Subscribe Now Mobile Site Place an Ad E-Edition Email Updates Obituaries Classifieds Find a Job Find a Car Real Estate Contact Us
Currently
52°
Cloudy

Advertisement

FREE ARCHIVE SEARCH



News

CLASSIFIEDS


Advertisement


Free Ad

Place an ad
in print and online, 24/7 for free, select the Clean Sweep option. Unable to submit Real Estate, Services, and Business Investements at this time.

Get a Subscription

Map the Valley

Subscriber/
Reader Services

Subscribe Now
Contact Customer Service

State high court overturns gay marriage ban

By Lisa Leff
Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry. The justices released the 4-3 decision today, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

The cases were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.

"Here we are in California, the largest state in the nation, the first state that 60 years ago overturned the ban on interracial marriage. What happens in California, either way, will have a huge impact around the nation. It will set the tone," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights advocacy group Equality California prior to the court's decision.

Supporters and opponents of gay marriage had predicted a number of possible outcomes from the California court's seven justices, six of whom were appointed by Republican governors.

Like the top court in Massachusetts, they decided that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying constitutes unlawful discrimination and order state lawmakers to remedy the situation.

Other opinions were that the court could also bypass the Legislature and simply strike the one man-one woman definition from the marriage statutes, according to Kors. In that instance, the soonest couples could start walking down the aisle would be in 30 days, the time it typically takes for Supreme Court opinions to become final, he said.

A majority of the justices could also fall on the other end of the legal spectrum, going the way of the top courts in four other states that have upheld gay marriage bans.

Such a decision would leave any subsequent changes in the hands of voters or the Legislature, which has twice passed laws to make gay marriage legal. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed them both times, citing the ban approved by voters in 2000.

(May 15, 2008)

POST A COMMENT

 

Hanfordsentinel.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed, particularly if they are posted after normal office hours.

We reserve the right to remove comments in total that violate our code of conduct. If you want to report a violation, please e-mail editor@HanfordSentinel.com

For more information please read our Terms of use, and Rules of the Road.

 


Please log in to post comments
*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
If you don't have an account you can create one for free by clicking the link below.
CREATE ACCOUNT
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Hanford Sentinel

Chuck wrote on May 15, 2008 11:15 AM:

" A slap in the face to the voters of this state. "

Not so mad in Nevada wrote on May 15, 2008 11:46 AM:

" That's exactly what I was thinking Chuck.... "

Former Hanford resident wrote on May 15, 2008 12:38 PM:

" I can't believe that California has finally made the right decision for the cause of human rights, which includes the gay population. I was so sick and tired of seeing gay people labeled like they weren't even human or desired any kind of god given rights. Hallelujah!!!!! "

Disappointed wrote on May 15, 2008 1:33 PM:

" To Former Hanford Resident:
Those are God given rights you were referring to. Not god given. He gave them to us.
So, since you mentioned them, let's be honest. He clearly states what is right between a man and woman in regards to marriage. What our responsiblities are and when we should/shouldn't marry. God gave us those directions and rights, as you have pointed out. I have never been shown a place (Scripture in context) which supports gay marriage.
If you do and can show me where it says gay marriage is a God given right... please enlighten me!! Until then, let's just agree as adults that this is a political issue.
Please do not mistake my words. I have no issue with people living the gay lifestyle. It's not something I am a part of, but I love people as individuals regardless of who they choose to love. I do believe they should be entitled to healthcare benefits from their lifepartner (as straight people are) and that their commitment should be respected if that's their choice. That still doesn't make it a "God given right." "

N. Hanford resident wrote on May 15, 2008 1:34 PM:

" Is marraige really a "god given right" or a privelege? If it's a "god given right" as "former Hanford Resident " has said, then my "god" says homosexuality is an abomination. Now, if it's a privelege, then we are all entitled to the same "privelege" as human beings. "

Scott Tucker wrote on May 15, 2008 1:42 PM:

" Finally, equal rights for everyone, regardless of sexual preference. Hooray for this decision. (Sorry Not So Mad, can't side with you on this one.) "

corn-nuts wrote on May 15, 2008 2:04 PM:

" WOW! What great news... the state of california has seen that marraige should be about the love betwee two people...

Maybe I will stop feeling like a second class citizen today. "

zenmom wrote on May 15, 2008 2:06 PM:

" I'm proud to be a Californian today ... at least until the backlash starts. "

Girl Friday wrote on May 15, 2008 2:55 PM:

" A very good vote and note most were Republicans who voted for the the right of the human being!!!!!!! Good job California!!!!!!!!! It was hard for me to belive that a couple of decades ago we were the ones to vote for interracial marrigage now gay good for the people of California "

N. Hanford resident wrote on May 15, 2008 4:16 PM:

" To "corn-nuts", I know a guy who loves his goat (yes, like that), should they be allowed to marry? Oh wait, you said people, most child molesters say they love thier victims, should we allow them to marry? My point, marraige is more than about just "love", it's a commitment along with so many other things. Don't base everything in life on your feelings. "

Chuck wrote on May 15, 2008 4:17 PM:

" My whole problem with this overturn is that the people of this state get up vote on an issue like this and then the court decides that the voters are wrong, and the majority voters voted no. To me it does not matter where you stand this issue, we could have voted yes on gay marriage and it still would not be right for the court to overturn it. People wonder why folks don't vote like they used to. For me I feel that marriage should be for men and women. My problem with marriage these days is that people can't seem to make them work any more especially men and women. By the way, how does everyone feel about gays leading churches. "

Future Former Resident wrote on May 15, 2008 4:22 PM:

" Im glad to see that there are people out there that know this is a good thing. My husband and I are moving out of Hanford after living here all our lives. Hanford is a wonderful place, but lately too many judgmental people. Why is that?
And for those of you quoting the bible...you are not God, if you think this is a sin, then let it be judged by Him, not by us. Live your life the way you want to, but also let others do the same. "

Mr. Truth wrote on May 15, 2008 4:27 PM:

" WHY?
I can just see them lining up as fast as possible to get married! IT WON'T BE A WHITE WEDDING IN GODS EYES!
Today is a very sad day for this State.
I may marry my Toaster Oven. "

sick of stupidity wrote on May 15, 2008 4:41 PM:

" I think that the only reason "normally" sane people oppose gays and gay marriage is that they are unsure of their own sexuality and that they may be gay or have homosexual tendencies. I am strictly heterosexual and am very sure of that. More power to the state of California for allowing people to be free "

Charles wrote on May 15, 2008 4:53 PM:

" Could I marry a horse? Is that normal or natural? "

dose wrote on May 15, 2008 4:56 PM:

" Is there anyone out there who can explain to me exactly how gay marriage is going to ruin marriage between straight people. No one has ever explained this. "

H.R. wrote on May 15, 2008 5:07 PM:

" It all boils down to what is allowed in the state's constitution. As it stands, the judges decided that the constitution does not allow the legislation for the banning of gay marriages. So, what does this mean? It means the state constitution needs to be changed/amended. And, if I'm not mistaken there are some citizens who are taking steps in that direction. This is not over. "

The Phophet wrote on May 15, 2008 6:14 PM:

" I only hope that God does not judge California like he did Sodom and Gomorra in the Bible. According to the Bible the main reason he destroyed these cities was due to relationships between same sex people. I will be praying for California and I hope God has mercy on us. "

Sid wrote on May 15, 2008 6:28 PM:

" Scott, et al...

I don't think the problem is civil unions but the word MARRIAGE has long standing ties between a joining of a man and a woman within and OUTSIDE of religious aspects. A relative latecomer to striving for social acceptance: Gay "marriage" should use a differerent word than "marriage" to describe itself as it is different than traditional marriage. It would be a less contentious issue that way because using marriage is kinda "in your face you must accept something" , an approach not likely to engender any fans.

As noted, the REAL ISSUE is how 4 California Judges get to overrule the majority of voters, in the millions, in this state in their desires against this. Don't forget, the same thing has hung up Proposition 187 which the voters passed by a wide margin to deny illegal aliens state benefits too.

Elitist judges, regardless of party/ideology, should not overrule the expressed will of the people. PERIOD. Interpret the law, but don't create it! That is outside your job description judges... "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 15, 2008 6:43 PM:

" So what happens to the legal status of all those people who went through the ‘domestic partner' legal registration process? Are they now grandfathered in and are considered ‘married?'

Will there still be a domestic partnership law on the books in California?

And lastly, what about a legally married homosexual couple who wants to move into another state; will their marriage be recognized as normal?

This legal opinion doesn't change things, really; the facts of life are still the same.

Homosexual sex is not normal biological sex. Homosexual sex does not bring children into the world. Most religions do not endorse homosexual sex.

Homosexual marriage is not a normal, traditional marriage. Never will be.

You cannot legislate away our freedom to believe these truths. "

Traditional Marriage wrote on May 15, 2008 7:41 PM:

" I don't know why everyone is so upset over this ruling by the courts. Traditional marriage doesn't seem to be working and of the small numbers that do that's great but give me a break, what's it hurt? You anti people are just haters and disagree when nothing goes your way! I praise the courts for their ruling and maybe now gay people can feel like part of society and continue contributing to society like they always have been since the beginning of mankind! "

DaTruth wrote on May 15, 2008 7:49 PM:

" Why do we even vote? This type of thing is exactly what is wrong with our system... the voters should have the final say on everything... period! Just like Prop 87, the voters pass something and 3 liberal judges rule it unconstitutional. The 9th Circus of Appeals is a joke, and insults the CA voters time and time again... "

My Partner and I wrote on May 15, 2008 7:51 PM:

" As a Califorian and Hanford resident, my partner and I have been registered domestic partners for the past 16 years. It's amazing because in the 16 years we have been together there are some of out "straight friends" who have divorced once and some twice. For those whom are serious about it, it works, we are living proof. Both of us are gainfully employed, pay our bills, taxes and vote like everyone else. Never have we flaunted our relationship and we are respected by our friends and peers. It's those who have to mingle into the personal lives of people that make such an issue of it. You'll be surprised how many gay people and couples live, work and socialize around you. We are people too and some of us hold positions that are considered vital to society. Before you continue to bash the courts decision, please think about us as people that are just trying to live day to day just like you. "

Dont be too quick to judge wrote on May 15, 2008 8:12 PM:

" For those that reference marrying a goat, horse or a toaster oven... for those that say a child molester loves its "prey" and that they may want to marry... Do any of those instances have two consenting adults in them?

Adult - Goat
Adult - Toaster
Adult Molester - Innocent child

Not a single one is the same thing and your ignorance shows with your comments. I am a heterosexual that can't stand the "Christian" hypocrites that call themselves Christians. They are not loving and accepting "as scripture says".

Live your life and don't be too quick to judge others... that's not your place. Live with the example of love and acceptance and be a true Christian...

Glad to see there are open-minded people making some decisions in this state. "

To Dont Be to Quick... wrote on May 15, 2008 9:07 PM:

" AMEN! "

Mrs.D wrote on May 15, 2008 9:22 PM:

" Groucho Marx was one of the comedians who said,"Marriage is an institution. And everyone should be institutionalize at least once in their life." Congratulations to all the gay and lesbian couples in our great state, California! I hope each and every one of you enjoy marriage the same way we heterosexuals do. God loves you and blesses you everyday!!!

Now, go forth and see who will do the dishes after dinner everynight! "

dose wrote on May 15, 2008 9:59 PM:

" To Da Truth:

I just thought I would let you know that this decision was rendered by the CA Supreme Court not the 9th circuit of appeals, also a majority of the justices on the Ca Supreme Court are Republicans. "

dose wrote on May 15, 2008 10:05 PM:

" I would like to remind the Christian people on here that not all of us on Earth believe in your god nor do we feel it necessary to follow your laws. Before you get all offended and cranky you should know I am not putting Christianity down, I am merely saying that I need a bible to tell me right from wrong. And really if you people are so against gay marraige then don't marry a gay person and you should probably be ok. I really don "

dose wrote on May 15, 2008 10:06 PM:

" That last post should have ended with " Why is it any of your business who other people marry anyway?" "

R wrote on May 15, 2008 10:19 PM:

" Since it is now legal for two men to "marry " each other, and that the term marriage has been totally perverted, I guess pretty soon everything else will be fair game....marrying more than one person, marrying minors, etc....now that this Pandora's Box has been opened, where will it end??? "

to Disappointed and Chuck wrote on May 15, 2008 10:32 PM:

" Your god and also says polygamy is a good thing and incest between a child and father is okay as long as they get him drunk on wine first and they want a kid really really badly. For that matter, if that don't work just grab the prettiest handmaiden your wife has befriended and make her watch.

