What is your view on California allowing same-sex marriages?

Home » News » Reader Forum

Friday, June 13, 2008

Comment

By Register Staff

The California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages can be performed in the state starting June 17.

What is your opinion on the topic?

69 comment(s)

ADark1 wrote on Jun 10, 2008 8:59 PM:

" I believe if people love each other, then they should be allowed to marry! Hopefully I'll get invited to more weddings!

:)
' "

stuharrison wrote on Jun 10, 2008 9:37 PM:

" Thanks for posting this question. No-one is hurt by this decision of the California Supreme Court: there are plenty of marriage licenses to go around. But it does help the small number of gay couples and families who need the protection that recognition of their relationship by the state affords. And for the Wine Country it's a big win. Weddings, honeymoons, tourism...will all be boosted by this decision which will attract not only local same-sex couples but visitors from all over the country, just as Nevada did in the latter part of the last century. (Is you business ready....?)

Interestingly, Canada legalized same sex marriages exactly five years ago, and opposite marriages have been unaffected, and divorce rates have been unaffected, but a new, small minority of its citizens are now living happily ever after. "

antipc wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:35 AM:

" Thankfully, there are enough people left in this state with the morality & common sense to pass a constitutional amendment in November. This issue has been a huge burden to the tax payers, for the desire of the few. I'm sure they will never stop trying to force it down our throats but at least it will minimize their efforts. The many will be heard again, Democracy will prevail. "

Rich wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:57 AM:

" It seems to me that we voted on this a while back and shot it down but as usual our illustrious leaders over ruled us and forced their deviant morals upon us. "

MP wrote on Jun 11, 2008 8:29 AM:

" I view gay marriage as a civil rights issue. I can't support denying a minority segment of our citizens something that the majority can do, whether it is based on race, sexual orientation, gender or religion. Based on equity for all citizens, I believe the Supreme Court did the right thing. "

ONTHETRAIL wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:49 PM:

" antipc - What "huge burden to the taxpayers" ?

Forbes magazine recently calculated that 546,000 gay and lesbian couples nationwide would get married if they were legally allowed to do so. Of those, 464,000 couples would have a traditional wedding ceremony with a reception. Forbes then broke down the costs associated with such a wedding and found that these marriages would generate $16.8 billion in revenue for businesses associated with the wedding industry. Of that figure, they estimate that California would reap $3 billion. The number of new jobs created would be in the thousands.

In addition we already know: Allowing same-sex couples to access one another’s health care plans, make joint medical decisions, inherit one another’s property, file joint tax returns, and provide for their children without fear of them falling into foster care should one partner pass away is not only humane but fiscally smart. Equality, fairness, and civil rights are good for business.

I believe the courts made the correct ruling. There is no difference in the ability of same-sex and opposite-sex couples to make commitments and care for each other, and therefore the law of marriage should apply to both. Organized religon may choose to not perform or recognize these unions...that is their right.

This is a civil rights/equality issue. "

urte wrote on Jun 11, 2008 1:45 PM:

" Although it will be an economic boost to Napa and the region...it bothers me greatly that our votes don't count...did the majority of California not vote NO....?
Why bother voting if the courts overturn the wish of the people...? "

antipc wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:18 PM:

" onthetrail, voting, re voting, lawsuits, litigation, reeducation in our schools, PC diseases, rewriting public policies, the list goes on. "

onthetrail wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:51 PM:

" antipc: " Thankfully, there are enough people left in this state with the morality & common sense to pass a constitutional amendment in November. The many will be heard again, Democracy will prevail. "

After reading the msg's left on here and the other related article, (Same-sex marriage ceremonies start in Napa County June 17 - Register - Sun. June 8, 2008) I did a tally of 'FOR', 'AGAINST' and basiclly 'NON-COMMITTED' and admitedly while not being the most scientific sampling, I don't think your premise holds true. Over 2 to 1 are in favor of the courts ruling, this in a historically conservative city like Napa. Sorry but, I think you may have to move back to the 60's or whatever era it is you came from....obviously one that intolerance and hatred was still acceptable behavour.

