would not want it to be called THAT. 

I dont know, I dont have the answers.  I can only say, I am DAMN glad I have no personal interest in either side of this war. 

Huckabee brings to mind something I heard in church a long, long time ago. 

The sermon was about a number of typical topics ... temptation, morality, etc. and in the course of it, the pastor said that "Satan" will come back to the world with a very good knowledge of the Bible, and he may know it far better than even the most studious Christians do.  He'll know what to say to manipulate people towards evil acts and evil behaviors, while letting them think that what they're doing is okay by God.

Those who keep saying we're in the "end times" may want to take note.   :P
I don't personally agree we are, but I do think Huckabee is a prime example of a wolf in sheep's clothing.

David, so much hate and anger in your post. You really should see a psychatrist for that.

You only use China and Japan as your examples. You might want to check out the book "Same-sex Union in Pre-Modern Europe". It is prior to the indocrination of religion into society that same-sex marriage was celebrated and acknowledged on all levels.

Many will turn toward homosexuality? Really? Why is it that I was raised by two heterosexual parents, yet I turned out to be gay while my two brothers did not? Using your logic, if you were raised by homosexual parents then you would be homosexual. There is nothing wrong with having children raised in a two parent heterosexual household. However, I would like to ask you something. There are hundreds of thousands of children in the US currently waiting to be adopted. And more than half of those children have nobody seeking to adopt them. So, with that in mind, wouldn't it be better to place some of these children with same-sex couples as opposed to having them being bounced around from one group or foster home to another?

As far as your incest fetish, get over it. If you undertood science, the purpose of having laws against incestuous relations is due to the potential offspring. The closer to the family line one is, the higher the potential for genetic disorders. You also seem to FAIL to realize that polygamy already
takes place in this country. Is it recognized legally? No, only ONE of those marriages are recognized legally, but polygamy is still practiced in the faiths of Islam and FLDS. Don't believe me? Remember last years FLDS scandal. No charges were brought against anyone except for possibly statutory rape, or welfare cheating, but that had nothing to do with the polygamous relationships. There is an established Islamic Court in Texas that arbitrates family law including polygamous marriages. So for you to say that polygamy isn't practiced in this country is pure BS.

You say that gays don't need the institution of marriage. That would also hold true for heterosexuals. As far as hearing about their sexuality in the military, most people don't talk about their sexuality in the military. The problem is that if someone simply accidentally finds out about someone being gay, they can be kicked out. Even if the event in which that person found out took place off base.

No need for hate crimes laws. You are right, we don't have the right to prosecute people for thoughts. But when those thoughts become reality and action is taken based on those thoughts then yes, they can be prosecuted. One thing you fail to realize is that ALL violent crimes prosecutions revolve around MOTIVE. It is the MOTIVE that determines how a crime is prosecuted. In the case of Matthew Shepard, the motive was to rob and kill a GAY man. They actively sought out a gay man. It was 100% PRE-MEDITATED, and the fact that they SOUGHT a gay man, then yes this is definitely qualifies as a hate crime. This is not just about Matthew Shepard's murder. By targeting someone within ANY specific group because that individual is a part of that specific group is meant to terrorize the entire group, not just the individual, as they are being targeted.

Take for example, a gay man is specifically targeting heterosexual men to rob and kill, that gay man can be prosecuted under the Matthew Shepard bill. If a person kills Christians specifically because they are Christians, then that person can be prosecuted under the hate-crimes bill, etc.

David, you really are quite something! There are also 9 countries in the world that do have legalized gay marriage. What do you say about that? We don't have the same rights as straights, otherwise, we wouldn't have to fight for marriage. As far as children, what about those straight couples who can't or don't want to have kids? should they be denied the right to marry? Marriage is a civil right, otherwise, there wouldn't be laws about it!