Chuck....a good majority of people wanted to keep slavery and women without a vote also. Ever hear of mob law? Majority doesn't always mean that it is always the best desicion. "

Watchdog wrote on May 15, 2008 11:07 PM:

" Welcome to Hotel California where it is We the Judges instead of We the People. What's next same sex stripper joints. Why vote if it isn't going to hold, why pay taxes to pay judges to do the opposite of the popular vote. I don't care about the gay issue, I care that our right to voice our oppinions just went dow the dran and of course people like Scott Turcker think that is wonderful. Go have a piece of swiss cheese and shut the duck up.
Alejandro once again you have this issue right along with many other wise americans. "

Watchdog wrote on May 15, 2008 11:08 PM:

" Welcome to Hotel California where it is We the Judges instead of We the People. What's next same sex stripper joints. Why vote if it isn't going to hold, why pay taxes to pay judges to do the opposite of the popular vote. I don't care about the gay issue, I care that our right to voice our oppinions just went down the drain and of course people like Scott Turcker think that is wonderful. Go have a piece of swiss cheese and shut the duck up.
Alejandro once again you have this issue right along with many other wise americans. "

Hmmmmmm wrote on May 16, 2008 1:41 AM:

" Why bother voting and have your voices heard only to have a few judges turn around and say your vote was a complete waste of time and tax payer money. Voting is such a joke anymore it stands for nothing but a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. If got wanted same sex marriages he would have started with Adam and Adam or Eve and Eve. This is just another slap in the face to the fine voters of this state. "

Dauger wrote on May 16, 2008 4:32 AM:

" For those complaining about how "4 judges overruled the will of the people" - be thankful we have a society where there are judges who can and will protect the rights of the minority from being trampled by the majority. I am reminded of a society that did not have a court system to protect the rights of the minority - and how 6 million Jews paid for that with their lives. "

Scott Tucker wrote on May 16, 2008 5:24 AM:

" Real nice, WaRtchdRog, real nice. Why is it that when we say something the conservatives don't want to hear, they chalk it up to our anger and not to their own fear?

I, and all of the others who have voiced their support of gay marriage on this forum, will not "shut the duck up." Yet another feable attempt to muzzle the voices of those who do not believe as they do.
Watchdog doesn't like the idea of gay marriage, but, as revealed by his comments, it doesn't look like the dog supports the concept of free speech either.

As for having a piece of Swiss cheese, I think I will. It is good stuff. I really like the aged Gruyere. Lucky for me, my mother-in-law brings us about a pound's worth from the her local dairy every time she stops by. Tilsiter or Appenzeller isn't bad either. If you like soft cheeses, the Tomme de Rougemont is also really good with honey on fresh bread. You should try it. Maybe it will help you get over your fear of the unknown. "

Not Surprised wrote on May 16, 2008 6:55 AM:

" It goes along with every other stupid decision the california supreme court makes. All it will do is open the flood gate for everyone testing the boundries. The only reason it was pushed by the gay community was because it would somehow justify a devient behavior. "

Billy Buck wrote on May 16, 2008 7:07 AM:

" If "the people" voted to execute every one with a mole on their left arm would it be OK for the Republican dominated (6 out of 7) Calif Supreme Court to over turn that law?
This is a nation "of laws, not men". If something is illegal it can't stand "

Billy Buck wrote on May 16, 2008 7:12 AM:

" Chuck asked:
"By the way, how does everyone feel about gays leading churches. "
I feel great, thanks for asking. The demnomination I belong to has been ordaining gays & lesbians since at least the early 1980's. The United Church of Christ has millions of members. www.ucc.org
"

oh Please... wrote on May 16, 2008 7:15 AM:

" To all those who think gays and lesbions should not have the right to marry, Get Over It...

Marriage is nothing more than a Man-made Sham anyway... "

Billy Buck wrote on May 16, 2008 7:22 AM:

" ALEJANDRO asked:

" So what happens to the legal status of all those people who went through the ‘domestic partner' legal registration process? Are they now grandfathered in and are considered ‘married?'

No, the court did not deal with this issue. A marriage needs to be "solemized" by clergy or a county clerk. That did not happen with the domestic partenship paperwork

Will there still be a domestic partnership law on the books in California?

Yes- straight people also take advantage of that law. The court case did not chnage that law.

And lastly, what about a legally married homosexual couple who wants to move into another state; will their marriage be recognized as normal?

That will depend on what the law is in that state, so probably not. I'm sure there will be a state bt state court fight on recognition of calif marriages "

Mrs.D wrote on May 16, 2008 8:56 AM:

" I'm glad this ban was overturned. I know most of you must be parents here and I'll tell you why:

In the past 15 years, teen agers have become more brave about their sexuality. They aren't flaunting their lifestyle, but they are letting people that they do exist and have civil liberties just like everyone else. Most of you on this board feel the need to flaunt your opinion and lives, let the next generation do the same since past generations couldn't.

Get used to it; this is life. And life in Kings County. "

Dumb People wrote on May 16, 2008 9:01 AM:

" I like how everyone will immediately compare gay marriage to child molestation or zoophilias (sexual preference to animals). That is not what is being said, it is about equality. It is not like heterosexual people have abided by the church and kept marriage sacred. Look at all the divorce. Marriage is also not about procreation, as look at how many people have babies out of wedlock. In fact, the people who shouldn't have kids are the ones that have the most. It is easy to cite the bible, but wouldn't have God created them as well?
I find it interesting homosexuality is looked at so poorly and people are so against homosexual couples raising children, even though many are well educated and successful. Yet, people do not say anything about the drug addicts and criminals that continue to have children and teach them to continue to victimize society and not contribute in anyway. "

So... wrote on May 16, 2008 9:30 AM:

" If the voters decided that it was all right to walk up to strangers and hit them over the head with a shovel, and the courts overturned it, would the courts be wrong?

It's a fine law when you're the one with the shovel... "

Alan G. wrote on May 16, 2008 10:41 AM:

" I agree with "Dumb people" that the comparison to pedophilia and bestiality is flawed and often employed by the less-intelligent set. I suggest a course in persuasion 101 before they come back to the table with such lame arguments. I'll bet that just like the straight population, gay couples will divorce just as often, except now one of them will be on the hook for alimony, which is reason in itself not to get married in the first place. But that's a topic for a different thread.

"

Disappointed wrote on May 16, 2008 10:52 AM:

" To Future Former Resident:
I am one of those who did mention Scripture and my God in response to someone else's comment.
I did so in a manner which was not judgemental but honest based on what the Bible says. I will not sugar-coat anything but also will not bend on the truth either.
I was a 'former resident' of Hanford, and still am. Although, chose to move back to this valley after living several years in the Bay Area. I am well aware of how 'close-minded' SOME in Hanford are. However, there are many, many transplants which help to round out the community and give new insight.
I firmly believe that people should be entitled to same benefits, regardless of who they choose to have as life partners.
However, my issue is more with the word 'marriage' which traditionally (Biblically) is a union between man and woman, ina promise before God.
Why not acknowledge the committment with a different name and get the equality deserved as being humans, without changing a word that is so clearly defined in Scripture?? "

Mr. Truth wrote on May 16, 2008 11:15 AM:

" Man + Woman = Heaven
Man + Man = Hell
Man + Toaster Oven = Hot Sandwiches and such
(Also heaven) "

to Disappointed wrote on May 16, 2008 11:59 AM:

" There was a thousands of years of marriage thousands of years before your bible, so how can you think that? You meant to say, your TRADITIONAL marriage came about after your bible was created and not marriage is defined only by what your recent bible (recent as in only 2000 years old as opposed to the 10,000 plus years of marriage documented in ancient cultures before it even came along). By your own bible you have 4000 years of history before christ and the bible was even thought about.
Marriage was not invented by the christian bible and to try to uphold it to the christian bible is a deadly and unfair mixture of church and state. "

The anti right winger wrote on May 16, 2008 12:00 PM:

" In 1948, the California State Supreme Court struck down its interracial marriage ban. At that time, the number of people who opposed marriage for interracial couples was quite high. If you compare polling from that time with current data, you'll see that a far higher percentage of people opposed interracial marriage in 1948 than currently opposed civil marriage for same-sex couples.

The parallels between laws against interracial marriage and laws against marriage for same-sex couples are great. Public opinion was against a citizens right to marry the person of our choice if our spouse's race was different than their own, and many states changed their constitution to protest the 1948 California ruling.

Thankfully, all attempts to amend the various state and U.S. Constitution banning interracial marriage failed.

Stare Decisis is the legal principal of following the rulings found in similar previously settled legal disputes. In this case, I believe that any attempt to change our constitution to ban same sex marriage would be futile due to the existing rulings on interracial marriage. This is not judicial activism folks, it is a literal reading of the equal protection clause of our constitution. "

THEREALDOG wrote on May 16, 2008 12:36 PM:

" Mrs D

I thought you would be in this topic and I was right on what side you are on....if you had any idea and you DONT God does not bless these people why dont you read a book call the Bible and clearly states its wrong typical LIBERAL why dont you move to San Francisco to be with them......I dont care if they are together because I'm not the one they have to answer to... just dont make it a law saying its ok because it's not.....I think it does make sence that you back this because you also back H. Clinton and has soon she gets beat she will divorce Billy the idiot and marry a women maybe you..... "

Mr. Truth wrote on May 16, 2008 1:40 PM:

" Can two men HAVE a baby?
No.
Can two men ADOPT a baby?
........I sure hope not. That kid would probably grow up and marry a Sea Turtle. "

RobertD wrote on May 16, 2008 2:00 PM:

" I must admit I am conflicted on this issue. I have some gay friends and of course everyone deserves equal civil rights. On the other hand I also believe in the sacredness of marriage as an insitution and bond between a MAN and a WOMAN. My question for those who so adamantly support gay marriage: Exactly what civil rights are being violated by a ban on it? I don't find marriage mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. That being the case then it must fully fall under the authority of the legislature and/or the people. In this case the people of California clearly said NO. Again, Which civil rights are being violated? "

Watchdog wrote on May 16, 2008 2:03 PM:

" Wanted Teacher with no sense of ehtics or moral standards. Must be willing to travel. Must not have a back bone, must support the Gay Nation. Must be willing to forget common sense and absolutely must be a Democrat with no party ties. Must be willing to teach history according to his book learning and not open to any other possibilities/scenarios having complete faith in the authors version. Which by the way for the most part is Fiction. Dogmatic Attitude in all responses to Blogs - Inquire Within Switzerland.
No personality required. Prefer American who didn't have a life prior to taking this position. I think this pretty well covers it school master. "

Seeker of Truth wrote on May 16, 2008 2:14 PM:

" Truth,

I found that toaster overs don't work really well...to me they don't equal heaven. Anyway, I seen we no longer live in a democracy, it should acutally be call an oligarchy (rule by an elite few...4 stupid democracy killing judges). Why, are liberal/socialists so afraid of democracy? "

Watchdog wrote on May 16, 2008 2:15 PM:

" Alejandro - you know the other 49 states are not going to support this San Francisco liberal decision. The Gay movement began and will end on the Streets of San Francisco. There is already cries to overturn this decision. I can see this going all the way to the Federal Supreme Court and being reversed by a unanimous decision. The California Supreme Court will not get away with a decision for a few when the majority has already voted against it. Gay Rights are no where in the Federal Constitution of these United States. I fear that all that is gonna accomplish is now they are going to force the law makers to put laws in place that do not recognize benefits that gay relationships now enjoy. Now you have to re-write the entire marriage ceremony and change years and years of tradition for the rights of homosexuals? Then for the rights of traditional heterosexual relationships it should be reversed and not allowed, put it to a national vote? Arnie just committed suicide to his hopes to further his political career. He will never hold a position of power again. "

Watchdog wrote on May 16, 2008 2:30 PM:

" Alejandro - now if they want to attain complete blasfemy do the whole white dress ceremony and destroy years and years of heterosexual history and tradition. There is absolutely nothing sacred within this world today.