THANK-YOU, Napa!

You have once again made me proud to live in a place that is so enlightened! "

a teacher wrote on Jun 11, 2008 8:07 PM:

" ".did the majority of California not vote NO....?
Why bother voting if the courts overturn the wish of the people...? "

Because democracy is not just 50%+1.

Because opinions change.

Because we have a State Constitution that protects the rights of everyone (even if some of us don't think that they deserve those rights).

I think it's great, personally, but if you disagree, vote for your amendment. Democracy in action. It's messy, it's expensive, it's frustrating.

But, consider the alternative. "

pharper wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:30 PM:

" Actually, I sincerely doubt the "protect marriage" amendment or whatever it's called will pass. On a poll recently shown on the 11:00 news (NBC, I think) supporters of gay marriage now outnumber those who don't support it. Thank God!

Finally, rights for our fellow human beings. "

chunk wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:29 AM:

" I don't recommend it just because of the high divorce rate. If 2 people love each other than they should be able to do what they want. Good for them. "

ldfrmc wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:19 AM:

" "did the majority of California not vote NO....? "

The majority of California's voters did not vote.

61% of VOTERS in an election with only 54% turnout of registered voters voted "Yes" on Prop 22 in 2000.

Do the math: 32% of the electorate voted for Prop 22. This is not a "majority of California."

22% of eligible voters voted for Prop 22. That's not a "majority of California."

19% of all marriage-age Californians voted for Prop 22. Of the people affected by the law, less than one-fifth decided in one election their beliefs should be the law for all people.

14% of ALL people living in California in 2000, voted for Prop 22. "

antipc wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:44 PM:

" onthetrail, interesting how you draw the hate card to make a point, but you left out mean spirited & neocon. I personally don't care what gays do or who they do it with. My problem is them trying to change my beliefs so they feel can accepted. No matter how you choose to get your numbers gay marriage lost at the ballot box. Period. In typical liberal fashion they throw temper tantrums in front of a judge to their way. Ignoring the facts won't help you. "

onthetrail wrote on Jun 12, 2008 6:14 PM:

" antipc:

1. I thought I covered mean-spirted with the hatred statement, sorry you didn't understand.

2. Why would I call you a neocon? I have no idea what your views are on foreign policy.

3. For someone who personally doesn't "care what gays do or who they do it with" you sure are getting awefully distressed over the possibility of them aquiring the right to get married.

4. I am quite certain that there are very few gays that even remotely care to feel accepted by you.

5. I don't dispute the fact that in 2000 the voters of CA passed Prop 22 (although 'ldfrmc' makes a very good point in his comment! ) I was merely pointing out that the majority of comments on here are in favor of giving equal rights to same-sex partners and I am confident that the residents of CA will use 'common sense' and do the 'morally' correct thing in the Fall.

6. I personally don't 'throw temper tantrums' , I've found that educating myself on the facts and then discusing the issue in a mature manner usually works better than throwing a bunch of disparaging 'conservative' cliche's out there. "

fourmaplesoutback wrote on Jun 13, 2008 6:46 AM:

" We Are Hypocrites. The same people who are in favor of gay marriage attack the multi-partner marriages as in the Texas compound case. If same gender marriage is legal, why not multiple marriage? If 3 women love one man, why can't they all be married? "

antipc wrote on Jun 13, 2008 9:10 AM:

" onthetrail, keep talking until I agree with you. Thanks for making my point. "

onthetrail wrote on Jun 13, 2008 11:30 AM:

" antipc, nah, I am bored with you, maybe we'll discuss this again in november. "

upvalleydude wrote on Jun 13, 2008 12:52 PM:

" i am for equality on the marriage issue for gays and straights. i just hope that we all keep in mind that marriage is not just a right, but it carries responsibilities. its not like living together where you can just up and leave. "

kbf wrote on Jun 14, 2008 7:12 AM:

