Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, June 09, 2008
Matt Barber :: Townhall.com Columnist
Taking the Plunge in a Pool with No Water
by Matt Barber
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


As one of those pop-cultural non-conformist types, please indulge me while I go ahead and toss that stifling, mind-numbing muzzle called political correctness. 

I’m going to dispense with the subtleties and point out what most are thinking but won’t say for fear of the inevitable “progressive” backlash (shhhh… they’re everywhere):  So-called “same-sex marriage” is a counterfeit.  It’s a fraud and not even a good one at that.  If marriage is a Rembrandt, then the ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of “gay marriage” is a Rembrandt knock-off from the pages of Mad Magazine.  It’s a silly novelty.   

I know.  I’m “mean-spirited.”  But in light of the California Supreme Court’s recent opinion — which enigmatically manufactured a “constitutional right” to “same-sex marriage” out of thin air — I think we need to come back to earth for a moment.  Mind you, re-entry into reality’s atmosphere will inevitably burn some folks. 

When same-sex friendships (or more often, seconds-old acquaintances) are twisted and sexualized, practitioners of “the sin that dare not speak its name” are forced, at every level, to merely mimic the genuine article.  They jump through a series of inelegant hoops to create a fantasy world wherein two people of the same gender clumsily imitate natural heterosexual pairings properly designed for procreation and the healthy rearing of children. 

Even “gay sex” (male-male anal sodomy) is a crude, man-made imitation of the natural heterosexual reproductive process (only the fallen mind of man could concoct such depraved and foul behavior).  Sadly, as millions of homosexuals have had to learn the hard way, this disordered, makeshift simulation of a natural biological process is coldly rejected by the very human biology it mocks. 

As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has illustrated time and again, unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences.  Homosexual conduct — especially among males — creates an environment ripe for infectious disease and emotional and spiritual injury.  This, by definition, is perversion.  (“Perversion: Pathology.  A change to what is unnatural or abnormal: a perversion of function or structure.” – Dictionary.com)   

Homosexuality is a dead end.  It’s emotionally, spiritually, and physically sterile.  But it’s not surprising that, as with most sins, those trapped in the aptly named “queer” lifestyle desperately seek affirmation of their behavioral choices.  Deep down, I believe most of us know when we’re doing something immoral, let alone unnatural and unhealthy, and so we want others to convince us otherwise.  But that isn’t how the real world works.  God calls on us to repent and believe in His Son.  In return, he saves us from death, giving us the gift of eternal salvation.

Consider comedian and talk show host Ellen Degeneres.  After recently announcing that she intended to “marry” her friend, Portia DeRossi (a woman), Ellen sought approval from presidential candidate John McCain, whom she had as a guest on her show. 

She, along with so many other self-described “gays,” “lesbians,” and “bisexuals,”  desperately want others — especially those who respect God’s natural design for human sexuality –— to join them in ignoring the pink elephant in the room: Homosexual conduct has always been and always will be, in every way, wrong.  It is unhealthy, and it is sin.  

I’ll admit it, Ellen is a sympathetic figure with a quick wit.  I’m sure she’s a very nice person, and I don’t dislike her at all.  But she’s playing with fire.  Ellen compounds the sin of homosexuality by using the platform she’s been given to lead others astray.  She guides her many adoring housewife fans into rebellion against God’s divine and explicit natural order by suggesting they celebrate sin and entertain, along with her, the “gay marriage” delusion.

Still, God will not be mocked.  It’s the height of humanist hubris to believe that man (including judges) can radically redefine that which God has created.  We can never sanctify that which natural law rejects and God expressly condemns.  Especially when God Himself, out of sheer love for each of us, offers us so much more.

I’m sorry (well not really) for my lack of contrived “sensitivity,” but Ellen, sweetie (to borrow from a presidential candidate), no amount of wishful thinking or going through the motions will make your illicit same-sex “relationship” with Ms. DeRossi a “marriage.”  You may get a piece of paper that says it is, but, in the eyes of God and most of the world, your counterfeit “marriage” will never be worth the paper it’s written on. 

Again, I know.  I’m a hateful, homophobic bigot … yada yada yada.  But for those who disagree, your gripe isn’t with me; it’s with your sovereign Creator who loves each of us in spite of ourselves.  

While on Ellen’s show, Senator McCain famously wished her “nothing but happiness.”  I echo his sentiment.  I wish Ellen nothing but happiness.  But not the kind of quasi-happiness that comes in the temporal through sinful self-indulgence.  Of that, God requires Ellen — and all of us — to repent.  Happiness derived from sin inevitably rings hollow.  If Ellen wants real happiness, the kind of happiness that’s accompanied by “the peace which surpasses all understanding,” I pray she’ll have a conversation with Jesus Christ.  May we all follow the example of Moses who rejected the temporary “pleasure” of sin in Pharoah’s court in favor of peace beyond understanding, of doing what’s right even if it’s a lot more challenging.       

To those of you who, like Ellen, may be planning a “same-sex marriage” in order to somehow affirm your “relationship,” know that you’re only fooling yourselves.  True affirmation comes not from me, not from society, not from government, but from God alone — and He’s said, unequivocally, that none of us will get it unless we repent of our sin.  The Good News is, He calls us to repent.  He wants us to repent.  He’ll give us the power to repent and to live for Him in the joy only He can provide.

But nonetheless, what a Pandora’s Box the California Supreme Court has opened.  These four black-robed autocrats have engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism, abandoning their role as objective interpreters of the law and, instead, constructively legislating from the bench. 

It’s absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there’d be a day when so-called “same-sex marriage” would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered.  If anyone then had suggested the ridiculous notion, early Californians would have laughed their smocks off.

For now, however, the court’s ruling is relatively toothless.  Governor Schwarzenegger is compelled by his oath of office to order officials to disregard the court’s opinion until either state lawmakers or “we the people,” through ballot initiative, actually legalize “gay marriage.”  And if Schwarzenegger directs officials to start issuing “gay marriage” licenses before that, no county clerk has constitutional authority to do so absent a change in law.  The court cannot change existing statutes, only issue an opinion as to the constitutionality of those statutes.  And an opinion is just that, an opinion.   

Nevertheless, since the court refused to stay its own opinion — as Liberty Counsel, the Alliance Defense Fund and attorneys general from nearly a dozen states had requested — and since Schwarzenegger and many county officials in California will, by all indications, submit to the court’s “supreme” will and begin issuing marriage licenses to homosexual duos on June 17, the court’s opinion will essentially be receiving a set of false teeth courtesy of the Governator.  At that point, the court will have effectively imposed “gay marriage” on Californians in direct defiance of the express will of the people as overwhelmingly ratified with Proposition 22.  

The court will have, for all practical purposes, “legalized” “same-sex marriage” (albeit through an arguably illegal process which paradoxically both invokes the constitutional “checks and balances” firewall and abuses it at the same time) because the other two branches of government will have waived the right of challenge. 

Therefore, “same-sex marriage” will be treated as legal in California (whether or not it actually is) at every level of government.  This “marriage” experiment from the Island of Dr. Moreau will have effectively, though not genuinely, been “legalized.”  

Undoubtedly, out-of-state “gay” duos will then “marry” in California and head back to their home states demanding their “marriages” be given “full faith and credit.”  Look forward to legal chaos.  The California decision is the goose that laid the golden egg for Lambda Legal/ACLU types.  

Still, hope remains.  A measure that would amend California’s Constitution to maintain the definition of marriage as a union “between a man and a woman” has been certified and will be on the 2008 ballot.  And there’s a good chance it’ll pass. 

But more must be done.  Anyone who ever said that the marriage “decision should be left up to the states” and that a federal constitutional marriage amendment was unnecessary, is now eating crow.  It’s clear, now more than ever, that a federal constitutional amendment protecting marriage is the only foolproof means by which to ensure that legitimate marriage and family are not radically redefined into oblivion.  

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
J. Matt Barber is Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel and also serves as Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Matt, Does it...
suck to be you?

Seriously, your angst over what a few people do in their private lives is so intense I can only imagine you must live a life of (not so) quiet desperation.

Matt
Thanks for writing this article. Right on...this is a message everyone needs to hear.

the opinion that matters
"The court cannot change existing statutes, only issue an opinion as to the constitutionality of those statutes. And an opinion is just that, an opinion."

Luckily for gay people of California, the opinion of the Supreme Court is the opinion that matters with regard to the constitutionality of California's marriage laws.

Jack
Obviously you have very poor reading comprehension. Matt is not writing about what people do in their private lives, rather he is writing about a very real campaign to legalize perversity and make a mockery of marriage.

But thank you for your comments, ignorant though they are.

ca
luckily for the state of California, the California Constitution will be amended to make the definition of marriage solely between a man and a woman, and then the California court system will absolutely have no choice but to respect that amendment, thus wiping out such a perverted decision.

