to vote!  In Massachusetts, our elected legislative leaders took it upon themselves at last year's Constitutional Convention to NOT allow a vote on it (knowing there would be enough yeas to get it on the ballot) - so we were summarily disenfranchised regardless of the fact that the petition had the necessary signatures and it had been voted on the previous year.  I wish Governor Romney had stayed here for another term.  He insisted they vote on it the previous year (2 years of legislative "okays" are needed to get an issue on the ballot) and the new governor did not see the importance of allowing the citizens of Massachusetts to vote on such an important matter.  (Knowing full well it would have passed by as wide a margin here as it did in CA) 

It seems this commonwealth, whose citizens once prided themselves on overturning overzealous governmental rule, is now committed to "knowing what is best" and will NOT allow its citizens (you know us, the bitter unwashed ignorant masses) to even vote on such an important issue!  A few years ago, we voted for a state income tax decrease...and they haven't allowed that to go into effect either!

Massachusetts is the laughingstock of the nation and now it looks as though we will soon have to share the title with California.  Both states used to have conservative leadership - WHAT HAPPENED????

PS  I agree, Ahrnold may as well toss his Republican Party membership card in the trash and tell Maria she won! 

Chris,

I offered that as an option due to a discussion I had last evening with an attorney that believes this to be a possibility. As you might be aware, I reside in California, and am talking to attorneys here about where this might go. Fair enough? ns

Ratio is just reversed in the court.

BC,

Yeah, when? ns

I agree with you on this. It's kind of like the abortion issue for me....it's not something that would ever be an option for me...but who am I to tell someone what to do. Gay marriage, like abortion, is between the people involved and God. I don't agree with it but it doesn't really affect me.

On the surface, this is a fight to define marriage. One side wants marriage to be defined just as a union between two people. The other wants marriage defined as the union between a man and a woman, specifically. However, there are actually two covert issues driving this conflict. First, is marriage a right? Second, is homosexuality a condition or a choice? Naturally, each of these is considerably more complex than these basic forms, but if either of the tests fail, marriage is out of the hands of the courts. For readers' sanity, I've made liberal use of lists to keep track of things.

1. Is marriage a right? This debate (or lack thereof) is, again, driven by other questions:
   • What is the exact nature of marriage, and is marriage the domain of the state or the church (in both cases meaning the general entities)? Marriage is comprised of two parts (yeah, yeah, I like binary separation), the formation and acknowledgment of a higher bond between two people and the legal and financial ramifications of this union, as prescribed by the state. Obviously, the latter is purely the domain of the state, but where does the former lie? As the state does not have the capacity to recognize abstract concepts like love nor the bond based upon such a concept, I would submit that this is the domain of the church.
     • This brings up yet another question that desperately needs answered: "Which part of marriage is more important?" Simply put, the former. The latter part of marriage in this country is the result of the state acknowledging the bond formed by the church between two people. Today, this relationship has been perverted to the point where most people view marriage as an institution of the state that just happens to usually involve church ceremonies. To be blunt, this perversion is the root cause of the entire debate.
   • The other question: "What is a right?" This is one you're not likely to ever hear during this hullabaloo. I've yet to see a proper definition of the word, so I'm going to propose my own: "An option or immunity granted to all citizens of a community, regardless of status or condition." A couple of things to note about this definition: Rights are granted, therefore there must be a granting body. This body is the creator, designated overseer, or both of the community (also note the implications this has on the concept of "basic human rights"). Rights are granted regardless of status or condition but not regardless of action. Actions have consequences, and one of those consequences is the possible revocation of rights.
   • So, is marriage a right? No, it is not. The state may retract the legal and financial ramifications it gave to marriage, or it may offer the same to other unions, but marriage is not a state-based institution, and the state does not have the authority to define or redefine it.
2. Is homosexuality a condition or a choice? Granted, this question has become purely academic in the context of marriage due to the failure of the first test, but it does impact a number of other issues. Much ado has been made of studies claiming to link increased likelihood of homosexuality with a specific genetic sequence (eg. pointing to the increased likelihood of homosexuality in those with homosexual twins). However, the non-Mendelian (ie. not directly inherited in the manner of eye color, height, etc.) nature of sexuality utterly contradicts any supposition of homosexuality being the pure result of genetics. Even that the tendency to develop SSA (Same-Sex Attraction) is genetic is uncertain. Plenty of studies have shown that homosexuality is "heritable", but this is the same as saying that homosexuality is "possibly inherited".

   Now, here's the thing the media likes to keep under wraps, diminish, or decry as fake: There are people who previously engaged in exclusively homosexual lifestyles but are now happily married in a heterosexual relationship with no homosexual activities. This fact alone is possibly the most important in the debate. If people are truly "born homosexual", the possibility for this situation should not exist. It is important to note that this does not prove or disprove that SSA is entirely separate from genetics. What it does prove is that acting on that attraction is a choice which may be foregone without coming to harm. The concept of homosexual rights is based, most fundamentally, on the concept that homosexuality is not a choice, that it is a condition as much as being black. Take away that illusion and people are just claiming that they should get special treatment for the choices they make.

<rant> Now, some of you are probably wondering why I never use the word "gay".  The answer is twofold.  First, as I outlined above, I view homosexuality as a choice.  Further, I view it as a choice purely regarding sexuality.  The redefinition and popularization of "gay" is an attempt (mostly successful) at drawing attention away from homosexuality being an issue of sex.  They want to frame the debate in terms of "lifestyles", but the lifestyle of a homosexual pair is that of same-sex roommates when you remove the sexual component.  Homosexuality is about sex, and I refuse to address it as anything else.  Second, and much simpler, I just want my language back.  I'm sick of idiots who either can't speak properly or are just too blasted lazy to bother redefining words and making up pointless new ones to suit themselves. </rant>

www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi

Homosexual Sodomy is a dangerous and psychologically destructive vice. It is an addictive appetite for those who participate in it because they can obtain an orgasm from it. This is the "love" they refer to. It is an addiction to a filthy and perverse conduct.

Those who engage in or promote vices are a danger to our society because rampant addiction to sodomy spreads both physical, psychological, and emotional diseases and disorders that often result in death or expensive treatment or both. Not just AIDS, but a whole host of diseases are spread with sodomy as a vector.

It is the responsibility of society and government to protect the populace from this form of unhealthy conduct. Just like other vices, the pushers often target children or young adults to pass along their addictions and their diseases. One of the hooks they use is rape. Once a victim is raped, the perpetrator will attempt to convince the victim that they are now "gay" and will never be "straight" again. This often leads to the victim later becoming a perpetrator and victimizing more youths and a vicious cycle ensues.

Since people caught up in an addiction to sodomy rarely go on to have families and produce children, the person often fails to find fulfillment in life and wastes their youth on selfish indulgence in their sodomy addiction; and later they lose their wealth in treating their related illnesses and psychosis's, which can lead to suicide.

The idea that being "gay" is, or should be, treated the same a being black or being Asian has no basis in logic. Discrimination laws were set up to protect people from discrimination on the basis of something they have no control over, such as their genetic ethnicity, or place of origin.

Discrimination on the basis of conduct is the central concept of the law. People who do things that society has sanctioned, receive punishment for engaging in unacceptable conduct.

People who rob banks, rape children, spray graffiti, gamble, hire prostitutes, sell drugs, torture dogs, spit on the sidewalk all are discriminated against when they are caught. They are fined or sent to jail or forced into treatment, where other people who do not engage in such conduct are left alone.

The notion that a person is "born gay" is a ruse to shunt blame away from the issue of sodomy.

Sodomy is a conduct pure and simple. 

It used to be a universally illegal conduct, but thanks to our federal judges overstepping their authority, and abridging states rights, that is not true anymore and just as in the repeal of our gambling laws, the resulting social ills compound and undermine our once civilized society and over tax our social service systems. Which means it all costs a lot of money that government is going to find a way to tax you for. If it were never allowed to happen, then the taxes would have been sufficient to deal with a diminishing problem, not a growing one. In other words, and to paraphrase, your right to engage in dangerous and unhealthy activity ends where my wallet begins.

How does all of this relate to "gay marriage"?  I'll tell you, but first I'll explain a little about traditional marriage; this is not the first revision of marriage that has come down the pike. Originally, the marriage contract was a way to protect women (who were considered livestock at that time) from being abandoned by their new owners /husbands. The contract required the husband to take good care of his wife.

When women obtained the right to file for divorce, own property, engage in contracts, conduct business, and vote; the marriage contract became obsolete.

Then, somehow, the marriage contract was replaced with the marriage partnership, which unlike a real partnership, was not an equal partnership, the woman received more benefit if it were dissolved, but this fact is hidden in the case law rather than stated in the marriage partnership document itself. Therefore marriage went from a title of ownership of a woman, to a financial noose that a man allows a woman to put around his neck. Since all persons should be equal partners in any contract, marriage of today is a patently sexist and discriminatory fraud.

Now to the "gay marriage" issue. Since marriage is actually designed to discriminate against one of the parties on the basis of sex, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron since both parties are of the same sex and a court would be unable to decide who the protected (favored) party is. Therefore any conceivable "gay marriage" would be indistinguishable from a traditional general partnership and would not produce any new "special rights", which is what homosexuals are actually seeking, mainly to protect and "legitimize" their anti-social behavior from sanction by society so that they can continue to victimize more youths without fear of arrest or incarceration. Their well organized and financed movement has paid off well over the years in that they have succeeded in fooling many, including high up government officials, media types, and even some religious denominations, but in the end that is all it is;, blatant foolishness.

An equivalent foolishness would be if I were to organize my bowling league to campaign for special civil rights for bowlers under the assumption that bowlers are born and not recruited, and that bowlers require special rights to insure that they can bowl without interference from non-bowlers or government zoning restrictions on where bowling alleys can be built or unconscionable and discriminatory hospital regulations preventing bowlers from visiting their fellow league members when they are hospitalized with a bowling injury.

Please note well here that my argument and objection to "gay marriage" has not been framed in a religious or biblical morality argument as I know that the wisdom and veracity of such an argument is lost on many modern progressives.

It rests on logic and common sense. Two things that are in short supply these days, but are self evident to any reader regardless of his/her political or religious views.

---
Communist vs. Statist '08

Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"

Up,

Delicious! :-) "Well that's what I heard!" ns

constitutionally it should be up to the states to decide. that is the way the founding fathers(i'm sure i'm politically incorrect by using fathers there) designed our representative republic to separate federal issues from state. 

i'm sorry if i don't fall into some peoples opinion that a christian doctrine should be the prevailing fundamental ruling law for morality, but once again i have to fall back on jeffersons idea that one persons rights end at their fist and the other persons right ebegin at their nose. it doesn't affect me so i do not care what two consenting adults adults choose to do in privacy to persue happiness. i'm sure there are many of you out there that do things in the privacy of your own home that might not fit into the social norm thet you keep a deep dark secret. the point is we are all sinners in one form or the other and the constitution and the conservative ideaology is suppose to defend and support free choice, even if it may be an unpopular one. it also defends the freedom to dissent and to voice your opinion to disagree and to teach values of good morality also. and that is where this battle should be waged. take it out of the government and bring it to your friends, your gay friends? that would be most effective i suppose instead of using the government to do your dirty work. that is the act of being a liberal to get big brother to do your work for you.

my whole point behind this is that conservative should be fighting much more meaningful battles.

lunaticcringeradio

Now they have to override the court with a Calif. Constitutional amendment.

Easier said than done.

Does anybody here know what is required to Amend the Calif Constitution?  I admit I don't.  

Does it require any decisions by the legislature?

try above ↑↑

   “i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”