" Everyone has to understand it is just not about two people being able to marry. Our governor has signed a bill giving the right of a boy or girl in school to use each others bathrooms. If you feel your a boy (and youre a girl) you can use the boys bathroom and visa vicera. In Colorado the governor extended that to include all public bathrooms. Sorry this is going too far is probably not the end of it. Next we will have pularal marriages. "

mytake wrote on Jun 14, 2008 8:36 AM:

" Perhaps heterosexual individuals under the age of 62 will now be eligible for domestic partnership status. Many individuals choose this status over marriage for several different reasons. The law was established for gay individividuals of any age to be eligible for the domestic partnership whereas only hetersexual couples over the age of 62 could apply for the domestic partnership status, now thats what I call discrimination.... "

musikluvr wrote on Jun 14, 2008 9:18 AM:

" I say let them get married and experience of fun of divorce like normal people. "

Bauhausfan wrote on Jun 14, 2008 11:28 AM:

" I find it interesting that with all the problems going on this country right now, invasion and occupation of a country that was no threat to us, housing crisis, largest deficit in history, mounting job losses, degradation of the environment, global warming, tainted food, tainted toys and on and on, there are people who will actually spend lots of time, effort and money fighting to overturn two people wanting to married because they are of the same sex. Is this really that important? Is it really going to ruin the "sanctity" of marriage? "

bloodagar wrote on Jun 14, 2008 5:58 PM:

" I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness-Lev. 15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination-Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

Remember GOD'S LAW is eternal and unchanging! hahahahaha. "

raybo wrote on Jun 14, 2008 11:43 PM:

" I suspect it is inevitable that some churches will refuse to perform same-sex marriages, based on their doctrine, and will be sued, just as they have been for failure to provide contraception as a part of their health care. "

coigue wrote on Jun 15, 2008 7:07 PM:

" Some churches and synagogues believe in the rights of same-sex marriage. It is unconstitutional to infringe on that belief. It is also unconstitutional under the equal-protection clause to deny people civil marriages.

There you have it.

My personal view is that stable gay and straight relationships, and the legal protections that come with marriage....strengthen the entire community. "

kbf wrote on Jun 16, 2008 8:25 AM:

" Bloodagar, sorry but all the quotes you made are from the old testament, that was before Jesus was born, after his death and ressurection the new testiment was written for us to follow. We are not under the law (old testement) but under grace (new testement) "

psychochik wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:38 AM:

" I think this is a fabulous thing !!

As long as two people love eachother why should it be any of our business what they're doing ?!?!

I always thought Napa was a lil more tollerant, but I am coming to the conclusion that this place is as hateful as ever.

Truly sad. "

daleschip wrote on Jun 16, 2008 12:48 PM:

" I once heard a politician say that "gays were making a mokery of marriage"...what are the heterosexual people that we look up to and see on TV and in movies doing? Getting married, spending thousands of dollars on the wedding, and in six months splitting up. Sleeping with the next one before the "marriage" is even over? I think heterosexuals are making the mokery. Let PEOPLE get married. How is that going to hurt your church? God loves EVERYONE. "

Rich wrote on Jun 16, 2008 2:17 PM:

" kbf you beat me to it....
bloodagar, if you are going to quote scripture please get it right. "

rogers wrote on Jun 16, 2008 2:46 PM:

" Perhaps what bothers me most are the mountains of money flooding into this state from religious and/or conservative organizations in the Midwest, East and the South aimed at defeating this newest court decision.

I don't give a flip what the citizens of Kansas, Nebraska, Florida or Mississippi choose to do within their own states. But I do resent outside organizations, with a superior moral understanding of our state's issues, attempting to interfere with our California laws and society.

If there are legal and social problems within California's borders, I am confident that California voters are quite capable of dealing with our own issues. We don't need the money from major religious and conservative groups trumping our own interests. All the more reason for rigorous separation of church and state as the founding fathers intended.

