Today on Blogcritics
Home » California Legislature Approves Historic Civil Rights Bill Recognizing Same-sex Marriage

California Legislature Approves Historic Civil Rights Bill Recognizing Same-sex Marriage

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

On Tuesday, September 6, 2005, California lawmakers became the first in the United States to approve a bill recognizing same-sex marriages. Assembly Bill (AB) 849, “The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act,” authored by California Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) passed 41-35. The California Senate approved it 21-15 last week. The bill, which makes the law defining marriage gender-neutral (gender was not placed into California’s marriage laws until 1977), does not require any church or other religious organization to recognize or perform same-sex marriages.

The bill will now go to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who has until October 6, 2005, to either sign or veto the bill or to simply allow it go into effect without his signature. Governor Schwarzenegger, who has expressed acceptance of same-sex marriage, has signaled that he will veto it, saying that this is an issue that should be decided by the courts.

The Governor’s spokeswoman, Margita Thompson said, “The people spoke when they passed Proposition 22. The issue subsequently went to the courts. The governor believes the courts are the correct venue for this decision to be made. He will uphold whatever decision the court renders.”

A case testing the legality of a ban on same-sex marriages is headed for the state Supreme Court. The state appellate court is now considering appeals of a lower court ruling, which overturned the California laws that banned the civil recognition of same-sex marriages.

Mr. Leno characterized the recognition of same-sex marriage as the most significant civil rights issue of the 21st century and said that he is optimistic about Governor Schwarzenegger’s open-mindedness.

“I believe this is a governor who at his core is a libertarian on issues of social matters,” Mr. Leno said, “and that he is very fair-minded. I think he also takes the longer, rather than shorter, view of history.” Mr. Leno also noted a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, which showed that Californians are evenly split, 46% to 46%, on the issue of same-sex marriage.

“Do what we know is in our hearts,” said Mr. Leno in a debate on the bill, “Make sure all California families will have the same protection under the law.”

The measure was approved after three Assembly members, Tom Umberg (D-Anaheim), Gloria Negrete-McLeod (D-Chino) and Simon Salinas (D-Salinas), changed their minds after having abstained on a similar proposal that failed in June by 4 votes. Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton), who was not present for the June vote, also helped the bill to pass.

“This is one of those times when history looks upon us to see where we are,” Mr. Umberg said. “Ten years from now, there are a handful of issues that history will record where we stood, and this is one of those issues. History will record whether we pushed a bit, took the lead to encourage tolerance, to encourage equality to encourage fairness,” he said.

Ms. Negrete-McLeod also said that she regretted her June abstention, saying that she was convinced by the words of the Declaration of Independence that demanded “justice for all.”.

Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, a backer of the bill said that Tuesday’s vote showed that gay rights advocates have “turned the corner on the issue of marriage equality for lesbian and gay couples.”

“As the debate today shows, love conquers fear, principle conquers politics and equality conquers injustice, and the governor can now secure his legacy as a true leader by signing this bill,” Mr. Kors said.

The bill’s supporters compared the legislation to civil rights campaigns to eradicate slavery and secure the right to vote for women.

Opponents of the civil recognition of same-sex marriage have vowed to go to court if the bill becomes law, saying it violates the spirit of Proposition 22, a 2000 ballot initiative that prohibits California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries. Proposition 22, which California Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer deemed unconstitutional earlier this year, is not actually impacted by AB 849.

Those who disapprove of marriage equality for gay and lesbian people are also trying to qualify initiatives for the 2006 ballot, one that would amend California’s state Constitution to ban the recognition of same-sex marriages and another that would roll back some of the rights gained by same-sex couples who register as “domestic partners.”

Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families (but apparently only children and families that organization finds acceptable) said, “The only word I can see here is prostitution. Instead of obeying the voters and the Constitution, the Democratic politicians have prostituted themselves to the homosexual marriage agenda. It’s not gay, it’s bad.”

In a September 6 press release, Mr. Thomasson said, “Schwarzenegger can’t afford to sign the ‘gay marriage license’ bill, He’ll actually become a hero to the majority of Californians when he vetoes it. The ‘Terminator’ should announce without delay that this bill is dead meat.”

“I think it’s a sad day. I think the people of California want us to do the business of jobs, the economy, education, illegal immigration, and today we had to spend several hours talking about an issue that the voters decided back five years ago, that marriage should be between a man and a woman … I think it shows how out of touch the legislature is,” said Assemblywoman Sharon Runner (R-Lancaster).

Assemblyman Jay La Suer (R-a San Diego) said, “You are not leading, you have gone astray. History will record that you betrayed your constituents, and their moral and ethical values.” —

“The institution of marriage transcends political fads. We are talking about an institution that has been defined for thousands of years … and we are being asked to engage in a great social experiment,” Assemblyman Ray Haynes (R-Murrieta) said.

“It’s not about civil rights or personal rights, it’s about acceptance. They want to be accepted as normal. They are not normal,” insisted Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy (R-Monrovia), who also said, “We damage the moral fabric of our society, that’s what’s damaged here.”

The opponents of the civil recognition of same-sex marriage do not want this issue characterized as one of civil and human rights because it is an issue of civil and human rights.

Who do they think they’re fooling and how long do they expect them to stay fooled? After all, equality is not the same thing as acceptance and nobody can objectively define that ambiguous social concept some people call “normal.”

Aren’t oppression and bigotry damaging to the moral fabric of our society?

Is it ethical to create a second class of citizenship?

Is it prudent to think of equal protection under the law as a “social experiment?”

And, the current most important question: Will Governor Schwarzenegger place equality over injustice and principle above politics?

Powered by

About Margaret Romao Toigo

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    …violates the spirit of Proposition 22, a 2000 ballot initiative that prohibits California from recognizing same-sex marriages…

    It also violates California’s constitution, as has been found when the folks in Sacramento tried this before.

  • TBJ

    Awesome, how about spreading the word on “equality” all across the USA…I mean, it says “We the People”, not “We the christian right-wingers”..

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Patience, TBJ. The word on equality is likely to be spread across the USA by the Supreme Court, but the cases have to reach it first.

    Progress is a force that moves at its own pace. The Religious Right cannot stop it and, unfortunately, the gay rights movement cannot make it accelerate.

    The position opposing the civil recognition of same-sex marriage is untenable, so the purpose of the debate is not to convince so much as it is to foster understanding in preparation for the inevitable.

  • http://h DrPat

    …and the Governator will veto it.

    Just announced…

  • Anthony Grande

    The people of California have voted nearly 70% to protect marriage between a man and women. This is a blunder for democratic californians, because this is something that the people of California obviously don’t want.

    Schwarzenegger will veto it, so the Democrats accomplished nothing but their own demise.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Protect marriage between a man and woman from what (or whom), Mr. Grande?

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    Supreme Court would rule on precedence, and if they were in a good mood would rule that there is no Constitutional backing on same-sex marriage, and I think this should be an issue devoted to the states.

    That way, the people can get a good whiff of what they want to see happen.

  • billy

    the problem is republicans cant figure out their line, first its activist jidges, now activist legislatures, seems to me arnold is being an activist governor. hes finished in california if he vetos this bill. hes probably finished in California anyway.

  • Anthony Grande

    Sorry bill boy but Arnold will not be done here in California when he vetoes this bill, because over 70% of Californians do not want gay marriage. We voted on it 5 years ago.

    “Protect marriage between a man and woman from what (or whom), Mr. Grande?”

    An immoral society, flow of gay migration into my state, advancement of AIDS and the wrath of God.

    Also, sorry libbies but this bill will never go to any court, because my Governor will use his [VETO] power.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Oh @#$%&*!

    “Calif. – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Wednesday he will veto a bill that would have made California the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through its elected lawmakers.”

    But, let’s try to look on the bright side here, Proposition 22 has already been judged unconstitutional. It is only a matter of time (two steps forward, one step back) before we defeat “the last frontier of bigotry and discrimination,” as California Assemblyman Paul Koretz calls our failure to recognize homosexuals’ civil right to marriage.

    “A state appeals court is considering appeals of a lower court ruling earlier this year that overturned Proposition 22 and a 1978 law that first formally defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.”

    Reading Judge Kramer’s decision ought to lend some comfort with regard to that appeal’s potential for success.

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    Immorality I can deal with.

    But a word that extends too far across the screen really pisses off Christians.

  • billy

    republicans will lose big on this one. arnold’s approval rating is in the 30s and headed south now. the court will clearly find the epc of the constitution protects gay marriage. there is absolutely no basis for a court to reject gay marriage. thats why republicans are so scared. the legislature elected by the people supports it. now only an activist out of step and out the door governer is pandering to the extreme right which we cant stand in california.

    later gov. boobengrabber.

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    But billy, courts rule on precedent. Judicial activism — i.e., “I’ll rule however I WANT to rule, and nobody else can make me” — might save it, but while I agree that there’s no basis to reject it, I don’t see a way to permit it either, which is why I think it’ll ultimately become a state issue.

    See: eminent domain, journalists protecting sources.

  • billy

    no, the “EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE” is clear. it isnt activism to read the clause and say every person is entitled to marry another person.

    otherwise, men and women do it, but some men and some women cant because they are gay.

    thats not activism. thats republicans like bush hating the american system and badmouthing it.

    even if its a state issue the california constitution has a similar EPC clause. to me its activism to say the EPC does not protect gay marriage, or any union between two people.

    activism would be to let rick santorum marry his dog under the epc, which apparently he wants to do.

  • Anthony Grande

    Billy, billy, billy you are obviosly not from California.

    Arnold’s approval rating is in the sewer because the liberal media has aired dozens of ads just full of lies.

    Illegal Immigration is also a HUGE problem here and Arnold hasn’t done nothing to stop it. Approval is down.

    Gay Marriage is not a popular issue here. Us Californians don’t want it. We voted not to have it by a landslide. Arnold will benefit from this move.

    HAH! HAH! HAH! THIS ISN’T ABORTION! YOU CAN’T BRAINWASH US ON THIS ONE! GAY MARRIAGE WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

    I think I will go over to my girlfreind’s to celebrate, bye bye

  • billy

    yeah right. your girlfriend has bigger biceps than the boobengrabber, and i am from california, and he isnt popular here because he is a republican, and now he proved he is one, he fooled everyone in the election by pretending to be pro gay marriage, pro choice. we arent fooled anymore now for sure.

  • Anthony Grande

    Billy, close your eyes and listen: Gay marriage is not wanted here, we voted over 70% to beat it.

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    Marriage is not a Constitutional right. The civil rights bestowed by marriage are, and there you have a point.

    It’s just such a complicated and touchy issue. People try and find a comparison to the issue of same-sex marriage and there just isn’t one.

  • Anthony Grande

    I honestly do not care if the Constitution stated: Marriage is between man and another man,
    Us in California do not want it damn it, don’t throw it on us , throw it on some New England state if you must.

  • steve

    I can’t wait for parent teacher conferences in 10-15 years.

    I could just picture my child’s instructor with all of the parents in the classroom.

    I could imagine my wife and I exhanging hellos with parent a, and parent b

  • billy

    The civil rights bestowed by marriage are, and there you have a point.

    its true marriage “rights” ie a civil union is what is marriage, anything more is part of your church and has no place in government, via its exclusion in the first amendment.

    therefore, all marriage should be declared religious and illegal, and all people can have any marriage they want irrespective of the government, and all people could have a non-religious civil union between two people as part of the “rights”

    but that would be too simple, and as i have stated before most republicans are bigots, whoch is why they have a problem with the above. they want to discriminate against gays.

  • practical joe

    Bigamy is not a Constitutional right.
    Polygamy is not a Constitutional right.
    Homosexual marriage is not a Constitutional right.

    Marriage is not a Constitutional right, but if it were what’s the gripe?

    The “EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE” is clear.

    Any man can marry any woman.
    Any woman can marry any man.

    Amen.

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    but that would be too simple, and as i have stated before most republicans are bigots, whoch is why they have a problem with the above. they want to discriminate against gays.

    Or, people are just uncomfortable with the idea.

    If you want to demonize opponents of same-sex marriage with negative descriptors like “bigot” — words used to categorize like white supremacists — then your argument and ideals will look negative and immature. And I hate to see that in an intriguing talking point such as this, and just like when people throw the word “immoral” around in the argument from the anti- argument, it becomes nothing more than a shouting contest. And I don’t want to lose my voice.

    Plus, the discomfort isn’t relegated to just Republicans, because neither major 2004 presidential candidate embraced — or even endorsed — the concept.

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    And Maggie, I must also compliment the use of sidebars. I love online media design, and it’s very nice to see someone figure it out on BC. I tried it once, but it didn’t work.

    May I suggest making the sidebar an off color? I prefer #CCCCFF.

  • billy

    “EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE” is clear.

    Any man can marry any woman.
    Any woman can marry any man.

    that would be nice and good if that is what the epc says, but it doesnt, so practical joe is the activist here.

    epc – all person are entitled to equal protection under the law,

    what do right wingers not get? a gay family has unequal rights under the law.

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    Agreed, by my logic.

    I don’t think the 14th (?) Amendment outlaws same-sex marriage either. But I don’t think it’s the green light.

    It couldn’t be a more difficult decision.

  • billy

    put it this way, the only way practical joe’s argument is tenable is if a gay person becomes straight, then they can marry a woman. thats what he said.

    EPC = man/woman

    so he doesnt want epc, he wants epc, IF, a gay person becomes straight first.

    he has no right to do that. it isnt his business. he wants to change another person to fit his religion then give them epc if they do it.

    on the contrary, each person has epc regardless of joe’s religious view.

    very difficult though, indeed

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    I agree it shouldn’t be about religion.

    But at the same time man I can’t follow your last comment.

    Why are we still talking about him when we already agree on it?

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Matthew T. Sussman wrote, “Or, people are just uncomfortable with the idea.”

    And that’s the heart of the matter, isn’t it? Some people are just uncomfortable with the idea for various reasons, but they cannot come up with any sort of reasoning that truly justifies a continued legal ban on the civil recognition of same-sex marriages.

    However, throughout its short history, America has maintained a steady trend of always broadening the recognition of civil rights, once they were discovered. Remember, back in the 1950s, a lot of people in the South were extremely uncomfortable with the idea of integration. And can you imagine the discomfort felt by the menfolk when the womenfolk first started demanding our right to vote?