Many comedians joke go ahead an legalize gay marriage why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us, maybe we should let them experience either total commitment or divorce and see how they like it? Homosexual men have proven to be the most unfaithful of the species so this could get interesting. It might give an entire new meaning to the Gay Parade. Perhaps it will be the Gay Parade to the court house for divorces.
They've lived in sin, gone against Gods whishes in their sexual desires, Yes they are prime for failure, let's do it. "

dose wrote on May 16, 2008 2:35 PM:

" To the real dog:

I don't know if you are aware of the fact that some people on this planet don't care what your god says about marraige or anything else for that matter. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 16, 2008 2:46 PM:

" You know, all of the lefties responded as I thought they would. This ruling is just the cat's pajamas! Nat Hentoff is probably writing a first rights op-ed piece glorifying this decision right now.

I would like to make a challenge, right here, right now. Since we have quite a range of occupations here, including teachers, public employees, multiculturals, nonresidents of the area and expatriates living abroad, bloggers of all legal ages (I think), please tell me and your fellow bloggers this:

If homosexuals are just ‘good people' who are oppressed by society, then please explain this:

A homosexual is defined by the way he/she practices their sexuality, right? Not emotional love, as we don't have a problem with that. The physical act/acts that complete the contract, so to speak.

Then will a knowledgable person please explain in plain words how homosexual sex is not disgusting and completely against the biology that evolutionists (and science) believe in, not to mention God's law?

Explain how - lets say ‘man-man' sex - is a natural and beautiful thing to behold.

If anyone can do this without being censored it would be a miracle. "

This ruling means what wrote on May 16, 2008 3:13 PM:

" First let me tell you I am a Christian and fully believe in the bible and God! Second my father is gay and I was raised by him and his partner. My confusion is this...when their is already domestic partnership which you can only register for if it is a same sex relationship what is "marriage" going to change? Second with the domestic partnership and rights one receives from that isn't the whole equal right marriage thing redundant?? In reality marriage is a religious ceremony is it not if the same rights can be obtained through domestic partner registration?? The whole marriage word is only going to mean unfortunately we will now have stats on gay divorces as well as straight marriages. Moving on just so everyone knows who has been so willing to quote the bible and also those who have chosen to dis-respect the bible I believe in Matthew it says the most important command is to love God the second would be to love everyone else and those are what all the other commandments are based on. It says everyone else not just those who follow God’s laws!!! "

This ruling means what..cont. wrote on May 16, 2008 3:13 PM:

" Are job as Christians are to let the light of Christ shine through us and lead by example to have people become Christians not sit in judgment and condemn all those who are not!!! In fact the bible clearly says none of us are without sin it also says we will be judged and shown mercy the same way we do others. Christians let’s not forget we are to love everyone and judge no one!!! Gay marriage supporters please do not judge all Christians as hypocrites as you do not like to be judged on stereotypes neither do we. Just know the Christians who you feel are not really Christians are struggling themselves as I said none of us are without sin!! Let’s all try to leave the judging up to the only one who can judge!! "

To Billy Buck wrote on May 16, 2008 3:37 PM:

" You are wrong! Straight people may not take advantage of a domestic partnership unless one of the parties is at least 62 years of age: This was taken directly from the California State Website!

Why can only same sex couples or opposite sex couples in which at least one partner is at least 62 years of age register as domestic partners?

The eligibility criteria for registration of a domestic partnership was set by the California State Legislature and signed by the Governor in 1999. During the legislative process, eligibility of opposite sex couples was limited to senior citizens. This agency has no authority to change the criteria set by the legislature.


"

Maybe wrote on May 16, 2008 3:37 PM:

" Maybe, just maybe, God created homosexuals as a way of birth control? This world is so over populated we're busting at the seams, not to mention starvation and all the other problems that comes with people not being responsible when it come to having children. Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of man, GET OVER IT and worry about your own lives! "

Mrs.D wrote on May 16, 2008 3:48 PM:

" THEREALDOG, I put up a post on the other story about the opponents of gay marriages who are just as wound up as you. I stated that being married, heterosexual or homosexual, is a civil liberty. It's a freedom of choice on who we marry and when. Isn't that why we are fighting in Iraq? For our freedom!?

Get used to it, realdog. God loves you and blesses you everyday. God loves and blesses everyone everyday. And if you can't deal with that, you know where to go and it's not San Francisco. "

Mr. Truth wrote on May 16, 2008 3:53 PM:

" TO ALEJANDRO
Please!"Cats Pajamas"? Be careful libby, dressing up kitty isn't natural either. You don't dress up your cat, DO YOU?
Please tell me you don't plan on marrying it...... "

lisa wrote on May 16, 2008 3:53 PM:

" For those opposed, continue focusing on this issue and ignore the ridiculous number of teen pregnancies and ongoing meth use, resulting in sexually transmitted diseases. I grew up in the valley and it is a joke to people how young the "straight" people are when they get pregnant and first use narcotics. By all means, STOP gay marriage....or at least drop gas prices so we can make it to our KKK rallies and hate marches!!! No wonder people talk about how backwards this area is. "

Watchdog wrote on May 16, 2008 4:04 PM:

" Alejandro I really like you Amigo, please don't hold your breath while you are waiting for that answer. I like you don't believe it will be coming in a blog near you.
Some people just do not understand that moral concept that there are boundaries that shouldn't be crossed.
That the Bible is about Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Ellen and Eve. It's a good thing that we no longer believe in stoning or burning witches. You wouldn't be able to hear the train whistles for the screams from fires and the thumping of the stones.
It pains me to know the fate of so many who through their stubborn behavior or lifestyle choices won't know anything but suffering in their futures. I pray for God to watch over their soon to be tortured souls.
I'm not a religous person, but I do believe in Heaven, God and salvation. "

Jackie K. wrote on May 16, 2008 4:49 PM:

" I invite you to share your comments on my blog, The Pulse. It's titled "Marriage with toasters, farm animals, oh my!" "

Gay in Hanford wrote on May 16, 2008 5:17 PM:

" Here's a question for those of you who are against same-sex marriage: Have you ever met someone who's gay? "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 16, 2008 6:47 PM:

" Yes, I am still holding my breath.

That homosexuals who now can marry legally proves to us non-gays exactly WHAT?

The concept of PHYSICAL homosexual sex is still ugly, vile, and against the laws of both evolution AND God. Nobody says that one person cannot love another; emotions and feelings are not the issue here.

Where is Scott, and where is SJT, dose, Alan. G. and Duane? And, of course, the opinionated Mrs. D. in answering this simple question of mine?

Again, can anyone explain how homosexual sex is ‘right', and good, and proper? Name one thing that gays do physically that is accepted by society, something that you would teach to your kids to do, or something that would be taught by a public school.

You can't can you?

Thought so. "

Mrs.D wrote on May 16, 2008 7:30 PM:

" RE: Gay In Hanford, I have and my eyeballs have yet to be burned from their sockets. I went to Lemoore High School with 2 lesbians, 2 gays, and one transgendered boy who wasn't a real transgendered person, but a big fan of Duran Duran.

They obviously here, they are very not so straight, so get used to it. "

Mr. Truth wrote on May 16, 2008 9:41 PM:

" TO Gay IN HANFORD...
Try being gay in some other place than Hanford.
I bet u will luv it!!!
Try San Franscico...I hear that place rules!!
Good luck and goodbye. "

To Alejandro wrote on May 16, 2008 9:51 PM:

" You sound more like someone that's letting the cat out of the bag with your questions rather than asking a legitimate question...

Gay marriage has nothing to do with what goes on in the bedroom.

Marriage has nothing to do with what goes on in the bedroom.

How many years ago was it that smut was considered illegal?

You sound like the perfect candidate for that hypocrite that has all of his gay pornographic material stashed away in the closet and are out here asking the rest of the world if we're on the same perverted page as you.

What goes on in my heterosexual bedroom or my neighbors homosexual bedroom is quite frankly none of your business... Get past your twisted agenda and address the issue at hand and not your own delusional interpretation or fantasy of what being gay is... "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 16, 2008 9:59 PM:

" Since Billy Buck seems so knowledgeable, and I thank him for answering some of my questions, could he answer these also?

Since homosexual marriage is now the law in California, what will happen to the legal status of the words: ‘husband' and ‘wife?' I am very confused as I do not want to be in conflict with these new rights the our great court has conferred.

Two lesbians, when legally married: are they considered to be two ‘wives?' What if one is a declared ‘butch' and not only acts like a man but wants - and demands - to be called a ‘husband?' How does this get addressed by the law so that the butch woman (surrogate man) who wants to play the role of the male in a marriage does not get discriminated against? The same goes for two homosexual men: do you call them ‘husband' and ‘husband?' Or ‘husband' and ‘wife' if one of the boys wants to be legally considered to be the receptive female partner?

I am so very confused! "

The Bible says... wrote on May 16, 2008 11:14 PM:

" 1 Corinthians 6:9

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.
"

Dandre wrote on May 17, 2008 1:09 AM:

" Look at the PERVERSIONS these holier than thou's come up with! WOW!
This is about the Constitution and for those who need their marriage protected, your marriage is in trouble and its got nothing to do with anybody else!
Those of you married more than once, what's up with that, I thought it was sacred?
And for those who reference the bible. Not being a virgin at the time to marry is punishable by death!
I think I'll start a petition!
Want to protect marriage?
Make adultery a capitol offense!
WHOOPS! There goes half of the Republican party! "

Dandre wrote on May 17, 2008 1:45 AM:

" THE CONSTITUTION DOES MENTION GAYS!
THEY are included in the phrase WE THE PEOPLE!
The demons are demonizing again!
Yeah, salvation comes to the judgemental!
Your religious arrogance and ignorance is amazing.
All the questions you ask about others, I ask about you? You do a pretty good job of sounding pretty 'vile' and 'ugly'!
Thats why YOU are not a Judge! AND have absolutely no idea what the Constitution is about...The party of hate cries out?.....TOO BAD! "

Scott Tucker wrote on May 17, 2008 5:29 AM:

" Alejandro, Here is an answer for you. I don't think sex between consenting adults, be they man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, or any other variation thereof, is disgusting. Because, quite frankly, it is none of my business. Is homosexual sex "right"? That is not for me or you or anyone else to answer, unless of course you are referring to your own personal preference. The question of right and wrong can only be answered by the two adults who wish to practice it.

One thing that gays do PHYSICALLY that is accepted by society and that I would teach my kids and students to do? How about teeth brushing, exercising, taking baths regularly, any form of manual labor, dancing, the list goes on and on. You see, homosexuals are human beings. I gladly endorse gay marriage, because it poses no threat whatsoever to our society. And as far as religion is concerned, all religious beliefs are equally valid, which is the same as saying that no one belief system is more valid than another, which means that the Bible, or any other book, has any say about how two adults wish to love each other.

"

Scott Tucker wrote on May 17, 2008 5:44 AM:

" The Wanted Teacher ad is classic! Made me laugh. Not becasue it was funny, but rather because it was a pathetic and pitiful attempt at humor. Annoying dogs should stick to what they know best: greeting other dogs in their peculiar manner and gettiing used to a life of obedience on a short leash.

(Yes, it is sad and tragic that the dialogue has been reduced to this. Thanks again, Watchdog, for taking us all down the high-road of predjudice and bigotry!)