It seems the money could be better spent helping fellow Americans make ends meet in these troubled times rather than attempting to deny the province of marriage to committed and loving individuals. "

antipc wrote on Jun 16, 2008 3:08 PM:

" Rogers, do you not think it hypocritical to complain about outside influences supporting man & woman marriages, but see nothing wrong with 4 out of 7 supreme court justices that overturn an initiative that the residents of CA passed. "

NValleyGirl wrote on Jun 16, 2008 3:10 PM:

" Bloodagar: Thanks for the laugh!

I am all for gay marriage and quite frankly I have had it with the slippery slope arguments and the biblical ones too!

If two consenting adults want to be legally recognized as a married couple, I wish them nothing but the best.

The majority cannot legislate the minority. "

rogers wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:13 AM:

" To antipc who wrote "do you not think it hypocritical..." Actually no, I don't think it is hypocritical. A more appropriate analogy would be what recently happened with Measure N when huge amounts of outside money were spent to overthrow local politics. And it worked!

Concerning the recent gay marriage decision by the court (4 out of 7 California supreme court justices...). Perhaps you now have an inkling of the outrage voters felt when the nation's Supreme Court overrode the Supreme Court of Florida by stopping the 2000 vote recount. In a 5 to 4 vote, they adjudicated President Bush into office - now that's hypocrisy!

ldfrmc is spot on about the California 2000 election and Prop 22. That proposition and the election were highly skewed by outside money from religious organizations.

I'm betting this November election will be very different from the one in 2000. There will certainly be a higher turn out than the 54% then. You just may find California voters supporting the state's Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. "

antipc wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:02 AM:

" Sorry Rogers, Gore tried to use the courts to reverse the results of the election. Bush won in spite of hanging "chads".
Thanks, I will be more cautious with my votes in the future now that you've made me aware that only right wing religious zealots influence elections with outside money.
As for the upcoming election, I stand by my original post. "

wake up wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:03 AM:

" Get back in the closet. "

NValleyGirl wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:45 AM:

" wakeup: By all means, you first! "

cfpotter wrote on Jun 17, 2008 1:31 PM:

" I have any idea...how about we pass a law that anyone can only get married once. It doesn't matter to whom. I have to agree with NValleyGirl, I too am tired of all of the arguments that hide behind the Bible. I have to believe that "God" will have forgiveness for those who have tried so hard to hate those who are not like them.

And for kbf...heaven forbid males an females should use the same restroom. Let me know and I will send you signs to differentiate your bathrooms at home. "

suze wrote on Jun 17, 2008 3:55 PM:

" Hey 'Bloodagar' I loved your post, you seem to have the same opinion of the bible that I do. There is a little wisdom and a lot of campfire claptrap, not to mention it is a little out of date, times do indeed change. Same sex marriage doesn't bother me, it does not affect me directly, except that if it gives them real joy, then I feel glad for them too. I still don't know what is wrong with simple 'Domestic Partners' though. Maybe 'marriage is more romantic - the ultimate commitment, but I hadn't noticed and I'm sure the divorce lawyers are looking forward to all these juicy cases. One thing I do know is that 'gays' are about 1% of the population and this subject is occupying ALL of the news right now! I am so sick of it that I am avoiding all TV and news until it is gone. ENOUGH ALREADY!! "

bloodagar wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:04 PM:

" suze: *muah* sister. "

NVBlogger wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:44 PM:

" Bloodager - Great post!
The bible is definitey open to interpretation.
Suze - from what I understand - domestic partnership doesn't grant 2 people all the same rights of marriage (taxes, parental rights, survivorship rights, power over medical decisions, etc). "

winemd wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:54 PM:

" How big does a minority have to be before we legislate? There is a minority who believe that multiple marriages are okay. There is a minority who believe that "man-boy love" is okay. I am not particularly bothered by gay marriage, since those who I know (including my cousin) are committed to each other and that is a beautiful thing. There is even a minority who feel like it is their "right" to steal from others, and that beating others up is okay. But the majority has to have some say since our form of democracy has elements of "majority rule" at least through the initiative process. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:31 PM:

