YEAH SUPREME COURT CALIFORNIA!!

Well ok, we'll stick to strictly law speak then. The act of engaging in any sexual intercourse outside of the normal "missionary"style is considered by it's very definition in law a sodomy and is illegal in all 50 states. So technically speaking, any of us that get freaky with our significant others are breaking the law. Does that make it OK or right in your eyes? Just because everyone turns a blind eye to the problem doesn't make it right. That is why we have pedophiles in this country running rampant. Everybody wants to change the way laws are written just because. Again what comes down next? Pedophilia becomes legal? I hope it doesn't head that direction. And if you really think about it, most pedophilia cases are actually of a homosexual nature and it gets a different reaction simply because the other party is "under age". Sort out my ramblings for yourselves. I think in my world, I make sense.

GOD wrote:

Well ok, we'll stick to strictly law speak then. The act of engaging in any sexual intercourse outside of the normal "missionary"style is considered by it's very definition in law a sodomy and is illegal in all 50 states. So technically speaking, any of us that get freaky with our significant others are breaking the law. Does that make it OK or right in your eyes? Just because everyone turns a blind eye to the problem doesn't make it right. That is why we have pedophiles in this country running rampant. Everybody wants to change the way laws are written just because. Again what comes down next? Pedophilia becomes legal? I hope it doesn't head that direction. And if you really think about it, most pedophilia cases are actually of a homosexual nature and it gets a different reaction simply because the other party is "under age". Sort out my ramblings for yourselves. I think in my world, I make sense.

I'm not going to even get into a debate about how silly it is to make the blanket statement. Times change. It was also legal to segregate schools and women be servants to men with no rights whatsoever and thousands of Jewish people died because someone thought they should be destroyed.. the list of laws goes on that have been changed. Just because 'your' God says its wrong for 2 men or 2 women to fall in love - absolutely doesn't make it true. There is a big big different between raping young children and 2 consenting adults that love each other that just happened to be the same gender.

The slaughter of the Jews by Hitler had nothing to do with American law. We aren't discussing European law. But since you brought it up, we went over there and (rightly so I might add) and imposed our will on the Germans to stop that particular atrocity. The earlier point I was trying to make (now that I'm awake it should make more sense) is that sodomy is illegal no matter what it entails (Male/Female, Male/Male) So you are saying that we should just ad nauseum re-write the entire constitution just because homosexuals want equal rights? I think not. I assume you got married in a church correct? Do you happen to remember a part in the ceremony where the Priest, Minister, Rabbi or whatever denomination you are quoted from the bible that "who gives this woman to this MAN, or the part where they quoted again a woman will leave her father and cleave to her HUSBAND" Seems kind of clear to me that it all references a man and a woman. Again, I reiterate that this country was founded on Christian principles and the constitution was written based solidly around those beliefs. You are correct in that love is love and you simply cannot dictate whether or not a person will fall in love with someone of the same sex or not, but that doesn't mean that I should have to be forced into paying higher healthcare premiums because the gay community contracts more disease (Check the AMA journals for confirmation of that fact) and the laws were changed forcing healthcare companies to insure higher risk people. How about we focus on changing the laws in this country to get people off of welfare, Make a law that guarantees EVERYONE a job, make a law that creates enough homeless shelters in every city to get our brothers and sisters off the streets. To me these are the important laws that need to be looked at. I have no inclination to worry about a law to give homosexuals equal rights. To me that particular law is drawing attention away from where it rightly belongs which is with all the stuff I mentioned earlier. Again just my opinion.

GOD wrote:

The slaughter of the Jews by Hitler had nothing to do with American law. We aren't discussing European law. But since you brought it up, we went over there and (rightly so I might add) and imposed our will on the Germans to stop that particular atrocity. The earlier point I was trying to make (now that I'm awake it should make more sense) is that sodomy is illegal no matter what it entails (Male/Female, Male/Male) So you are saying that we should just ad nauseum re-write the entire constitution just because homosexuals want equal rights? I think not. I assume you got married in a church correct? Do you happen to remember a part in the ceremony where the Priest, Minister, Rabbi or whatever denomination you are quoted from the bible that "who gives this woman to this MAN, or the part where they quoted again a woman will leave her father and cleave to her HUSBAND" Seems kind of clear to me that it all references a man and a woman. Again, I reiterate that this country was founded on Christian principles and the constitution was written based solidly around those beliefs. You are correct in that love is love and you simply cannot dictate whether or not a person will fall in love with someone of the same sex or not, but that doesn't mean that I should have to be forced into paying higher healthcare premiums because the gay community contracts more disease (Check the AMA journals for confirmation of that fact) and the laws were changed forcing healthcare companies to insure higher risk people. How about we focus on changing the laws in this country to get people off of welfare, Make a law that guarantees EVERYONE a job, make a law that creates enough homeless shelters in every city to get our brothers and sisters off the streets. To me these are the important laws that need to be looked at. I have no inclination to worry about a law to give homosexuals equal rights. To me that particular law is drawing attention away from where it rightly belongs which is with all the stuff I mentioned earlier. Again just my opinion.