CF
Of course Matt is writing about what people do in their private lives. He isn't arguing as much about marriage as he is about being gay in the first place. Note where he says "Homosexual conduct has always been and always will be, in every way, wrong..."

Perversity, of this sort anyway, is already legal, so that is irrelevant.

And tell me something. When gay marraige finally becomes legal across the board, are you going to end your marriage? Gonna start cheating? Of course not. It won't have any affect on your marriage at all.

You can hold your breath and hope that the gay marriage amendment passes in California. But what if it doesn't? Seriously, what then?


Well, Jack
Seeing as how the good people of California already approved a state law making marriage between a man and a woman, I don't think there will be any problems passing an amendment that protects and enforces that law, and makes the judges honor it because it will not be constitutional in the state of California.

Like it or not, Jack, homosexuals are a small perverted fringe element of society, and they will never be considered a "normal" way of life, no matter what the media or the gay activists try to pull off.

The general public is slowly becoming more and more aware of the sickness and perversion that homosexuals are trying to mainstream, and the general public is beginning to fight back. Seeing that we outnumber you by a very high percentage, you and your ilk are going to lose.

It's just a matter of time. The gay day in the sun is almost over.

I'm going to skip past Matt's
chronic hysteria and purple prose over gay issues (or "gay" issues... Matt bizarrely, quaintly, chooses to use quotation marks around a perfectly valid and useful word. Language changes, Matthew. Get over it).

Gay (no quotes!) marriages (again, no quotes!) begin in California next Tuesday, 6/17. I wish all California couples a wealth of health, peace and happiness.

By the way, yes, the "Partner A" and "Partner B" that have substituted for the traditional "bride" and "groom" on all marriage licenses is a clumsy attempt. But this will all work itself out.

I invite all the sane persons here reading Barber's column to look at all the so-called counterfeit words Matt has chosen to wrap with quotation marks: "gay", "relationsip", "constitutional right", "progressive", "same-sex marriage", "pleasure", "gay sex".... on & on.... this column, as with most Barber columns, is positively drowning in quotation marks and hysteria.

amendment
"Seeing as how the good people of California already approved a state law making marriage between a man and a woman, I don't think there will be any problems passing an amendment that protects and enforces that law..."

Seeing as how the good people of California have elected representatives that have twice passed legislation approving gay marriage since the initial proposition was passed, I am not covinced your constitutional amendment is a sure-thing. Even if it does get passed, is writing discrimination of a minority group into the constitution an action that should make the people of California feel proud? I certainly hope not.

CF

When I deal with a delisional perosn, reality oreintation is a valuable tool. Here is some reality orientation.

Latest polls are useful indicators. First, the Field poll indicated support is nearing 50% for gay marriage. It promises to be a close vote. The legislature had already passed a civil union bill, which was vetoed by Arnold (who has indicated he would not veto another one.)

Trends are clear. The younger one is, the more likely one is to be accepting of such relationships. Adn that trend is accelerating.

It is only a matter of time, and so my question of "what then" is legitimate and deserves an answer.


Public Licensing is Not Private Behavior
The people of California issue marriage licenses. So we should be consulted, not overridden by judges on a false premise.

There is no right to have a state-issued license. If you say otherwise, then please tell the DMV I should get my driver's license renewed without any tests ever again.

http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/05/17/why_marriage_matt ers.thtml



KPW

An interesting diversionary tactic, but nothing more.

It is true there is no right to a state issued driver's license. But driving is not a guaranteed human right. Likewise, there is no right to register a vehicle with DMV in the first place. But then again, registering a vehicle is not an inalienable right.

On the other hand, marrying IS a fundamental human right. And voting is a fundamental right. The people, regardless of the mechanism they choose, cannot put in place a process which prevents a person from exercising a fundamental right, whether that be in the form of a marriage license or a voter registration.

Those banking on the California amendment should be careful. The amendment would be subject to challenge in federal court. Such a case could reach the Supreme Court and could result in the de facto legalization of gay marriage on a national basis.

Thanks Matt
I'm glad someone has the guts to tell it like is. We need more people who have the courage to speak out about this perversion.

Psalm 2 and the Church…

Perhaps it is a time to reflect on Psalm 2.

'Why do the nations rage,
And the people plot a vain thing?'

God says to His Anointed that the nations belong to Him. He is King over the Church [Hebrews 12:22-24], having purchased her with His own blood.

'Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.'

The High King of Heaven will not be denied His possession.

'Now therefore, be wise…
Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.'

The purpose of the Gospel is not to make America a righteous nation, but to call the redeemed to faith. The redeemed must come to the Redeemer from all the nations and from every generation.

'Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.'


We have enjoyed the good Providence of God as the fruits of the work of our faithful forefathers. The system they put in place and blessed of God was a product of Gospel preaching where the revealed wisdom of God had its sanctifying influence over the whole culture.

We as a culture have exchanged revealed truth for a hodgepodge of secularism and false religions that demean the name of Christ.

Apart from revealed truth we should not expect the system to be sustained. The truth of which I speak was laid out in the first systematic theology of the Christian religion in Calvin’s Institutes.

That great work that broke the back of the apostate church in that day and influenced our founding is now disparaged or ignored by the culture and is an embarrassment to the churches. Now the Protestants are the apostate church of this day.

The fulfillment of Psalm 2 is the words of Christ, “I will build My Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

What will the result be?
I wonder what will happen if the amendment does pass in November. The court's ruling will not be "overturned" as much as the definition of "marriage" will be set in the constitution. Since the court's decision will not change, the State will still need to provide equality for all it's citizens. Since the court's decirion only extended the name of marriage to same sex couples, it could be that the amendment will bar the state from recognizing marriage for any couple and all such unions will be termed Domestic Partnerships with "marriage" being a name held only by religions. To consider that the amendment will only function to keep same sex partners from receiving equality is very short sighted.

How are sodomites discriminated

against by the government not redefining marriage to suit their perversions? No one has ever explained this charge of discrimination. What exactly have sodomites been prevented from doing that every non-sodomite is allowed to do?

What right do heterosexuals have

that homosexual practitioners do not have?

Loki
The result would be simple.

Only opposite sex couples would be allowed to legally marry, and any gay couples from prior that were granted the "right" to marriage would lose that right, and their "marriages" would not be recognized.

Clear enough for ya?

Jack
You're right...Marriage is a right. Marriage is for the purpose of raising a family and thereby contributing to the community and the nation at large. Therefore, a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman to start a family and have children.

Gay men have that right just as much as straight men. They have the right to marry a woman and start a family, just as I do.

The whole gay activist mission to have marriage rights granted to same sex couples is not about gaining rights that are denied to them. It is all about trying to make their behavior appear less shameful. It is all about weakening the concept of marriage in order to give their view legitimacy.

No one has the right to marry anyone except a member of the opposite sex. Gays are trying to gain a right that no one else has, the right to marry a member of the same sex.

Nothing is being denied to them.


Hmmm....
While we're on the subject, I think it's high time to reclaim the word "gay". The homos coopted that word years ago, I guess because it sounds better than qu*er, but to hell with that anymore.

They are anything but gay. I have never seen a more angry, immoral, perverted and sick group of people anywhere else, except for the Nambla crowd.

Nothing gay about them at all. Let's reclaim the word "gay" and use it once again to mean happy and joyful.

For the homos, we should use homosexual, lesbian, or qu*er, for qu*er is what they are, not gay!

From now on, that is how I will refer to them. No more mincing words or trying to make them sound better than what they are.

Curtal Friar
I think that is the result you clearly want, but wishing may not make it so. The court decision was clear and basically stated that the court had two options, not to recognize marriage at all, or extend marriage to all qualified couples. If "marriage" is defined in the constitution of Californa ia only the union of a man and a woman, the state will still need to abide by the courts ruling that equality for same sex couples is necessary. Perhaps it will nto be called marriage, but my guess is that California will be bound to not recognize any marriage at all. The amendment was written beofre the court's ruling. To simply believe the amendment will somehow undo the court's decision is wishful thinking. The deicision will stand for equality one way or another.

Loki
You are dead wrong. If the California constitution is amended to define marriage as between a man and a woman, then the courts have no option but to go with that definition.

If a court tries to grant a marriage to a same-sex couple, then that action would be unconstitutional in the state of California and could not legally hold water, if there was an amendment.

No court can buck the constitution. The reason the court made the decision that it did is because there is no amendment that specifies that marriage is between a man and woman only.

Once the amendment is in place, that's it. No more same sex marriages. Courts have to abide by the Constitution. Constitutional amendments trump previous court decisions.

Your last post demonstrates your ignorance of the legislative and judicial system.

Go back to school.

Curtal
"No one has the right to marry anyone except a member of the opposite sex. Gays are trying to gain a right that no one else has, the right to marry a member of the same sex.

Nothing is being denied to them."