" I wouldn't put too much stock in a recent poll which announced that those in favor of gay marriage now outnumber those opposed. The fact is that those who are opposed to gay marriage have been vilified as being homophobic bigots. So, if one of these folks is approached by a pollster, he will think twice about saying something that will be perceived as being politically incorrect. But in the privacy of the voting booth, one's inner beliefs can be freely expressed without ridicule. I find it difficult to believe that the 61% who voted for Prop 22 have suddenly changed their core values. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:44 PM:

" Bloodagar, why are you quoting all these Old Testament verses when the New Testament clearly teaches that OT laws are no longer valid? Christianity is based on the New Testament, and there are plenty of NT verses to support the views of today's conservative Christians. "

bloodagar wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:50 PM:

" "In this world, where strength and weakness are to be found, there is union of male and female, but in the eternal realm there is a different kind of union. Although we refer to these things with the same words, there are also other words that are superior to every word that is pronounced. These are above strength. For there is strength and there are those superior to strength, and they are not different but the same. This is incomprehensible to hearts of the flesh."
The Gospel of Philip
Strength and Weakness (76, 6-17)

[Jesus] said to them, "You examine the face of heaven and earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your presence, and you do not know how to examine this moment"
The Gospel of Thomas 91, 163-164.

I feel love in the Gospels...I see very little in printed works. I am not bound by Gospels as I find love throughout many holy texts.
I TRY to be a better person, I try not to judge; I try to always tell the truth although I embellish at times; I try to love my neighbors and their children; I try to teach my children better than I was taught; I try to see things and process them with the light of my own mind...I try, because that is all I can do. "

Rich wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:37 PM:

" John Richards, Quoting old testament and obscure gospels is typical for those that are trying confuse the issue .....
They must cloud the real issue by attacking the beliefs that lead many people to reject homosexuality as a acceptable lifestyle. "

NVBlogger wrote on Jun 18, 2008 1:14 PM:

" Those in favor of gay marriage weren't the first ones to start quoting the bible in these posts, nor were they the ones to first bring the bible into what is not a religious issue.
However, it is hilarious that those against gay marriage selectively pull out quotes from the bible to try to prove that gay marriage is somehow wrong, but conveniently "no longer believe or follow" the sections of the bible that support beliefs that have proven to be wrong. "

bloodagar wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:58 PM:

" NVBlogger....*MUAH* to you too. "

a teacher wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:46 PM:

" When it comes to religion and this issue I consider two things.

On the sing in front of the First Baptist Church on !st st it says:" God is love".

and

What would Jesus do? While I don't know if he would perform a marriage, he was after all a Rabbi and would probably have adhered to the strictures of that day and age,there are many instances of him bending the rules in favor of compassion and understanding. I don't see him holding out a sign saying "GOD hates F**S!". "

John Richards wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:01 PM:

" Those who sanctimoniously invoke the specter of 'discrimination' make me laugh. Lets see a show of hands, how many think the public nudity laws should be amended so that women can go just as topless as men can? Traffic accidents would sure quadruple. How many think it is OK for men to go into public restrooms marked "Ladies"? The fact is that society discriminates all the time, and often for good reason. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:15 PM:

" A Teacher, you have a tunnel vision view of Christian doctrine. Jesus also said "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword! I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother..." (Matthew 10:34-35). The point is that Jesus wants us to love sinners, but hate (and speak out against) the sinner's sins. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:31 PM:

" NVBlogger, read the majority opinion of the California Supreme Court decision. It recognizes that California's domestic partnership law is unique in that it grants all the rights of marriage. Of course, it can't grant the rights that are under the control of the federal government, but the same limitation applies to California's gay marriage. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:35 PM:

" NVBlogger, I fail to see what is so "hilarious" about the fact that the New Testament says that it supersedes many of the Old Testament laws? Even our own secular laws have amendment after amendment that supersede prior sections of the law. "

kearneybrown wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:06 AM:

" So we are under grace, now, right? Not law? I have to admit that I am busy and somewhat organizatinally challenged. I do not have time to do all the reading I should, so I tend to default to a as-needed, cliff notes version of most things... In the new testament, I read "Love God with all your heart and all your soul and love your neighbor as yourself" and I figure that is enough to keep me busy for a good long while. Once I get that part really wired, I'll go back and read some more. But I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me where in the new covenenant, where under grace, it says anything about forbidding same sex marriage? "

NVBlogger wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:40 AM:

" John-
I never said the bible is "hilarious", but rather mentality that one can pick and choose the parts of the bible to quote in support of an arguement...but choose to ignore the parts of the bible that I am confident in saying most people no longer follow. And while the NT might supercede "many of the OT laws" as you state, there are many christian based religions that have not thrown out the OT. The lutheran church down the street was doing a study on genesis the other night.
So...my point is that the bible is open to interpretation. Even by those in this post that are using it to further their arguement against homosexuality. By ignoring some of the OT, they are choosing to interpret which laws have been superceded.
At the end of the day, I don't really believe this is a religious issue which is why I couldn't resist poking the fire a little. "

NVBlogger wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:53 AM:

" John,
That was my point to Suze - domestic partnership might grant some of the same rights as marriage (but only here in CA) and not all of them. Which by default does not make it equal to marriage. Another blogger pointed out that the minute they leave california they don't even have the right to visit the partner in the hospital as they are not considered family. Can you imagine the agony? All of a sudden "domestic partnership" is no longer equality, but something less.
Though this is only one step towards equality. The next step would of course federal recognition. Though sadly, the rest of the country is definitely not ready for that. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:14 PM:

" This is hardly worth arguing over. If gay marriages do not harm anyone else, what's the problem? I take issue with things that bring REAL harm to people like assault or stealing, not things that allow a perception of harm. Marriage between gays is not a tangible harm.

Name one way in which gay marriages REALLY harm anyone else? Biblical and moral justifications, saying it harms the sanctity of heterosexual marriages all fall into the category of perceived harm which is very subjective. "

napabrat wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:48 PM:

" mar·riage Audio Help [mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

This is what dictionary.com has as the definition of the term. It seems to be about equally split between heterosexual marriage and just a commitment between two individuals. Leaving the religious arguments out of the debate for the moment, I think that two individuals of the same sex are entirely entitled to express their love and commitment to each other. "

jwk wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:27 AM:

" Only in California does the Minority win and Liberal Demo Judges write their own laws. But since Marriage is now a Farse, people can Marry their Dogs, Goat or Mothers.... Nice Going Lefties!!! "

onthetrail wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:20 AM:

" jwk:

Perhaps you should get your facts straight (no pun intended) before you post a comment. Of the 7 California Supreme Court justices, 6 were appointed by Republican Governors, maybe you should re-think who you vote for in the next Governor's race.

Also, as has been stated before, Prop 22 was approved by 61% of the voters in 2000, BUT, that only represented 19% of the California electorate. It is almost a sure bet that because of the widespread dissatisfaction with the current administration, the turn-out for this fall's election will be huge. I am guessing we will get a better idea of what the majority of Californian's feel about this issue, and most of the polls so far show that more people than not want gay's to have the same, equal rights as straights insofar as marrage is concerned.

CONGRATS to all the newlyweds!! "

onthetrail wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:11 AM:

" jwk:

oops, forgot to add that not only were 6 of the 7 sitting justices appointed by Republican governor's, they ARE also registered Republicans themselves!!

So, sorry but, your premise of "Liberal Demo Judges" writing their own laws, doesn't hold much water. "

Paddy wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:55 AM:

" I'll try this again... I'd prefer Napa County do as Kern County did and stop performing all marriages instead of allowing gay marriage.

