If it’s just a word on a piece of paper, then why the huge push to get it for homosexuals? Obviously, it’s not just a word on a piece of paper. Your question cuts both ways.

Considering how many heterosexual couples do not think marriage worth attempting, I find it somewhat disingenuous when people whine that the marriage law is preventing them from doing something. I don’t see how attempting to change an existing legal and moral status makes any difference to a couple of committed gays. If you want to commit and consider yourself married, throw a marriage party, etc., there is nothing stopping you now! The fact is, what you really want is to alter the meaning of marriage itself, which alters it for everyone in society. Here’s my big objection.

First and foremost, I don’t see the necessity to change the meaning of the word or the concept, unless the actual goal is to say that a homosexual union is the same as a heterosexual one. Is that what you want? Obviously, it isn’t the same, whether you call it the same or not. It won’t be the same dynamic regardless of what status society gives it.

My second suspicion, which is another real issue not dealt with honestly in public discussion, is that equating the two different types of union seems to be a backhanded way of attempting to get society to approve of homosexuality. So, my question is, why does this matter? Will it make the homosexual happy and satisfied? I frankly don’t believe that it will any more than I believe in “geographical cures”. Human beings make their own happiness–it comes from within, and can’t be accorded by society. Or…is the real point to promote homosexuality? This is where the rubber hits the road, I’d guess—again, I’m not hearing much honesty on this aspect either. Most Americans do NOT want homosexuality promoted. They are happy to accept homosexuals in their lives and in society, and as fellow Americans, they have the same rights anyone else has. There is a huge difference between accepting and promoting–and I trust you have the intelligence and the honesty to see that difference.

Getting back to the cohabiting heterosexuals—if many heterosexual couples are cool with not being married when they could, why on earth does it seem to be such a be-all and end-all to much of the gay community?

In short, this issue never makes any sense to me, unless the bottom line is to spoil the institution of marriage for everyone else. And that’s how it comes across to mainstream Americans. Please try to understand.

In the meantime, if you are gay and are in a monogamous and committed relationship–terrific. Those who know you will be happy to reinforce and encourage you in that.

I have no problem with Prop. 8 in the sense that it is putting the issue of gay marriage to a popular vote — which is how things ought to be done in our country. But I am curious to get your opinion on these issues:

1. Do you think the California Supreme Court decision finding a constitutional right to gay marriage in the U.S. or California Constitution was rightly or wrongly decided? (I recognize you are not a lawyer, but that almost makes your response more interesting. . .)

2. Do you think that other states — say, Utah — should be required to recognize a gay marriage made in California, e.g., for divorce purposes or child custody or benefits, if those states forbid gay marriage as a matter of their own law?

Excuse me if we, the people are a little touchy down here too. In Texas we got our own storm of malfeasance. At the ‘schools’ level.

First, We got this, 375 teachers “laid off” following the loss of, as $84 million “vanishes” from the budget. No one knows where, although not un-noticed by the Post.

Now ads are appearing in newspapers advertising “vacancies” in personnel at DISD. Cronies more like.

In the above story, Sandy Keaton has the temerity to proclaim “My kids are going to lose out because I’m a very good teacher, and so they’re going to lose out because they won’t have me,” Sandy Keaton, a second-grade teacher at San Jacinto Elementary, told a CNN affiliate.

In her book “Do-gooders”, Mona Charen points out that, in school systems round the country, there are an average of 12 “administrators” for every child in school. Why don’t they fire some of those people? Oh, I see, those “administrators” are “in” the Union. Those administrators are the Union.

I notice Teachers Union is against Prop 8. Lock, Stock and Pork Barrel. Teachers, were not invited to vote their position on the issue, Teachers Union Policy was decided at the top. I thought a Teachers Union was to be the guardian of the childrens interest?

Instead, Lawyers for Teachers Union go on the Radio and demogogue the issue, saying, And I quote, “I know that people of religious background consider Homosexuality a sin. I [this is the lawyer speaking] do not think G-d considers homosexuality a sin”. Well, I guess she would know, she is a lawyer.

As if the issue of homosexual practice, or co-habitation, yea or nay, is on the ballot. Its not. I repeat. Its not. The courts took care of that one too.

Hey, gays and lesbians of California, its not all about you. It isn’t. Think about little Sandy Keaton, who wants to work on the front lines as a “facilitator” of students’ learning. She’s obviously just a little too right wing and Anglo for “Administrators” to keep anywhere close to “at risk” children. (Keaton is probably an Irish name, but Whoa, there! thats close enough).

“In the beginning was me, and the only evil came from the ones that tried to take me, and my feelings, out of the issue”.

National rainbow socialism is already underway, and the Barack community can’t be bothered with waiting til election day to begin its great work. Farney Brank is already boasting of defence programs to be eliminated.

Also, slightly OT, but I voted for Hillary in TX primary. That day she won Tx, Penn, after winning New York, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and Calif previously. Big States. She went on to win Primary nomination with 500,000 votes (by voters at polls) to spare. Democrat party won’t answer my question as to why ‘other’ delegates, “super” and otherwise, count more than half a million, not to mention 18 mil total. Neither will Media. DNC awarded ubamas delegates in Michigan and Florida in May, based on “exit polls”.

I will never, ever vote for Democrat party or agenda. Again. Ever. I can vote for a woman, and a black candidate to boot, by voting for Cynthia McKinney- Green Party (in protest). But I won’t. Repeat, won’t. I’m not a fool. Ditto Libertarian, ditto Constitution, etc. That would count for about 1 millionth of what my vote did against ubamas in March. Don’t have to be repub to vote against the un-rehabilitatable Democrat Brand. And that goes double for their agenda.