As it is, I am being denied the right or privilege or whatever to marry the consenting adult partner of my choice, whereas my straight friends are allowed to marry the partner of their choice.

If gays gain the right to same-sex marriage, you will have the right to marry someone of the same sex too. They will not gain a right that you won't be able to enjoy too. No special rights there, though you enjoy special rights now.

Loki is Exactly Right
If the proposed referendum constitutional amendment passes (which does not seem likely currently), it will make it illegal for the state of California to perform or authorize ANY kind of marriage.

Prior marriages, both gay and straight, will stay in effect, however; you cannot pass an ex post facto law.

Curtal Friar is Partially Right
"If a court tries to grant a marriage to a same-sex couple, then that action would be unconstitutional in the state of California and could not legally hold water, if there was an amendment."

That's right. However, the state constitution already says that the state cannot offer anything to a privileged class that it does not offer to everyone, and the recent court decision was that heterosexual couples are such a class.

Therefore, the proposed amendment says clearly that the state cannot offer marriage to anybody. No court and no county clerk can buck the constitution.

CF
You have a tendency to move from the rational to teh irrational very quickly. For example, you write:

"You're right...Marriage is a right. Marriage is for the purpose of raising a family and thereby contributing to the community and the nation at large. Therefore, a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman to start a family and have children."

Marriage is indeed a right. So far so good. But there is no basis to the claim that it is "for the purpose of raising a family" nor to the really absurd idea that "marriage is a contract between a man and a woman to start a family and have children."

That is your own personal opinion, nothing more. Given that people procreate without marriage and many marriages do not involve children, how can you make this claim.

Likewise, when you write "It is all about weakening the concept of marriage in order to give their view legitimacy" you have a kernel of truth, i.e. that the gay marriage movement does indeed have an element of seeking legitimacy. However, it has nothing to do with weakening marriage: that exists only in your mind. Likewise, opposing gay marriage has nothing to do with strengthening straight marriage: it is about opposing the legitimacy of homosexuality in general.

If gay marraige becomes legal, will your marriage be weakened? If it is, I suggest you have a problem. My marriage will not be affected in any way. Is my marriage stronger than yours?



Every adult has the right to

enter marriage between a man and a woman in California. A person's sexual orientation or perversion of preference is immaterial to this right. The same sex sodomites want a new right that has never existed in California or anywhere else.

you did not read... sigh
I never said the court would need to recognize same sex unions as marriage if the constitution were amended. I said that the court decision would stand in needing to offer equality for all eligible couples and that the most reasonable option would be for the State to not recognize marriage for any couple in California. That was one of the options the court deliberated and decided on the least intrusive option of offering marriage to all eligible couples rather than continue with the current seperate institutions. Perhaps with an amendment to the constitution, the State will change policy to abide by the decision and only recognize unions as Domestic Partnerships for all straight and same sex couples. That would be in the spirit of the ruling and not put the State into the paradox of needing equality for all it's citizens while having marriage limited in the constitution. Marriage could still be used by the various religions for mixed sex couples, but under the law, all couples would be equal.
With the ruling reading as it did, this amendment will not change the overall ruling. The court ruling set a very strong precedent in California for equality and amending the constituion will not change that but it will perhaps modify the State's response tot he ruling.

Eddie
One of the arguments against interracial marraige was that a law prohibiting inter-racial marraige was not discriminatory. Such a law, the argument went, was acceptable because although black people could't marry white people, white people couldn't marry black people either. This meant the races were equal: neither could marry the other.

That argument failed. Your very similar, though not identical, argument has already failed in court.

The Homophobe's Mistake
The proposed constitutional amendment was drafted long before the recent ruling. Not being terribly bright, the drafters didn't think to include a clause revoking Article 1 Section 7(b) of the constitution:

"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."

The CA Supreme Court has now ruled that that applies to gay marriage; the state cannot grant the right to marry to mixed-sex couples and not to same-sex couples.

The unintended result is that the amendment will prevent the state from granting marriage to anybody. The logic is clear and straight-forward.

Bob Munck
You are wrong. An amendment is a change to the constitution. If an amendment is written and adopted and passed that says that marriage may only be between a man and a woman, then that will be the state of affairs. This would change whatever was previously in the constitution.

Example: the 15th Amendment changed the Federal Constitution as to who could vote. That meant that what was in the constitution previously no longer held water. Both provisions were not simultaneously in effect, like the scenario you propose would happen if a new amendment were added to California's constitution that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

You need to go back to school as well, Bob.

ca
ca writes:

****As it is, I am being denied the right or privilege or whatever to marry the consenting adult partner of my choice, whereas my straight friends are allowed to marry the partner of their choice.****

There is no such thing as the right to marry the consenting adult partner of one's choice.

I don't have that right.

No one does.

I do have the right to marry the consenting single woman of my choice, just as you do, for the purpose of beginning a family. That is what marriage is for.

I do not have the right to marry a consenting already married woman, unless she divorces.

I do not have the right to marry a consenting man, were I of that persuasion.

I do not have the right to marry two or more women.

Two women do not have the right to marry each other.

You get it yet?

No one has the right to marry the consenting "partner" of their choice. They may only marry a person of the opposite sex.

You may try to obfuscate the matter as much as you want, but that does not change the fact that people like you are trying to pervert the system, not by gaining a right that is denied to you, but by using the law to try to legitimize your perverted lifestyle.

Bob Munck
Bob Munck spews:

****Loki is Exactly Right
If the proposed referendum constitutional amendment passes (which does not seem likely currently), it will make it illegal for the state of California to perform or authorize ANY kind of marriage.****

Nope. The proposed amendment would define marriage as between a man and a woman, making it illegal to marry anyone of the opposite sex. As I explained in an earlier post, this amendment would not mix with any previous part of the constitution that addresses marriage, rather this amendment changes any previous law.

Got it yet?

CF
Perhaps people aren't explaining it to you correctly. Bob's point is that if the amendment is passed as written, then two sections of the California Constitution will be in conflict.

A) All privileges and immunities must be offered equally to all citizens. The Court has already determined that marriage is one of these and that not allowing gay marriage violates this precept.

B) Marriage may only be offered to a man and a woman.

How can the court reconcile the section which declares a straight marriage preference to be illegal with teh (new) section that that equires a straight marriage preference? There may be only one way, which is to not offer the privelege or immunity at all.

Your confusion may be due to this: you write "this amendment changes any previous law."
The issue is not a law, it is a Constitutional provision.

It's akin to Prohibition. In order to repeal the Volstead Act, it was necessary to repeal the 18th amendment. Not just tack on a new provision, but to change the parts of the COnstitution that were in conflict.











honest question here...
"I do have the right to marry the consenting single woman of my choice, just as you do, for the purpose of beginning a family. That is what marriage is for."

Please show me where in California's marriage liscensing laws it states that the purpose of marriage is for beginning a family. Also, if that is indeed there, please let me know what the definition of family is in California law. Thanks.

In addition, marriage laws can be changed, and have been changed. Did you have a problem with them being changed in the past?

bravo matt barber


Matt Barber speaks for us all; it's only Leftists who make the impossible case here.

The Gay lobby is now seeing a reaction to their agenda; and it can only gain strength. The CA Supremes circumvented the Will of the people.

It has to happen when an unwise action like this one invites the inevitable reaction imposed in the law of nature. Many more voices have to object; as Matt Barber's doing now. No more silence until the stupidity of the Supremes is brought low; an amendment for the people who demand the defense of marriage. We're taxpayers and we demand representation.

Curtal Friar 4:49 PM EST
"The proposed amendment would define marriage as between a man and a woman, making it illegal to marry anyone of the opposite sex....
Got it yet?"

You're a very, very confused person.

Jack 5:04 PM EST
"two sections of the California Constitution will be in conflict."

Your analysis is correct, but I wouldn't put it as saying that the two sections are in conflict. They don't contradict each other; they COMBINE to define marriage as something the state of California CANNOT offer to anybody.

It's not legal to enforce the constitution selectively; they can't choose to follow one part and disobey another.

jack
Jack spouts off:

****CF
Perhaps people aren't explaining it to you correctly. Bob's point is that if the amendment is passed as written, then two sections of the California Constitution will be in conflict.****

No, it is you who fails to understand how the Constitution works. For example, the 21st and 18th Amendments conflict. What happens? Do we follow both? No, we follow the newer amendment. Hence, no conflict. Does that make it plain enough for you?

****A) All privileges and immunities must be offered equally to all citizens. The Court has already determined that marriage is one of these and that not allowing gay marriage violates this precept.****

But if an amendment is added to the Constitution that makes marriage only between men and women, then the previous "court ruling" is nullified. That has happened in the past. Prior court rulings are nullified by new amendments. When a new ruling or new amendment is introduced, it does not combine with the old ruling. Instead, it replaces or changes the old one.