In other words, NVR moderator, I am opposed to gay marriage and take pride being part of the majority of Americans and global citizens that are opposed. "

saysme wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:05 PM:

" Hey, Suze: You state that you "do know that gays are about 1% of the population".... please, many studies show that the numbers are somewhere between 5-10% of the population - depending upon whether gays and lesbians want to say so publically. And, the same percentage has held through history.... "

coigue wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:54 PM:

" I am for it. Stable relationships make our community stronger "

comment wrote on Jun 22, 2008 6:47 AM:

" Can someone who opposes gay marriage please explain what harm allowing gay marriage would do? There's no legitimate reason not to allow it. "

newlymarried wrote on Jun 22, 2008 10:03 AM:

" The people of California should be proud that we have joined several countries including Canada, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, and South Africa (there are more) that recognize that democracy does not mean that majority rules over the rights of minorities. Years from now, people will look at this in the same way as interracial marriage, an it will only be an issue for those with small minds.

My marriage does not make a mockery of hetrosexual marriage or cause them harm. My relationship with the woman I have loved for 22 years is one that is based on respect, fidelity and love. I wish more hetrosexuals could say the same. If those that oppose my freedom to marry are really worried about the hetrosexual marriages and families, they would put their time and millions of dollars into children and family programs, instead of constitutional discrimination.

Please, when you go to the polls in November, remember there are thousands of families that are counting on you voting NO.

Lastly, how would you feel if someone got to vote on your marriage? "

reader wrote on Jun 23, 2008 2:21 PM:

" Congratulations to "newlymarried"!

I pray God will forgive those oppositionists who are spewing hate and fear about this truely historical event. This decision will go down in history along side the Civil War, women's right to vote, and civil rights, because it is of the same magnitude.

Sociological research demonstrats that those who express fear and hate feel the most threatened by the natural course of social progress; and are most comforted and secure when in the company of same-thinkers.

Consider all the young children of gay/lesbian parents who will no longer be 'different' based on the legal status of their parents relationship; the parents of gays/lesbians who no longer need be concerned about a reaction from friends and relatives, upon learning of a son/daughter being gay/lesbian; the millions of heterosexuals who will now be more free to socially know and not fear their gay/lesbian neighbors; our current young generation and all future generations who will grow up knowing homosexuality as a non-issue.

So, this historical decision has great benefit to cross-sections of our society. Those of you who oppose are justified on your moral or religious grounds (just as we still have racists and misogynists today, left over from by-gone laws/eras) but please do not spew hate or bible-thump the rest of us (not to mention that it contradicts your moral and religious beliefs).

I suggest that everyone reading this blog and who feels discomfort or confusion, reach out and get to know a gay/lesbian person/s. They work with you, live near to you, are the parents of your childen's friends, are your children's friends, your relatives, members of your church, and members of every race/culture. GoodLuck! "

AmCan Mom wrote on Jun 23, 2008 2:55 PM:

" I think we all know that men and women are different. Even my six year old, who helps change her baby brother's diapers, knows that boys and girls are different. To quote a movie featuring our governor "Boys have a p**** and girls have a v*****" (Kindergarten Cop) even the youngest children are aware of these differences. Whether you believe in mono-theistic creation or single cell evolution, I don' think there is a rational person alive who can deny that man and woman are natural complements to each other. The scientific fact that only a man and a woman can together make a new human life (without help) is evidence of that.

That said, I in no way deny the human capacity for love. Human love knows no boundaries, nor should it. Nature does, however, dictate the forms of love towards different targets. It is not natural for humans to have "romantic love" towards animals and plants, yet it is perfectly natural to love our pets and the beauty of our gardens. I for one think of my cat as my furry child and I can't get enough roses in my yard. It is likewise not natural (biologically speaking here) for man and woman to have "romantic" love for members of the same sex. It just isn't how we are designed (see the above quote from Arnold's movie).

As in nature, there will always be abberations. (Please do not get angry over my use of that word, I use it merely to illustrate the fact that there will always be unexplainable variations in the natural course of all life.) That does not make them any less loveable, but it does not make them any more natural. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 23, 2008 11:55 PM:

" Kearneybrown, you asked where in the New Testament does it say anything about forbidding same sex marriage?

Please read the following and tell me what you think it means:
Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. The NIV translation is probably the clearest. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: