I'm going to use Earl's logic: we should also deny women, and blacks the right to vote. That is my opinion, and my civil rights should not be infringed upon (though it's clearly OK for me to trample all over the rights of someone else)- narrow minded hypocrite. You cannot legally vote to deny a tax paying, law abiding citizen of any rights granted to other tax paying, law abiding citizens. You can't say "I can do this, but you can't". Would you support passing a bill that says the laws of the US do not apply to members of Congress? It's the exact same situation: you cannot draw a very distinct line between tax paying, law abiding citizens, and say "I get these rights, and you don't".

@aahziman: I agree with your response. It seems to me that many folks these days view as elitist anyone with a college education. It is amazing to me how far the quality of public discourse has descended. The acceptance of so many completely irrational and baseless notions is alarming. It is more appalling to me that there are even some individuals who are college educated who believe these things. Critical thinking and analysis is a skill that we're supposed to possess upon graduation from high school. I don't expect, need or want everyone to agree with me. If someone is going to put forward an alternative point of view, at least have some sort of rational and factual foundation. Baseless, emotional, name calling and sensational statements are not helpful to the discussion - these are not reasons to overcome reasoned positions on the issues.

@ AverageBri

This might come as a surprise if you have read all of the posts, but I completely disagree with your view. Lets have an actual civics lesson sir.

"So, the real issue here is the loss of the republic and our ability to self-govern, not gay marriage."

We live in a republic which is defined by Webster as:

Main Entry: re·pub·lic

1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

Now, James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, further defined our republic as a representative democracy. Elected officials act in the interest of the people but they do not always enact the people's wishes. Madison felt that direct democracy was a threat to personal security and private property.

So the California Constitution did not have the initiative process originally. That was added to our state constitution in 1911 to counter the influence of special interests in the state legislature. The people have the power to pass laws in California but those laws still need to be legal according to the United States Constitution.

Now, I agree with you that the federal government should not always interfere with the states. There was the issue a few years ago with Congress rolling back food safety laws in California, or Congress and the Bush administration should never have intervened in the Terry Schiavo case in Florida, or when the Bush administration went after euthanasia in Oregon.

The Supreme Court has allowed the states to pass laws that discriminate against people with disabilities if the law passes a “rational basis” review. If a law has a rational basis it is constitutional. Prop. 8 has no rational basis since there was no evidence of harm caused by allowing gay marriage, and so Prop. 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause in the United States Constitution.

I have said it over and over, that the initiative process does not work because people vote based on opinion and emotion rather than reason and logic. The question for you is, why do you want the government invading your private life? Shouldn’t we aim for more limited government not more?

And before you start spouting off civics lectures, please make sure you can win on Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?

This is not about gay rights. This issue is about one activist judge making law, instead of interpreting it.

Here's a quick civics lesson kids, so pay attention...

This judge is a Federal judge, which means he's only supposed to rule on issues pertaining to the U.S. Constitution. Prop 8 is a California, state's rights issue. Marriage is not mentioned or addressed at all in the U.S. Constitution, so this federal "judge" had no business taking the issue into his court in the first place. Plain fact is, he's a gay man who wanted to "make this right" for his special interest.

Now, I know you gay rights supporters applaud his decision, but it was wrong to void the votes of the majority of California voters. Think about what that means. Your vote has become meaningless. In this particular case you may think that's a good thing, but wait until it happens against you, instead of in your favor. Do you really want judges with a personal agenda to take away your vote and essentially rule over you?

So, the real issue here is the loss of the republic and our ability to self-govern, not gay marriage. The way this was handled by the "judge" is the real tragedy.

You may now continue arguing about gays vs. straights...

I stand by my statement. I would not be associated with that couple you are referring too. Can't deny, there are disfunctional people in every color, race, religion, or sex. You are stereotyping all gay people, the Judge included and your personality shines through. Maybe those you MET and don't know personally appear that way because of how you react to them. Just a thought! And wow, you wouldn't want to live next door to someone who believes in equal rights or believes different then you? My neighbor had a sign in their yard "For Prop 8". They are still wonderful people.