Good grief guys, which grade of high school did y'all make it to before dropping out? You have the comprehension of a drunken goat.



jack
****Your confusion may be due to this: you write "this amendment changes any previous law."
The issue is not a law, it is a Constitutional provision.
It's akin to Prohibition. In order to repeal the Volstead Act, it was necessary to repeal the 18th amendment. Not just tack on a new provision, but to change the parts of the COnstitution that were in conflict.****

But such an amendment does change what is previously there, or adds a provision where previously there is none.

Again, if an amendment is added which makes it clear that only a man and a woman may marry, then that is it. That is the state of affairs.
The only way equality would have any bearing would be that no man would be denied the right to marry a woman, and no woman would be denied the right to marry a man.

Every man would have equal rights to marry a woman, and every woman would have equal rights to marry a man.

Conversely, every citizen would not be able to marry someone of the opposite sex. There would be no inequality, as everyone would have the same right.

Thanks Bob
for pointing out a typo I made.

****Subject: Curtal Friar 4:49 PM EST
"The proposed amendment would define marriage as between a man and a woman, making it illegal to marry anyone of the opposite sex....
Got it yet?"****

That was a typo. It should read "making it illegal to marry anyone of the same sex..."

****You're a very, very confused person.****

No, not confused, just lazy about proofreading sometimes.

Matt Barber
His hatred of homosexuals is evident by his continued ranting on the subject. Last year even his little brother questioned Matt's obsession, only to be just another article trying to explain his obsession.

Swampfox
I see no hatred of homosexuals inherent in any of Barber's articles.

Disgust at the perversion they want to mainstream, but dislike of an activity does not equate hatred of a person.

Your hatred of anyone who does not care for homosexuality is quite evident, however.


Curtal Friar 5:35 PM EST
"But if an amendment is added to the Constitution that makes marriage only between men and women, then the previous "court ruling" is nullified."

No, because the court ruling is not changed by the new amendment. The court ruled that the equality clause applies to marriage. The amendment DOES NOT ADDRESS THAT. (That's where they made a mistake.)

The new amendment does not contradict the court ruling or the part of the constitution on which it was based. So it doesn't nullify the ruling.

Your argument that "everyone has equal rights because they can marry someone of the opposite sex" is precisely what the court ruling said was an incorrect argument. It remains an incorrect argument if the amendment passes.

So polygamy is okay too?
Where does this end...or does it? Should a person have a "right" to marry their favorite horse? What about the folks who argue that they are being denied their "right" to "marry" more than one spouse? It all could well end with our society destroying itself.

As was said above "marriage" is a unique creation of God and is not subject to man's changing its definition at will. If someone wants to crawl into the sack with a person of the same sex they are certainly free to do so. I just feel really sorry for their accepting such a poor substitute for the real thing. It is a sad situation.

C.F. Again
"Again, if an amendment is added which makes it clear that only a man and a woman may marry"

The amendment does not say that.

It says that only a union between a man and a woman can be called marriage. It does not say that a man and a woman have the right to marry each other or that the state of California must marry mixed-sex couples. All it does is define marriage as something that was already prohibited by the CA Constitution.

It's as if constitution had an existing clause making slavery illegal (it does) and a new amendment was passed defining forcing a prisoner to work on a road gang as slavery. The result would be that you can't force a prisoner to work on a road gang.

Bob Munck
The court ruling was only able to be made because there was no definition of marriage in the constitution.

Had there been a definition, the court could not have ruled as it did.

If a definition is added by amendment, it will nullify the ruling, and would prevent same-sex marriages from taking place.

End of argument, and no amount of wishful thinking on your part, or the part of any homo activist will change that.

You can spout all you want, but come this fall when the new amendment is passed and written into the state constitution, there will be no homo marriages in California.


Mel 5:59 PM EST
"Where does this end...or does it? Should a person have a "right" to marry their favorite horse? ... It all could well end with our society destroying itself."

That exact argument, even using the term "favorite horse" was made against the Loving v. Virginia ruling that declared mixed-race marriages legal. Society doesn't seem to have destroyed itself.

"As was said above "marriage" is a unique creation of God and is not subject to man's changing its definition at will."

So was the banning of divorce; marriage was defined as "until death do us part." If he's not willing to enforce it, he's out of luck.

CF. Yet Again
"come this fall when the new amendment is passed and written into the state constitution, there will be no homo marriages in California."

I agree 100%. There will be no marriages of any kind. Domestic partnerships only, available to all.

CF, You Aren't Arguing
You're not presenting an argument against our logic, you're just stamping your little foot and saying "no, no, you're wrong, it isn't so." Maybe you should go next door for the being-hit-over-the-head lessons.

To Curtail Friar
Curtail Friar writes, "I see no hatred of homosexuals inherent in any of Barber's articles.

Disgust at the perversion they want to mainstream, but dislike of an activity does not equate hatred of a person.

Your hatred of anyone who does not care for homosexuality is quite evident, however."

You see no hatred, do you really believe that? As someone who is homosexual, I have had to tolerate people making horrid comments since the day that I realized that I was gay.

No Bob
for some reason, you have this crazy idea that when a new ruling is made or a new law is introduced or a new amendment is introduced, that it combines with all previous rulings and laws and amendments instead of replacing them.

In any case, you are right about one thing....we certainly could continue arguing this subject till Doomsday comes, with you ever holding on to ignorant fantasies and me ever refusing to surrender my common sense.

There will be an end come this fall, however, when the new amendment is introduced and same-sex marriages become illegal, and heterosexual marriages still remain quite legal, in spite of your fantasies.

Or are you so dense and so ignorant of the law and so arrogant of your own supposed intelligence that you really think the people who have crafted the new amendment have no idea that their amendment would be nullified in the manner you suggest?

I guarantee their knowledge of the law and legal procedure and the constitution is much better than yours, so I have no fear of your scenario coming to fruition.

You are not providing a logical argument, you just keep repeating the same old pablum in spite of repeated attempts to explain the true state of affairs to you. You are too blinded by your own rhetoric to see the illogic of the junk you propose.

Swampfox
Let me ask you a question.

Do you think pedophilia is acceptable?

Curtal Friar 6:25 PM EST
"you have this crazy idea that when a new ruling is made or a new law is introduced or a new amendment is introduced, that it combines with all previous rulings and laws and amendments instead of replacing them."

Well of course it does. Did you think that somehow the new amendment would nullify the equality clause? Do you think it nullifies the entire existing constitution? The only way it could nullify something would be to do so explicitly.

Do you think that the Bill of Rights nullified the whole of the US Constitution that came before it?

"the people who have crafted the new amendment have no idea that their amendment would be nullified in the manner you suggest?"

That's right. They didn't anticipate the new ruling, so didn't do anything to nullify it or the part of the constitution it's based on.

Hey, ask a lawyer. I did; my sister-in-law is a professor at a good law school. Find someone who specializes in California constitutional law and present him with my argument.

To Curtail Friar asks,
Curtail Friar asks a very stupid question, "Do you think pedophilia is acceptable?" No, do you?

Swampfox
Good. Thanks for answering.

I don't find pedophilia acceptable either.

Here's the reason I asked that question.

A pedophile would look at you and say you were filled with hatred towards him. Is that true, or is it disgust with that sort of behavior that determines your view.

You see, gay activists have been very clever about turning what is nothing more than disgust at what is viewed as a perversion into a supposed "hatred", in an attempt to paint themselves as victims. Interestingly enough, the pedophiles use the same argument against both homos and heteros. They claim that any attempt to deny them their desires is motivated by hatred.

They are wrong. It is motivated by a sense of morality.

Likewise, a belief that homosexuality is wrong is not motivated by hatred, it is motivated by a sense of what is moral and acceptable and what is abnormal.

Of course there are people who are motivated by hatred, but they are a fringe element. The vast majority of people who oppose homosexuality do so because the regard it as immoral and sinful.

It is no more or less sinful than any other sin, and there is no hatred involved. I think theft is wrong, but I do not hate people who steal. I dislike gambling, but I do not hate gamblers. I detest pornography, yet I do not hate people who produce and peddle porn.


Question to Curtail Friar
Do you think that I chose to be gay?

Swampfox
Swampfox asks:

****Do you think that I chose to be gay?****

That question, and any answer I could give, are irrelevant. Truth is, I don't know you.

Some people do choose, of their own volition, to engage in homosexual activity, and to adopt a homosexual lifestyle.

Based on what is out there in the way of studies, it is at least somewhat probable that there are those that are born with homosexual inclinations.

I don't know where you stand, so I can't answer that question as it pertains to you.

However, whether it's an act of will or not is irrelevant as to the morality of an action or way of life.

Is rape acceptable because some people are born with those inclinations?

Should pedophiles be allowed to practice their desires with children because they were born with those inclinations?

Is murder acceptable because some people are born with overwhelming urges to commit lethal violence?