    BC has two sidebar div classes lsidebar and rsidebar. I just take the BC defaults, but I do agree that a contrasting background color would be more attractive.

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    Exactly. It’s discomfort. And I think it works both ways.

    And for me, it’s discomfort to be for same-sex marriage. It’s also discomfort for me to endorse legislation banning it. But thankfully the legislation came through a state proposition, and I had the power to veto it. (But it was passed anyway.)

    When one side slaps a bigotry label — a very serious accusation — on a person who has a gut feeling about something, then the labeled argument retreats from discussion because they don’t want to be attacked for something they feel off the cuff.

    Granted, when one plays the morality card, it just energizes the pro-same-sex marriage crowd to validate themselves through any means necessary.
    ___

    Good stuff to know. I might try a super contrasting one sometime. I’m thinking FFFFFF on 000000 (black on white).

  • practical joe

    If a gay family has equal rights under the law…

    What rights does a polygamist family have?

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    My discomfort is in my knowledge that I am currently enjoying civil rights that are arbitrarily denied to some of my fellow Americans. I feel so very undemocratic because — other than being born heterosexual — I did nothing to deserve my special status.

    I am also uncomfortable knowing that millions of children of gay and lesbian parents are denied the protections provided to married families because their parents’ civil right to marriage is not legally recognized.

    Indeed, this is a “hot button” issue. As such, people on both sides of it are going to speak passionately and, sometimes, imprudently.

    Yes, the “B” word and the “M” word get thrown around a lot, but that is because they have been applicable in some cases.

    Some people can be rather hateful and intolerant in the expression of their views and they must be called out for the sake of “justice for all,” which is America’s primary moral along with, “all men are created equal.”

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    A good note to leave on.

    I’m no expert on the subject, but I know what I feel. And I have a vote. That’s all America asks of me.

    Keep fighting for them, I guess. It’s not my battle. I just don’t care about the issue that much. I worry more about people whose spouses commit adultery.

  • RogerMDillion

    “Arnold’s approval rating is in the sewer because the liberal media has aired dozens of ads just full of lies.”

    No, it’s because he hasn’t accomplished much since being elected and the state has the same problems it had when it voted Davis out.

    You don’t get to use “we” when talking about how California votes when you aren’t eligble to vote. And no one believes you have a girlfriend.

  • Luke

    There’s nothing unfair about men not being about to marry other men, because straight men aren’t allowed to do that either.

  • Nick

    I myself feel that it is unfair for a straight male to be trapped in a straight male body.. but that’s just life…

  • Luke

    It’s also unfair for people who happen to be sexually attracted to animals, to not be allowed to marry an animal.

  • Nick

    Most men are animals.. at least, the fun ones!

  • Nick

    Mind you, I think we are moving towards the consensus that life ain’t fair…

  • red state

    Bigot: def. a conservative winning an argument with a liberal

    Now that we got that cleared up let’s talk about gay marriage.

    The bottomline is that the Majority of Americans don’t want gay marriage to be legalized. There have been ballot initiatives in 17 states to amend the state constituion to ban gay marriage. The people voted and all 17 amendments passed. And some were in very liberal states such as Oregon and Hawaii.

    But the far left keeps trying to ram thier agenda down the throat of the American people through the courts. That’s the only reason gay marriage was legallized in MAssachusetts. The courts wanted it not the people.

    However witht the upcoming confirmation of John Roberts and then another conservative justice it will soon get much more difficult for the heathen left to further thier warped, perverted degenarate agenda.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Matthew T. Sussman wrote, “I worry more about people whose spouses commit adultery.”

    Isn’t it ironic how the so-called “protectors and defenders of marriage” fight tooth and nail to prevent the recognition of same-sex marriage while pretty much giving adultery — a crime that actually violates other peoples’ rights — a wink and a nod?

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    The bottomline is that the Majority of Americans don’t want gay marriage to be legalized. There have been ballot initiatives in 17 states to amend the state constituion to ban gay marriage. The people voted and all 17 amendments passed. And some were in very liberal states such as Oregon and Hawaii.

    The bottom line is that I don’t think many Americans would care one way or the other if it weren’t for peer pressure. Support gay rights, you’re labeled a queer, fag or, God forbid, liberal. The rights of a minority must be protected from the majority.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    To be sure, red state appears to be in serious need of a civics lesson or two.

    And I always wonder about people who complain about other people trying to ram things down their throats. It is it genuine paranoia, repressed oral fantasies or just another silly cliche?

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    I’ll take Repressed Oral Fantasies for $200, Ms. Toigo.

  • red state

    Civics lesson? why?

    I stated a fact. 17 states have posed bans on gay marriage in the form of constitutional amendments and all have passed.

    Therefore it is a logical assumption that most Americans aren’t in favor of gay marriage.

    If you don’t like that this has happened but don’t say I need a civics lesson when I state facts and you state opinion

  • billy

    most Americans aren’t in favor of gay marriage.

    thats the problem with republicans, they think because people are against something in a poll they can interfere with others lives and telll them what to do. that isnt the way america works. republicans want a nanny state but it wont happen that way.

    99.99% could be in favor of killing all cats, is it going to happen?

    you dont like gay marriage? too bad? dont have one. kick your kids out of the house if you dont like it. do as you wish if you are a bigot.

    it simply does not matter one bit what other people think of gay marriage. it has no relevance to the epc. the epc clause of the constitution doesnt rely on a poll.

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    Maragaret, I’m totally with you.

    The number one threat to marriage is adultery. And nobody talks about it because it’s understood not to do it. But it’s rampant and needs to stop.

  • with karate ill kik ur ass

    i agree billy

    its not like ppl r forcing them to be married ot the same sex.

  • red state

    Billy once again [edited].

    I’m not referring to polls.

    I’m referring to initiatives that were actually voted on by Ameircan citizens.

    And you seem to liek to refer to the constituion when you make your argument Billy boy. Well the constituion’s intent was to have the people express thier will fairly in a democratic form.

    This is exactly what happened in the states that banned gay marriage. The people VOTED on it Billy. In the one state where gay marriage is legal it was decided by a handful of people in the courts not the citizens.

    Keep on making ignorant remarks though billy. When you can refute an argument you resort to calling the person a bigot. Typical left winger.

    Let me ask you a question Billy. You and your left wing pals have been saying the same horseshit for the past 10 years. Where has it got you?

    Who won the pres elction in 2000?

    Who won the pres election in 2004?

    Who has had control of congress the past 12 years?

    What party do most governors belong to?

    Huh Billy boy? Seems liek your tired left wing tactics of calling all republicans racists and bigots hasn’t worked out too well has it?

  • billy

    it isnt a tactic to call you a bigot, you are a bigot as you have proven here and with regard to the black man who criticized bush. facts arent tactics.

    similarly, peoples rights arent up for a poll OR a vote. you simply cant vote away gay peoples rights no matter how much you bitch. that is why it was declared unconstitutional in california.

  • with karate ill kik ur ass

    but y R ppl voting aginst gay marriages?

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Civics 101

    In America, the recognition of civil rights is cannot be finally decided by majority vote. The mob does not rule here.

    America is a democratic nation, to be sure. However, our government is not a true democracy, but rather a representative constitutional republic with a three-branch system (executive, legislative and judicial) of checks and balances that keep the tyranny of the mob (a.k.a the majority) in check.

    Read the Constitution sometime, red state, it’s only 4 hand-written pages long, you know.

  • RED STATE

    Civics 101A

    Nowhere in the constituion does it say that gay marriage is a civil right.

    Therefore it is up for the American public what constitutes a civil right. Just because you lefties say gay marriage is a civil right does not make it so.

    That’s what you do. You take an issue you can’t win with support of the American people and turn it into a “civil rights” issue.

    The Democratic party has become so beholden to far far left special interest groups that the avergae American wants nothing to do with it.

    And you left wingers on here are just the vocal village idiots that make up that fringe minority.

    Seriously… you guy’s repeaet the same tired bullshit over and over and over ‘WAR FOR OIL” RIGHT TO CHOOSE WOMENS LIVES AT STAKE” “ALL REPUBS ARE RLIGIOUS, HOMOPHOBE RACIST NUTS” ETC ETC ETC

    IT AINT WORKING! REPUBLICAN PRES
    REPUBLICAN CONGRESS. MOST GOVS ARE REPUBLICAN. GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENTS GETTING PASSED LEFT AND RIGHT. SOON TO BE 2 CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES ON THE SUPREME COURT…..

    IF THE BEST YOU GUYS CAN DO IS HOWARD DEAN, HILLARY CLINTON, CINDY SHEEHAN, AL SHARPTON AND JOHN KERRY ALL HOPE IS LOST….NOT THAT I MIND, I HOPE YOU GUYS NEVER WAKE UP AND REALIZE IT AINT WORKING AND YOUR REPS ARE THE SCUM OF THE EARTH

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    Wow.

    This got ugly fast.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    I despise partisanship (the elevation of party over principle to the detriment of both) no matter from which side of the aisle it spews talking points and other forms of tedium.

    I am a non-partisan libertarian capitalist who understands that placing arbitrary limits upon civil rights diminishes economic opportunity while the expansion of civil rights creates economic opportunity.

    What sort of Republican/conservative promotes anti-business ideas like opposing the civil recognition of same-sex marriages?

    Social authoritarianism is anti-capitalism by default, you know.

    And people who believe that the majority rules in America need to hit those Civics 101 textbooks.

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    The partisanship is deafening, and if more people presented the argument like you, Margaret, I think it would be taken more seriously.

    Make the case a positive one, not prose like “well I’m not a bigot and I stand up for the little guy.” Comparisons to African-American rights or women’s suffrage fall short. Way short.

    Say things like “This is good for the economy.” “This promotes growth.” And you are, so that’s good.

    And I don’t think marriage laws are relegated to a Republican way of thinking. Are there not a good chunk of Democrats also in favor of it? Because you have to address all of them.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Wow. This got ugly fast.

    Nothing like discussing homosexuality with a right wing male, Matthew. It just brings out the Queen in them.

  • red state

    How is ooposing gay marriage anti-capitalism?

    That one needs some explaining Margaret.

    And also… I wouldn’t be so partisan if the left in this country weren’t such ammoral, disgusting heathens.

    The left wants to kill babies for profit. Don’t give me the bullshit argument that a baby shouldn’t be born if the mother isn’t ready to have a child argument. The bottom line is it’s a life and there are no garentees for security or happiness for any of us before we are born. You either choose to have the baby and give the greatest gift any person can give to another (life) or you don’t and you murder it. It’s that simple and all the “nuanced spin” you so called pro choicers want to throw at the issue doesn’t change it. yes I’m a horrible evil republican because I believe that life begins at conception and we should do what we can to protect the lives of innocent babies as opposed to killing them becuase it may cramp the mother’s lifestyle or there are no assurances that the baby’s life will be all smiles and sunshine…..oooohhhh horrible me

    Also the people in control of the left and democratic party today will do whatever they can to defend the rights of the most vile creatures in society while the victim suffers. Take for example child molesters… the aclu, a leftist group is more often concerned with the civil rights of of a murdering pedophile than they are of the victim when it comes to punishing the pedophile and tracking them upon thier release from prison. Liberals say they did thier time they deserve thier freedom…..only we all know that the repeat offense rate is almost 100% upon release.

    Lefties say they are for minorities and then label any minority who dares espouse conservative values or vote republican “a token” or a “race traitor” what could be more racist than saying if an individual belongs to a certain race they must think a certain way about scoial and political issues?

    So you see I am partisan out of necessity. The Democratic party of today has been seized by far leftists who are trying to destroy everything that was ever good, moral and traditional about this nation.

    If you have a problem with that Maria maybe you had better take a good look at organizations like the aclu and see what they are trying to do to this country.

  • billy

    no need to argue much further. red state proved why the religious right are seen as such nutcases by his own words. my advice, dont like gay marriage. keep your mouth shut about it, because its inevitable.

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    Threads like this make people like me who are divided on the issue stay divided.

  • billy

    and you are on the right? if you dont like that why do you keep associating with a group, as expressed by redstate, that are so out of touch with reality and so filled with hatred toward this country?

  • practical joe

    Margaret pontificates:

    “And people who believe that the majority rules in America need to hit those Civics 101 textbooks.”

    Please tell us which textbooks this quote came from…

    If the majority doesn’t rule — who does?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Whether gay marriage is inevitable or not, put aside for just a minute and consider this: There are already up to 6 million kids living with gay parents. Gay families are already created, they aren’t some future prospect, they are here and now. And every single one of these families is deprived of the protections that so many take for granted.

    Should a spouse die, there is no guarantee that the children of that family will receive any federal assistance like social security payments or it’s equivalent. Whether it’s veterans benefits, qualifying for assistance in some form or just the family recognition for medical purposes, these children have all of it stripped away because some people disapprove of the only families they have ever known.

    It is heartwrenching and horrible to know that America would subject it’s children to such treatment because a majority would vote that way. America isn’t mob rule, one cannot vote away the rights of another, if so, then it isn’t America anymore.

    The recognition of gay marriage should be inevitable, because the need for recognition is here and now. I hope and pray that America comes around and quits allowing these religious bigots to oppress and ostracize because they like to pick and choose which portions of the bible to construct a society by.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    “Social authoritarianism is anti-capitalism by default”

    Nope, there are lots of examples to disprove this point throughout the world, China being the biggest today.

    Capitalism is not some magic bullet that frees people from state control. Any respectable social scientist who studies democratization could tell you that the Lipset thesis about the development of a capitalist middle-class is only a very impartial explanation at best compared to the historical record.

    That is all.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    In comment 59, red state points out that he has an agenda. And that agenda is to be against anything from the left. So there is no possible rationale, no possible debate, no possible discourse that can achieve any benefit whatsoever, in a discussion with him. His mind is closed, he has said so.

    So you see I am partisan out of necessity

    He wants to disagree with the Left, not because he believes in the values of the Right, but because he wants to oppose the Left. He wants to disagree with ALL of the Left because he disagrees with most of the Left.