Again, like I said I respect your opinion and am not trying to change it. You are wrong in assuming I got married in a Church. I am not religious and I don't believe in the bible. But I do believe in God and I pray everynight. I just don't believe in the same things you do.

What about women who are tested for the gene that says that may get breast cancer, should we not cover them 'just in case?' or what about women who can't get pregnant should we test them to see if they are infertile and if they are then not cover them cuz they will cost a fortune in fertility drugs and IVF treatments? I'm not asking for answers to these questions, I'm just making a point. If you don't agree with Gay marriage - don't have one - but don't have your God dictate how people that have nothing to do with you live. That's all I mean.

And I absolutely agree that we need to figure out answers to many of the other problems this country has - 100% you are right!

Just a thought about all those saying that insurance premiums would be increased due to gay/lesbian marriages. I personally would think that all these people are covered currently under some insurance policy, so why would the premiums increase? They are already insured, so it shouldn't affect the premiums at all. Just throwing that out there for discussion.

Deb E

Much ado about nothing. This country has much bigger problems to worry about than this, IMO.

The only change that would/could happen is that legally, a gay individual could ADD their partner onto their insurance plan, as a spouse. Now, they can't, because you can only add a spouse or a child.

so... ok... here's a thought. CA legalized this, but insurance companies are not all based in CA. What the heck does Aetna do with this? Blue Cross of CA, sure, but what about Aetna or some of the others who are not CA based?

It's a complicated thing, to be sure. No simple answers here.

Misunderstanding marriage in California

CALIFORNIA'S voters, unlike their counterparts in Massachusetts, will have the last word on what marriage means in their state. When the highest court in Massachusetts conjured up a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, 170,000 Bay State voters petitioned for an amendment to the state constitution that would restore the age-old definition. Their effort died on the vine when the Legislature derailed the measure before it could reach the ballot.

But citizen initiatives aren't so easily thwarted in California, where last week the state supreme court, in a 4-3 ruling, likewise overturned the timeless understanding of marriage as a union of male and female. Some 1.1 million signatures have already been submitted on behalf of a constitutional amendment making clear that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That is far more than needed, making it virtually certain that Californians will have an opportunity to override the court's presumptuous diktat.

And override it they should, for numerous reasons. Here are three:

It is not the business of judges to make public policy.

Reasonable men and women can disagree on whether same-sex unions should be granted legal recognition, or whether such recognition should rise to the level of marriage. The place to work out those disagreements is the democratic arena, not the courtroom.

"From the beginning of California statehood," the court's majority opinion admits, "the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman." Eight years ago, Californians decisively affirmed that understanding when they adopted Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act, in a 61-39 landslide. To have legitimacy, any change in that consensus must come from the people or their elected representatives, not be forced upon them by an imperial judiciary.

The radical transformation of marriage won't end with same-sex weddings.

In American law, certain conditions of marriage have always been nonnegotiable. A marriage joins (a) two people (b) of the opposite sex (c) who are not close relatives. Under that venerable definition, there can be no valid same-sex marriage, no polygamous or other plural marriage, and no incestuous marriage. But if the opposite-sex requirement is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to marry - which the California court explains as "the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one's choice" - then so are the restriction of marriage to two people and the ban on incestuous marriage. If two women who wish to marry each other must be permitted to do so, why not two sisters? Why not three?

In a footnote, the California court weakly tries to evade the consequences of its holding. Gay and lesbian couples are entitled to marry, writes Chief Justice Ronald George, but that "does not mean that this constitutional right . . . must . . . extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships." Why not? Well, because "our nation's culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry." So while the bar to homosexual marriage must be overturned because the court considers the public's opposition to it outdated, the public's opposition to incest and polygamy is still a good reason to bar them. As one of the dissenters notes, such logic invites a future court to overturn those prohibitions as well.

Society has a vested interest in promoting only traditional marriage.