The answer to all those questions is no.

Just because you are born with an urge to commit a perverted or immoral act does not make it okay to give in to that urge and practice it.

If you were born with a desire for the same sex, then you have my sympathy. I have my own struggles. We all have our temptations and crosses to bear. That does not make it okay to give in to them. And the argument that an act should be acceptable because one is born with an urge to carry it out is morally fallacious.

ex_Wyomingite
Matt continually writes about his topic because of the ongoing campaign by the homo activist groups to subvert our culture and force their perversion into the mainstream.

I applaud him for having the fortitude to continue the struggle against the forces of immorality.

curtal friar
Munck and Loki have done a bad job explaining their point. You are right that if two clauses of the constitution contradict each other, then the later one supercedes the former. But contrary to their claim, what they are describing is not a later clause contradicting an earlier one. There is not really a contradiction, just an expected way that clauses combine.

What the California decision said was that based on the equality clause in the Constitution California if heterosexual couples are allowed to marry then homosexual couples must be allowed to marry as well.

If they are describing the proposed amendment correctly (which I suspect noone knows for sure at this point because these things tend to be ambiguously written) the amendment says that homosexual couples cannot be allowed to marry.

These tow things combine by what logicians call Modus Tollens to lead to the conclusion that heterosexual couples cannot be allowed to marry. The structure is "If A then B" "not B" therefore "Not A". And it is a perfectly valid logical argument form. If the conditions actual fit this pattern, then they are right about what the California Supreme Court should rule based on this amendment. If they are misunderstanding what the Amendment says then not.

Of course a good activist court might treat the amendment according to what its framers meant it to say rather than what it actually says. But then we don't want activist judges do we?

Curtal Friar: Good grief! You should

know by now that Jack and Munck and that "crowd" are just too simple and limited to have a reasonable discussion with...

Heck, forget the "reasonable" part. It's just impossible to have a discussion with them, at all!!!


curtal friar
I think you are wasting your patience here.
This subject will never be resolved in our lifetimes.
You can't do it here.

Lon
Lon, however, if the new amendment states that marriage is defined as a contract between a man and a woman, and the equality clause prohibits anyone from being denied a right, it could reasonably be argued that both heterosexual men and homosexual men have the right to marry a woman.

It could be shown that no homosexual man is being denied his right to marry a woman, therefore there is no case of a homosexual man being denied his constitutional rights.

The fact that the homosexual man chooses to waive his rights to marry a woman and dally with a man instead does not make the marriage clause discriminatory or unfair.

some comments
Barber is rather defensive about the charges of being homophobic, but he would do better to make his case if he didn't use such basic nonsense in his article.

The claim that only man would invent homosexual behavior is simply flase. Homosexual behavior is present through much of the natural world, and it wasn't deviant people who taught monkeys how homosexuality works.

Similarly, Barber claims that God shows his displeasure with behaviors and gives male gay sex as an example. But then he rails against Ellen Degeneris' marriage. But female homosexual behavior is safer than heterosexual sex. So Ellen would seem to have God's seal of approval for her marriage.

If Barber is right that people recognize when they sin, that explains why his cause is in such trouble. After all as people become more familiar with the idea of same sex marriage it becomes more popular. By contrast as people become more familiar with the fact that they are harming actual people by discriminating against them in marriage, such discrimination becomes less popular.

curtal friar
But while some people here have argued that there is a right to marriage, the California Supreme Court rather pointedly denied such was the case. There case was not based on a right to marry. It was based on a ban against discrimination. They were pretty clear about the fact that the state of California could solve the problem by not sanctioning marriage at all.

Again, I am not confident that the amendment says what is necessary to make their argument work. But the logic of the California Supreme Court decision certainly does.

Mel
You ask a good question. I would say that if the horse consents there would be nothing wrong with someone marrying a horse.

Oh wait a minute, come to think of it horses can't consent. So the situations are not remotely comparable. It actually wasn't a good question at all. It was the question of someone who lacks a real argument.

Matt Barber article
This Matt Barber article has been out for over a week. It is old news.

And, Curtail, trying to equate being homosexual to being someone who is inclined to be a child molester, murderer, etal. just does not work anymore. Give it up.

Do you have any gays or lesbians in your extended family?

Curtal Friar
My hat is off to you. But I fear that you are more or less butting your head against a stone wall with a couple of these people. I have noticed how they are pretty good at "picking and choosing" the part of a post they will attempt to rebut. Homosexuality is, at least for most, a choice. But then some of us take the Bible seriously. Maybe they don't.

Hi, Swampie


Still wondering what a gay can do, Hmm?


A gay can be chaste. It wouldn't kill him, her.

Yes; other sins such as paedophilia, adultery, name it; are detestable. Just as homosexual activity is. Each one is sinful and can damn you; unless you ask God's forgiveness. We're all sinners.

Yet; marriage isn't really going to make a homosexual clean. He'll be a sinner anyway. He'll merely pretend he's married; it won't be true. His soul will go to hell unless he repents in the end. Oscar Wilde did. He knew he had done evil; he acknowledged his faults. It's no fun going to hell for the relatively short life of pleasure and depravity. A life of prayer and chastity is actually joyful, for those who can manage it. God will love you more than almost any other soul.



To Mel
What can I say about your post? Well, recently in Italy a Roman Catholic bishop refused to marry a paraplegic man to his fiancé because the man was impotent. I guess that those Catholics have read the Bible.

The Bible approves of slavery and polygamy. I guess that the Bible approves of incest since Lot slept with his two daughters after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Of course the Bible says that they got him drunk.

Here's the Text
David B. Cruz, an expert on constitutional law at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles: "Should voters approve the measure ... offering another potential outcome, it could inadvertently affect traditional marriages. That's because the amendment would undo only part of the court's decision -- allowing gay couples to marry -- but not the rest, which says that same-sex couples cannot be recognized differently than opposite-sex couples."

"If you've got those two rules -- that you can't let them marry, but you can't give different options to gay and straight couples -- then one possible outcome, if the amendment were to pass, is that no one could get married in California," Cruz said.

Here's the Text of the Amendment:
David B. Cruz, an expert on constitutional law at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles: "Should voters approve the measure ... offering another potential outcome, it could inadvertently affect traditional marriages. That's because the amendment would undo only part of the court's decision -- allowing gay couples to marry -- but not the rest, which says that same-sex couples cannot be recognized differently than opposite-sex couples."

"If you've got those two rules -- that you can't let them marry, but you can't give different options to gay and straight couples -- then one possible outcome, if the amendment were to pass, is that no one could get married in California," Cruz said.

Here's the Text of the Amendment:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”

I gave the text of the equality clause above in # 30 at 4:33 PM EST

David B. Cruz, an expert on constitutional law at USC: "Should voters approve the measure, ... it could inadvertently affect traditional marriages. That's because the amendment would undo only part of the court's decision -- allowing gay couples to marry -- but not the rest, which says that same-sex couples cannot be recognized differently than opposite-sex couples."

"If you've got those two rules -- that you can't let them marry, but you can't give different options to gay and straight couples -- then one possible outcome, if the amendment were to pass, is that no one could get married in California," Cruz said.

Cruz is a constitutional law expert focusing on religion and civil rights. He is a Professor of law, USC Gould School. He's probably more qualified to judge this than some guy in North Carolina.

To Dreadnaught
Dreadnaught writes, "A gay can be chaste. It wouldn't kill him, her." No, it wouldn't dreadnaught. I guess the same can be said anyone who is heterosexual and not married. Isn't hell also reserved for those kill themselves? This time last year I was two days into my stay 17 day stay in the mental hospital because of my suicidal state because of major depression.

One year later I am still a virgin, but I have outed myself, as one of my cousins has said. Frankly, I don't think that I should get a gold star because I am a gay male, but still a virgin.

Here's the Text of the Amendment:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”

I gave the text of the equality clause above in # 30 at 4:33 PM.

David B. Cruz, an expert on constitutional law at USC: "Should voters approve the measure, ... it could inadvertently affect traditional marriages. That's because the amendment would undo only part of the court's decision -- allowing gay couples to marry -- but not the rest, which says that same-sex couples cannot be recognized differently than opposite-sex couples."

"If you've got those two rules -- that you can't let them marry, but you can't give different options to gay and straight couples -- then one possible outcome, if the amendment were to pass, is that no one could get married in California," Cruz said.

Cruz is a constitutional law expert focusing on religion and civil rights. He is a Professor of law, USC Gould School. He's probably more qualified to judge this than some guy in North Carolina.

My apologies for the double-double
I have no idea what happened.

Jack is a desperate lib/lefty/homo
Subject: Matt, Does it...
suck to be you?