    Read comment 59 to see if I am right. He is closed for debate. Period.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    The debate over the civil recognition of same-sex marriages is definitely a bi-partisan one.

    However, it’s not so much a matter of Democrats versus Republicans or right versus left so much as it is libertarianism versus authoritarianism — and we all know that each side of that ol’ aisle is populated by liberal and conservative flavors of libertarians and authoritarians.

    Republicans/conservatives are most often perceived as being pro-capitalism, while Democrats/liberals are usually seen as being less so.

    Opposing the civil recognition of same-sex marriage is anti-capitalist because all aspects of marriage (engagements, weddings, homes, mortgages, insurance, etc.) create business opportunities for the providers of numerous goods and services that are directly and indirectly associated with marriage and family.

    To arbitrarily deny the civil right to marriage to certain segments of the population deprives society of the economic advantages that occur when a larger percentage of the population is composed of married families.

    red state wrote, “I wouldn’t be so partisan if the left in this country weren’t such ammoral, disgusting heathens.”

    You’re kidding, right? Probably not. But one can hope, can’t one?

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Bob A. Booey wrote, “Capitalism is not some magic bullet that frees people from state control.”

    Of course it isn’t. However, social authoritarianism does diminish capitalism because state control deprives the people of economic opportunity.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Margaret, you’re more likely to find quasi-authoritarian regimes with private sector capitalism than state-controlled planned economies now. There are no Stalinist economies other than North Korea these days.

    Authoritarian capitalism has become the happy medium in too much of the developing world these days and there’s nothing incompatible about the two whatsoever. In fact, authoritarianism and Cold War geopolitics helped make capitalism possible in much of Latin America and Africa. Technology made capitalism a more efficient answer to produce wealthier, ordered societies for Asian regimes.

    That is all.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    practical joe asked, “If the majority doesn’t rule — who does?”

    Ultimately, the Constitution rules here.

    America is not a true democracy, it is a representative constitutional republic with a three-branch system of government (executive, legislative and judicial) that provides checks and balances to keep the tyranny of the majority in check.

    I would be really interested in learning which Civics textbook says that America is governed by majority rule.

  • Nola

    The fear here is allowing monogamy to be associated with gay people. It is a fear of associated positive words, like monogamy, marriage, and family, with what conservatives feel is immoral conduct.

    Notice a conservative used the word
    “prostitution” to define the bill.

    Beware, these are word-game tactics like the anti-sodomy laws Republicans instituted in the South.

    While abstinence, monogamy, and marriage go hand-in-hand, conservatives are trying to PREVENT the spread of these moral concepts during an AIDS and divorce crisis in the United States.

    This uncovers conservatives’ real intentions of withholding human rights to label homosexuality as a disease not a normal lifestyle. The less human rights conservatives allow gays, the less normal their lifestyles will feel an appear.

  • Anthony Grande

    O.k. all you liberals listen and get this through your heads: The people of California have SPOKEN and they overwhelmingly voted against Gay Marriage. WE DO NOT WANT IT, SO LEAVE US ALONE [Edited]

    That little part should be case closed, but you libs are trying to shove down our throats. Why must you do this???

    Expecially you libs not from California.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    The wheels on the bus go round and round….um, Anthony, I believe there were about 10 previous comments that answered that for you.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Notice how giving my family equal recognition from the government is written as shoving something down his throat.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    What exactly are these “libs” trying to shove down your throat, Mr. Grande?

  • billy

    The people of California have SPOKEN and they overwhelmingly voted against Gay Marriage

    here ill answer him again. that vote was a decade ago, and since then it has been shown clearly that you CANNOT VOTE AWAY the rights of a minority you dont like, any more than you could vote to bring back slavery.

    It isnt constitutional to vote to make gays second class citizens. the courts invalidated that vote for that very reason. activist right wingers need to stop trying to have votes to harm gays.

    that vote is null and void no matter how much you trumpet it.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Penis, apparently.

    That is all.

  • billy

    “shove down your throat”

    very interesting. A. Grande wants to tell gay people. change. become straight, then you will have all the rights i have.

    and then he accuses them of shoving something down his throat? how logical is that?

    the gays just want to be left alone to raise families and have the same rights as everyone else.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Because while there’s sufficient evidence, Anthony, that you should not reproduce, you have the right to do so. People of the same sex should have the right to marry. If people such as yourself are too hung up on the very thought of it then let’s compromise. I suggest something called a pactum domesticus which essentially is a domestic partnership but with tighter controls. The PD should be available to any TWO individuals, regardless of gender. Those couples, gay or straight, can enter into a PD which is governed by rules and laws which are devoted to making the relationship a success. Then the breeders can marry and divorce all they want. The ones with the real morals, real values and real love can enter into the PD with all the rights thereto afforded straight married couplings.

    That little part should be case closed, but you libs are trying to shove down our throats.

    Trust me, dude, I wouldn’t shove anything down your throat. It would give you yet one more thing to whine about.

  • Anthony Grande

    “that vote was a decade ago,”

    Try 4 years ago!!!!!!!

    [Edited]

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Yeah, and his throat too, you sonsabitches!

    That is all.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    What state are you in Anthony? I really want to look up the statistics.

  • Anthony Grande

    No, no more arguement we voted against which shouldn’t give you the right to force it on us.

    But this doesn’t matter anyway because I know that two faced fascist we have for a governor is good for something and that is his veto power.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    FACT CHECK: Proposition 22, whose constitutionality is currently in question in the courts, passed 61.4% to 38.6% in the year 2000.

    Just FYI.

  • practical joe

    Margaret: [Edited] What I said was — If the majority doesn’t rule — who does? And you answered it with “Ultimately, the Constitution rules here.”

    Is that your way of admitting that the minority does not rule? Keep in mind that a MAJORITY was needed to approve the Constitution. It certainly was not a minority. Sure there are checks and balances — but in the end… THE MAJORITY, NOT THE minority RULES. That’s why we have that thing called a VOTE (look it up).

    Now if your answer was simply an attempt to insinuate that the majority can be overruled by the Courts, keep in mind that the Constitutional way to change what the majority has decreed is via:
    Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments..

    And don’t overlook: Article [X.] of the Bill of Rights
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    IT”S POWER TO THE PEOPLE! — i.e., the MAJORITY!

  • Anthony Grande

    Silas, are you serious???? Why do you think I am so mad???

    I LIVE IN COLTON, CALIFORNIA!!!!!!!!!!

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Your fear of having same-sex marriage forced upon you us unfounded, Mr. Grande. When same-sex marriages are recognized, they will be optional, not required.

  • Anthony Grande

    “What I said was — If the majority doesn’t rule — who does?”

    The Fascist liberal congressmen of California.

  • Anthony Grande

    Margaret, THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!!!!!!

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    You should embrace the idea of legal gay marriage, Anothony. It would be so good for your state’s economy. After all we have more fags in CA than anywhere else. Did you know that us queers plan on taking CA over and making San Francisco the capitol? You’ll have to move to Utah, Anthony! Well, I think you’d be happier there anyway.

  • Anthony Grande

    Silas, THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!!!!!

    YOU CANNOT MARRY STEVE!!!!!

    California has the most gays because it has the highest population. We also have the most Mexicans and Asians and I wouldn’t be surprised if we had the most Blacks and Whites.

    THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!!!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    [Edited] It’s my state too. And I’ve put more in taxes back in it, than your paper route ever has.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    I did not state an opinion, practical joe, I gave a rudimentary description of our system of government.

    Those facts are not a matter of opinion open to debate simply because they make the position opposing the civil recognition of same-sex marriage untenable.

  • practical joe

    Hey Margaret,

    How ‘bout all us guys which was born wanting to be polygamists?

    It’s in our genes, we can’t help it.

    Can you take up our cause with the Courts?

    We is ‘bein discriminated against!

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Anthony, sometimes what the majority decides is not always right. That’s why we have a Constitution because mob rule is anarchy. Just because it passed doesn’t mean it’s right or moral. Face it, Anthony, if the referendum went the other way, you’d be using my argument. It’s not the majority you are concerned about. You have your opinion and I have mine. We’ll just agree to disagree on that issue. Don’t allow yourself to be consumed by visions of men sleeping with each other. The preoccupation is getting in the way of other social problems that require more attention from astute people as yourself.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    How ‘bout all us guys which was born wanting to be polygamists?

    The Bible promotes polygamy and misogyny. Therefore it must be righteous. Great Caesar’s ghost! Can we go back to the good old days of Zeus and Olympus?

  • practical joe

    Polygamy is in our genes!

    We can’t help it!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    If you want biblical marriage then you want marriage where women are as property and men can marry as many as they can provide for.

  • practical joe

    “If you want biblical marriage then you want marriage where women are as property and men can marry as many as they can provide for.”

    Who wants that?

    My religion teaches one man — one woman.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    That’s it, Steve S. The righteous want to reduce womankind to property. They have a secret agenda. By creating the anti-queer smokescreen they are getting their own agenda through. Perhaps all these straight guys are jealous because we get the toaster ovens for our ‘conversions’ and they don’t.

  • Anthony the real Californian

    [Entire comment deleted]

  • Anthony the real Californian ….Grande

    “The righteous want to reduce womankind to property. They have a secret agenda.”

    The funny thing is that you will never ever say that again when we elect Condy as our next president.

    My mom is Anti-Gay Marriage because she is a methodist. Do you think she wants to reduce womankind to property???

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    That’s it, Anthony! Condy for President! OMG, that’s precious. Dude, if you only knew what you were saying. There is poetic justice. There is a God and He has a sense of humor! He created you!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    My religion teaches one man — one woman.

    Recognition from my government should not be contingent on your religion.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Steve S, take heart. Anthony wants Condy for President! Review his writings. Think about his perspective. Condoleeza for President is so ironic on so many levels!

  • practical joe

    Steve S:

    My religion teaches one man — one woman.
    Recognition from my government should not be contingent on your religion.

    And I say — your religion says two men or two women.

    And recognition from my government should not be contingent on your religion.

  • Anthony Grande

    When did I say I want Condy for President??? I haven’t decided who If I will vote for her or not. It all depends what her beliefs on abortion and gay marriage is. She claimed she was “mildly pro choice” but I believe we will hear otherwise, but if that is not the case in the primaries I am voting for Frist or someone else who is extremely anit-abortion and anti-gay marriage.

    The problem with Condy is that she is devoted to her job and doesn’t speak much to the public about her issues so much about her views are debated on.

    She would make a great Commander and Cheif. Much better than Hillary!!!!

  • RogerMDillion

    “Do you think the Recall was mob rule???”

    Yes it was, genius. The people had voted and Gray won again because the Repubs put up an even worse candidate in Simon, a grown-up version of you. Things weren’t well a few months after the inaugration and the mob screamed and whoned “Do Over”, so we had to waste the time and money with the special election. They got Arnold and now they are surprised that he sucks at the job.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    The old polygamy ploy? You mean you don’t wish to marry your dog or cat instead? C’mon, you’re going to have to do much better than that.

    Here, let me help you.

    When you engage in a debate, you must present pragmatic arguments and avoid the use of emotional appeals and logical fallacies such as straw men, slippery slopes, red herrings, etc.

    If you want to make an effective and convincing case against the civil recognition of same-sex marriages, you must place your opponents on the defensive and you must do so decisively.

    Here are a few surefire methods for doing just that:

    You could, for example, demonstrate how the civil recognition of same-sex marriage is a violation or denial of civil and human rights. The more specific your examples, the stronger your argument will be.

    You could also explain how the civil recognition of same-sex marriage would undermine the institution of marriage. It is important to note that you cannot simply make that assertion and just leave it at that. In order to make this argument credible, you must provide specifics.

    And finally, it is prudent to keep your emotions in check and focus upon the practical issues, lest people start to perceive your passionate outbursts as subterfuge intended to disguise the untenability of your position.

  • Anthony Grande

    “Do you think the Recall was mob rule???”

    “Yes it was, genius.”

    O.k. now we are getting somewhere, now Roger do you think that the recall caused “total anarchy”???

    ______________________________________

    Hey Margaret, do you want to here my way of putting my opponents on the defense???

    O.K. here it is: THE PEOPLE SPOKE, THEY DO NOT WANT GAY MARRIAGES!!!!!!!

  • practical joe

    Margaret: “The old polygamy ploy? ”

    Yup.

    “You mean you don’t wish to marry your dog or cat instead? C’mon, you’re going to have to do much better than that.”

    No dog or cat. I just like lots of women.

    “Here, let me help you.”

    Don’t need any help.

    “When you engage in a debate, you must present pragmatic arguments and avoid the use of emotional appeals and logical fallacies such as straw men, slippery slopes, red herrings, etc.”

    I agree.

    Homosexuals like what is abnormal. My desire for women is normal.

    —-

    “If you want to make an effective and convincing case against the civil recognition of same-sex marriages, you must place your opponents on the defensive and you must do so decisively.”

    It seems that I have put you on the defensive.

    Dogs and Cats! Indeed!

    “Here are a few surefire methods for doing just that: You could, for example, demonstrate how the civil recognition of same-sex marriage is a violation or denial of civil and human rights. The more specific your examples, the stronger your argument will be.”

    The denial of civil rights is when I am prohibited from marrying more than one woman at a time.

    “You could also explain how the civil recognition of same-sex marriage would undermine the institution of marriage. It is important to note that you cannot simply make that assertion and just leave it at that. In order to make this argument credible, you must provide specifics.”

    Marriage is an institution set up to maintain our civilization. Not just to have boys play dick and women play whatever it is they play.

    “And finally, it is prudent to keep your emotions in check and focus upon the practical issues, lest people start to perceive your passionate outbursts as subterfuge intended to disguise the untenability of your position.”

    Exactly.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Okay, Mr. Grande, I get what you’re saying here and FWIW, I even understand why Governor Schwarzenegger felt he needed to veto AB 849.

    It would upset the balance of power if the California legislature was allowed to overrule the will of the people who voted for Proposition 22.

    However, Proposition 22 is clearly unconstitutional and Judge Kramer’s decision to that effect is almost certain to be upheld on appeal in the state Supreme Court — perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States — and that is how the recognition of same-sex marriage will eventually become the law of the land.

    That, gentlemen, is the way the balance of power works to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. America is ultimately ruled by our Constitution.