We’re talking about the civil rights of children. Or the end of them. Roe vs. Wade said children, born or not, are private property, and no one’s business. (There is your slippery slope). So did Dred Scott Case, slaves- private property, NO’sB. Plessy vs Fergusson. (Marbury vs Madison- Jefferson furious, (I don’t hear leftists quote Jeffersons letters on that decision), C’est la vie, indeed. (Read Lincoln’s quotation in newspapers on Dred Scott case; falls in line w/ Jefferson). Prop 8 fights the government making children the private property of the state. The concept, or act of homosexuality is NOT at issue, (it is already tolerated, has been for years), and is only used as a canard by opposition to distract from intrusion of government(courts) into what is people’s will. Bad law? Lobby your legislature for or against. When court intrudes, Amendment is only option left.

Democrat Brand is in deep, deep, reeling trouble. Party must clean house to remain viable. Don’t hold your breath.

ubamas can’t afford to wear that shaved head hairstyle (in public). Every rule, tradition, and law regarding public service has been broken and smashed by the phenOmenOm.

I don’t mean to be a fatalist, cause I think he”ll still lose cause of voter turnout in your state. Didn’t plant enough acorns there.

The good news is that ‘Bugs’ Moran, alCapone, Frank Nitty and Stroger will all be vota in Illinois election.

ubamas- organized crime with massive P.R.
Parasitic Socialism, so where are the coattails?

Anita, name one “civil liberty” that vanished recently? Except for smoking in public? “When they came for the smokers, I was silent… …and still I wanted (more) “wealth re-distribution”, er, uh, “Reform”.

As for gay marriage, it is not the end of the world. I do beleive the will of the people must be enforced as long as the individual is not harmed and I do not believe they are under 8. The courts need to step back and perform their constitutional functionn. Seeing the first grade class in SF that went to a wedding makes me unhappy as does seeing Gavin Newsome on the ads. Also why is the Calif teachers union the largest funder of no on 8? Or so I’ve read. Its time to put the brakes on BS thats why I say yes on Prop 8. Nothing personal.

I am supporting Proposition 8 not because I want to deny rights of same sex couples, but because I want to affirm the importance of family. By family, I do not mean the cruel parents who abuse their children, or the dysfunctional families that care nothing of their children, but families who have provided their children with insight from both sexes and have given their children the strength to foster their own future families with that same love.

I agree that a child would be better being cared by a loving homosexual couple than a hateful heterosexual couple, but the solution is not to devalue the importance of heterosexual marriage. Without the affirmation that the best family connections are achieved through heterosexual marriage, children who hold to their immature ill feelings towards the opposite sex may never see the opportunity to extend, affirm and love their family through natural copulation.

First and foremost let me say that what I write is not in anger. I am not yelling, foaming at the mouth, or any of that.

Roger, permit me to disagree with your response. I never once said that you or Annabel were advocating marriage between siblings or any of the other examples you gave. So for your statement “…I didn’t see one word in Annabel’s comments to indicate she favors such a thing…”, all I can say is, neither did I. I never said she did. Your implication is unfounded.

My comment was based around the *possible outcomes* of gay marriage becoming legal, not what I think Annabel “advocates”. Apparently I did not make that clear enough. This is not a straw man fallacy, since I never actually changed my opponent’s position. But I can see how someone could make that mistake. This is a “this could happen” argument, not a “you want this to happen” argument. Just because I try to predict what could happen because of a certain law taking effect, does not mean I “imply” that the proponents of that law advocate the possible effects. If I were to say “banning guns can lead to higher crime”, does not mean I believe people who support gun bans support crime. Nor does it mean I am implying that. The same is true for my previous comment. I never once said, nor do I believe, that you or Annabel want someone to be able to marry their relatives, or a farm animal, or a bloody toaster for that matter.

You believe the possibilities for someone to bring a lawsuit under a gay marriage law is “absurd”. I do not. I see that both of us have thoroughly supported our opinions on that with irrefutable facts. Or at least an equal number of them.

As for me “attacking” Annabel, I refuted her argument as disingenuous, not her. As for “attacking someone for what they didn’t say”, I did not. I posed a question, albeit not very eloquently, and gave the only two possible answers that I could come up with. You either do have a problem with me marrying my uncle, or you do not. Straw man fallacy? Hardly. I was trying to get Annabel to qualify her standards (something GeoffB touched on – he’s a lot nicer than I am). When and why do you say “enough”? Instead of an answer I get “silly”, “absurd”, “straw man”. Thanks, but I can get that from my kids.

My apologies to Promoguy for playing with his username. I’m really not a mean guy, I’m just incredibly sarcastic and an incurable smart @ss.

You and I don’t always see eye to eye on politics, but at least we agree on basic freedoms.

In some states, first cousins can marry… I think that scares me far more than two gay people.

The slippery slope argument is usually a secondary one with those arguing against gay marriage. If proponents of gay marriage did as you wished, and put up their own proposition limiting marriage to consenting adults with no close blood relations, would Promoguy vote for it? I won’t answer for him, and perhaps I am wrong, but I suspect not. That is why I believe it is a straw man argument.

Certainly, such a proposition would make you and many others more comfortable, but your desire to support gay couples who wish to lead mainstream conventional lives has already overridden your discomfort with the potential dangers of a broader definition of marriage. In the event these potential dangers came to be realized and threatened the institution of marriage, there would be nothing preventing society from proposing further amendments limiting marriage to consenting adults without blood ties, etc…