Seriously, your angst over what a few people do in their private lives is so intense I can only imagine you must live a life of (not so) quiet desperation.
______________________________

We can't answer directly for Barber, but we can state that it is very satisfying to be directly in the fight agains the homosexual nonsense, the homosexual problem. We do not live lives of quiet desperation, but of course you must imagine that anyone who is against homosexuals attempting to subvert the institutions that the US was founded on and which helped make it the greatest nation in the history of man, cannot live great, fulfilling lives helping to make the US livable after so many years of homosexuals flaunting their perversions publicly.

will/Will, you are a confused homosexual
I'm going to skip past Matt's
chronic hysteria and purple prose over gay issues (or "gay" issues... Matt bizarrely, quaintly, chooses to use quotation marks around a perfectly valid and useful word. Language changes, Matthew. Get over it).

Gay (no quotes!) marriages (again, no quotes!) begin in California next Tuesday, 6/17. I wish all California couples a wealth of health, peace and happiness.

By the way, yes, the "Partner A" and "Partner B" that have substituted for the traditional "bride" and "groom" on all marriage licenses is a clumsy attempt. But this will all work itself out.

I invite all the sane persons here reading Barber's column to look at all the so-called counterfeit words Matt has chosen to wrap with quotation marks: "gay", "relationsip", "constitutional right", "progressive", "same-sex marriage", "pleasure", "gay sex".... on & on.... this column, as with most Barber columns, is positively drowning in quotation marks and hysteria.
______________________________

will/Will, you are a confused homosexual, confused about what the complementary genitals were designed for by God or evolution, so why should we pay any attention to what a confused homosexual says?

Bob
Thanks for the clarification. That was my understanding based on a reading of the ruling and the wording of the amendment. That may not be the only outcome, but it is my impression that it is one of the most likely outcomes if the amendment does pass. The arguments here stating that the amendment would only overturn the ruling show a clear lack of understanding of what the California Supreme Court actually ruled and what the outcome of that ruling was. It is funny how no one here even knew what the wording of the amendment was. I have never understood in this day with the resources of the internet, how people can continue to use the argumentative equivalent of putting their fingers and their ears and going "la la la la I can't hear you" rather than facing a truth rather than beleiving what they want to believe in spite of the facts. I understand that the measure may pass, although when people become aware of the possible outcome, they may realize it is not want they wanted.

Wait Just a Second!
Everyone is talking about the redefining of marriage, but how many times in our history have we already done this?

From common-law, and polygamy, arranged marriages, dowry, to endogamy.

From the dawn of time we have redefined what marriage, unions, mean. And it changes when one social group attempts to shape society in the way they see fit. Is is not religion that is fueling the whole opposition to two consenting adults who love each other from spending their lives together?

Try, just try, to give some logical reason for opposing gay marriage WITHOUT the use of religion-based hatred. I am proud that I am made in His image and can't wait until the day I decide to spend my life with the one I love.

evolution of what's egalitarian
Well, now...the usual suspects who INSIST that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, are just patently stupid people.
Can't get their teeth off of that bone.
The courts here in CA ruled after MANY different arguments were presented. And the opposition THEN is like the opposition now, they had no facts, evidence...or a case as to WHY gay couples couldn't marry and no evidence of adverse effects on children or marriage in general.

Marriage has evolved to be MORE egalitarian along gender lines. After all, women DID get short shrift and were barely autonomous human beings in marriage. Constitutions have, by tradition ALSO been egalitarian and have been inclusive, NOT exclusive. Especially not against citizens based on their human condition.
And homosexuality IS a condition of ORIENTATION, not choice.
Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, asexuality, bisexuality...transcend ALL human life and structures.
It's not a lifestyle, based on that fact alone.

con't who decided?
So, Barber and several others here have decided that gay people don't love, have no interest in marriage, are sterile or otherwise UNWORTHY of being considered as having any potential that supports or enobles marriage?

Well, I see an assertion of the most arrogant, factually void and cruel and dehumanizing OPINONS.
But truth? Far from it?
I'm sure I'm the only one on this board that actually KNOWS Robin and Diane, the couple pictured.
I know a LOT of gay couples, some with children.
I mean REALLY know them, not superficially, but intimately.
And they have extended family, parents, nieces and nephews.
And so few of you don't see and UPSIDE to this marriage equality.
All you predict is doom, and selfish assumptions about hetero couples.
How stupid.
I have a long list of upsides...
Here they are.

1. Gay men and women who are parenting an excess of 70,000 children in CA can now have more security for their children, without risking PUBLIC ASSISTANCE or some other unnecessary intervention.

2. Gay teenagers, will arrange their lives around the sound hope of monogamy and long term relationships. Hope does change behavior, and this is one example how.

3. Gays and lesbians will be able to adopt children in desparate need of homes. Supply has exceeded demand in so many states. Two parents is better than none, regardless of if they are same gender parents.

4. Gay couples can extend their pensions and other financial benefits to their spouses, eliminating the risk of public assistance.

5. Gay couples, can also benefit their aging parents, nieces or nephews if the need arises for care. With marriage comes family leave time and tax breaks to support extended family.

6. Gay teens will be able to have their parents support and guidance in their romantic lives. Less family implosion from prejudice and abuse when parents understand their gay children do not choose being gay, and benefit more from parents understanding that.

As Usual
The mixture of issues in the thread tends to preclude clarity. We have technical arguments, personal arguments, Biblical arguments, moral arguments and more, all mixed together. It gets pointless when people switch from one argument to another if they find themselves cornered.

Bob's point is a legitimate technical argument. Should the amendment pass, it could well be the case that two aspects of the California constitution are mutually exclusive. This could result in the elimination of all marriage

Curtal Friar argues that the amendment wouldn't produce that result. Things could go that way as well. Even if he's right. California will at least be required to create a domestic partnership that is indistinguishable from marriage except in name.

I argue that this is the worst of both worlds. The European experiment has shown that when a "marriage lite" option is available, the main users will be straight couples. Creating such separate but equal conditions will ultimately damage marraige far more than allowing gay marriage. Be careful what you ask for.

An inevitable oputcome of passing the amendment would be a challenge in Federal Court. That challenge would likely reach the SCOTUS. In the case, the SCOTUS could also rule that the separate but equal condition was discriminatory and effectively make gay marraige the national standard. Or they could rule otherwise, which would likely make civil unions the national standard.

Either way, marriage is damaged and gay unions are codified and accepted.

Truer words were never spoken...
Thank you, Matt, for saying out loud what many of us know to be true. Marriage is to produce and protect children and this is, perhaps, our last chance to stand up for what is right. There are too many signs in our current society that parallel what happened during the fall of the Roman Empire - the general moral decay and decadence and rampant homosexuality, among them.

can you handle the truth?
we are a nation that was founded on the principles of natural law... that was a long time ago. today we are a nation of an endless list of codes and regulations, the constitution has been ignored, altered, twisted and manipulated beyond any real recognition of what it was. and so it goes. history always repeats itself, because man fails to learn what life is truly about, this is the age of truth. all truths will be revealed to us from here on out, get used to being faced with things that will make you uncomfortable, how one deals with them will determine whether the future will be a place that is full of love or full of hate. "forgive them father, for they know not what they do".

Same Subject, same solution, cut/paste

Words have meaning, and different words describe items or actions that are similar, but different.

They have already screwed up the usage of words like Qu*er and Gay, now go find your own word for two homosexuals who are committed to each other, love each other, and have performed a ceremony to advertise that union.

For example the word “Gay” is no longer useful in polite conversation between normal people, by that I mean people who do not have a certain birth defect.

That new word would also apply to any two or more people of whatever sex or relationship, who wish to live together, or at least be in constant association with each other, including the right to control healthcare, and inherit goods when death occurs, and other such things.

The dictionary says the following, so get your own words, and leave these alone.

Marriage: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife

Husband: a man joined in marriage to a woman

Wife: a woman joined in marriage to a man

If two men say they are married to each other, do they have a marriage? Answer No.

Two families pay money each month to live in a house, is it the same? No, one pays rent, the other pays a mortgage.

Two wheeled vehicles are going down the street, are they the same? No, one is a bike, the other a motorcycle.

Two multi-wheeled vehicles are going down the street, are they the same? No, one is a car, the other is a truck.

If a man and a woman are married to each other, do you have a marriage? Yes, of course.


CF
I think you did a good job answering Swampfox. The yuck factor should never go away. If you hear something enough then your defenses are down and it doesn't seem so yuckey. I attended a seminar on cloning bodies for their parts and the yuck factor was definitely in play. But if you continually talk about the poor sick people whom this can help maybe after awhile it doesn't seem so bad.

Taking the Plunge...
Right on.

You people just don't get it
Marriage is not about moral sex! Many married people to abomidable things in their bedrooms.
Marriage is not about love! Many people marry who don't know what love is.

Marriage is, and always has been about the union of one man with one woman.
Why? Because a man and woman can procreate.
The day two men can make a baby instead of diahhrea soup, is the day I'll be okay gay marriage.