"

Dandre wrote on May 17, 2008 10:04 AM:

" Quote;
When they came for the homosexuals, I said nothing because I wasn't a homosexual.
When they came for the Catholics I said nothing because I wasn't a Catholic.
When they came for the Socialists I said nothing because I wasn't a Socialist.
When they came for the god-aholic homophobes
I said......ITS ABOUT TIME!
My God is evidently smarter than your god because MY God is about love!
To invoke the Constitution or the Bible to justify YOUR 'phobias' and 'bigotries' is a reflection of YOUR 'soul' and NO ONE ELSES!
TWO rooms-
a thousand Democrats in one room and a thousand republicans in the other.
You have the SAME amount of what makes up HUMANITY in BOTH rooms.
THE DIFFERENCE- in the Demcratic room, we RECOGNIZE, RESPECT and even CELEBRATE those differences.
In the repub room, those differences are DEMONIZED and mocked. That's why in this room if your name was something non-American, like, lets say, alejandro, the hate awaits and byTHEIR OWN definition, the repugnat room is FULL OF DEMONS!
Americans DENYING rights to other AMERICANS aren't Americans at all, they are the enemies to our Constitution, God and Mother Nature.
"

LifeLongCitizen wrote on May 17, 2008 10:39 AM:

" I feel that it is interesting you feel this way Mr. Tucker being from Missouri. I have to say in response to the article; what ever floats your boat? Everyone marches to the beat of a different drummer. "

Watchdog wrote on May 17, 2008 1:34 PM:

" O.K. the California Supreme Court just announced it is taking all guns from the public, because Charolton Heston died. They have also decided that heterosexual marriages will be replaced by homosexual marriages so all you heterosexuals are no longer legally married. Homosexuals in a landmark decision will pay twice the amounts of alimony and child support and healthcare on their spouses when divorced. This decision was made because they declare they love their partners twice as much as heterosexuals do. Oh and the 4th ammendment about illegal searches and seizures it has been stricken from the books by the brilliant California Supreme Court. All law suits brought by government officials will be presented and paid by those officials who are guilty of malfesance. All welfare from heterosexual participants is revoked for fear another baby may be born. Only homosexuals will now receive welfare. Anything else you want changed as long as we are ignoring people and doing our will? How redundant and ridiculous have our law makers and judicators become? Oh and KISS has to quit wearing makeup during performances. "

Watchdog wrote on May 17, 2008 2:12 PM:

" To Scott Tucker - You are welcome hope you enjoyed the trip. But when it comes to prejudice and bigotry try looking in the mirror and thinking United State of America and Scott Tucker. "

Scott Tucker wrote on May 17, 2008 2:46 PM:

" Hey LLC, it's been a while. Yes, I was born in the Show-Me-State, raised in the Golden State, and am now living in a Canton that took its name from a bear. I am flattered that you remember so much about me.

You're right, everyone marches to the beat of a different drummer. That is what makes life so interesting. Hope you are well, my mysterious, former neighbor. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 17, 2008 2:47 PM:

" I asked this valid question:

"Then will a knowledgable person please explain in plain words how homosexual sex is not disgusting and completely against the biology that evolutionists (and science) believe in, not to mention God's law?"

Scott stepped up to the plate and completely dodged the question with a non-answer: that it's none of his business. So he basically endorses gay sexual activity by strategically avoiding a non-politically correct answer.

What if you actually allowed yourself to have an opinion, Scott? And what if you had the guts to state it here?

As an educated man and a teacher of children, I really want to hear your scientific and rational-emotional justification of this departure from normal human biology and scientific evolution.

I have no quarrel with someone emotionally loving someone else, but look up the definition of ‘homosexual' and you get a physical component of the behavior every time. How is this optional physical act 'good', healthy, normal, and scientifically sound for the human race?

Then show me why I have to accept it in my heart, my mind, and with my tax dollars.
"

vegasguy wrote on May 17, 2008 3:25 PM:

" As a former Hanford resident, I am taken a back by all the judgemental bible thumpers who reside there! Sadly Hanford remains a bastionof ugly homopobia and racism! "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 17, 2008 3:39 PM:

" I have another practical question, not at all political.

I guess we will have to legally change the way millions of birth certificates are worded.

Father's Name_______

Mother's Name_______

If someone - male - anonymously donates sperm to induce pregnancy in a lesbian woman-woman union, whoops, marriage, who then would the ‘father' be? Can a woman be a ‘father?'

So if the birth certificate is changed to read:

Partner's Name_______

Partner's Name_______

Don't we already have a domestic partner law? What does this change anyway?

I think about these things... "

ppg wrote on May 17, 2008 4:32 PM:

" Does anyone remember that AIDS came into being through the homosexual community? It is not politically correct anymore to discuss where AIDS originated. Our children have been brainwashed into believing that the homosexual lifestyle is just another choice or that people are born that way.

This judicial decision is the frosting on top of the political cake that the homosexuals have been pushing in our faces for the last 20 to 30 years.

Congratulations to the weak judges and supporters of this decision. You have added to the downhill slide of our society.
"

Gay in Hanford wrote on May 17, 2008 4:39 PM:

" Mr. Truth, why should I leave? I like living here. I have a good job, I own a house, and I very rarely shop out of town.Would it make you happier if I were a drug addict or alcoholic? Could you stand it better? I find your ignorance insulting and backwards. "

Seriously getting worse...to function a normal males or females. wrote on May 17, 2008 5:29 PM:

" Moral civilizations have tried to fight the sickness of the unnatural behaviors. Homosexuality, bi-sexuality and transgender acts were used through concentrated efforts in temples. The actuality is they provided purposeful blatant demagoguery propaganda.

The use of these acts were primarily used against poor women, slaves and young boys and girls who were orphaned. Society at that time boosted it provided the poor masses a means to survive. It was a harsh existence in a hostile and hard ancient world, life expectancies were dismal.

These practices were condoned as acceptable idolatrous customs and the innocent were prostituted out to the wealthy males of communities those ancient times.

Many of the pagan cult's and religions are abominations practiced today, they are NOT sacred acts...the reality is they are ludicrous in circumstance to vial low grade forms of fornication for entertainment. In modern times they are all represented with the ideas they are practices by people who are persecuted for their so-called natural impulses.

We should not be blind-sided; the overturning of this gay marriage ban is just opening the door to other unhealthy mind and body destroying acts.
"

Mag wrote on May 17, 2008 6:26 PM:

" Alan and Scott, once again you are my heroes. Alejandro and Watchdog, again and again I wonder where your head is. Of course I have to leave the bible out of this discussion because it doesn't mean anything to me. What do you care what 2 people do to each other? I think a lot of things men and women do to each other is disgusting and vile. How is that not as bad as what same sex people do to each other? If you don't like it, don't watch it or partake of it. That should be simple enough. Technically, (as my college zoology text said) sex is only for reproduction. I know a lot of people would disagree with that one. People do things that "feel good" whether physically or mentally. Why can't you just let everyone do what they want in private as long as they don't bother you? One day I hope you realize people are people. They eat, breathe, sleep, excrete, and everything else, just like you. The rest you don't have to worry about. "

Watchdog wrote on May 17, 2008 9:04 PM:

" Some of us can't hear the drum for the train whistle and others drink enough foreign ale they just don't care any longer. Then there are those of us who do care and make intelligent, articulate comments to have them diagramed by Teachers in foreign countries who just wish they still resided in this community. Then their are some comentators who throw out an invitation and then don't like what you have to say and have to twist your comments. Then there are some Justices who think they can override the will of the people, they may change the law but the will remains and as long as it does there is a chance for the right decision to be reinstated. The popular vote will overcome this decision by these misguided four men who don't understand their limited power. "

Another gay hanford resident wrote on May 17, 2008 11:38 PM:

" To: Alejandro---What if I said that hetro sex was disgusting......Don't worry about what happens in my bedroom, worry about your own. Also, by allowing gay marriage how does that raise your taxes?
To: ppg----Aids originated in Africa, by straight people.
All the comments about the "pitfalls" of gay marriage, could easily be said about straight marriage. In my opinion, straight people are destroying the meaning of marriage all by themselves.
Where would the ecomony be without the gay population, it has been proven that the gay community has more liquid assets then straight people.
The residents of Hanford, would be surprized at the number of gay people in this community, your teachers, business owners, lawyers, doctors, city and county employees. "

Keep is real... wrote on May 18, 2008 9:38 AM:

" The only legitimate arguement that I've heard from the anti-gay movement is about the voters of this state being overturned by a select few in court. That is the one and only logical arguement made throughout all of these comments.

Alejandro and clan twist the topic out of context to their own fantasy of what being gay is. Such extreme homophobia constitutes in the closet behavior. To be so scared and vile toward another human being because you are so uncomfortable in your own skin makes your ignorance and arrogance scream bigotry from the comments you make.

Stick to the valid and logical argument I'm giving you foundation to start from. All the other views you share are your opinion... This is a free county and I suppose you are entitled to your wrong opinion.

Best of luck on building a logical arguement... "

dose wrote on May 18, 2008 1:40 PM:

" Ever since gay marraiges became legal in Massachussettes teen pregnancy rates have dropped, they are now the second lowest in the nation after Pennsylvania. Also Texas which only teaches abstinence sex education has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STD's.

So Alejandro I want to ask you why do you want the teenage children of California to be pregnant and infected with STD's, why do you hate America? "

MV wrote on May 18, 2008 1:45 PM:

" What puzzles me the most about gays is the following example might help the confused.
Picture Angelina Jolee and Senator Edward Kennedy side by side. A gay man would rather make out with the Senator than Angelina. Now that to me has to be as sick as it gets. If you think the Senator is sexier than Angelina you are also stupid sick. "

dose wrote on May 18, 2008 4:07 PM:

" To MV:

So are you saying that Edward Kennedy's wife is sick because she wants to kiss her husband? "

FemFem wrote on May 18, 2008 7:57 PM:

" I grew up in Hanford, seen a lot of good things and a lot of bad things. However; the most shockingly disguisting things I've come across are the increased "homophobes" in the town I've loved since I was a kid.
I am a lesbian and I'm proud to admit it. I am honored to be witnessing a change in times like these, especially with the "Supreme Court overturning the gay marriage ban." I want the same rights as everyone else. I am human and it doesn't make me a pervert to want to share my life with my partner the way we want. We are both grown adults, we pay our taxes and will someday raise our children with love and the utmost care, while educating them that "hate" is not a family value! "

Mrs.D wrote on May 18, 2008 8:44 PM:

" RE: MV, Angelina Jolie is a known bisexual. But I guess it's okay in your eyes! "

Is about time wrote on May 19, 2008 12:15 AM:

" I really don't see what the big deal is. Let gays and lesbians get married, then they can be miserable like the rest of us!!! "

Watchdog wrote on May 19, 2008 12:53 AM:

" FemFem - the situation develops into more than two consenting adults when you add the line we look forward to raising our children together. If you plan to have children somewhere along the line you either lay out a large sum of cash for invitro or participate in a bi-sexual experience or at the very least include a sperm donor, which would have to be male. So now you have added male sperm so that includes a male and children so that means one and one are now four. The very only other equation would be adoption and therein you add the pregnant donor, now there is five in the total. So it is now no longer two consenting adults involved in your relationship. Thank God you Gay men and women still want children or us heterosexuals would probably just be expelled off the earth at some time in the future history on this planet. What I am trying to say is the decision you two make together effect many more lives than you like to admit, dosen't it? So perhaps you better ask your unborn child how they feel first? "

Watchdog wrote on May 19, 2008 1:02 AM:

" FemFem - but I don't figure gay people who want to include children in their happy little homelife consider the effects other children will have on them. Anymore than interracial parents take it into consideration? So as long as it was decided in your little love nest bedamn the children, be damn the heterosexuals and be damn your government. Darnn I am starting to sound like Jeremiah Wright with all these bedamns. But you get my point, sometimes even in the heterosexual world there isn't enough family planning done in the planning of a family. So I beg to differ with you, your relationship no longer is two consenting adults, because you have already yourself changed it up to include children. You Gay women never have the need for a man until sperm comes into the scenario. Why don't you just go the whole way and have a test tube baby? But hey if you get a Gay guy and you get pregnant with twins then you all have struck gold, right. This entire scenario is beyond me, all in the name of two, no three, no four no five. "

Watchdog wrote on May 19, 2008 1:02 AM:

" FemFem - I think I'll go back to talking about politics it isn't as complicated. "

BM wrote on May 19, 2008 10:09 AM:

" Hey FemFem;
You have the same right to marry as anyone else. Someone of opposite sex! "

FemFem wrote on May 19, 2008 11:44 AM:

" Yes BM, I am going to take the opportunity to marry my partner. Marry "someone of the opposite sex?" I'd rather pass! I've seen lesbian women who marry straight men for the wrong reasons. (i.e., Fear of family rejection, fear of not being accepted due to being homosexual.)
Fortunately, my partner and I have a sperm donor, a gay man, also HIV-, well accomplished in his life and career. "

Loosing My Mind wrote on May 19, 2008 12:14 PM:

" Watchdog is blowing hard - again. You, sir, are the very voice of ignorance - no, its champion! You argue that children being raised by gay parents are in some way being exposed to something wrong and therefore will develop abnormally. I would argue just the opposite. If your assertion is true, explain why there are homosexuals at all. How many homosexuals were raised by heterosexual parents? I would argue most to all. Why, in your opinion are heterosexual parents making their children gay? The fact is: they aren't. People are born that way. Good parents (straight or gay) do not expose their children to sexual acts. They may act affectionately towards each other in the presence of their children. That is what loving parents do. Gay parents, I'm sure, do not bring their children into their bedrooms any more often that any other type of parent does (birth or adopted). It seems, after reading your post, that you have your own identity issues that you are struggling with. I for one am happy being heterosexual. No skin off my back for gays to marry. Perhaps you are bothered that more gay men will now be off the market. "