    I mean, really! What’s the big deal here? Can’t you just get over the fact that some people are homosexual? After all, they’ve always been with us. Why not just accept these facts of nature with regard to humanity and our various sexualities and get over it?

  • practical joe

    Margaret:

    “However, Proposition 22 is clearly unconstitutional and Judge Kramer’s decision to that effect is almost certain to be upheld on appeal in the state Supreme Court — perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States — and that is how the recognition of same-sex marriage will eventually become the law of the land.”

    Don’t count on Roberts voting for it.

    “That, gentlemen, is the way the balance of power works to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

    au contraire!

    The balance of power was in the original Constitution — before the Bill of Rights was written,

    America is ultimately ruled by our Constitution. “

    Yes! Not by activist judges.

    “I mean, really! What’s the big deal here?

    Our civilization,

    “Can’t you just get over the fact that some people are homosexual?”

    No more than I can get over the fact that some people are polygamists.

    “After all, they’ve always been with us.”

    Yes. Polygamy has been around a long time.

    “Why not just accept these facts of nature with regard to humanity and our various sexualities and get over it? “

    It’s not in the best interest of our society.

    DUH!

  • Nola

    Polygamy is not a form of birth control.

    Most polygamous men are DAMN UGLY and DAMN PERVERTED – they end up raping their daughters to add to their collection. Then, we have some DAMN F-D UP BABIES looking like clones running around and overpopulating the planet.

    Gay sex is a form of birth control.

    Polygamy is a form of gay marriage because 2 women are married to each other and the man. If they kill the husband, they are still married.

  • http://viewfromalefty.blogspot.com John A. Conley

    Can anyone come up with a logical reason against same sex marriage WITHOUT the words “Bible” or “God” in it?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I mean, really! What’s the big deal here?

    Our civilization

    wow, practical joe, I don’t think I’ve ever met anybody with as so little faith in humanity. No wonder you favor a big brother type, socialistic government in America, punishing/rewarding interpersonal relationships. So if I check off a box on a form saying that I have a family, civilization as we know it will fall, according to practical joe.

    The Rights’ lack of faith in mankind is so telling. Of course if society realizes that I love someone, then all sorts of doors are open for people to love anything under the moon, huh, joe? What do you think people are, that they are so unable to make decisions for themselves?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    And I say — your religion says two men or two women.

    (from comment 106).

    Well, then, I say you are one clueless individual, practical joe, as I’ve never promoted my sexual orientation as a faith. It’s very sad that you cannot see the difference.

    The fact is, people, and using my own situation as an example, gay families are already here. America cannot..unless socialistic nutjobs like practical joe get their way…American cannot take away another person’s right to have children. Knowing that, children will be born into all kinds of situations, not just heterosexual families and same-sex families.

    The question then becomes, do you want to make all resources available to all the children equally, or as practical joe wants, for only those children born into what HE considers an ideal situation, casting the remaining children aside to be left behind for not having a family that meets with his approval.

    WWJD?

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Gay sex is a form of birth control.

    So is ignorance. Come to think of it, whacked out extremism legitimizes legal abortion as well.

  • with karate ill kik ur ass

    let the gays get married wat harm will it really do in the world other than upset a bunch of stuck up ,snobish chrstians that believe in something that isnt real anyway.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Is it becoming clear that the opposition has no case whatsoever? Are we beginning to see the caliber of the opposition here as an indicator? What was the name of that river that runs through Egypt?

  • with karate ill kik ur ass

    r u fro gay marriages or against them?

  • billy

    thats the untenable position opponents of gay marriage are in. in the end it all boils down to this “MY version of the bible, as MY priest interprets it,says HE THINKS, gay marriage is wrong”

    so ill ram that narrow definition of a single religious book among thousands of religious books, down the throats of all americans.

    in the end it is a religious argument and as everyone knows religion is banished from governemtn by the 1st amendment.

  • with karate ill kik ur ass

    billy

    i totaly agree. STOP TRYING TO CONVERT US!!!!!!

  • practical joe

    let the polygamists get married wat harm will it really do in the world other than upset a bunch of stuck up ,snobish chrstians that believe in something that isnt real anyway.

  • billy

    if you want to talk about polygamy go to utah. this is about gay marriage. if you want to hump a dog, go talk to rick santorum he wants to also. why throw out things unrelated to the post?

  • billy

    i meant p. joe. he is the master of red herrings. i.e., if we legalize gay marriage, must we also legalize going to mars in a water baloon and teleportation to france via a purple transponder?

  • with karate ill kik ur ass

    lol. maybe…….. wat is rong with gay marriage anyway apart from god not liking it.

  • billy

    nothing. in fact noone has a monopoly on god. my god just loves gay marriage, i sawu him on a float in a gay pride parade and he signalled to me that if homos want to get married there is nothing wrong with it, so based on that i support thier well-being.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Are you a polygamist, practical joe? Do you feel that you are oppressed because the government will not recognize your polygamous marriage?

    I can understand how polygamists might see the same-sex marriage issue as one that could help their cause, but the marriage laws were designed to provide benefits and protections and to stipulate obligations and responsibilities between only two people.

    Many provisions and revisions would have to be made before our marriage laws will be able to adequately accommodate marriages between more than two people.

    It’s not that polygamy is not a civil rights matter — personally, I believe its religious roots make it a First Amendment issue — it’s just not relevant to the issue of same-sex marriage.

    The recognition of same-sex marriages will only require some of the current laws to be made gender neutral, which many marriage laws have already become as a result of womens’ empowerment.

  • with karate ill kik ur ass

    who cares bout polygamists , i think its kinda sexest but this is bout gays here.

  • practical joe

    wat the hell is rong with karate ill kik ur ass ?

    if you want to talk about homosexual marriage go to Massachusetts. this is about polygamist marriage. if you want to hump another man, go talk to Barney Frank he wants to also. why throw out things unrelated to the post?

    billy is the master of red herrings. i.e., if we legalize polygamist marriage, must we also legalize going to mars in a water baloon and teleportation to france via a purple transponder?

    lol. maybe…….. wat is rong with polygamist marriage anyway apart from god not liking it.

    nothing. in fact noone has a monopoly on god. my god just loves polygamist marriage, i saw him on a float in a polygamist pride parade and he signalled to me that if a man wants to get married to three women or if a woman wants four or five men there is nothing wrong with it, so based on that i support thier well-being.

    Are you a homosexual Margaret? Do you feel that you are oppressed because the government will not recognize your homosexual marriage?

    I can understand how homosexuals might see polygamist marriage issue as one that could help their cause, but the marriage laws were designed to provide benefits and protections and to stipulate obligations and responsibilities between only two people because the IRS computers can’t handle more than one of the other sex.

    Many provisions and revisions would have to be made before our marriage laws will be able to adequately accommodate marriages between two men or two women. And what’s to say that some homosexuals won’t want a Ménage-à-Trois.

    It’s not that homosexual marriage is not a civil rights matter — personally, I believe its roots make it a Tenth Amendment issue — it’s just not relevant to the issue of opposite-sex marriage.

    The recognition of polygamist marriages will only require some of the current laws to be made number neutral, which marriage laws will have to make as a result of the empowerment of men.

    who cares bout polygamists? Us freedom-lovin’ guys.

    , i think its kinda sexest but this is bout gays here.

    You R a homo-hypocrite!

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    I am sure there are plenty of people who like to play your sort of game, practical joe. However, I do not. I am finished with you.

  • with karate ill kik ur ass

    no this is not bout polygimists!!! THIS IS ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE!!! LOOK AT THE TITTLE!!!

  • practical joe

    “The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act,”

    This title covers polygamy!

  • practical joe

    Let’s not practice discrimination!

  • billy

    practical joe is right about one thing. if gay marriage is legalized, it is more likely that polygamy will too, which is fine with me,

    however the law is for two PERSONS, not 3 or 4 persons.

    And CERTAINLY it WONT legalize humping an animal ala rick santorum because that is abuse to an animal to make them sit in the same room as santorum.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    a same-sex couple has the same number of individuals as a hetersexual couple.

    In terms of polygamy, history has shown that it tends to be abusive towards women, which is why it was outlawed. So if there was a polygamist out there who wanted recognition for his relationships, it is upon him to prove that his relationship is not abusive towards the women within it. Since gay people do not have to prove that our relationships are not abusive to women, it falls into a different realm. There really is no comparison.

    Beyond that, the government has no business recognizing relationships or not. If there are three individuals living together, raising children, why should they be denied some home/family assistance when another ‘family’ would qualify? Face it, the recognizing of relationships should’t be a job of the government.

    And legalizing same-sex marriage in no way forces a church to perform it, or even to recognize it.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    the government shouldn’t recognize relationships at all, if they are between consenting adults. But since government is now so wrapped up in our relationships, it’s got to be wrapped up in them all equally.

  • practical joe

    billy is right about one thing. if gay marriage is legalized, it is more likely that polygamy will too, but that is not fine with me,

    Both should be legalized at the same time.

    Just Because the current law is for two PERSONS, there is no reason not to make it for 3 or 4 PERSONS.

    Restricting it to 2 PERSONS is NOTHING but DISCRIMINATION!

    And CERTAINLY it WONT legalize humping an animal because that is not part of the Constitution.

    LET’S STOP PRACTICING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST POLYGAMISTS!

  • practical joe

    “a same-sex couple has the same number of individuals as a hetersexual couple.”

    So ?…

    “In terms of polygamy, history has shown that it tends to be abusive towards women,”

    History shows you whatever you want to see.

    “So if there was a polygamist out there who wanted recognition for his relationships, it is upon him to prove that his relationship is not abusive towards the women within it.

    Guilty before the fact? Now isn’t that un-American?

    “ Since gay people do not have to prove that our relationships are not abusive to women, it falls into a different realm.”

    More B.S.

    “Beyond that, the government has no business recognizing relationships or not. If there are three individuals living together, raising children, why should they be denied some home/family assistance when another ‘family’ would qualify? Face it, the recognizing of relationships should’t be a job of the government.”

    OK — Now you are talking. Be sure the legislators and courts understand this.

    “And legalizing same-sex marriage in no way forces a church to perform it, or even to recognize it.”

    Whatever — As long as there is no DISCRIMINATION against POLYGAMISTS!

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    And what’s to say that some homosexuals won’t want a Ménage-à-Trois.

    OMG, how hysterical is that? What’s a straight man’s fantasy? Two women and himself. Husbands love the thought, well most of them anyway. Brand homosexuals as sex starved addicts with nothing but genitalia on the brain. That’s your hangup and a manifestation of your own sexual inadequacies and insecurities. When in doubt, play the sex act card. Ain’t that the way it is? Doesn’t anybody see the inherent beauty of two people totally in love with each other?

    As long as there is no DISCRIMINATION against POLYGAMISTS!

    Polyamourism is another debate completely apart from the same sex marriage debate and to equate them is an insult to all couples, gay or straight. Again, the word “marriage” is the problem.

  • Anthony the REAL Californian and voice of the PEOPLE, Grande

    Gay marriage will never happen in California, HOW COME YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND THAT!!!!!!!!!!

    “is the way the balance of power works to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.”

    I DO NOT GIVE A FLYING F**K WHAT A MINORITY GROUP WANTS, THE MAJORITY VOTED!!!!!!!

    You know, some people are against Civil Rights and they are a minorty, but who is going to from the majority??? Some people think the U.S. should be a Communist state and they are a minority, how are we going to protect them from the majority???

    My point is that MAJORITY RULES ALL!!!!

    HOW DARE YOU LIBERAL FASCIST TAKE AWAY THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!

    If a man and man must marry than they can go to a country or state that allows it, but please LEAVE CALIFORNIA ALONE!!!!!!

    Sure, go ahead and put it on the ballot again and we will give a fair vote. And if over 50% say no, then we once again do not want it. What is so unconstitutional about that???

    THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN AND WE WILL SPEAK AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • george

    The rights of a minority must be protected from the majority.

    hey Silas, how about the minority of pedophiles? How about the minority of those into bestiality? How about necrophilia?

    Where does it end, Silas? All “minorities” do not deserve to be represented, especially those of perverse sexual orientation . Sexual orientation is NOT on the same plane race or ethnicity. That’s another perverse distortion of the natural order of the mainstream of society.

  • Anthony Grande

    The rights of the VOTING MAJORITY are the ones that need protection. We need protection from Liberal Fascists who want to overthrow every election that doesn’t go their way.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    George, your prejudice and lack of comprehension is showing:

    hey Silas, how about the minority of pedophiles? How about the minority of those into bestiality? How about necrophilia?

    Sex between an adult and a child is a crime. A child is not able to make an informed adult decision. Under no circumstance should a child ever have the right to consent to sex. And, George, for the record I was repeatedly sodomized by a pedophile. It was horrible, sad and very traumatic. It screwed up my life for years. And for you to even equate me with a pedophile is as hateful as you calling me the “n” word.

    Insofar as bestiality is concerned. Again, you are making assertions that defy logic. George, animals cannot make rational decisions. Come to think of it there are a lot of adult humans in the same boat. Nevertheless don’t let me disgress. A human having sex with an animal is wrong. Unfortunately, it is not illegal in many states. Do a study. The redder the state, the more likely the residents can hump a sheep.

    George, do humans who are no more intelligent than one who is brain dead qualify? I swear to Christ that there are a lot of Americans out there who have flat line EEGs. I feel sorry for their spouses or sexual partners because, dude, THAT is necrophilia.

    If you haven’t figured it out yet, George, let me put it in simpler terms. Dick, Jane, Harry and Tom are all over 21 years old. Dick and Jane love eachother and want to get married. Harry and Tom love each other and want to get married. Two couples. Four adults. All of legal age. We’re talking about TWO rational human beings beyond the age of consent per couple.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    The rights of the VOTING MAJORITY are the ones that need protection.

    So, if the majority of voters in California endorse wife beating, does that make it legal, Anthony? If the majority of the voters in Mississippi think that Roman Catholicism is the tool of the devil and should be illegal to practice, does that make it right? If the majority of voters popularly elect a President but the electoral vote gives it to the opponent, does that make it right? Come on, Anthony, you’re far too smart for this kind of logic. Where’s that common sense boy I’ve grown to love and admire?