If anyone hasn't looked, men and woman are anatomically different, not the same, by any means. Man and Woman were made to fit together.

Man and man, creates huge physical abuses that were not meant to be. This causes huge health issues as well. Should insurance companies charge homosexuals more health insurance premiums if they are active? Sure! MUCH greater chance of facing health issues.

Further, so many say gay marriage will help gays. Trust me, as someone who has been married 11 years, marriage doesn't fix anything. In fact, marriage will expose many of the flaws that need fixing. So the comment that gay marriage will helps gays is all an illusion based in ignorance.

All of this has been said without bringing up the religious aspects at all.

Jack 10:03 AM EST
"It gets pointless when people switch from one argument to another if they find themselves cornered."

I don't believe I've done that. On the other hand, I don't believe I've been "cornered" in any way.

"two aspects of the California constitution are mutually exclusive."

Just to be repetitiously pedantic, not "mutually exclusive," but rather interacting in a way unanticipated by those pushing the amendment.

"California will at least be required to create a domestic partnership that is indistinguishable from marriage except in name."

It's my understanding that they already have that. The recent CASC ruling was essentially that the "except in name" part of your statement was unconstitutional, that both types of domestic partnerships had to be able to be called "marriage."

"Either way, marriage is damaged"

I don't believe it's damaged in any way. My own marriage, to the girl I met 42 years ago in college, certainly isn't.

In fact, I think some mixed-sex marriages will be helped. Virulent homophobes, some of whom have posted in this thread, will be able to focus more of their hatred outside the family, reducing spouse and child abuse.

How does this all affect marriage?
Surely, there will be ramifications from same sex marriage. Certainly there will be other law suits introduced as a result of this ruling. Well, if gays can marry, why can't I marry 4 women? Why can't three men marry?

Not to mention marrying children, even animals, in short, there is no end in sight, and the litigators love it.

But I must state, that married men and women have been damaging the institution of marriage for years! In the end, a good or bad marriage is solely based on the participants. So, whatever a court deems correct, whatever a court deems the law of the land, is not, and will not affect me and my marriage.

This whole same sex marriage thing will open a can of worms they will be dealing with for decades.

Further, it legitimizes poor, unhealthy behavior. Similar to legalizing all drugs.

It will be fun to watch the fireworks, but it won't come near my tent.

Michael is a great thinker
Well, Michael sodomy is sodomy whoever does it. Heterosexual by their shear numbers do IT more than homosexuals. As for making different classes for health insurance risks, I guess we could just allow the insurance companies healthy people period.

Soon they may be able to screen people by examining their genetic code. If you are inclined to get diabetes or heart disease, perhaps you will be charged more.

I see you are from Illinos. I am a Republican and will be voting for McCain in November. It is sad that Jack Ryan didn't defeat Barack Obama way back when Obama first ran. Too bad he dragged his wife, Jerri, from one heterosexual sex club to another against her will to perform unnatural sex acts with strangers.

jimmyjames-. . .truth?
During the trial of Christ, Pilate asked the question: What is truth? Earlier, Christ himself said, "I am the way, the truth, and the light: no man cometh unto the Father but by me."

The "truth", Mr. James, et al, is that Christ NEVER condoned sin. To the women taken in adultery, he said, "Go thy way and SIN NO MORE." Did Christ forgive her for her sin(s)? No! She had not repented! She had been caught in the act but being caught sinning vs. repenting of sins are two concepts that are worlds apart.

The quote you used at the end of your post: "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do" did not condone the actions of the Roman legions who carried out the orders to crucify him; what they did was done IN IGNORANCE of who he (Christ) was.

So, what's the real truth? People who sin IN IGNORANCE and do not know that they are committing sin CAN and WILL BE forgiven. Nevertheless, they must repent and feel Godly sorry for what they did, after they are apprised of their sins. However, those who sin openly, when they know God's laws, are deliberately defying the laws of God and will be condemned, unless they repent before they die.

People can spin the teachings of Christ and the laws of God anyway they want but the laws of God are inmutable and cannot change otherwise God would cease to be God. The apostle Paul stated in his letter to Timothy 4:3-4: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." The truth is, we don't have to wait any longer for that "time" to come, IT IS HERE, EVEN AT OUR DOORS!

Swampwater, YOU fight hetero anal 'sex'
Subject: Michael is a great thinker
Well, Michael sodomy is sodomy whoever does it. Heterosexual by their shear numbers do IT more than homosexuals.
___________________________________

Swampwater: WE'VE TOLD YOU THIS 5,672,926 TIMES! PAY ATTENTION!!!

If heterosexuals engage in anal 'sex' they deserve all of the humiliation, the derision, the sickness, the death that homosexuals get. If you want to fight heterosexual anal 'sex,' DO IT! We will continue to fight the homosexual problem, the homosexual nonsense, the homosexual subversion of the the institutions that made this country the greatest in the history of man.

Luis
I'm not sure Swampwater wants to fight anything. I think he was making a point. There seems to be an awful lot of virilant (sp?)comments about what gays do privately. Just wanted to let you know that many heteros do exactly the same thing and nobody is telling them not to get married.

Let's out all the hetros that are engaging in sexual acts that are not approved by -- which Church?

Dear Pablo:

When you say,

"Just wanted to let you know that many heteros do exactly the same thing and nobody is telling them not to get married," . . . I wish you'd realize, any prostitute in the street would do all that for money, and not expect a marriage proposal.

The fact is gays do NOTHING BUT those things. Exactly what whores do.

You're incorrect saying "they get told not to marry." What gays must be told is simple: YOU and me, are equal and both of us have a right to marry.

The same right which Ronald Reagan and Nancy had, Laura & George Bush; and I have, a gay has. Marriage to a member of the opposite sex. EQUAL RIGHTS, PABLO.

NONE of us has the right to marry the same sex. Not ME, NOT YOU. Am I given some advantage over homosexual men because they don't wish to marry women ?

They will never BE married just because sex organs God gave them are used in ridiculous ways. It wouldn't be marriage, it would be sodomy or fell-8-yo-- It's a question of normality. A sphincter isn't a vagina.
So you say:

"Let's out all the hetros that are engaging in sexual acts that are not approved by -- which Church?" Very cute.

You mean heteros who fall into sin? Well; OK.

Like Elizabeth Taylor, who has married and remarried 9 times. Let me explain what our Church would say. "Your final 7 marriages are null and void."

Nobody would stop her if she married another 8 times. As long as it's understood. You're into BOGUS MARRIAGE. She can have any state sell her all the marriage permits she needs to whore around. The state will also sell homosexuals official permits for the same BOGUS MARRIAGE.

dreadnaught 6:19 PM EST
"The same right which Ronald Reagan and Nancy had"

Reagan was divorced, you know. His marriage to Nancy was BOGUS according to you. Same for McCain and Cindy. You want to elect a president who's in a BOGUS MARRIAGE?

Good point, Bobby


Yeah; all our best idols have feet of clay. Is there anybody in the U.S. who isn't divorced besides me?

Then; I only brought the Bogus hetero Marrigae up as an example of the very thing Pablo needed explained. -- If McCain weren't Pro-life, unafraid of peaceful border policy, likely to appoint good Supremes etc, I'd have to support Obama! {{{Crikie!}}} A little Aussie lingo there.

Yet, I admit; he's a sinner. You and me; we only denounce sinners. At least, you do. I denounce the sin.

dreadnaught
Again I ask: You want to elect a president who's in a BOGUS MARRIAGE? You believe his marriage to Cindy is null and void, right? That means he's breaking the law all over the place, taking massive donations from a single private citizen, using someone else's jet without paying for it, etc. etc. This isn't a matter of "feet of clay," this is a matter of BREAKING THE LAW.

Or do you think he gets a break that gays don't? IOKIYAR. Sounds like homophobia.

And I suppose you'd proclaim that Nancy Reagan was not the First Lady, but Jane Wyman was.

Pablo, I know Swampwater better than...

...you. He is a virgin celibate, or is it celibate virgin homosexual who...[cont'd below]

Pablo says: Luis
I'm not sure Swampwater wants to fight anything. I think he was making a point. There seems to be an awful lot of virilant (sp?)comments about what gays do privately. Just wanted to let you know that many heteros do exactly the same thing and nobody is telling them not to get married.

Let's out all the hetros that are engaging in sexual acts that are not approved by -- which Church?
__________________________________

Oh, well, now that you 'splain it me, I get it. THAT'S SARCASM, PABLITO. I know Swampwater very well, he has told me about his UNSUCCESSFUL suicide attempt 4,293 times, at last count, and somehow wanted me to feel that it was my fault.

Let me put it another way, Pablo, Swampwater can worry about, if not fight, the heterosexual problem, and WE will continue to fight the homosexual nonsense, the homosexual problem, the homosexual attempts to subvert the cultural and legal institutions that made this the greatest nation in the history of man.