Same sex marriage never occurred in Europe prior to very recent times. In ancient Rome per Lex Scantini and Lex Julia it was in fact banned per execution de jure.  In Greece there never was same-sex marriage even though homosexuality was indeed rampant.  The Celts? Marriage was mainly about protection, care and raising of children for them. Oh, gays can't produce kids on their own, so it had to be male-female. Germans? Tacitus specifically pointed out that marriage was man: woman and German men were content with one woman. The reason I mentioned Japan and China is that traditionally these two societies have ALWAYS been tolerant of gays and there is much favorability given to homosexuality in literature and art, yet there never was same-sex marriage.  Why? It wasn't due to hate obviously, so people can oppose same-sex marriage w/o being hateful, but due to the belief that marriage was about the bearing, care and raising of kids in a home to provide for them.

Regarding many kids turning toward homosexuality if they are taught that they can equally choose to be gay vs. straight, I answered your point, when I stated that kids sexuality is being formed while growing up.  History has shown sexuality to be fluid in the case of modern prisons, the early Australian colonies, aboard ships on long journeys and the fact that sexuality wasn't defined as gay vs. straight prior to the rise of Christianity.

Regarding hate-crime laws, you made my case for me. Yes, motive can be used as a means of providing proof for murder and has been for centuries BEFORE hate-crime laws were ever enacted. However hate-crime laws don't just punish a person for the act, but for the thought itself. That is why I oppose hate-crime laws. They are unnecessary and superfluous and immorally deal with the thought and not simply the act. As for Matthew Shepard, he deserved to be punished to the full extant of the law for his ACTIONS, not for his thoughts.

Gilbert - you do have the same rights as straights. Marriage isn't a civil right. I suppose there is a civil right to a relationship. After all that is what precedes a marriage. Well, there isn't and that is partly why we have anti-stalker laws.  No one has the right to marry; it is a privilege that is earned per a relationship that is earned. Partly why we have divorce legal is that marriage is a privilege. As for straights who don't want kids, there is no right to police thoughts, so that is irrelevent. And can't have kids? Answer: They can adopt and yes, should be preferred over gay couples as they can provide both a mom and a dad for the kids. What if they are criminals and the gays aren't? Obviously a gay couple that is law-abiding should be granted the PRIVILEGE of adoption over the criminal straight couple.

And I never stated that gays should be banned from adoption. However

David, you said that I made your case for you against hate-crimes laws. First of all, Matthew Sheppard was the VICTIM, NOT the perpetrator, you might want to do a little research first. Second, many times, especially in the south, local law enforcement refuses to prosecute the perpetrators of certain crimes because of a group that the victim belongs to. There are perpetrators that are not prosecuted who commit crimes against Blacks, Latinos, women, and LGBT members, yet local law enforcement agencies don't always prosecute these perpetrators. Why? Because of their own personal  bigotry toward those groups. They believe that those victims got what they deserved. This is why the federal hate-crimes bills have been introduced. It allows the federal government to step in and prosecute on behalf of the victim and the victim's family.

Now as far as the rest of your rant, I will address later, but I felt compelled to clear a few things up regarding the Matthew Shepard bill.

Marriage was never about producing a one-man, one-woman environment for raising kids.  If that were the case, men would never have had concubines and polygamy would never have been legal anywhere.

It was about the ownership of women first and foremost, and making sure that men of privilege in particular could guarantee that at least some of their offspring were biologically theirs due to patrilineal succession.

Even in more modern times, when we progressed to a less non-feminist way of looking at marriage (I avoided saying "more feminist" on purpose), when we were at the post-industrial stage of Father working outside the home and Mother being the homemaker, the kids by necessity saw more of Mom than they did of Dad.

And let's not forget all the so-called "broken" families out there.  Losing a parent in childhood is an experience as old as humanity itself.  Children were often raised by adult relatives other than the parents.  What if it were, say, two spinster aunts or two bachelor uncles or father and grandfather or mother and grandmother?  What difference does it make, honestly?  A family is a family.