  • Dan

    thoughts to ponder:

    A Supreme Court of 9 jurists is still “mob rule”. Just a smaller mob.

    If societies definition of marriage is between a man and woman, why not challenge societies right to designate gender.

    If same sex marriage is eventually legal, what is to prevent two hetero’s from cashing in on some of those 1,057 inequities (whatever they all are) by getting married. Wouldn’t this inevitably trivialize the function of marriage, thus undermining it for everyone?

    Would the majority rather see the legal benefits of hetero marriage scrapped than to see their will denied and their exclusive rights eroded. (it’ll mean more business for lawyers.)

  • practical joe

    If you haven’t figured it out yet, Silas, let me put it in simpler terms. Dick, Jane, Harry and Tom are all over 21 years old. Dick and Jane love each other and want to get married. Harry and Tom love each other and want to get married but they also want Jane around. Two couples. Four adults. All of legal age.

    Jane wants to marry Dick, Harry AND Tom — and Harry and Tom would like to have Jane around, To make everything perfect, Dick thinks it’s a great idea!

    We’re talking about FOUR rational human beings beyond the age of consent per couple.

    How about that!

    NO DISCRIMINATION!

  • Anthony Grande

    “if the majority of voters in California endorse wife beating, does that make it legal, Anthony? If the majority of the voters in Mississippi think that Roman Catholicism is the tool of the devil and should be illegal to practice,”

    The thing is that shit like that is not on the ballot but Gay Marriage WAS!!!! AND WE VOTED AND THE PEOPLE SPOKE!!!! GO DO THIS SOMEWHERE PEOPLE WANT IT LIKE MASSACHUSSETTS OR SOME OTHER GODLESS STATE!!!! LEAVE MINE ALONE!!!!!

    THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!!!!!!!

  • Balletshooz

    Gay marriage involves 2 people. Polygamy more than 2. Courts can draw the line. It is legal to drive below 55. Does that mean it is inevitable that it will be legal to drive 105 too?

  • Anthony Grande

    Hey I have an idea!!!!! Since elections are unconstitutional lets just ban elections!!!!! Who is with me????

  • practical joe

    “Gay marriage involves 2 people.”

    “Polygamy more than 2. ”

    So ?…

    Why is it a numbers game?

    “Courts can draw the line.”

    Courts can DISCRIMINATE based on whether two is a magic number?

    “It is legal to drive below 55. Does that mean it is inevitable that it will be legal to drive 105 too? “

    What’s your stupid point?

  • Balletshooz

    What is your stupid point? the post is about gay marriage and you seem to think it is about polygamy. I think you are confused. the pervert chat room is somewhere else.

    im not sure what your point is. my point is courts draw lines about everything from speeding to marriage. it is no problem. its not discrimination to allow gay marriage and not humping cows. If you want to screw a cow or marry six cows you need some help, but it will remain illegal.

  • practical joe

    What is your stupid point?

    The post is about the “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act”,

    Why makes you think that marriage is the exclusive domain of homosexuals — to the exclusion of others who want to change the marriage laws?

    You seem to think that the post is just about gay marriage and not polygamy. I think you are confused.

    And you show your ignorance by trying to equate a man having more than one wife, or a woman having more than one husband — with cows.

    [Deleted]

  • billy

    max, i didnt know they allowed people [edited]. i guess they forgot to install your filter.

    practical joe, [edited]. you cant win an argument so you make stuff up.

    Rapists will have rights if the woman gets pregnant.

    only because republicans will try to refuse the victim an abortion

    GOP=pro rapist

  • practical joe

    [edited]. i guess they forgot to install your filter.�

    �[edited]. you cant win an argument so you make stuff up.�

    Are these the arguments billy will use to argue before the Supreme Court on why homosexual marriage should be allowed and not polygamy?

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Anthony, the majority of people in Massachusetts probably don’t want to legalize gay marriage. And that’s fine. Take marriage out of the equation. Afford ALL the rights and advantages hetero married have. Like I said, a pactum domesticus (domestic covenant) is what I advocate. It’s tougher, governed by that set of standards which sets it apart from these hetero convenience marriages that dissolve quicker than the stitches on a Joan Rivers facelift. Let the PD be available to any COUPLE (2 people) regardless of gender so long as they are of sound mind and age of consent.

    Polygamy is an entirely separate issue that in my mind is easily refuted. A domestic union, regardless of what you want to call it, must be between two people who set up housekeeping. There has to be a line drawn in the sand for protection of the respective spouses. If a group of people want to practice polygamy, then let them enter into a private contractual agreement that binds those parties. The government doesn’t have to recognize the arrangement for tax purposes. Then again, recodify our tax code and give us a flat, equitable tax that is fair across the board and doesn’t take marriages, unions or whatever you want to call them this week into consideration.

  • max

    [Entire comment deleted]

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Are these the arguments billy will use to argue before the Supreme Court on why homosexual marriage should be allowed and not polygamy?

    no, because when we send billy to present a case before the Supreme Court, they will recognize that he doesn’t have to show any evidence before or against polygamy. Never had to, in any case so far, and the majority of cases have been won. So no, those arguments are reserved for blog commenters who cannot comprehend reality.

    And FYI, look up the judges who ruled in favor of gay marriage, the most recent in California just about a month or two ago. These judges are conservative and are put in place by conservative presidents. So much for any ‘activist judge’ theory.

  • practical joe

    “Polygamy is an entirely separate issue that in my mind is easily refuted.”

    Yes, in your mind — but it is still discrimination if homosexual marriage ever makes it,

    “A domestic union, regardless of what you want to call it, must be between two people who set up housekeeping.

    Domestic unions and housekeeping are not the issue — the issue is no DISCRIMINATION against POLYGAMISTS!

    “There has to be a line drawn in the sand for protection of the respective spouses.”

    And you want to draw your “self-declared line in the sand“?

    “If a group of people want to practice polygamy, then let them enter into a private contractual agreement that binds those parties.

    Then if two people of the same sex want to marry, let them enter into a private contractual agreement that binds the parties.

    “The government doesn’t have to recognize the arrangement for tax purposes.”

    Right.

    Then again, recodify our tax code and give us a flat, equitable tax that is fair across the board and doesn’t take marriages, unions or whatever you want to call them this week into consideration

    What other dreams have you had recently?

  • practical joe

    “When we send billy to present a case before the Supreme Court, they will recognize that he doesn’t have to show any evidence before or against polygamy. “

    You have already decided what the other arguments will be?

    “Never had to, in any case so far, and the majority of cases have been won.

    That’s why it’s time to present all the evidence!

    “So no, those arguments are reserved for blog commenters who cannot comprehend reality.

    Your dream of reality is a pipe dream.

    “And FYI, look up the judges who ruled in favor of gay marriage, the most recent in California just about a month or two ago. These judges are conservative and are put in place by conservative presidents. So much for any ‘activist judge’ theory.”

    It isn’t a question of “conservative” — it’s a question of what is being argued. The Court will mandate polygamy when it is argued alongside homosexual marriage.

    NO DISCRIMINATION!

  • nola

    When 2 men get married it gives the rest of the world hope.

    When 1 man marries 2 women all hope is lost.

    As long as it’s about 2 people marriage works. Otherwise there’s no loyalty. No obligation to one’s vows, so what’s the point?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    The majority of people have voted for Anthony to shut up. Now we can see that a majority vote doesn’t always yield desired results.

    The Court will mandate polygamy when it is argued alongside homosexual marriage.

    Could be, although it’s not likely as no one is arguing for polygamy, and nobody has any plans to start.

  • Anthony Grande

    [Entire comment deleted]

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I’m arguing for legalizing polygamy. There’s no sensible reason to prohibit it.

    Dave

  • max

    No act of perversion deserves a tax break! Really, what do you fags see in each other? You aren’t born that way, as much as you might think that you are. You first instinct in life is breasts…Where did you go wrong?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    No act of perversion deserves a tax break!

    So we can assume that you believe marriage is about giving a tax break to the sex act?

    You aren’t born that way, as much as you might think that you are.

    I was born this way, and there was a strong environmental influence. In either case, they have shaped me to be what I am – a law abiding taxpaying citizen who deserves the same equal treatment as other law abiding taxypaying citizens.

    You first instinct in life is breasts…Where did you go wrong?

    By this logic, all women would be lesbians. One’s first instinct in life is not an erotic experience. Most of us outgrow our need to suckle on a breast early on. Have you outgrown your need to dump in your diapers yet?

  • max

    No, it’s not about giving a tax break for sex. But it seems that most fags want it to be about taxes. Personally, I have never lost the desire to “suckle on a breast”. Tits are life! And yes, that is why I can understand a lez, but in no way does it offer any explanation of a fag. Most honest straight women will tell you that they are attracted to breasts. Truthfully, if someone was abused by a pedophile fag, then this person should grow up knowing it’s wrong, and abandon that life style, not indulge in it. I can’t understand why a fag can see that a pedophile is a pervert, but is blind to the fact that they are the same person. “I was raped by a fag as a child, so that explains why I’m the same way”! Get some help!

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Truthfully, if someone was abused by a pedophile fag, then this person should grow up knowing it’s wrong, and abandon that life style, not indulge in it. I can’t understand why a fag can see that a pedophile is a pervert, but is blind to the fact that they are the same person. “I was raped by a fag as a child, so that explains why I’m the same way”! Get some help!

    Max, you have proven once again that abortion should remain legal and people in America should have to take an exam before being given the right to vote. You can call me a fag all you want. I don’t give a shit. But don’t you DARE call the man who sexually abused me a fag pedophile. He was a pedophile — period. It’s not about penis or vagina it is about CONTROL with a pedophile. But you wouldn’t understand that now, would you, max? My bet is that the woman you share your life with is your personal property and you control much of what goes on in your household. That, max, makes YOU no better than a pedophile.

  • max

    See how confused you are? Here you are, defending the man who abused you as a child. [edited] Please, for your own sake…GET SOME HELP!

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Defending the man who raped me? Max, what the hell is wrong with you? Obviously you are so blinded by hate and bigotry that you read and comprehend only that which supports your warped societal view. [Edited]

  • max

    I will have to admit that I am too young to know what a Nazi is. It’s kind of like a Communist to me. Just something that my grandfathers hated and really doesn’t have much to do with today’s reality.

    As far as someone “reading into things” … It has been assumed that I am…
    1. A wife beater – WRONG
    2. A republican – WRONG
    3. I crap in my diapers – WRONG, but I still love breasts!
    4. A Nazi – Wrong

    I’m your everyday NORMAL American.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    If max thinks of communists as something that his grandfathers hated, then he must be very young.

    I have posted an article about polygamy, if any of you pro-polygamy folks are interested.

  • Anthony Grande

    “I was born this way,”

    But didn’t you say that you had a kid???

    No one is born gay, you are made gay by society. Most likely you didn’t have much luck in High School and being gay was an easy way out.

    THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!!

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    How did you escape being “made gay” by society, Mr. Grande? How do you think other people were “made gay” by society?

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Perhaps Anthony didn’t escape being “made gay” by society, as is so often the case with males who are the loudest shouters against homosexuality.

  • Anthony California

    Margaret, people are made gay by society:

    1) Gay toleration from society

    2) Large population of gays in your area, just like a large drug population creates more drug attics

    3) Exeptance: No one exepts you because you are a loser, but by becoming gay everyone exepts you and people start to care about you.

    At my High School gays are the most popular and everyone loves and appreciates them so it is easy to become gay.

    Please do not refer to gays as MADE GUYS, call them MADE GAYS, made guys refers to something else that you people are probabally not familiar with.

    The Reasons why I am not Gay:

    1) I am Sicilian

    2) I respect myself

    3) I am not starving of lack of appreciation. I have plenty of freinds and family

    4) I dream of having kids

    5) I am straight and very much attracted to the opposite sex

    6) I am a Christian, not Church going, but a beleiver in Bible.

    THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!!

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    When I get into the discussion of whether or not homosexuality is a choice, I ask those who assert that it is when and how they decided to become heterosexual. And I tell them I am curious because I have never personally faced such a dilemma, never having felt any homosexual longings myself.

    The answer almost invariably includes an incredulous variation of, “but everybody has those kind of feelings, they just don’t act upon them because they were taught that it is immoral.”

    I often suspect that there are quite a few people out there who object to the mainstreaming of homosexuality because those old taboos are what they use to avoid the temptation to act upon desires they were raised to believe are unnatural and wrong.

    Or perhaps they have not managed to avoid temptation and are projecting their own guilt upon society’s progress toward greater recognition of diversity and equality.

    Still others may really want to come out, but are afraid of how their friends, families and co-workers will react.

    And then, of course, the pain of unrequited love can make some people behave very nastily, indeed.

    Now, I do not wish to demonize such people because they must feel very lost and confused and be in a great deal of pain. It is my hope that they will seek and receive help and guidance so that they can be true to themselves and have meaningful and fulfilling relationships.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    [edited]

  • Anthony Grande

    Look at the stuff you listed in 187 and compare it to what I listed in 186, none are similiar on why people are heterosexual.

    The reason people are heterosexual is because one man and one woman is NATURAL. It is how God inteded us. It is how Mother Nature created us.

    Now I bet my life that there is no man straight or gay that has never been attracted to a woman. There might be several who haven’t fallen in love, but that is not what I am talking about.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Mr. Grande, you must be very young to not remember the bad old days when homosexuality was considered a mental illness and a crime and gay and lesbian people were horribly persecuted, not tolerated or accepted.

    Believe this or not, throughout all of human history, a portion of the human population has always been homosexual. Case in point: there are proscriptions against homosexuality in the Bible (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13), a book which is — as I am sure you already know — over 6000 years-old.

    Homosexuality is a variation of the human condition, not a fad that was invented in 1960s San Francisco, as some people seem to believe.

    So, if you are heterosexual and very much attracted to the opposite sex, you needn’t worry about being “made gay” by society. And neither should anybody else.

    And whether or not one is popular has very little to do with one’s sexual orientation and a lot to do with one’s ability to effectively interact with other people.