Men and women are not interchangeable, and same-sex unions - no matter how devoted and enduring - cannot take the place of a married husband and wife. The essential function of marriage is to unite male and female. That is the only kind of union that can produce new life, and therefore the only kind of union in which society has a survival stake.

Of course many gay and lesbian relationships are stable, loving, and happy. But since they cannot do what marriage can - bind men and women to each other and to the children that their sexual behavior may produce - they have never been regarded in the same light as marriage. Somehow, that crucial distinction eluded a majority of the California Supreme Court. Happily, California voters will soon have the chance to make things right.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.

shameless1 wrote:

Misunderstanding marriage in California

CALIFORNIA'S voters, unlike their counterparts in Massachusetts, will have the last word on what marriage means in their state. When the highest court in Massachusetts conjured up a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, 170,000 Bay State voters petitioned for an amendment to the state constitution that would restore the age-old definition. Their effort died on the vine when the Legislature derailed the measure before it could reach the ballot.

But citizen initiatives aren't so easily thwarted in California, where last week the state supreme court, in a 4-3 ruling, likewise overturned the timeless understanding of marriage as a union of male and female. Some 1.1 million signatures have already been submitted on behalf of a constitutional amendment making clear that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That is far more than needed, making it virtually certain that Californians will have an opportunity to override the court's presumptuous diktat.

And override it they should, for numerous reasons. Here are three:

It is not the business of judges to make public policy.

Reasonable men and women can disagree on whether same-sex unions should be granted legal recognition, or whether such recognition should rise to the level of marriage. The place to work out those disagreements is the democratic arena, not the courtroom.

"From the beginning of California statehood," the court's majority opinion admits, "the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman." Eight years ago, Californians decisively affirmed that understanding when they adopted Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act, in a 61-39 landslide. To have legitimacy, any change in that consensus must come from the people or their elected representatives, not be forced upon them by an imperial judiciary.

The radical transformation of marriage won't end with same-sex weddings.

In American law, certain conditions of marriage have always been nonnegotiable. A marriage joins (a) two people (b) of the opposite sex (c) who are not close relatives. Under that venerable definition, there can be no valid same-sex marriage, no polygamous or other plural marriage, and no incestuous marriage. But if the opposite-sex requirement is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to marry - which the California court explains as "the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one's choice" - then so are the restriction of marriage to two people and the ban on incestuous marriage. If two women who wish to marry each other must be permitted to do so, why not two sisters? Why not three?

In a footnote, the California court weakly tries to evade the consequences of its holding. Gay and lesbian couples are entitled to marry, writes Chief Justice Ronald George, but that "does not mean that this constitutional right . . . must . . . extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships." Why not? Well, because "our nation's culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry." So while the bar to homosexual marriage must be overturned because the court considers the public's opposition to it outdated, the public's opposition to incest and polygamy is still a good reason to bar them. As one of the dissenters notes, such logic invites a future court to overturn those prohibitions as well.

Society has a vested interest in promoting only traditional marriage.

Men and women are not interchangeable, and same-sex unions - no matter how devoted and enduring - cannot take the place of a married husband and wife. The essential function of marriage is to unite male and female. That is the only kind of union that can produce new life, and therefore the only kind of union in which society has a survival stake.

Of course many gay and lesbian relationships are stable, loving, and happy. But since they cannot do what marriage can - bind men and women to each other and to the children that their sexual behavior may produce - they have never been regarded in the same light as marriage. Somehow, that crucial distinction eluded a majority of the California Supreme Court. Happily, California voters will soon have the chance to make things right.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.

Yet another closed minded person.. sigh (not you, shameless - the journalist). Well hopefully as time goes on - things will change for the better and there will be equality for all. Interesting read Shamless - thanks for sharing it

I thought the Boston Globe was a pretty liberal newpaper...

"Closed minded" to you is "appropriate" to what is obviously a majority of America. Will we eventually get there? Perhaps. We're not there yet though, and any attempt to force the desires of a few onto society will only serve to make things harder in the long run, IMO. And it PISSES ME OFF that many of these same people who are fighting for things like legalized gay marriage are the same FUCKING ones that tell me I can't honor soldiers on Mount Soledad because they have the audacity to erect a cross on those public lands, or that the Ten Commandments are not allowed to stand at the courthouse, or my children can't sing 'Away In A Manger' in their school programs.

We haven't even begun to talk about the practice of a doctor who will deliver a viable baby as far as the shoulders, then take a pair of scissors to poke a hole in the back of it's head which will allow the doctor to vaccuum the baby's brains out...!!! I guess that should be legal too????