Why don't you try talking to people who have actually BEEN raised in LGBT families?  Most of them will tell you they suffered more from the discrimination they experienced from outsiders than they did being raised in an unconventional family.  And that discrimination may solely be laid at the feet of people like YOU.  If you really care about these kids, like you say you do, you'll stop persecuting their parents.  Otherwise spare us all the tearful pleas and the violin orchestras because nobody here with an ounce of intelligence is buying it.

I usually don't comment on religion and try to avoid it, but God had demonstrated hate many times in the Bible per punishment and condemnation. Love is love? I don't object to homosexuals loving each other. What people do in their private lives is none of my business. However marriage is a public matter. The whole point of the wedding is to publicly announce that two people are getting married.  Now I have favored only 1 man: 1 woman as I think that is best for society. Heterosexual couples can produce kids on their own. Homosexual couples cannot.  Heterosexual couples can raise their kids as mother and father. Homosexual couples can only provide either 2 moms or 2 dads. For the sake of society and children, heterosexual love is better than homosexual love, yet homosexual love should be tolerated.  The execution of homosexuals in Iran, Sudan and elsewhere per the law is abominable.  Imprisonment of homosexuals as occurs in India and Russia per the law is abominable.  The murder of Harvey Milk was a monstrous and horrific crime and the assailant deserved 50,000 Volts of electricity through his veins.  However marriage is a matter that effects the whole of society especially how the next generation will be raised and should we really be compelled to ask children, "Will should marry a boy or a girl?" or uphold marrying the opposite sex as the ideal.

'Many heterosexuals live together without being married and are fine with it." - The problem here CJ is that at least those couples have the choice as to whether or not they are going to enter into a civilly recognized institution.

Homosexuality is unnatural and biologically incorrect? Says who? If it is so "unnatural" and "biologically incorrect", why is it that the humans are not the only species that have homosexuals within their species? When did you choose to be heterosexual? My guess is you didn't.

I agree this is a great country, but until it sees ALL of its citizens EQUAL, it will NOT be the greatest country as we all too often proclaim it to be.

Hey, slavery's as old as MANkind too.  Let's bring that one back!  Well, OK, let's make it legal again, anyhow.  Why not?  It's a venerable old institution!

...Only, not.

Actually, it'd be a great thing if we took science more seriously, then we'd understand that we already have treatments AND preventions for many of these diseases ravaging us now.  But as long as we frame the situation as, "we've got to have more money for more research" then we are never going to get anywhere.  The science is there.  People are ignoring it, or don't know about it.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.  I have to watch people I know struggle with type 2 diabetes and the crying shame is that all they have to do is change the way they eat.  They shouldn't have to deal with any of that other stuff, not even stem cells.

Amen! lol

We seem to have people in this country who would be happy if we lived back in the 19th Century. Our science ranking in the world community is abominable! What, though can one expect when right-wing Christians insist that creationism (or it's more back door veriosn, intelligent design) be taught alongside evolution. You want to teach your kids, do so at home or in Sunday School!

The posts of the haters on this thread are pitiful! My only comfort is that as more children mature, your outmoded words of hatred and exclusion are being rejected.

Guess what? There are heterosexual couples who do not  wish to or cannot produce offspring. Would you like to void their right to marry, too?

Many of us have been in long term relationships that are marriage in everything but name. But because we cannot (or in the case of my spouse and myself, cannot and would not wish to even if we could) produce offspring, you would prefer we live without the blessings of our churches/synagogues/other faiths and society. So someone like Britney Spears is more worthy of marriage because she cand (and has) produced children, even though she has been involved in divorces? Boy, that is some screwed-up thinking. I have been with my partner two years now and that is longer than many heterosexuals, with and without children. We plan to be together until "death do us part" (thank Goddess for Canada!), bu we are not worthy of marriage in most of this country because some Neanderthals don't approve of the fact that we are both female.

My reply to you and the other haters on this board is: please seek psychiatric help promptly