    BTW, anyone who likes a good gangster epic knows what the expression “made guy” means.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Homosexuality is the most natural of all, Anthony. Just think about it. The male and the female have totally different patterns of sexual response. If you try to have a relationship across the gender barrier, all your natural instincts have to be relearned from scratch or your partner will be continually unhappy in bed.

    Why else would there be such a booming market for porn and prostitution, which have been sure-fire profit centers from the beginning of time? Why else would divorce rates be so high? Why else do pharmaceutical companies rake in so much cash from Viagra and its substitutes? All this happens because opposite-sex relationships just don’t work.

    If you have a same-sex relationship, as Mother Nature clearly intended, you will have a much better chance to keep your partner satisfied. Heterosexual attraction is an unnatural product of society’s pressures and phobias.

  • Anthony Grande

    “Homosexuality is a variation of the human condition, not a fad that was invented in 1960s San Francisco, as some people seem to believe.”

    No Margaret sex between man and man has existed forever. You will find that the human race will do anything that it finds possible.

    “anyone who likes a good gangster epic knows what the expression “made guy” means.”

    It is not made up in Movies, it it very real. Do not throw it around lightly.

    But gays were very rare back in the good ol’ days and tolerance for gays back in the Sixties created a 1000 times more gays.

    “there are proscriptions against homosexuality in the Bible (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13)”

    Thank you Margaret I was looking for this and you pointed me in the right place. The Bible is against gays so this is a good enough reason to ban same sex marriage. [Edited]

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Gays don’t become more rare when persecuted, Anthony. They just more frequently try to deny being gay.

    Much like you try to deny it.

    One day you’ll realize what really caused your heartbreak and anguish. Here’s a hint: it wasn’t the gay people. They’ve never harmed you in any way comparable to the way you’re harming yourself.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Homosexuality was not rare in the days before society progressed to become more accepting of human diversity, it was just rarely acknowledged or discussed.

    The way I see it, humanity is finally evolving to the point where we can accept the fact that some people are homosexual and our society is adjusting itself accordingly. What we are witnessing right now, in the early 21st century, is the process by which it is happening.

    As was the case with slavery, womens’ suffrage and integration, there will be a lot of back and forth in fits and starts until we come to the point of wondering why people did things the way they did way back when.

    Fight it if you must, Mr. Grande, but your struggle will ultimately turn out to have been as futile as the previous struggles against social progress.

    No matter how important they may be to some people on a spiritual level, Biblical justifications have no official bearing upon American law because of the First Amendment.

  • Anthony Grande

    Margaret, if you like it or not humans are animals. Animals aren’t gay, they spend their life looking for mates to reproduce with so the life cycle continues.

    If the Lord meant for there to be gays then he would have made it possible for them to reproduce. If you think Homosexuality is a gene, then you also have to believe you inherent gayism from your parents, because we get our genes from our parents. This is further proof that gayism is a choice, not birth.

    Victor, please stop with the personal attacks. You do not know me.

    THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!! LEAVE US ALONE!!!

  • max

    [Entire comment deleted]

  • billy

    the problem max, is i think its gross too, but you take it to a new level.

    i could really care less what they do inside their room. what business is it of yours?

    what right do you have to stop them from doing anything. im similarly grossed out if you were kissing some fat whore in front of me.

    why are you peering your head into gay people’s business if you hate them so much. if you really hate gays stop trying to play queer eye for the gay guy.

  • http://ezsgblog.com/vtdawson/index.php Bennett

    Hey Victor, do you see what I see? Do you think that these two were MADE for each other?

    Sounds like love in bloom…

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Anthony, it’s no attack. I’m trying to help you come to terms with your own repressed yearning for love. You choose to interpret it as an attack only because you are still in denial about your feelings. Search your feelings. You know what I tell you is true.

    Bennett, you make an excellent point there.

    “Max and Anthony, sittin’ in a tree…”

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    There is no way I am reading all this, it is mostly garbage of course, kudos to Margaret and the others who are attempting to wade through the muck.

    In reference to comment 182 and 183..I’m not sure if they are addressed to me, but assuming they are…

    My child is biologically mine. At a cost of almost 60,000 dollars and after struggling through clinics and lawyers for 5 years, my child was most certainly not created for any tax break.

    She is here because I know full well the difference between sexual orientation and parental urges. It’s clear from subsequent comments that people like Anthony do not know the difference.

    The recent legislative action in California, was brought about because a judge ruled that not allowing same sex couples to get married was discrimination. The legislation was an attempt to process that ruling. That ruling was made by a conservative judge who was put in place by conservative president Reagan. Just like the majority of judges in the Terri Schiavo case were conservative, the majority of judges that rule in favor of same-sex marriage are conservative. They are NOT activist judges.

    Once Gov. Schwarzenegger veteos the legislation, as he has indicated he will, the ruling will still stand unaddressed.

    It is completely irrelevant to the machinations of how America works, as to if the ‘people have spoken’ their bigotry or not, Anthony.

    The fact that there’s an innocent child here, and people like Anthony and max degrade her family, make assumptions as to why her family was created, and just overall insult everything about the process does more to help convince people of the need for same-sex marriage than I could ever do.

    America has a choice, embrace these kids and give them the same rights, privileges and benefits as any other family would get, or go the Anthony and max route and demonize their home, attack their families and ridicule their parents with moral indignation, until the little innocent kids cry for having their families attacked and then the likes of Anthony and max can sit back convinced they are the ones with exemplary moral character.

  • practical joe

    Margaret, I believe you meant to address “homosexual pedophilia” when you used the word “homosexuality” here.

    So I will help you out.

    Homosexual pedophilia was rare in the days before society progressed to become more accepting of human depravity, so it was rarely acknowledged or discussed.

    A study by the Washington D.C.-based Family Research Council recently confirmed what police and psychiatrists have known for decades — that a definitive link exists between male homosexuality and pedophilia.

    The report entitled “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse“, shows that while homosexual men make up less than three per cent of the adult male population, they commit a disproportionate number (one third or more) of child sexual molestations.

    The way I see it, humanity is finally degrading itself to the point where we accept the fact that some people are pedophiles and our society should adjust itself accordingly. What we are witnessing right now, in the early 21st century, is the process by which it is happening.

    In an attempt to equate homosexuals with slavery, integration, women’s suffrage and “social progress”, there has been a plethora of propagandizing to make people ask why people did things the way they did before the media blitz by homosexual activists who organized this brainwashing campaign.

    Fight it we must. And the struggle will ultimately turn out to be a victory for those of us who retain values that transcend the unnatural acts of perverts.

    And the Bible, which teaches the Ten Commandments, is not in conflict with the First Amendment. If so, then we should scrap our prohibitions against killing, stealing and lying, to mention a few.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Any report by the Family Research Council is biased to present predetermined data how they wish to present it. Family Research Council has no credibility in matters sexual.

    There is no correlation between attraction to a gender and the desire to victimize youth. The medical establishment has known this for decades and the attempts to get around the medical establishment/science involves rewording old bigotry. Whether it’s ‘reparative therapy’ or whatever, it’s been dismissed by the medical profession for almost a generation now. Nobody here believes that the Family Research Council is anything other than a political machine desired to do whatever it can to further it’s beliefs.

  • Anthony Grande

    You know Victor I got banned about two years ago for doing similiar stuff that you are doing. You won’t get banned because most of the administrators here agree with your views. But we cannot have a civilized conversation if you continue with the personal attacks. Please stop.

    THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!!!

    No one has responded to comment#195 yet. It might might be impossible to respond liberally to.

    THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!! IT DONT MATTER WHAT A JUDGE SAID, CONSERVATIVE OR NOT, WE HAVE VOTED!!! WE DISAGREE WITH THAT JUDGE!!! THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!!!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    at this link here, the Southern Poverty Law Center has a report on the Family Research Council. Here is an exerpt:

    Drawing liberally on the discredited research of Paul Cameron (see Family Research Institute), Knight published papers claiming, among other things, that gay people view “pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.”

    Note that the Family Research Institute, that the Family Research Council draws it’s data from, is tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.

    Here we can see right wingers like practical joe still touting the hate filled rhetoric that has been dismissed by mainstream society for years now. So sad when people have to demonize their opponents in order to substantiate their bigotry, don’t you think?

  • Anthony Grande

    Pedaphiles that molest little boys are FAGS!!!

    Michael Jackson only sleeps with little boys, not little girls, therefore he is GAY.

  • practical joe

    [Entire comment deleted]

  • Anthony Grande

    [Entire comment deleted]

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    A father is a person who considers the welfare of his child above all things. And the most important thing in the world to a child is its mother.

    My daughter is beyond the breast feeding years. What exactly is it, that a mother can give, that my daughter cannot get?

    Where is the child’s mother?

    Raising her own family.

    Does the child’s mother feed her, read to her, comfort her?

    Is that why a mother is so important? Surely no one else can do those things, huh?

    You seem to be bragging about the fact that your child has no mother!

    That would be because you see what you want to see.

    Do you remind your child that she was not created because of a tax break

    Why yes, every night before bed, we drag out the tax forms and do a preliminary review with my daughter.

    when the child needs the comfort of a mother?

    Any straight person out here will tell you that she has all the love she needs, and she gets her comfort from me. I have a straight friend who tells me that I have more motherly instinct than her own daughter has!

    Do you tell her that, because [you] know full well the difference between sexual orientation and parental urges — is why she has no mother?

    Yes, right after the pie chart review.

    Does Judge Jackass understand

    I really doubt the judge who made the ruling is aware of my families situation at all. We’ve never met.

    Do you read that court decision to your child each night in lieu of her mother tucking her into bed?

    Joe, I have a serious question for you, for ANYBODY reading this….if a mother tucks a child into bed or if a father does….what is the difference? Are you saying that you are incapable of tucking your own child in bed. That is so sad, I really feel for your children and all the depriving that you put them through.

    Now after you have made a conscious decision to have a child — without a mother to care for the child, you want to make others feel guilty about what you have done.

    No, I don’t want to make others feel guilty about the family I have created. Any guilt you feel from that would stem from deeply personal issues you have going on. What I hope you would feel guilty about is the demonization of families that you do.

    Did you have the child ASSUMING something which may never come about?

    No, I had the child with the full knowledge that discrimination may continue my whole life, however that doesn’t mean one stops living. We had to go on and create our family, as everybody does, whether there is adversity or not.

    In any event, whether you get a same-sex marriage license or not — you brought a child into the world — knowing the child would not have a mother!

    But she is loved more and cared for more than many children out there. She is intelligent, a year ahead of herself intellectually and she’s happy and well adjusted.

    And now you have the audacity to blame others for the predicament you are in!

    Yep! People like you who have feelings of bigotry and hatred towards diversity are the cause of a whole lot of the world’s problems!

  • http://darkeroticism.blogspot.com swingingpuss

    There are enough single parents who bring their kids up successfully. By the yardstick above (not Steve’s), all men who lose their wives for whatever reason, should forfeit their kids or marry henceforth any available woman purely for the purposes of bringing up the kid.

    Some world!

    As anyone who’s visited Steve’s site can tell you, he is a caring parent, and Kristin is very lucky to have such a loving family.

    Arnie may veto the bill for political reasons, but every day that such discriminations exist is another dark day for America.

    My marriage is nowhere threatened by Steve’s sexuality. In fact, it strengthens one to see a loyal (20-year+) relationship bloom and nurture a child.

  • practical joe

    You are dreaming.

    There are many single parents who do not bring their kids up successfully.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Well, nevermind all that psychobabble nonsense about repressed homosexuality, we’ve now moved on to the subject of the Oedipus complex.

  • practical joe

    We are fortunate to have Margaret here to tell us why a child needs both a mother and a father.

    On the other hand, normal people with common sense don’t need Freud to tell them why.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    I am always concerned about people who throw the word “normal” about as if it is an objective term.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Children aren’t always born into the Leave It To Beaver scenario. Children are born to single parents every day. It was not possible for my daughter to be born into a male/female household, but she is happy, loved and wants for nothing.

    Since you both are so set that a child should only be brought into this world with a mother and a father, I guess we can put you down as being pro-abortion in other instances.

    I had a mother and a father. It was a loveless marriage and it would have been better for us children if they didn’t stay together ‘for the kids’. There is something (actually a lot of things) more important than a child being raised in a house that has a penis and a vagina. That important thing would be a house filled with love. My daughter has that, and she is as happy as she can be.

    There are no less than 4 significant female role models in her life, and she is not deprived of anything when it is a man who loves her, reads to her and tucks her in bed at night. It doesn’t take a woman to do that. I am the primary parent, and I brag about it so much as to probably make most people roll their eyes. It is truly the most magical experience of my life, and I wouldn’t trade it for anything. Mothers are so blessed, so fortunate and I am so humbled by the experience of being the primary parent.

    Children are born in diverse conditions all the time. They are born in wealthy homes, in hovels in the desert, they are born into large families and there are children out there with no brothers and sisters. There is no Big Brother guarantee that a child will be born into what YOU see as an ideal situation. ANybody can breed. Everybody does. And what is important is that society treat all it’s children the same and not offer preferential treatment.

    As always, thanks swingingpuss for your comment.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Oh, and speaking of mothers, Andrea Yates’, who is heterosexual, was the matriarch of a “traditional” family — she even stayed at home with the kids instead of putting them in day care.

  • toneyb

    Anthony Grande: If I thought you could engage in an intelligent conversation – one void of grammatical and spelling errors – I would gladly do so. But, you can’t. So, let me simply say [edited]. The rhetoric you spew (not clear which hole it’s coming from) is the same tired BS we’ve heard for decades. Further, there is absolutely NO scientific evidence to support your comments. [edited]

  • Bennett

    You sound like you’re doing a great job, Steve. Keep it up. I’m sure your daughter will continue to be a happy and joy filled child, and an adult to make any parent proud.

  • Bennett

    What are you yammering on about?

    Pratical Joe, you strike me as a homophobe with serious personal issues.

    You aren’t going to change the world, or even a small part of it. Give it a rest, and go have a beer or ten with your buddies.

  • max

    [edited] Another delusion.

  • steve

    ahh…one step closer to hell. here we come. america, home of the freaks…I mean…free

  • steve

    [Edited] I have an opinion…and I firmly believe that gay marriage is the wrong way to go. if the gays can have marriage. I would like to have 2 wives. fair? Ill compromise with that.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Actually, comments are not edited just because they’re offensive. They’re edited if they’re personal attacks. So attacking Steve OR his family is against our comments policy.