And the reason that nobody is telling heterosexuals who do what homosexuals do not to get married is....BECAUSE THEY CAN GET MARRIED!!!! And, homosexuals can get married also, but not to another homosexual, because that is not what marriage is. Why do we have to 'splain thees things over and over??????????????

have to answer Munck


Oh oh; it's the Munck Patrol after me:

dreadnaught
Again I ask: You want to elect a president who's in a BOGUS MARRIAGE? You believe his marriage to Cindy is null and void, right?

My Church has that to say; Bob. I had to illustrate a point; that permits to marry aren't necessarily the legitimate marriage.

Gays think once they have the state in tow, that eliminates all opposition. You seem to think I have to oppose John Mccain to remain on firm ground in this dispute. I wasn't called to dispute his right to ask for my vote. Why should I? I'm free to vote for anybody; and I voted for Reagan, didn't I? I know had either Reagan or McCain been homosexuals asking for the "right" to marry; I would've said to Ronny, Don'tt marry Broke-Back Steve; MARRY NANCY.

To John McCain, "You can't marry a stud. You CAN __marry__ someone with a real vagina.-- (I mean; it wouldn't be such a FARCE.) " This has been FUN, Munck.







Munck Patrol (Crikiee!)
"I have no opposition That means he's breaking the law all over the place, taking massive donations from a single private citizen, using someone else's jet without paying for it, etc. etc. This isn't a matter of "feet of clay," this is a matter of BREAKING THE LAW."

Simple, Huh? Maybe if he asked the Calif Supreme-- Nah. Let's tell Soros.

"Or do you think he gets a break that gays don't? IOKIYAR. Sounds like homophobia."

No; he'd be an adulterer, likely. (Not in canon law; since he's not bound by that standard.) Adulterers make amends with God. McCain might. If only homosexuals would sometimes. Oscar Wilde was forgiven. (He Poped out, and I guess he became homophobic on his deathbed.)

I know he'd like the turn this discussion's taken. Great Boy-Bugger, Oscar, and a great writer.


.




the echo chamber
Michael and Luis are fixated on the procreation issue and marriage. Another symptom of discussing what does not exist together in the law.

Sunday will be Father's Day. I salute the ADOPTIVE fathers. Whether they are single, two dad or dads who adopted with moms.
There is procreation (which has left MILLIONS of children languishing in group homes, or foster care with NO parents), or children outright neglected and requiring someone to love them and give them a healthy environment.

And there is NURTURING a child. The coming together of many factors beyond just the biological parents that attend to a child's comprehensive needs.
A dad is a dad. Some kids have one, some have two. Either way, being a part of SOMEONE who gives you what you need is the important thing beyond being given LIFE.
I lost my own father at 15, and never got another one again.
Obviously LOTS of men procreate, but it's only those with the stuff of love, dreams and courage...that RAISES a child. Even if that child doesn't share their genetic origins.
Have some respect for them that raise the children, not just who MAKES them.

ignorance is as ignorance does
The opposition here can have no arguments that can come out either hypocritical, contradictory or non existent in the legal and social lexicon of current marriage regulations.
The insistence that marriage between gay couples specifically is a sign that ALL controls will be eliminated, or that gay couples somehow are inherently inferior to heterosexual ones are too obviously without merit.
Why?
Because there is nothing about opposite sex couples that indicates compatibility or moral soundness.
Indeed, marriage laws are VERY simple, limited by a basic four rules. None of which are about compatibility or morality, but status that can be changed.

You are mostly examples of people who are making up rules you WISH existed, but if were enforced against heterosexuals would be cruel, inhumane and impossible to legislate as Constitutional as well.
Marriage has evolved to BECOME more egalitarian along GENDER lines and to INCLUDE gay couples. Gay men and women are not compatible sexually with heterosexuals.
So what? A lot of hetero couples aren't either.
Get REAL. Can any of the opposition here get REAL?
The most important reality is that, there is no perfection or moral standard that heterosexuality gives ANYONE.
That's as stupid as white people assuming their color gives them superiority too.

oops, typo
I meant to say the opposition here has no argument that CAN'T come out either hypocritical, etc.
It's also too obvious that banning gay couples from marrying isn't doing much to save ANYTHING. Not children from being born into neglect, abuse and broken situations.
Not couples from divorcing or abusing and neglecting each other. Not from dispassion or betraying each other.
No amendment will change that. No legislation can or is created to prevent any of that.
So the point of the bans is pretty much to just complicate the lives of gay people...and then point a finger at why gay folk's lives are complicated.

Actually, ignorance isn't the only thing at work.
But outright insanity, irrational reason behind the motivation.
And such bans won't keep gay couples from forming, gay parents from raising their children or supporting their communities. It'll just make the pack of the opposition look spiteful and mean, and in the meantime, that which would ENHANCE and support the best that gay people can do for each other and society at large will just be harder to do.
Pointless to make bans then. Pointless and stupid and without merit whatsoever.

pretend marriage

If you get the license, the rings, the flower gir/boy, the reception, the news release and all the worlds' congratulations,

What have you got?

Pretend Marriage.

Good for you, du. And for the sensitive guys who otherwise were just queiers. Now they can be "pretend married;" it took time & effort, but NOW; they'll pretend.

you so much
dread, you know so much about what isn't so....and you're diminished for it.

"It's curious how, when you're in love, you yearn to go about doing acts of kindness to everybody."-P.G. Wodehouse.
My gay friends...some, of many decades are those I watched commit themselves to acts of dedication in uniform, as nurses and teachers, clergy and parents to children with no one to love them.
They are in love with each other, and therefore...have given much that is right to do.

They don't pretend to act this way, theirs is a real and tough dedication. A fiercer, more protective stand in the face of misunderstanding, bigotry, unfairness and threat.

To you, dread, you see no sincerity in their actions as couples and parents. But that is your own false heart looking back at you.

You are getting what you give and just choose to not recognize it.
It's a fairer world that allows gay people to love and therefore release other possible gifts where there would otherwise be a void.

Those children that are loved by their gay parents know no pretense. Gay men and women were not raised as pretend children, nor as having no idea, no understanding, no ability to know what love is.

No pretend love would seek to commit without the legal entanglement, no pretend love would adopt children, no pretend love does so year after year with no social reward for it.
That is the strongest and purest of love, the kind that wants nothing more than to be strengthened and witnessed as fully as possible.

And a married person, themselves truly in love, would want that for every other couple who can manage it.
Perhaps it's YOUR marriage that pretends, because according to Wodehouse, you DON'T feel that kindness yourself.

dear du; please believe me


I do not have a "false heart." Many times in TH I've expressed deep sympaathy for wayward homosexuals, and love for those who remain chaste. And I pray for them all. It's unfortunate you don't see the forest for the *tiny* trees. HERE you describe those tiny trees:

". . . real and tough dedication. A fiercer, more protective stand in the face of misunderstanding, bigotry, unfairness and threat.

To you, dread, you see no sincerity in their actions as couples and parents. But that is your own false heart looking back at you.


I never presume gays aren't capable of love, nobility, caring for others. Not at all. I also concede the fact that many are very gifted. (I read and admired the life of Wittgenstein, the 20th century philosopher; somebody truly exceptional.)

But again, let me say-- Marriage is solely for a man and a woman. I've already explained why. The reasons are incontrovertible. I know in a fair world their best hope is civil unions.

The activities in private, of these poor souls are absolutely repulive and unexcusable; having NOTHING that relates to a marital act about them. THIS is the great flaw in their pursuits of love and happiness.

Just as a hawk is not a hawk if it's a hacksaw. (Shakespeare's Hamlet.)




cannot believe what is'nt sincere
You want me to believe that the 'right kind' of gay people, the ones that don't challenge your idea of them, the ones that don't want to have sex, or form adult romantic bonds...who don't have enough social and political numbers to balance power-what you seem to expect is that gay people live LIKE CHILDREN.
You words 'wayward homosexual' is as condescending a statement that vanishes any concerns you have. The only ones you have are none of your business, and the other part of it, do absolutely nothing about the quality of marriage or marriages. That's what so stupid about what the opposition says or does.
Nothing is helped or saved whatsoever.

reply to du
You want me to believe that the 'right kind' of gay people, the ones that don't challenge your idea of them, the ones that don't want to have sex, or form adult romantic bonds... REPLY:

Yes. You have it; and just because you won't take that seriously doesn't mean it's bad for you. Your attitudes are insane, unhealthy and selfish.

Whereas, I never took away anything you already had. You wish to assimilate what others have in the natural order. No; you demand it.

you seem to expect . . . gay people live LIKE CHILDREN.

Yes, children, du; if that means BLAMELESS. Why would you want to live like swine? When gays lose control of their passions they're practically swine.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.