(I'm not pissed at you, Goddess, but these are subjects that I feel very strongly about and that evoke quite a bit of emotion from me).

shameless1 wrote:

(I'm not pissed at you, Goddess, but these are subjects that I feel very strongly about and that evoke quite a bit of emotion from me).

I can see that - it's ok, I am passionate about it too so I understand your frustrations. I may not agree with them - but I completely understand them

Great discussion everyone. I enjoyed reading it.

For me, bottom line, people in this country being expected by law to adhere to the beliefs of the Christian doctrine is uncomfortably close to people in the middle east being forced to live by Islamic doctrine. I'm not comparing the religious beliefs, just the involvement in government. Even though the Christian doctrine isn't at this time as violent as the Islamic, governing according to religious belief is still imposing faith based government on the people.

Religion didn't create morality, it just exploits it for power. Humanity created morality and evil ignores it regardless of religious doctrine.

Think beyond what you've been taught by Sunday School to think.

Do you really think Noah put two of every animal on earth on a boat? Were there dinosaurs on that boat, or do you not believe in dinosaurs because the bible doesn't mention them?

"......The people of California voted and said they did not want gay marriage,yet the courts overruled what the people said......"[i]

Michael, that sentence speaks volumes.

I'm not trying to "stir-the-pot", here (and I mean that sincerely), but this is how liberals operate. They can only circumvent the will of the people by appointing liberal judges with an "agenda" who will legislate from the bench.

nolliD JJ wrote:

"......The people of California voted and said they did not want gay marriage,yet the courts overruled what the people said......"[i]

Michael, that sentence speaks volumes.

I'm not trying to "stir-the-pot", here (and I mean that sincerely), but this is how liberals operate. They can only circumvent the will of the people by appointing liberal judges with an "agenda" who will legislate from the bench.

JJ, how would this situation be handled in Nigeria?

nolliD JJ wrote:

"......The people of California voted and said they did not want gay marriage,yet the courts overruled what the people said......"[i]

Michael, that sentence speaks volumes.

I'm not trying to "stir-the-pot", here (and I mean that sincerely), but this is how liberals operate. They can only circumvent the will of the people by appointing liberal judges with an "agenda" who will legislate from the bench.

Yeah! All Liberals are AWFUL!

nolliD JJ wrote:

"......The people of California voted and said they did not want gay marriage,yet the courts overruled what the people said......"[i]

Michael, that sentence speaks volumes.

I'm not trying to "stir-the-pot", here (and I mean that sincerely), but this is how liberals operate. They can only circumvent the will of the people by appointing liberal judges with an "agenda" who will legislate from the bench.

Oh, I understand perfectly. It's just like when the conservatives appoint judges who force women to die having babies whether they want to or not.

".....Yeah! All Liberals are AWFUL!....."

See......even Goddess agrees.

".....Oh, I understand perfectly. pirat It's just like when the conservatives appoint judges who force women to die having babies whether they want to or not. Twisted Evil....."

Maybe I'm missing something, here. When was the last time a woman was forced to have a baby and died, because of it?

".....JJ, how would this situation be handled in Nigeria?....."


Shameless1, They are thrown in the dungeon, and are forced to watch previous episodes of "Trading Spaces" where Frank glues hay onto a wall and calls it "artistic license".

nolliD JJ wrote:

".....JJ, how would this situation be handled in Nigeria?....."


Shameless1, They are thrown in the dungeon, and are forced to watch previous episodes of "Trading Spaces" where Frank glues hay onto a wall and calls it "artistic license".

I thought it must be something like that...

BTW, don't they have "quote" buttons in Nigeria?

".....BTW, don't they have "quote" buttons in Nigeria?....."

No. We are not as fortunate as you americans.

A guy sucks another guy's dick and that is love and deserves insurance coverage????????

AR wrote:

A guy sucks another guy's dick and that is love and deserves insurance coverage????????

Well, if it wasn't for white America creating the AIDS virus to keep the black man down, those 3 guys in that pic of yours wouldn't need insurance coverage, would they?

AR wrote:

A guy sucks another guy's dick and that is love and deserves insurance coverage????????

......and don't forget the "fudge-packing".

I've heard that they are already finding out that the married state is more of a bother than a worth. I think that it is just a fad and will soon be all but much to do about nothing.

atthistime wrote:

I've heard that they are already finding out that the married state is more of a bother than a worth. I think that it is just a fad and will soon be all but much to do about nothing.

Hopefully you are wrong - but whatever will be will be