  • steve

    nah, I welcome the attacks on the family. they share the same views as I do. we dont believe in large government, hate paying taxes for people who don’t care to work, and believe that liberals have no morals. theres a foundation for you, any more questions, feel free to ask… attack us all at your disposal. =)

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    That steve is not this Steve. I do appreciate the comment policy that gets personal attacks deleted, however I also appreciate society in general getting to see the demonization that we go through firsthand.

  • steve

    demonization towards gays, liberals, or both?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    well here lately against gays, liberals, immigrants, muslims, and women.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    America would be better off if more of its citizens could debate with as much civility as Steve S has shown here despite facing outrageous provocations from persons lacking the slightest sense of decency.

    His patience is one of the traits of a good parent. His daughter is fortunate indeed to be brought up by such a man.

  • steve

    I disagree with homosexual sex marriages. I dont disagree with the act of homosexuality…we all need to find our happiness somehow…but I do disagree with homosexuals raising children. I could only the morals that parent a and parent b would teach them.

    cant stand liberals; wont even open that can of worms.

    I have never posted anything derrogatory towards immigrants. they are some of the hardest working NEW americans america has to offer.

    I am weary of muslims, yet I believe overall they are a positive people who would like to be peaceful. they are not all bad eggs.

    as far as women goes…anne coulter is one of my personal heroes, so you cannot say I am a woman hater. I dont like feminists, but I do believe in equality of men and women.

  • practical joe

    “well here lately against gays, liberals, immigrants, muslims, and women.”

    Yeah –life’s a real bitch.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    If you disagree with gay marriage, don’t get one.

    Problem solved.

    Next?

  • practical joe

    Marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

    If you disagree with this, don’t get one.

    Problem solved.

    Next?

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Glad to see you agree, joe. Let the gay marriages begin!

  • practical joe

    Glad to see Victor now agrees that marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

  • practical joe

    Is it possible Victor doesn’t understand what I posted — marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Well, it’s surprising but satisfying to see you come out of the closet in your vocal support for gay marriage, joe.

  • practical joe

    Is it possible Victor has been imbibing too much this evening?

    He doesn’t understand what I posted — marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

    Hey Victor — not 2 men — not 2 women.

    One man — one woman!

  • Anthony Grande

    [Entire comment deleted]

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Anthony, your little crusade is getting sad. You should follow practical joe’s example and start supporting gay marriage. You’d be happier that way, really.

  • http://www.nrlc.org Anthony Grande

    Victor, I said I will openly support Gay Marriage and just about anything else as long as we make sure children aren’t denied a mother figure.

    It is an EYE FOR AN EYE

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Yeah, see, Anthony, that’s the sad part. You really have a hell of a lot more work to do, making peace with your own inner demons, before you can go around giving advice to people far healthier than you are, about how to manage their lives.

    Steve’s daughter is very lucky he is wise enough to completely ignore you and your misguided opinions.

  • http://www.nrlc.org Anthony Grande

    No I am not guided anyone’s life I am tying to give a little girl a right to have a mother and a fair chance at life.

  • Jewels

    Anthony Grande is there a fansite for you that I could join? :) Let’s make you one. Tell ol’ Victor and Bennett to have another beer (or whatever their pleasure). Wouldn’t they have loved to be as smart as you at your point in life.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    The kid already has a fair chance at life, Anthony, precisely because people with your colossal ignorance are not the ones parenting her.

    Cast the beam out of your own eye first, as the Bible instructs you to do. Then you will see you only imagined the mote you are trying to pluck from Steve’s eye.

  • max

    [Entire comment deleted]

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Praise from the likes of Jewels and max is the strongest argument yet mustered against any course of action.

  • practical joe

    [Entire comment deleted]

  • practical joe

    Victor’s admonitions are like a scab on a festering wound.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    What a lovingly Christian sentiment, joe.

  • http://www.nrlc.org Anthony Grande

    [Entire comment deleted]

  • practical joe

    Victor —

    Cast the beam out of your own eye first, as the Bible instructs you to do.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    My vision is perfectly clear, joe. That’s why I can see you for what you are.

  • http://www.bobice-bolieve.blogspot.com Jewels

    Vic, baby, thanks for the Kudos man. You’re totally the goods! Have another shot on me. *bartenter she shouts*

    That quote you have, let’s see: “Cast the beam out of your own eye first, as the Bible instructs you to do” God I love it when folks resort to screaming BIBLE to try and make a point, and really, let’s leave Steve’s eye out of this can we?

    Regarding the Gay marriage issue, very teeter-totter (I know you so appreciate my intellect, so I’ll try to do you proud) I have lived a while, known lots of folks, gay, straight, whatever, and when it comes to children ANYONE can “mess them up”. Regarding the situation of gays being parents, I just think this as with anyone wanting to adopt needs intense scrutiny and really the folks in charge of adoption agencies need to be intensely selective and that can’t be stressed enough.

    Regarding marriages between gays, I understand why they want this, and I think regarding insurance, regarding times of crisis, it makes sense. I think possibly instead of marriage, terminology might need to be changed (to protect the innocent, oh I mean, ‘conservatives’ *joke*) but a change of this nature does need to take place.

    Be nicer to Anthony, he is really a smart guy.

    That’s it.

  • practical joe

    Of all the arguments against homosexual marriage, the most compelling is that it is hurts children. If children have a right to anything, it is to begin life and grow up with both a mother and father

    For homosexual activists, the fact that a child does best with a good mother and good father is either denied or claimed to be of no significance.

    What matters is what is good for homosexuals.

    That is known as narcissism.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    We went through a surrogacy so there was no ‘bidding’. There are millions of heterosexual men and women out there, who can feel their biological clocks ticking and they have no current viable option to start a family with, so they chose to go the route alone. Jodie Foster’s situation is a good example of this. As is Angelina Jolie, who adopts children even though she is single. There is no outcry over those of course.

    Many people realize in their life that having what is touted as the ideal situation, a la Leave it to beaver, just isn’t possible. But that doesn’t mean you have to give up having a life. You go on living, creating families and have the best that God gives you. And that is what I have done.

    It was a surrogacy, I am no activist, I am simply a man living life and having a family, that is all. And I am a law abiding tax paying citizen so the government HAS to treat my family the same as it treats yours, and your bigoted opinion of diverse families is not an acceptable reason for me to back down and stop shouting for my rights.

    There is no mother to go see, that is my role and I’m a damn fine one.

  • max

    [Entire comment deleted]

  • steve

    practical joe…no wonder how you got your nickname…like the logic.

  • average guy

    thank god for Practical Joe! He speaks for many Americans who are afraid to speak their mind! This is what America is all about! Free speech and the freedom to love or hate anyone we choose!

  • average guy

    [Entire comment deleted]

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    It’s no use to debate these things. Each individual has their own passion for or against the issue. It’s sad how deeply we’ve regressed as a society when it comes to basic human rights.

  • average guy

    Perverts aren’t human like the rest of us. They are freaks of nature. Your idea of “progress” is to give freaks equal foothold with the norm.

  • Jamo

    What rights do I as a straight man have that a gay man doesn’t have? If someone can tell me that I have more rights than homosexuals I am all for legislation that eliminates that discrepancy.

  • max

    A fag has more rights than a normal person. You can get fired or sued at work for calling someone a fag, you can’t for calling someone ‘straight, or white’. It’s ridiculous! It’s time the straight men and white men stand to this crap. Enough of the BS. Slap the little fags down and straighten them out!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Jamo, there are over 1,000 federal benefits, rights and privileges of marriage and there are over 700 state benefits, rights and privileges. The exact number varies by state.

    No person who gets married uses all the benefits, of course, but many are automatic and are there when you need them. Some examples would be automatic transfer of copyright from deceased spouse to surviving spouse. Another would be social security payments that go to a young child upon the death of a primary provider, etc. The list goes on, over 1,700 of them.

    To strengthen some families with these options but not other families, does harm already existing families. It’s not right and it’s not American. Thank you for being interested enough to ask though, we appreciate it.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Heterosexuals currently enjoy the right to marry the person of their choosing, homosexuals do not.

    Some people say that the recognition of same-sex marriages will make marriage mean less, but right now, marriage means less to me because it is something that is denied to some of my fellow Americans.

    Why should I be entitled to these special rights I currently enjoy? I cannot help that I was born heterosexual so I did nothing to deserve them.

    But what is most important here are the millions children who are already being raised by gay and lesbian parents and who are deprived of the protections and benefits enjoyed by children whose parents are allowed to marry.

    And don’t anybody start in with that nonsense about children having a right to a certain family demographic. No such right exists. We are all expected to play the hand we are dealt because of the unavoidable fact that people die.

    Projection is a defense mechanism that causes people to arbitrarily shift the blame for their personal problems arising from issues from their own childhood experiences toward others so that they do not have to deal with facts that are too painful for them to face.

  • practical joe

    The reason there are federal benefits, rights and privileges of marriage is that it is clearly recognized that the family is the building block of civilization.

    We don’t strengthen other combinations of two people because it wouldn’t strengthen civilization — it would weaken it.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    What is immoral is how some people reduce the value of families to a matter of demographic composition.

    It is sadly ironic how the self-proclaimed “protectors and defenders” of marriage and family callously degrade family values such as commitment, trust, loyalty, mutual respect and cooperation for the purpose of validating their own personal prejudices.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    We don’t strengthen other combinations of two people because it wouldn’t strengthen civilization — it would weaken it.

    In order to deny a group of individuals a certain set of rights, you would have to prove that in a court of law. Unfortunately for you, when your side uses this argument, we win, because you cannot prove it.

    And it should be noted that you have absolutely no faith in your fellow man, for you to think civilization would be weakened. Do you figure that there would be people like yourself who would forget where you like to put your penis?

  • max

    Well, let’s just say that a fag can raise a kid with good moral values…You must realize that when these kid grow up, they will be ashamed of you and feel insecure. They will realize that they were raised in a perverted home and wonder about their own morality. Really, no kid should have to be raised around that stuff, it just isn’t natural.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Apparently you are unfamiliar with what a strong moral character is, to think that it brings about shame.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    People who dehumanize other human beings so that they may validate their own personal prejudices are just plain disgusting and deserve no response other than, “how dare you?”

    But I still cannot help but wonder about the roots of their hostility. What is it that makes some people so selfish and hateful?

  • max

    These people are delusional and will never admit the fact that they are perverts. They believe that society has accepted them. They think that homosexuality is in everyone’s genetics. Well…let me tell you about the fag that grabbed my balls when I was 14. I beat the living hell out of that old man and if I would have known better at the time..I would have reported it to the police. But no, the pervert gave me his car and 2 grand not to tell anyone. You guys are sick and you know it!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Projection, Margaret, projection.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Child molestation is a terrible crime that leaves its victims scarred for life.

    I urge the people who have been victimized to seek professional help so that they can learn how to deal with their feelings productively.

    Sure, venting can be a necessary catharsis when it is done in the presence of a professional therapist, but continued arbitrary hatred and hostility that is misdirected away from the actual abuser does not promote healing and may even be harmful.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    But I still cannot help but wonder about the roots of their hostility. What is it that makes some people so selfish and hateful?

    It’s not about selfish hate. It’s about fear. Those that scream the loudest parading the Cross as their guide are the delusional ones. They have such low self esteem and are so sexually frightened that they lash out.

    I was talking to a friend about these kinds of things last night and he brought up a very good point. He says that usually within a generation or two, he who is most bigoted against “fags” usually produces a couple of them. He was right. The best revenge is watching these miserable, closed minded individuals have children who end up gay. And while I pray for the spawns of the haters, I can’t help but revel in the thought.

  • max

    No, I don’t need help. The perverts that do this to anyone are the ones that need help. You might find this hard to believe, but it’s true. One of my best friends was a fag until the day he died. He knew not to ‘flame’ around me and I never saw any ‘gayness’ from him. No problems at all. Then, he had a stroke the week before he died, and called me to tell me how ‘sweet’ I was. That totally ruined my respect for him. Really, I don’t care what perverts do as long as no one is hurt. But keep it in your bedroom, and to yourself. But, you should not be allowed near children, or to get married, or adopt children.

  • Max

    I forgot to add that I was not a virgin when this happened. I knew that homosexuality was wrong then. I have a great family with great moral values.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Child molesters are beyond help. Their sickness is incurable.

    Fortunately, there is help available for their victims when they realize that they need it.

    Anyone who was victimized like that as a child shouldn’t try to deal with the fallout from such a traumatic event all alone, it’s just too much for one person.

  • practical joe

    “Child molesters are beyond help. Their sickness is incurable.”

    How did they become perverts?

    I have my theory.

  • say it loud, I’m straight and I’m proud

    how does this margaret chick come off like she’s an authority on everything? Get over yourself, honey, just you have a blog doesn’t give you special insight into the human psyche. You also aren’t morally superior to anyone just because you imply you are objective. Your dollar store psychoanalysis in your last post was laughable.

  • practical joe

    Margaret says:

    “People who dehumanize other human beings so that they may validate their own personal prejudices are just plain disgusting and deserve no response other than, “how dare you?”

    Right.

    People who dehumanize children by depriving them of both a mother and a father so that they may validate their own personal lust are just plain disgusting and deserve no response other than, “how dare you?”

    “But I still cannot help but wonder about the roots of their hostility. What is it that makes some people so selfish and hateful?”

    Right on.

  • max

    Psychiatric help? Yes, attack the victim and protect the pervert. There is no psychiatrist that could offer anything to me. They are all full of crap and only weak people believe that they can ‘help’ someone. No, I’m not hurting inside because a fag grabbed my balls. I have no need to “Understand the pervert” nor do I care to. I know the facts…Fags are perverts. Just like rapists and child molesters. You guys are the ones that need help. That’s why you are called “abnormal”…”unnatural sex act”…”pervert”…”sex offender”. I think that all fags should have to register like any other sex offender.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Max, your mind is broken and you need help to recuperate, just as someone with a broken leg needs a doctor’s help for the leg to heal properly.