Yes tufact has no factual basis for his arguments and has not been able to comment or make a factual rebuttle about many of the good points people are making here. He is starting to sound like the teacher on Peanuts, Waa wa wa...:)

@loggiedawg

Tufact also sounds like a broken record who does not support nor defend his claims well. markj and I can discuss this topic for hours dice we have a similar approach to supporting or arguments. We base or conclusions on reason not opinion.

@tufact: This gay thing really bothers you. You seem to be unusually obsessed with it. I wonder why?

There are a lot of gay people who I wouldn't want to live next to. How about the gay couple who want gay marriage in jail. People are people. I've met butch girls who are rude and gay men who are stuck up and arrogant. That doesn't mean we hate people or should be labeled homophobes. But people are people. And a gay judge with an agenda should be illegal. Someone robbing the voters for his own personal gain is not someone I would want for a neighbor.

E)Gay judge who pushes his own personal gay agenda off on the California voters.

I'd take B of course. But as a heterosexual parent of two, I can say that there have been moments when people have considered my wife and I inept and my kids unruly and undisciplined. A few weeks ago we were at a mcdonalds taking anpotty break and they were handing out free samples of a fruit smoothy. We offered it to my daughter who is two and a half. She said I don't want it so we tossed it in the trash. She had a melt down at that and was screaming and crying at the top of her lungs. An older couple (I would say around 60) was tsk tsking and commented how awful a child we had.

Normally my son and daughter are great but they, like the rest of us, have their moments. Being a parent is tough and that would true no matter the gender of your parents.

I am so sorry you don't have any homosexual friends. You really are missing out. I too choose B. I have a lot of gay friends and not one describes catagory C.

C) Homosexual but the kind of people we have too many of in our society, rude, clueless, loud, basically idiots who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. The ones who raise the idiotic kids we having running around and demand respect yet don't know how to spell the word, or

D) Heterosexual but the kind of people we don't have enough of in our society, polite, cognizant, quiet, basically decent people with decorum who think about others. The ones who raise kids who don't have the IQ and morals of a grapefruit. The ones who give respect before expecting it in return.

Gavin Newsome was pretty specific in his actions in regards to gay marriage. If you recall during the 2004 State of the Union, Bush indirectly declared his support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same sex marriage. Here is the wording and a link to the speech:

"Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/stateoftheunion2004.htm

Newsome began issuing the marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples claiming that he had authority based on the equal protection clause in the California Constitution. The CA Supreme Court annulled the marriages that had been performed saying that Newsome did not have the authority to issue the licenses.

Newsome is a very smart man and I believe he calculated very carefully the impact his actions had. Of course, the democrats at the time blamed him for John Kerry losing the presidential election by stirring up the anti-gay crowd. Newsome also solidified his support in the gay community.

Personally, I cheer his actions since he was fighting for equality. Newsome is one of the few democratic politicians that takes a stand and fights for his beliefs rather than worrying about public opinion, unlike our senators and the likes of John Kerry. Eliot Spitzer was another brilliant politician until his brain short circuited in his shorts. You win some and you lose some.

Thanks for the info.

All I was pointing out was that I knew people were able to get married and then they werent because of prop 8. Obviously there was a loophole or Mr. Newsome was just doing what he wanted. Either way it brought up a debate and I hope civil rights for all prevail.

Ooooh yea! Looks like I'll be going to some weddings...

The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban ruled Thursday that gay marriages can resume starting Aug. 18.

The ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker means gay and lesbian couples can get married in six days.

I prefer to see monogamous relationship between two people. The commitment they make to each other is taken as the man and woman would take.

For that reason, less spread of diseases. In both cases.

CN

Those who are not yet forged in union, be sure to get the power of attorney giving you the rights to see your loved ones at the hospitals. I don't like seeing anyone turned away from their loved ones.