Former Hanford resident wrote on May 19, 2008 12:35 PM:

" To Disappointed's Note on 5/16:

That's it!!!! You have really gotten what this interpretation of gay rights is all about!! Everyone, please read this comment. It's the best description so far!! I love you and thank you tremendously for putting into words what I couldn't.
Brilliant!!!!! "

RobertD wrote on May 19, 2008 12:59 PM:

" "Dandre" has twice mentioned that gays and gay marriage is in the Constitution. While it is a given that gays are inculded in "We The People" I still do not see where marriage, whether gay or straight, is any part of the document. Thus, marriage is a legislated institution based on the will of the people. And again (unfortunately for the gay community) can be legislated as illegal as per the recent initiative. So instead activists courts step in to play legislator because there is no solid legal, particularly Constitutional, basis for their decision. The will of the people has been circumvened. "

Josh wrote on May 19, 2008 3:59 PM:

" To watchdog, IN your response to another writer you stated that if they want to have a baby with their lesbian partner that it will not be just them in the picture, that they will have to have a bisexual experience or if they adopt they will be bringing others into the picture. Isnt the same then true for hetrosexual couples who can't concieve? Whether they want to adopt or use a sprem donor. Then it is not just them they are involving others. If a hetro woman has to use a sperm donor to have a baby does that mean she is cheating on her husband? "

Dandre wrote on May 19, 2008 4:30 PM:

"
Robert- You distort what I said……Any Law that restricts another citizen’s civil-rights is UN- Constitutional, even if that law has a 100% majority!
That’s the whole point of 3 co-equal branches of gov’t, if one messes that up the 2 others have a way to clean it up, with the court being the final say, the phrase ‘activist court’ is a propaganda ‘talking point’, an activist judge means he is doing is job!
The Constitution is there to protect the rights of the ‘minority’. Your statements about the Constitution are not accurate.
Our Representative Republic is NOT a strict ‘majority rules!
The Constitution mentions gays as a separate group as much as it mentions anybody as a separate group, namely, never! But to grant ‘marriage contractual rights’ to ONE SELECT group while trying to exclude another group is Un-Constitutional!
"

Watchdog wrote on May 19, 2008 4:39 PM:

" To Josh - is a sperm donor not another man's sperm? Yes naturally it is conception with a man that isn't her husband. Unless her husband donated his own sperm. "

Watchdog wrote on May 19, 2008 8:18 PM:

" I welcome you to the new third world country the United States of California. It's been said for years that business especially those in other states find California unreasonable to deal with and now we as voting Californians are seeing it come home to roost in our chicken coups. The supporters of this issue now say it doesn't matter what the majority state wants it doesn't matter what the national voters decide we are stuck with this ruling, like it or not. Well then I say we should all check that little box on our W-2's that allow us the maximum deductions and spend our money (going to the state/federal that doesn't want to listen) ourselves. Everyone make a mass exodus tomorrow and tell your employers you want to max out your deductions on your tax forms so they can't blow your money on Gay rights issues. If enough of you do this we will shut this country down bigger than any other form of demonstration can. Go back in a week or two later when they come to their senses and change it back. You can change it anytime you want. "

Watchdog wrote on May 19, 2008 8:27 PM:

" Gay people want to run this state and the federal government let them be the only one's paying taxes and see how far they get running anything. Anyone can make an honest mistake on a W-2 and change it back at a later date, say when this issue gets reversed. Take away the money from your representatives to operate and guess what they can't operate anymore. Let the state lose what credit standing it has left borrowing money to make payrolls, then maybe they will respect the majority and listen to us. In the meantime bank the difference in your pay and pay it back on April 15, 2009. It's not a crime to defer a payment, people do it all the time. I haven't seen a single law that says you have to pay them in advance. Companies only pay taxes every quarter why can't tax payers do the same thing? I can't believe no one has ever thought of this before. Doesn't the government make mistakes on our paperwork all the time? They sure have mine over the last 57 years. You aren't evading your postponing. "

Mrs.D wrote on May 19, 2008 10:11 PM:

" Watchdog, the guy running this state is a foreigner with a niche for making bad film after bad film, who happens to be married to Skeletor. You guys elected him. "

RobertD wrote on May 20, 2008 8:27 AM:

" Dandre- I beg to differ. I distort nothing. You assume marriage is a civil right and it is not. It is a legislated combine that society ahs determined exists between a man and woman. If you actually read what the Foudning Fathers intended, it was NOT three "equal" branches of government but three branches governed by checks and balances. The Founders intended the legislative branch to be supreme as it is the voice of the people. I totally agree with you that the Constitution (ie. Bill of Rights) also prtects the rights of the minority but marriage is not a right listed nor can it be adequately inferred from any of the rights listed. The Constitution is merely a framework of a representative federal republic. It has little to do with minority rights....thats the Bill of Rights. "

Dandre wrote on May 20, 2008 9:34 AM:

" Robert- Co-equal branches in this Context.
discrimination is Un-Constitutional no matter how you frame it.
The Constitutionality of legislation falls under the power of the Judiciary, the most powerful of the three in this CONTEXT.
And Show me where I said the Constitution talks about gays and their marriage, it didn't happen. "

RobertD wrote on May 20, 2008 9:59 AM:

" Dandre-The Constitution does not mention marriage at all, thus it falls under the perview of the States and the People, which is expressed in the legislative process. The Consitution was designed to protect the 'basic' rights of minority groups, but even more importantly allow the will of the majority to be expressed in policy as long as those rights were not infringed upon. What you fail to prove is how anyone's rights are being violated by banning gay marriages, especially when civil unions for homosexuals are allowed, offering practically all of the legal and material edvantages of marriage. No one's basic rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights are being violated just some imaginary right you believe you have. There has to be limits or as others have pointed out one might argue their right for a polygamous marriage. "

Not Gay but Ok wrote on May 20, 2008 10:50 AM:

" It wasn't that long ago that some "good Christians" believed in black and white water fountains. Maybe you'de like all the gays to sit in the back of the bus and mind all you good white folk. This is no different. You are discriminating against others who don't think like you or look like you or act like you. Take all your preaching to your church of preference and leave others alone! "

The anti right winger wrote on May 20, 2008 10:59 AM:

" RobertD wrote: "The Constitution is merely a framework of a representative federal republic. It has little to do with minority rights....thats the Bill of Rights. " Robert the last time I checked the the "Bill of Rights" were the first ten amendments to Constitution, just how is it that they are not part of it? Judges settle differences in the reading of the law. Imagine the chaos that would exist if the law was no more than what the individual believes it to be, yet that seems to be exactly what you are suggesting. As I wrote in my earlier blog the points of law in this case were settled with the 1967 US Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1; 87). In this case the court wrote "The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." . Discrimination due to sexual orientation is just as prohibited by federal law as is racial discrimination. "

RobertD wrote on May 20, 2008 12:12 PM:

" I disagree. The Loving v. Virginia case dealt with the issue of marriage, which I would bet every judge at the time believed was a union between a man and woman, being denied to a couple based on race, during an era of horrendous abuses based on race. African-Americans had no other options like civil unions. To compare the Loving case with the current debate about gay marriage is like comparing apples and oranges. They are both fruit but have significant differences. What is being discussed here is a fundamental change in the definition of marriage religiously, culturally, socially, and leaglly. This is mroe than the obvious racial discrimination in the Loving case. Once again, exactly what civil right is being violated when homosexual couples have available to them civil unions? "

RobertD wrote on May 20, 2008 12:46 PM:

" From the California Constitution: "308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That being the case then what right does the State Supreme Court have in changing the constitution? Can the US Supreme Court all of a sudden decide that there is no need for seach warrants or that the President may serve an unlimited nuber of terms? This is a perfect example of judicial activism in the worst way. The California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 gives homosexual couples ALL the rights of a "married" couple. The only thing they do not get is the word: MARRIAGE. If the gay community so desires this word they need to amend the California Constitution like any other group would have to do and not circumvent and demean the legislative process. "

Alan G. wrote on May 20, 2008 12:55 PM:

" Robert D., the fact is that gay couples do NOT enjoy all of the same rights with civil unions. I think California tried to ensure the same rights, but fell way short. A lot of it has to do with child custody issues and other legalities. You can Google for more info if you are unconvinced.

Another issue that came up in the last year was the case of a straight couple who divorced. The man was on the hook for an obscene amount of alimony to his ex (another jacked up law) but the problem was, the ex decided she'd rather live as a gay woman and entered into a civil union with her new partner. His argument was that the civil union is supposed to be the same as a marriage, therefore he should be off the hook. The ex claimed in court that she was still entitled to collect and the court agreed. So you see, it's NOT the same. As a man, if you don't agree he got ganked, then you need to give up your membership to man-town. "

Alan G. wrote on May 20, 2008 1:19 PM:

" Here you go Robert D., in case you were still convinced that civil unions enjoy all of the same rights as a marriage. If that were the case, this poor schlub wouldn't be on the hook. I'm just sayin'...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/07/23/alimony.partnerships.ap/index.html "

Dandre wrote on May 20, 2008 1:36 PM:

" Robert you are TRYING to make this way too complicated where it doesn't need to be.
This is just like ‘seperate drinking fountains'.
The constitution etal. doesn't say anything about drinking fountains but it HAS definite cases of precedents when dealing with the word ‘separate’, whether THAT word applies to ‘drinking fountains’ or ‘marriage’ or ‘where you can sit on the bus’ that is the fundamental Constitutional question and the 'tools' to deal with UNCONSTITUTIONAL ‘anything’ are in place to rectify all the mistakes, even the ones determined by majority rule.
The Courts are SUPPOSED to be ACTIVE, it’s their JOB! They have the responsibility of providing ‘Equal protection under the law’ and the word ‘separate’ has no place in that sentence. No matter how much you pray!
Do you believe that you do have the right to circulate a petition and with a majority, re-instate slavery, or Jim Crow Laws or negate any other 'Evolutionary' milestones that WE THE PEOPLE have RECTIFIED in the last 200 years?
The Courts would have to get ACTIVE and turn these laws over again! No matter if 99% voted for them!
"

The anti right winger wrote on May 20, 2008 1:48 PM:

" Robert D wrote: "Once again, exactly what civil right is being violated when homosexual couples have available to them civil unions? " The principal you are supporting that civil unions are somehow an equivalent to the right to marry the person you choose goes to the arguments put forth in Brown V. Board of Education (the case that outlawed school segregation based on race). It seems to me that you are putting forth an argument that these individuals can be given less civil rights than other citizens based on sexual orientation. The California Constitution or any other state law cannot overrule rights granted under federal law. If this were so, the state policy of segregation by race as found in the Brown v. Board case would have been allowed to stand. The argument that discrimination against an individual due to sex, race or sexual orientation can be legally permitted under the laws of a state is simply without merit. This is not judicial activism, but a logical and literal reading of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.
"

RobertD wrote on May 20, 2008 2:27 PM:

" AlanG- There will always be minor exceptions. However, married hetero couples have custody issues and alimony problems too. My question is still not answered....what civil rights are being violated. "

Alan G. wrote on May 20, 2008 3:23 PM:

" Robert D, you have stated that civil unions are the exact same thing as marriage and I provided an example where they aren't. So you could make the case that gays and straights have "similar" rights, but the constitution doesn't say "similar but equal, sort of."

The fact that marriage licenses are handed out by a government agency means that there can be no discrimination. No separate but equal. You are correct that hetero couples also have custody issues and alimony problems but shouldn't the gay community have the right to enjoy the exact same problems?


"

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 20, 2008 5:34 PM:

" OK Alan G., you can't twist the truth about that alimony case you cited above. You might get away with that in the liberal blogs section but here you will not be able to spin facts.

Two points of reality, Alan:

1.) If you read the details properly, the mistake that this man - Garber - and his legal counsel made was really a stupid one, legally-speaking.

"Garber knew his former wife was living with another woman when he agreed to the alimony, but he said he didn't know the two women had registered with the state as domestic partners under a law that was intended to mirror marriage."
(source:http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/07/23/alimony.partnerships.ap/index.html)

He and his lawyer AGREED to pay his ex BEFORE he found out that they were domestic partners. Despite the fact that he knew his wife was a lesbian and living with another woman, he OK'd this money to be paid to her. So much for the legal concept of discovery.

Apparently, as an afterthought, Garber and his counsel attempted to use domestic partnership to erase the settlement he previously (and foolishly) agreed to.

(continued below) "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 20, 2008 5:35 PM:

" 2.) Alan, you can't be serious in arguing that the decision of ONE relatively minor local California judge is justification for redefining the sacred institution of traditional marriage. But this is what happened with the State Supreme court decision, right? That too was the swing decision of only one judge.

The problem is not with the definition of marriage, it is a matter for contract law and family court experts working with the legislature to fix the domestic partner laws as they should have done in the first place. "

Alan G. wrote on May 20, 2008 9:53 PM:

" Well, had the legislature done a better job of working out the details, we probably wouldn't be where we are today. But here we are. I think there will be a lot of kicking and screaming and arguing by those for and against, but I think in the end the court's current opinion will eventually be the final one. That's just my prediction. "

Watchdog wrote on May 20, 2008 11:15 PM:

" Ok. Ok. Ok.... then what I am reading from the latest blogs is that they will have all the rights of a man and woman in their newly granted right to marry. So does that mean that every poor soul who made a poor selection and married a Lesbian and created children with her, have the right to now go back charge her with fraud and make her repay every cent of alimony and child support she stiffed him for twenty years ago? By the way fraud is a felony which comes with a prison sentence. Because all those lesbians who jumped out of the closet and were granted custody by a court deceived that court and was not perfectly honest about their current living conditions. That also means any current relationships where a woman/man divorce and the other marries the same sex now nulifies the alimony just like in a normal marriage correct. So women can't betray their spouses further and hold them subject to ransom for having children with them and the courts will be informed of the new relationship and marriage through the mediators who are assigned the cases. "

RobertD wrote on May 21, 2008 8:27 AM:

" This shal be my final comment on this matter since no one has proven to me what civil rights are being violated by a ban on gay marriage, especially taking into consideration the 2003 California Domestic Partnerships Rights and Reponsibilities Act. AlanG- You can not pull one rabit out of the hat and expect me to believe in your magic. Read the act http://www.ucop.edu/sas/sfs/docs/ab205_q-a.pdf and you'll see that in practically every way and shape California has created an alternative to traditional marriage for the homosexual community. Why can they not be satisfied with this sensible compromise? If proff of real civil rights violations can not be offered then the desires of the majority must stand. If not then we have devolved into a system of government ruled by the minority (ie. Coommunist Party control of Russia for 80 years). "

Not Gay but Ok wrote on May 21, 2008 8:58 AM:

" Why is it that so many people have trouble letting the gays use the word "marriage"? I guess you just want to remind them that they have a second class relationship. What's wrong with calling it a marriage???? It makes you feel better if you call it something else???? Like Shakespear said, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Get over yourselves and let the gays get MARRIED if they want to. It's none of your business anyway! "

Dandre wrote on May 21, 2008 9:00 AM:

" Yo! watchwhoeveryouaretoday!
the answer to your fanatical rant is its none of YOUR business unless you are a divorce attorney or a lesbian or spouse of a lesbian and from your rants you haven't shown enough insight to be any of those! "

Randy wrote on May 21, 2008 9:45 AM:

" I heard the all-powerful CA Supreme Court is now considering changing the name of the color known as "black" because it is offensive to many African-Americans. The new name doesn't matter though because the court can make a decision contrary to a documented and universally-accepted definition, right?

Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for centuries. In fact, it would not be a stretch to estimate that 99.99% of people would admit the first definition of marriage they learned was a union between a man and a woman.

And am I the only on seeing the irony in many posts here? Those supporting the decision to use "marriage" to define a same-sex union still feel the need to label themselves as gays or lesbians? Why? Why do you want a specific label to define you as an individual, but not your union to a partner of the same sex?

I do believe same-sex couples should be afforded the same benefits of traditional married couples, but I also believe they should also have to go through all of the same procedures of divorce, alimony, custody, etc. "

Randy the nitpicker wrote on May 21, 2008 9:55 AM:

" Sorry, but I have to throw this out here:

Comment boards/forums are not blogs, and posting anonymous comments on news stories or opinions does not make you a blogger.

A blog is a site on the web for an individual to post their personal works/views/rants, such as those of Blue Falcon, Jackie, etc. The blogger may invite comments from the public, and in some cases censor what comments are posted. "

Dandre wrote on May 21, 2008 10:01 AM:

" Robert, you don't see what you don't want to see!
You refer to marriage with two definitions by adding a quantifying 'trditional' and 'alternative'.
As if they are legally binding 'terms' because you included them. YOUR framing is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
The right to enter into a 'MARRIAGE CONTRACT' is a CIVIL RIGHT, what part of that don't you understand? and to compare this with what went on in Russia is absurd.
What YOU are advocating is meathead totalitarianism.
OUR Democracy is self correcting thats why we have PROGRESSED in spite of the regressive forces that would have kept US English! "

Randy the nitpicker wrote on May 21, 2008 10:08 AM:

" Sorry, but I have to throw this out here because there's not a general comment area:

Comment boards/forums are not blogs, and posting anonymous comments on news stories or opinions does not make you a blogger.

A blog is a site on the web for an individual to post their personal works/views/rants, such as those of Blue Falcon, Jackie, etc. The blogger may invite comments from the public, and in some cases censor what comments are posted.

If you want your own little piece of the world to call your own, there are many free blog sites. "

RobertD wrote on May 21, 2008 10:41 AM:

" Well, I lied. I have to respond one mroe time. Dandre-I will not insult you by calling you a "meathead" everyone deserves some kind of base respect. A Domestic Partnership contract is a contract also. Why can there not be a Marriage Contract that fits the widely accepted (61% of Californians) definition of the term and then a Domestic Partnership Contract for all others? Just as others may ask why I am so caught up with the word marriage meaning a union between a MAN and WOMAN; I can ask why is the gay community so caught up on wanting the term. It seems that a adequares compromise has been reached with the California Domestic Partners Act. I compromise I see as fair for all. "

Dandre wrote on May 21, 2008 12:23 PM:

" Robert,I wasn't calling you a meathead I was describing the 'governmental' results of the rationale you are using.
To the ‘black ‘people’ who didn’t like the back of the bus, get over it, Robert said your seat looks just like everybody elses and where it is on the bus has no effect on HIS life, so deal with it’ and by the way you don’t NEED to use OUR drinking fountains you have your OWN, Robert wants to know WHAT’S THE PROBLEM its not like we are depriving you of water.
And what are you blacks and whites doing falling in love with each other, you have the same rights I do, to fall in love with your own race and being I’M NOT capable of that………That’s ‘Totalitarianism, Robert, you fill in the adjective.
"

Ms. Police Officer wrote on May 21, 2008 1:23 PM:

" I am a law enforcement officer an Iraqi war veteran and a proud gay person. Yes that's right, PERSON! Why should I not have the right to marry who I love? Whether it be a man or a woman. Gay people can't help who they love anymore than a straight people can. What does sexual preference matter? I thought love was a matter of the heart, not the gender. I don't need a piece of paper to prove I am committed to my partner. My relationship is between two loving, well respected human beings who happen to be the same sex. Its more healthy than many of the hetero sexual couples I know....including my parents!! So it's about time that I am granted the right to marry my partner!! "

Watchdog wrote on May 21, 2008 2:57 PM:

" To Robert D go ahead call Duane Dandre' a Meathead with a capital M, I do, and that's on a nice day. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 21, 2008 4:35 PM:

" Randy:

What is blogging? It comes from ‘web' and ‘logging.' To reduce typing effort and to be trendy as well as display the proper internet etiquette, everyone uses (and misuses as you point out) the politically correct term ‘blog.'

Yes, I do know that these commentators are not ‘bloggers', but I and my forum-commenting partner DEMAND to be called ‘bloggers' without prejudice and with all of the legal rights and privileges attached to the concept of ‘blogging.'

After all, being a ‘commentator' is not the same as being a real ‘blogger.'

If you don't believe that then we will FORCE all of you who use the internet to redefine the term to include us all.

If we need to, my ‘pretend to be a normal blogger' activist friends in my internet ‘commentator' community will demand our constitutionally guaranteed civil right to use the institution of ‘blogging' freely and without restriction, first on a state-by-state basis, then Federally, and then throughout the World.

We all shall utter our battlecry with and outstretched arm with clenched fist at the Olympics in China:

"Not really a Blogger Power!"

Thanks for listening. "

jeff wrote on May 21, 2008 10:59 PM:

" Blogging - A blog is an online journal (a shortened form of Web log). Blogging is writing in one's blog. - A weblog (usually shortened to blog, but occasionally spelled web log) is a web-based publication consisting primarily of periodic articles (normally in reverse chronological order). - The word blog is a short form for the term web log. A blog has traditionally been a journal or diary with dated entries. - A blog is a user-generated website where entries are made in journal style and displayed in a reverse chronological order.

Message Board - A script on a web site with a submission form that allows visitors to post messages on your web site for others to read - A Web-based message center, where users may post text communication for one another. Messages so posted are converted into Web documents, and may be viewed with browsing software. - Enables you to create your own message boards so that the users of your Web site can interact with each other. - An application that allows users to post and reply to messages from other users and review the flow of a discussion.

This is not blogging
"

RobertD wrote on May 22, 2008 7:57 AM:

" What I hoped would be an honest and insult-free exchange of ideas in an intellectual arena has turned into a mud-wrestling match. So be it. Dandre-I would be the first to oppose any law segragating any group. Just as I hold Rosa Parks as a hero; I would cheer and support any homosexula who stood up for those same rights. For you to compare the issue of gay marriage with the struggles of African -Americans in the 1950s and 1960s is inappropriate. ONCE AGAIN! EXACTLY WHAT RIGHT IS BEING VIOLATED BY A BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE WHEN THERE IS IN PLACE AN FAIR ALTERNATIVE? "

RobertD wrote on May 22, 2008 8:05 AM:

" After reading Ms. Police Officer I would like to clarify my position. I am not homophobic. I agree that homosexual love can be as strong as heterosexual love and they deserve all the same legal advantages of a "married" couple. My position is that marriage is NOT a right as defined and protected by the Constitution, thus it is a social construct governed by the will of the people to define it (61% of Californians define it as between a man and woman). My concern is that if majority rule is superseded when no real right is being violated then we have set a dangerous precedent for our system of government. To allow the courts to legislate also establishes a dangerous precedent. Without majority rule (with the protection of minorty rights) we may fall into a despotism no one wants. "

Randy wrote on May 22, 2008 8:56 AM:

" Ah, Alejandro.... you caught me even though I had targeted a different fish.

So, how do we proceed in getting this hook out of your mouth?

Your first comment in this thread includes the following: "Homosexual marriage is not a normal, traditional marriage. Never will be."

Now, you want to be called a blogger even though your participation here is not blogging.

I would say that it's pretty black and white that some people choose to adhere to definitions when it suits them, but who is to say what black and white are any more?

"

Dandre wrote on May 22, 2008 9:51 AM:

" Robert, once again you focus on the details that have NOTHING to do with the argument.
The RIGHTS I referred to: the RIGHT to drink water at the same PUBLIC facility as anyone else, the RIGHT to sit anywhere on PUBLIC transpotation and the RIGHT to MARRY whomever I please because the CONTRACT is a PUBLIC document. Getting a drink of water and where you sit on a bus are CIVIL RIGHTS but a MARRIAGE CONTRACT isn't?
you want an education on depotism, read Naomi Wolff's 'An End to America'. The tree your barking up has nothing to do with depotism.
And Robt, what ‘mud' am I throwing? Read your first post referring my name and in your first sentence you misrepresent what I said and you go downhill from there!
‘FAIR ALTERNATIVE’ to who Robert, this is the point, just because YOU think its FAIR has NOTHING to do with the Costitutionality. Show me where the CONSTITUTION talks about ‘Fair Alternative’, Robert, NOWHERE!
The DEFINITIONS that YOU put on the Constitution are not ACCURATE!
No ‘mud’ intended!
"

RobertD wrote on May 22, 2008 12:12 PM:

" Like abortion and gun cotnrol this is an issue people hove passionate opinions on and no amount of yelling (ie. the capitalized letters) is going to get us anywhere. Civil rights are violayed when segregation regarding public facilties is in play, as so aptly pointed out by Dandre. However, marriage is goiverned by a license/contarct that can be defined as the state sees fit. In this case the state has (ie. CA Constitution and the recent proposition) defined "marriage" as a union between a man and woman. My suggestion to those wishing to see gay marriage legal...follow the amendment and/or proposition process so our democratic system governed by the people remains intact. P.S. One reviewer compared Wolf's work to the rantings of communist/anarchist Emma Goldman. I'll take as my example of despotism the Gulag Archipelago, written by someone who actually experienced despotism. "

Its about time wrote on May 22, 2008 12:40 PM:

" Fortunatley we have a separation of Church and State in this country, meaning religion does not dictate our Constitution. Civil Rights CANNOT exclude any one! This is a slap in the face only to injustice. "

Dandre wrote on May 22, 2008 12:42 PM:

" And Randy, alejandro didn't tell you but his last name is Einstein that’s why his word is law.....when he says 'Never will be' he means it!
Man, the stuff I do and put up with for my Grandkids.......But its my JOB as their Grandfather, to educate them to the fact that there are people who are capable of this kind of hate-speech in the subtle disguise of Christianity and they are a plaque to our society.
Sinclair Lewis wrote that facism would come to America ‘wrapped in the Flag and carrying a Bible’ he just didn’t realize the Flag would be a lapel pin!
My God is the 'essence of Love and ALL that is GOOD’ He fills me with the Grace of Humanity and its is my charge to fight off the types of ‘distractions of evil’ that I have shown to those Grandkids here on these boards.
That is my motivation afterall, to protect my family from uninformed haters…..if you are intimidated by my fervor that is where it comes from and I give YOU the respect that given pertinent information, the majority of citizens make the right choice.
"

whitey wrote on May 22, 2008 12:44 PM:

" love is love. if there is a mutual love between people, who want to get married, they should be allowed to do so. just because they are gay, doesnt make them any less of a human being than anyone else. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 22, 2008 2:00 PM:

" I know how to fish, Randy, but don't quite understand this: when you said I caught you ("Alejandro.... you caught me") why exactly do I have to get the hook out of MY mouth? Strange tackle, wot?

You did pose this excellent question, though:

" but who is to say what black and white are any more?"

The people do, Randy: the majority of the people (the ‘will' of the people) in our country, based on the Constitution. The majority gets to define what is black or white. It's called a society, with a unifying body of collective thought, the stuff patriotism and common national pride is made of.

Used to be the United States of America.

Now, it's apparently only the ‘stuff dreams are made of.'

So, as for our fishing trip here, well
I fish using a catch-and-release philosophy so, Randy, off you go . . .
"

TonyL_ wrote on May 22, 2008 5:15 PM:

" Dear Ms. Police Officer....As a male heterosexual, resident of Hanford. I lean towards the “right” mostly. However, I agree with you. We, as Americans should practice tolerance and understanding in what we do not agree with. I think too many have idle time to get over-concerned in the private issues of others. I feel those that oppose this decision for various reasons are limited in their views or thinking. If based on religious beliefs or personal views fine, keep it to yourself. "Don't tread on me." I have worked in a county north of Kings as a volunteer and "drive along' with a female police office, whom I believe is of the "alternate life style". I didn't think it was an issue. She was/is a wonderful, loveable person, regardless. She did her job well, she lacked the negative characteristics I find in most human I run into. I will defend her to the end. Similar to the saying that " a good neighbor is better than a distant relative:, I'd rather have a trustworthy gay friend, than a treacherous heterosexual friend. ALEJANDRO, at what point in life did you choose your sexuality? "

TonyL_ wrote on May 22, 2008 5:20 PM:

" ALEJANDRO, it is NOT the "will of the people" in the USA, or we would not have some of the crisis we face today. It is the "decisions of our elected officials" that basically rules our country. If majority ruled. we would still have slavery today. TonyL "

TonyL_ wrote on May 22, 2008 5:36 PM:

" ALEJANDRO: BTW our elected officials make the laws, not the (majority) will of the people, or we'd still have slavery. AND to the people that want to base our laws on God and the Bible, let me remind you that Agnostics and Atheists have equal rights also. Not inferring in any way that homosexuals are without religion. They can if they choose to be. It's still a free country,... for now. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 22, 2008 5:47 PM:

" Dear TonyL_,
I now see the error of my thinking.
Of course slavery is the same.
Great analogy.
Thanks for opening my eyes.
I exit, stage right. "

Watchdog wrote on May 22, 2008 9:24 PM:

" To all fellow bloggers this mud wrestling was started by but a few, who ran out of an argument and began chiding others into a verbal contfrontation because their own lack of research or inability to communicate and make sound contributions were depleted. I won't name names Duane, Scott, Jeff, but anyway. How can you Dandre' fail to recognize my God yet you so readily like to misquote scriptures with your interpretations attached. Your hypochritical element in every conversation is like the flashing red light at an intersection where the regular lights have failed to operate. You are still directing traffic but the caution has been thrown to the wind and replaced with stop, stop, stop. The green light disconnected entirely never to shine again. The dispair in your comments sometime makes me think you realize what is in the future but you really just don't care anymore.
"

Scott Tucker wrote on May 23, 2008 1:20 AM:

" Watchdog wrote: "To all fellow bloggers this mud wrestling was started by but a few, who ran out of an argument and began chiding others into a verbal confrontation because their own lack of research or inability to communicate and make sound contributions were depleted."

Let's see:

My first comment on this topic included the words: "Finally, equal rights for everyone, regardless of sexual preference. Hooray for this decision."

Watchdog's first comment on this topic included the words: "Go have a piece of swiss cheese and shut the duck up."

Watchdog, please tell us once again who is "chiding others into a verbal confrontation"? The facts are plain for all to see. Talk about hypocrisy!! "

jeff wrote on May 23, 2008 10:10 AM:

" Not to mention the only thing I've posted here were 2 word definitions. How is that 'mud wrestling' or 'chiding others into a verbal confrontation'? "

Thou Shall Not wrote on May 23, 2008 11:36 AM:

" Scott Tucker, homosexual marriage is wrong and is not equal rights. You liberals are so strange and now your liberal leader is dying. What will you do? "

jeff wrote on May 23, 2008 1:29 PM:

" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL

I wonder if these penguins knows that God hates them, that they are an abomination to nature or that they're acting this way just for shock value and they were indoctrinated into their lifestyle by other homosexuals. "

jeff wrote on May 23, 2008 1:35 PM:

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Oh my GOD pretty soon animals will want to get 'Married' and that will ruin my life somehow. I'm not sure how but I just k now it will. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 23, 2008 3:25 PM:

" TO: Scott Tucker, the Swiss teacher and former resident of Kings County and the United States:

You do motivate actual Hanford and Kings County residents to a higher degree of sophistication, don't you?

You lead by example. Perhaps this is a good thing, but you do get things wrong. Yet, we all can learn, can't we?

You misuse the word ‘hypocrite' or just do not know what it means.

Hypocrite:
(source: (n.d.). Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. Retrieved May 23, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Hypocrite)

"...used to characterize a person who is habitually insincere and false, especially one who makes professions of goodness when his aims are selfish and his life corrupt."

Watchdog is never ‘habitually insincere and false' in his postings. Neither are you for that matter. You never pretend to be anything more than you really are. Both you and Watchdog are very honest and quite open. We call you on this whenever we believe you are wrong, which is quite often; and vice-versa.

Thanks for this opportunity to enlighten us! "

jeff wrote on May 23, 2008 4:01 PM:

" RobertD, here is the difference since you apparently lack the means to look it up yourself.

The most significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

Because same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, civil unions, and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, any benefits available at the state or local level are subject to federal taxation. For example, a woman whose health insurance covers her female partner must pay federal taxes on the total employer cost for that insurance.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html
"

Still the wrong court decision wrote on May 23, 2008 9:14 PM:

" No matter how you legally look at this decision, it was definitely an example of the judges ruling based on politics instead of doing their job and basing their decision on sound legal grounds. Judges should not try to make laws and courts that do this on a regular basis are often over-ruled and are in fact in violation of the Constitution. Looks like the State Supreme Court has picked up bad habits from the worst Federal Appeals Court in the country, our 9th Circuit. Read the dissent if you want the right answer. "

Scott Tucker wrote on May 24, 2008 3:14 AM:

" Thanks for the schoolin', Smug-meister! "

no problem Scott wrote on May 25, 2008 9:13 PM:

" ... but no schoolin' intended. You really should read the dissenting case opinions if you want to see how the case should have been decided. Cases are just like sports, the best team doesn't always win. Here, the dissenting judges were correct, but they were outnumbered by judges following politics instead of doing their jobs. "

Scott Tucker wrote on May 26, 2008 9:36 AM:

" Dear "no problem Scott", Thanks for your reply, but again, my stupid smug-meister comment wasn't intended for you (unless, of course, you have changed your moniker). Nevertheless, I appreciate your civil response to my less-than-civil comment. All the best. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 26, 2008 7:09 PM:

" Thank you, Scott, and a Happy Memorial Day to you. Thanks for your tongue-in-cheek compliment about my professorship. How did you guess? Much better than calling me ‘depp.'

Does Switzerland have a Memorial Day also?
My guess is that they probably don't need one since they don't fight anymore, not since the internal strife between cantons in the days of William Tell, right? Neutral is as neutral does.

Do they also have mandatory annual professional development training or continuing education in the Swiss education system that you are a part of? How do you keep up your teaching skills?

Also, how do you feel about the Swiss Govt. multibillion deal with Iran for gas and petroleum products in disregard for US and United Nations economic sanctions against Iran? Might some of that Swiss currency fund nuclear and terrorist acts against the West? "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 26, 2008 7:18 PM:

" Another question for Scott:

Now that California has recognized homosexual marriage as ‘business as usual,' do you, as our revered European correspondent, feel that MORE terrorist activity will potentially take place?

As you know, the Moslem world believes homosexual activity is immoral and a sin against Allah, so do you think that this legal ruling in California, which you publicly support and applaud, will bring us more opportunities for terrorists to strike?

Isn't this another case of brazenly flaunting the ‘degenerate American' concept - allowing and approving of homosexual activity and marriage - against the Moslem world dangerous, Scott?

Do you fear more for your relative's safety in Kings County than before, Scott? Especially since the Lemoore NAS is so close to them and us?

What say you, Scott? "

Scott Tucker wrote on May 27, 2008 1:27 AM:

" Alejandro,

Does Switzerland have a Memorial Day where veterans and fallen heros from past wars are honored? No, it does not. However, there are memorials throughout the country that honor the sacrifices made by those who sacrificed their lives for various causes. The wounded lion memorial in Lucerne is just one of these memorials annually visited by millions of tourists.

Do they have mandatory annual professional development training or continuing education in the Swiss education system? Yes, teachers here must regularly participate in continuing education courses. I am currently enrolled in a few courses myself at the Universty of Bern.

How do I feel about the Swiss/Iran gas deal? Not quite sure. Obviously it PO'd the US and was a bold move that ruffled feathers amongst the international community. Calmy-Rey, the forgein minister, has upset many Swiss with her move as well, especially the rightwing party. On one hand, isolating Iran doesn't help things, so I feel that some communication and relationships are important. Nevertheless, I feel that more thought should have went into making the decision and perhaps the Swiss gov't shouldn't have been so eager to follow through with the deal.

"

Scott Tucker wrote on May 27, 2008 1:35 AM:

" Do I think that more terrorist activity will result from the Court's decision to grant homosexual couples the civil right to marry? No, I do not.

Yes, I do know that Muslim teachings forbid homosexuality, but this is no different from Christian teachings. If anything, the decision might embolden bigots and religous zealots within the US to attack homosexuals, but your attempt to label this as something which might embolden fundamentalist islamic terrorists has more to do with fear-mongering than anything else.

Do I fear for my friends' and relatives' saftey more than before? No, I do not. They are safe and sound and the Court's decision will not change that in any way. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on May 27, 2008 2:27 AM:

" Scott Tucker - your hypocricies are so numerous they won't fit and I don't have the time to list them all. You set in your comfortable little cacoon in Switzerland and chant war cries saluting the Gay Marriage issues. Scott what is wrong with you, is their a shortciruit between your ears that causes you to put your two cents into such a contriversial decision that surely will be tossed out in November in the elections and a new ammendmant will be added to the state and national constitutions defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The only acceptable marriage. You all are running around ready to celebrate and this thing is going to be overturned once again by popular vote and the ammendmant will be voting on in the National election. Then what Scott, will you be here on line offering comfort to your disappointed gay friends as they are told their marriages do not stand that it has been reversed? The national vote is gonna take in the entire Bible belt, conservatives by the bus load and traitor demobrats switching sides to vote on this issue.
Wake up my friend. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on May 27, 2008 2:36 AM:

" Scott Tucker - the Mayor of San Francisco allowed marriages went against the proposition 122 and the smart at the time Arnold Govenator reversed it. He caught so much flack he is afraid to do it again, because this time it is the California Supreme Court. Do you have any idea what the real Supreme Court feels about the California liberal one? Any idea what so ever? They don't approve of 90% of what they try and pull in this state. You as a teacher stand before your children in class and use this historical article to explain to them why homosexuality and Gay Marriage is something you as a teacher support. Then six months down the road have to explain to them why the United States of America the true full delegation of We The People voted this decision down once again in order to restore the freedoms of a man and woman to relax and enjoy their sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman the way it should be. The Constitution will be changed by popular vote once ammended, no court will touch it. "

RobertdD wrote on May 27, 2008 9:45 AM:

" Good point JEFF. The feds may have different rules and I would be the first to sign a petition to change the federal rules. However, JEFF, you still have not explained to me the actual right or liberty being violated by a ban on gay marriage. Or is it that you just want to totally redefine marriage as it pleases you and a minority of Americans? "

Scott Tucker wrote on May 27, 2008 10:08 AM:

" "The Constitution will be changed by popular vote once ammended, no court will touch it."

Ah yes. They won't touch it, just as the courts were afraid to touch the issues of slavery and voting rights which were also part of our Constitution. Right? Or, just as the "popular" 18th Amendment of our Constitution was repealed by the 21st Amendment. I guess there was a whole lot of doubt about touching that one as well.

What is wrong with me? I guess in your view, Watchdog, it is the fact that I stand up for human and constitutional rights and fight against bigotry and predjudices as perpetrated by people like yourself. "

jeff wrote on May 27, 2008 11:57 AM:

" RobdertD, I have successfully pointed out to you the difference between marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships. You seem to be under the impression that the same freedoms exist with both of these as traditional marriage when it is completely obvious that is not the case. The fact that you people are so caught up on a word is childish and very immature, not to mention petty (Yes I also believe that if homosexuals are fighting simply for the label they are being immature as well). It’s as if you think if gay people can get married you will somehow become gay. What are you worried about exactly? Please explain to me how this directly affects your life and your marriage? "

RobertD wrote on May 27, 2008 1:10 PM:

" Thanks JEFF, you proved my point. Marriage is not a freedom as protected by the Constitution, so it falls under the 9th and 10th Amendments reserving it to the auspices of the State governments. That being the case the majority of citizens in the states may then decide what the definition of marriage is. And I totally agree with you...why are we getting caught up in a WORD. Why is the gay community so caught up in the word marriage? (See Jeff the knife cuts both ways.) "

jeff wrote on May 27, 2008 2:20 PM:

" RobertD, why are you creating an argument that doesn’t exist? You asked a question (One you could have easily answered yourself) and I answered it. You said “Which civil rights are being violated?” Well it’s quite obvious what civil rights are being violated here. It’s also quite obvious you really don’t care about people’s rights being violated and you are using this forum to somehow validate yourself in your own eyes. I suppose if a majority of Californians voted that all people named ‘Robert’ should leave the state you would feel that decision perfectly justified since people named ‘Robert’ are not explicitly protected under the Constitution? I’m sure you will say yes to this but we both know what a fallacy that answer is. If your goal is to argue whether or not marriage is protected by the constitution your question should have been “Where is marriage protected in the Constitution?” not “What civil rights are being violated?” "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 27, 2008 3:10 PM:

" @RobertD

You are spot on sir in your argument and explanation. Apparently, many people here do not know the definition of ‘civil rights,’ especially those that have nothing to do with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

“Civil rights*. The rights that go with citizenship, that one acquires simply by being a citizen. Not all of these are inalienable rights, however--see rights. For example, a citizen may lose the right to vote if convicted of certain crimes.” (Source: http://www.unmc.edu/ethics/words.html#C)

Also, FYI Robert, we don’t mention knives or other sharp instruments here due to a certain poster’s self-admitted experience with past less-than-legal activities.

And we all should take note: The ‘civil rights’ definition does not include non-citizens, terrorists, enemy combatants, or any combination thereof (unless they are U.S. citizens, that is - then other laws will apply). "

RobertD wrote on May 28, 2008 9:03 AM:

" Again, excellent point JEFF! Where is marriage in the Constitution? IT ISN'T! It is not there nor can it be implied from any of the rights in the Bill of Rights. It is a social construct with obvious religious underpinnings that falls under the jurisdiction of the people and states. I'm not gfoing to rehash all the logic and evidence I've used to support this. JEFF you say, "it’s quite obvious what civil rights are being violated." You obviously think I'm stupid (while I believe you are passionate about your cause and I respect that) so please identify for me those rights specifically. That's all I have ever asked. So please indulge my ignorance. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on May 28, 2008 9:16 AM:

" To Alejandro - Continued from previous blog. I wonder if Medi-Cal and taxpayers are footing the bill for this woman to have her fourth child? Wouldn't surprise me, don't they get paid more for each additional child? Doesn't the five year clock restart with each birth? What a travesty making babies for money. "

RobertD wrote on May 28, 2008 9:21 AM:

" I am sure that there is no way I can change JEFF's mind regarding my motivations since he says it is "obvious you really don’t care about people’s rights being violated and you are using this forum to somehow validate yourself in your own eyes." Anyone who has followed my posts here will see that my cocern is a legal and constitutional one. JEFF's scenario about the state voting to ostracize anyone named Robert is flawed. Excluding a group from society period is an obvious violation of the myriad of amendments and laws against segregation. The issue of defining marriage is absolutely different. My hope in posting here was to generate an intelelctual discussion about what a right is? What rights are really in the Constitution? and To what extent should courts be able to legislate from the bench? I have failed. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on May 28, 2008 9:26 AM:

" To Robert D - Jeff will undoubtedly point to the pursuit of happiness as the right that approves it. But does one's pursuit of happiness outweigh anothers?

Boy at the rate we are including things in the bill of rights, I should be driving a new cadillac and my wife should be wearing diamonds and silk all at the expense of the taxpayer.

I think way to many people have their wants and rights confused in this issue. It doesn't say that everything you want is included in the Constitution. Nor does it say pursuit of wants is the meaning of the sentence.

I want to be tall handsome and rich, instead I am fat, ugly and a taxpayer. That certainly is not my pursuit of happiness, but I am not going to bring a law suit because my dreams haven't come true. Where does it say life is fair and equal. I have news for ya, all men or women are not created equal.

We have a right to vote not have that vote overturned by a Justice of the Supreme Court. "

RobertD wrote on May 28, 2008 11:59 AM:

" My point precisely Watchdog Fred. Well put! "

jeff wrote on May 28, 2008 1:34 PM:

" RobertD, your point precisely? I thought you were concerned with defining marriage and what does or doesn’t protect it? Watchdog Fred makes no mention of that so what is your point exactly? Is it civil liberties which is what Fred brings up or is it the definition of marriage, please pick one and stop bouncing back and forth.

Watchdog Fred, please explain to me how 2 people getting married does anything to hurt your personal pursuit of happiness. How does their right to get married do anything to infringe on your rights? No one is adding anything to the ‘Bill of Rights’, we are just trying to actually implement the ‘Bill of Rights’. Then you go on to say “I want to be tall handsome and rich, instead I am fat, ugly and a taxpayer.” So why don’t you go on a diet and seek better employment. Homosexuals are not making you overweight and do nothing to impact your financial standing also there is no law anywhere that states you must be fat, poor and ugly. "

RobertD wrote on May 29, 2008 8:33 AM:

" Granted, some posts here have taken the purely religious stand on this issue but that has not been my intent. JEFF I appologize if my "bouncing" confuses you. I believe Watchdog Fred hit the nail on the head by pointing out (even if it meant using exaggerrated examples) that society has become obssessed with expanding what is considered liberties to such an extent that it is becoming ridiculous. The Founding Fathers were very, very careful about what to include in the Bill of Rights. Anytime something is watered-down it losses its taste, its importance. I recognize and to some extent appreciate the gay communities passion on this issue, but their passion is predominately personal. I and others here see broader constitutional and legal implications for the worse stemming from this ruling in the California court. "

jeff wrote on May 29, 2008 10:42 AM:

" Thank you for your response Robert, of course I don’t necessarily agree with you (Although I wouldn’t say I completely think your line of reasoning is way off base either) but it’s nice to actually talk to someone as an adult and someone who can hold the discussion at an intellectual level. I understand your entire argument, that the people voted and 4 judges decided the majority was wrong even though the Constitution does not explicitly defend marriage. There is also a lot of precedence for this type of thing in our country so I’m not sure if it actually is in correct for judges to do this. I’m sure the Feds will weigh in and of course there just might be a ballot initiative in November. We’ll have to wait and see how it plays out. "

RobertD wrote on May 29, 2008 12:02 PM:

" Ditto JEFF. I look forward to future intellectual battles on such issues with someone who offers not only passion but a sense of logic such as yourself. I believe this topic has been beaten to death, so Sentinel dig so something new. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 29, 2008 1:53 PM:

" My goodness: I just can't stop feein' the love here! "

Watchdog Fred wrote on May 29, 2008 6:25 PM:

" To Jeff - I have said from the very beginning the implications of this ruling are devistating when you look at the overall picture. I am reaching on this but let's say those same four judges overturned the right for women to vote, would everyone feel the same love towards the California Supreme Court. I

f this stands at any time the Justices can rewrite our entire life style with their poison pens. What's next in their infinite wisdom, who's to say maybe they might reverse decisions on ethnic groups now based on the rights of the KKK? How redundant would that be, but it is still correcting an injustice against a minority, correct?

The ramifications from this ruling are unending, the possibilities for their power unlimited. This is the stand I have taken from the very beginning, I didn't bring religion into it until the religion bashers started putting their two cents in and naturally as a Christian, I am not going to stand by in neutral not saying anything in response to that, no more than any of you would about people trouncing your religion. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 30, 2008 3:46 PM:

" As a citizen in good standing, I have a right to participate in and enjoy the society I choose to live in without interference.

I am a good citizen for many reasons, say, for example, when I didn't do bad things including ‘burglurary, vandalism and assault' or brag about it publicly. Obeying the law makes for good citizenship, wouldn't you agree?

The American social tradition and CA. state law determining marriage defines the participants as one man and one woman. The voters of this state - the majority - supported this definition, both historically and recently.

Now, one judge decided to change the moral structure of our lives in California.

As a taxpayer, I will have to pay for all of the legal time and document analysis and attendant costs in scrapping old official documents to replace them with the new Party A/B nonsense.

And it will get much worse when a myriad of legal structures, guidelines, laws, forms, codes, texts procedures need to be changed to exclude sexual identity in marriage, adoption, birth records, ‘husband', ‘wife', ‘mother', ‘father' and so on.

This affects me, my family, my friends, and countless others. You bet! "




Advertisement

HOT TOPICS

> More Hot Topics

MORE LOCAL NEWS

Lemoore:

    Selma:

    Kingsburg:

    PHOTO GALLERIES

    		 "More Photos

    Sentinel Photos (134) Albums

    Hanford Luminaria
    Hanford Luminaria
    Friday, November, 20 2009
    (6) Photos
    Hanford High vs Dinuba Waterpolo Final
    Hanford High vs Dinuba Waterpolo Final
    Wednesday, November, 18 2009
    (13) Photos
    Fire on Hawk Street
    Fire on Hawk Street
    Wednesday, November, 18 2009
    (11) Photos

    Reader Submitted (7) Albums

    Vintage Hanford
    Vintage Hanford
    Monday, December, 15 2008
    (1) Photos
    Vacation Photos
    Vacation Photos
    Thursday, November, 20 2008
    (37) Photos
    Events
    Events
    Thursday, November, 20 2008
    (38) Photos

    More


    EMAIL UPDATES

    Sign up today to get all your local headlines delivered to your home or work e-mail address, so you don't miss the latest in breaking and local news.
    E-Mail:
    Daily News Updates
    Breaking News Alerts


     
    Letters to the Editor| Comment about Web site
    RSS HanfordSentinel.com
    Copyright © 2006 Lee Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.
    All Lee Central California Newspapers pages are designed for screen resolutions set at 1024x768 or higher.
    Click here for our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use applicable to this site.