    Telling you to seek medical help, when you so clearly need it, is not an attack.

    Sadly, it appears the hate that poisons your mind will prevent you from seeking the help that might give you some chance of real happiness in life.

  • reality check

    who needs help is people like you that deny that hate must co-exist with love. Life isn’t the perfect ideal you want it to be.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Real happiness simply means you can disagree with someone without poisoning your mind and heart by hating them.

    I happen to be heterosexual. I also happen to believe that if I were homosexual, I would find more real happiness through resisting the urge to engage in same-sex relationships than through giving in to such desires.

    However, I don’t feel any need to shout down gays for having a different approach to their own lives than I might have to mine. I don’t feel any need to condemn their families. I don’t see their families as a threat to my family, because my mind is not twisted by irrational fears.

    I’m able to recognize that gays can be good parents just like anyone else, and can raise healthy children just like anyone else who loves their children.

    In brief, I don’t let my theological beliefs poison my mind with blind unreasoning hatred and fear of human beings and creations of God who happen to hold different beliefs.

  • max

    Vic,
    So you’re cool with child molesters? My mind is not poisoned with hate. We all hate something…I just hate perverts. My main goal is not to express anger, but to simply point out that fags are perverts. They do not need to have kids around them, they do not need tax breaks, they are not a color, race, or group that can be discriminated against. They were not born gay. They can control their sexuality. They are gay because of a mental disorder, and nothing more.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    Max, thanks for proving me right. Only a broken mind could associate anything I have said with approval of child molesters.

    The vast majority of homosexuals are not child molesters, just as the vast majority of heterosexuals are not child molesters.

    Your inability to see this fact proves your mind is twisted and warped with irrational hate. With no ability to perceive the reality of the world, you are doomed to the abject misery of gibbering fear you have put on display so vividly here, unless you seek help to heal your damaged mental faculties.

  • Jamo

    “Heterosexuals currently enjoy the right to marry the person of their choosing, homosexuals do not.”

    Margaret, you are exactly wrong. I cannot marry the person of my choosing, I can only marry a woman who is not a relative of mine — the same way a homosexual can only marry a person who is of the opposite sex that is not a direct relative.

    Steve S — can you name specific rights that I have that homosexuals don’t have? Please, give me examples.

  • max

    Vic,
    Vic,
    Haa haa haaa haa haa. Good joke! Straight people are sick and need help so we can understand the fags. No such luck! Sorry Vic. I was only asking if you were cool with pedophiles, see the question mark? Your statement says that you can disagree without hating them. I hate them all and I’m pretty sure that’s perfectly okay with any shrink and it’s the norm…in America.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com/ Victor Plenty

    Through your smile I see the tracks of your tears.

  • max

    Those are the tears that I shed for all of the children that were ever touched by you freaks.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “Steve S — can you name specific rights that I have that homosexuals don’t have? Please, give me examples.”

    I can’t think of any rights that I have that Steve S doesn’t, but I can think of one right that he has that I don’t: He can win a custody case against his wife. I mean if me and my wife split up she would 99,999 times out of a 100,000 get the kids, Steve got the child because he was gay and the judge thought, “Oh I can make a difference I am going to give this kid to her gay fater instead of her staight mother”

    And please Steve name some right that I have that you don’t.

    And that you Jewels for your kindness.

    P.S. I am all for Gay Marriage as long as there are no kids involved.

  • Jamo

    But anthony, that isn’t a right. I want a RIGHT a real actual right that is guaranteed to me that isn’t guaranteed to a homosexual. I will be waiting.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “As is Angelina Jolie, who adopts children even though she is single. There is no outcry over those of course.”

    At least her adopted kids got a mother. And this mother can support them. Two parents are a plus, but if not possible a single mother is what a kid needs.

    You need to share your daughter with her mother.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com/ Victor Plenty

    Max, your tears are all for yourself. You are crying inside, every day desperately hoping your inner weakness will not be seen behind your fake bravado.

    All your violent and hateful language is really just a desperate attempt to seem strong, when in reality you know you are weak and fearful. That weakness and fear shows through in the weakness of your fearful and failed attempts at reasoning.

    If you really cared about protecting children you wouldn’t waste so much precious time railing against the fantasy world of your fears. You would look into the real factors that actually threaten children in the real world.

    The vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual. If we had to choose one sexual orientation to keep away from kids, to protect the greatest number of potential victims we’d need to keep all straight people away from kids. Every statistical measure proves this is true.

    Of course, in the real world it won’t children at all if we discriminate against one sexual orientation or another. I mention this only to show how your fear-based prejudices lead you to support measures that would achieve nothing but the exact opposite of the goals you claim to have.

    If you really cared about children, you’d advocate measures that might actually stand a chance of protecting children. What really motivates you is irrational fear and hate against people who are not any threat to children.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Jamo, I am on your side. Reread comment #303 second paragraph, you didn’t understand.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com/ Victor Plenty

    Anthony, lay of your creepy crusade, pal. It’s obvious you don’t care about children at all, except when they are conveniently placed for you to kick around in your political game playing.

  • Liberal

    “The people of California have voted nearly 70% to protect marriage between a man and women.”

    And in the Fifties, the white electorate in the deep South would likely have voted in greater percentage to prevent blacks from voting.

    Bigots like say it loud, max and straight and proud have opinions. In a democracy, they need to be ignored.

    “I mean if me and my wife split up she would 99,999 times out of a 100,000 get the kids,”

    Like most of the statistics I’ve seen on here, this is nothing like reality. Unfortunately, people don’t realize that throwing out fake stats makes them unbelievable.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Victor, this is no longer political.

    Kids are being seperated from their mothers because Judges want to support THEIR political agenda.

    I have dropped my gay marriage stance, I know support it as long as there are no kids involved. Now tell me how that is a political agenda!!! How is that not caring about kids!!!

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com/ Victor Plenty

    Look it up.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony, Equal Rights for EVERYONE, Grande

    “the white electorate in the deep South would likely have voted in greater percentage to prevent blacks from voting.”

    The Costitution wouldn’t allow that because that is talking away the rights of Americans. We are talking no rights away from gays.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony, Equal Rights for Everyone, Grande

    “in the Fifties, the white electorate in the deep South would likely have voted in greater percentage to prevent blacks from voting.”

    The Constitution wouldn’t allow that because that is taking away the rights of people.

  • Jamo

    That’s right, Anthony. Not many people undersand that it isn’t a RIGHT to marry who you want which is exactly why this shouldn’t be an issue ever brought before the legislator.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com/ Victor Plenty

    Ask a question that isn’t bone-jarringly stupid and you might deserve to have me do your footwork for you, loudmouth. As it stands, you will clearly fail to have any respect for the truth if I don’t make you do the work yourself.

    The vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual. This is well known to everyone who isn’t blinded by extremist propaganda.

    Don’t believe me? Look it up. Or remain ignorant of the truth. The choice is yours.

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com/ Victor Plenty

    The burden of proof is on you, as the one making the accusation that pedophilia and homosexuality are linked. Unless you back up such baseless claims, you have no leg to stand on for any of your statements.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Victor that’s a straw man tactic. The medical establishment has proven that there is no link between the two decades ago.

    Let these morons continue to show the world that they believe the earth is flat too, we know better.

    Here is how it works for me, referring to the comments telling me that hatred has a right to exist in this world…yes, it does, nobody is trying to force us to all hold hands. What gay people are striving for, is equal treatment from the government, businesses, etc. regarding relationships. There is no way to get each and every individual to clap their hands and believe, so nobody is trying.

    Take one of these jerkoffs here as an example, should they wish to stand up, at the next PTA meeting and shout out their hatred towards me, they absolutely have that right. Then the school will ask them to leave for being disruptive. Then we can settle down to the PTA business at hand.

    So I get integrated into society and the hate filled one gets kicked out. Works for me. See you at the next PTA meeting!

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com/ Victor Plenty

    Good points, Steve. Thanks for the reminder.

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    Ah, the misplaced pleasure of the tyranny of the majority

  • practical joe

    Steve S says:

    “What gay people are striving for, is equal treatment from the government, businesses, etc. regarding relationships. “

    What is the government and businesses doing in the business of “relationships”?

    The government should be in the business of protecting children and heterosexual families (for good reason) as it has done for over 200 years.

    Businesses can do what they want provided no law dictates what they do.

  • practical joe

    Victor — don’t laugh too much — the jokes have been on your positions.

  • Bennett

    “I will have to post here on blogcritics proof that you (Anthony) are not a man of your word.”

    He can’t be Steve, he’s not yet a man. Young Anthony is a wee sixteen years old, and I think that max and joe are not much older.

    They lack the critical mature thinking skills to even enter into this debate. Watch their response to THIS comment, and then walk away.

    Trying to debate anything with children is a waste of time.

  • practical joe

    Bennet is right.

    “Trying to debate anything with children is a waste of time.”

    I have been trying to get that point across .

    Thanks Bennet, for bring it up.

  • practical joe

    I understand that Bennet will be 13 next year.

    Isn’t he precocious?

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    God should make this thread a sin.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    You let me and everyone else assume that it cost you $60,000 for a lawer to win a custody battle.

    I said that it was a surrogacy. There are those who will know what that means, there are others, who’s fundamentalism requires them to reject science and therefore they will not know what it means and will assume something incorrectly. It is not my responsibility to make sure you know the definition of fairly common words. Most people know what it means.

    I girl needs a mother and these people created a daughter for two men!!! I wonder if everyone knows where these egg donations are going to.

    In our case yes as I did the inseminations myself. She stayed over at our place during the process. Surrogacies are wonderful, life-giving experiences, it is a marvelous ‘institution’ for lack of a better word, filled with people who enjoy the beauty of carefully thought out family planning. It is great.

    Steve, your daughter is still in grade school, but you better home school her when she gets older, because I fear for her safety mentally and physically.

    Why? Because of religious bigots? They are a dangerous bunch, arent’ they? Do you know of many that often go around putting people in mental and physical danger?

    And I still stand by what I standed by before: I will support Gay Marriage as long as there are no children involved.

    So you will give the benefits to some people, but it’s the people with young children where you would want to withhold benefits. I’m glad people can see the charity in your heart. Thank you for laying it out there for all to see.

    THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!!

    Yeah, but apparently that doesn’t matter to you as you are now for gay marriage.

    P.S. Why didn’t you answer our questions

    I did.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Now we can all rest.

    well I don’t know practical joe, there are still families out there that don’t conform to your definition of family. Aren’t there still a lot of people you need to inform that you feel you are superior to them?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    actually max, one of the first things you realize you have to look for, is someone who is in it for the money. You have to avoid those, because it becomes profitable to have complications, so you don’t mess with that.

    You find someone who is in it for the beauty of creating life, but who does not suffer from the heavy burden of Judgement that you must bear.

  • steve

    with the cost of crude oil going up, did that effect the cost of ky?

  • RogerMDillion

    Why are you going shopping soon, steve? you should save up for a sense of humor instead.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    Steve S, I think you should be proud of this thread. I haven’t read every comment — I just stopped by to edit an inappropriately-used personal name that was brought to my attention — but it appears that you’ve managed to convince a noted opponent that “gay marriage” is okay (though not when kids are involved). That’s progress!

    I think that without even agreeing with you on everything, I can appreciate your patience in the face of overwhelming spiteful nonsense being said to you. Kudos for keeping your cool.

  • Winston Jen

    Responding to Red State on comment 54. How many orphans have you adopted? Are you in favour of government funding to help poor mothers?

  • max

    Phil,
    Only a blundering idiot would think that steve has made progress here. Fags are pedophiles in hiding. Straight people are good normal people. these peopla are so confused, they will tell you that a pdeophile that rapes a boy isn’t gay. Please edit me, too. But. Just like a little faggot you do not believe in the first ammendment. Fags are Un-American from the first ammendment on. Commie fags!

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    max, note that many people have expressed opinions on this site that are unpleasant and disagreeable but have not been edited. Why? Because they exercised restraint and refrained from personal attacks.

    You don’t have to agree with someone to treat them with respect, and what Blogcritics.org does with regard to comments in no way involves Constitutional protections of any sort. We have an Official Comment Policy, and you have violated it. It’s that simple.

  • nax

    sorry Phil, You just can’t ban proxy.I just can’t respect a fag.

    The biggest argument here seems to be that fags think that straight people fear them. HAA HAA HAAA! In fact, when I was young, we would go out to Hippie Hollow and beat the hell out of the little faggots…For fun, not fear! Because they were sick perverts. And it was a good place to go steal their drugs..all fags have drugs. No vic, I have no fear of a faggot. I just hate all perverts. Fags are perverts. My only perversion is that when I was young, I liked to beat up faggots…for fun. If want a real laugh…my family owns hippie hollow, which is no the biggest fag hangout in Austin.

  • troll

    max – thank you for sharing

    your pov is noted

    feel free to get your wet dreams about forbidden anal sex off my bridge

    troll

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    a quick question on another blog reveals that hippie hollow is a texas state park. So max wants everyone to know his family owns a texas state park and not only that but the Austin gay commenters would like to let you know that state park is FAR from being a fag hangout. But I’m sure that doesn’t stop you from lurking in the bushes of your very own state park.

  • max

    Keep searching… We didn’t know that we inherited it in1962. Back taxes by the time it was brought to our attention was $90K. We made a deal to donate it as a park for 30 years. Soon, 2112 it’s ours again.

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    Only Rush will be alive then – and play at the Temples of Syrinx

  • max

    Aaman,
    We’re heading that way…fast! 2112 might be a prophecy! Best album EVER.

  • RogerMDillion

    the paradox that is the “mind” of AGrande

    “there is no such thing as gay.”

    “I am all for Gay Marriage”

    you can’t have it both ways, even though I’m sure you will when you get into community college.

  • RogerMDillion

    I notice you say “we” beat up fags. Obviously, you were to big of a puss to fight them on your own. Quite the man you are. Did you get excited when you beat them and then had that excitement turned into fear and loathing?

    By the way, you get no moral superiority since you are a confessed drug addict. And since you had drugs and then say “all fags had drugs”, odds are that you were a fag back in the day according to your own statements.

  • troll

    No paradox –

    AG suffers from an undisciplined writing style based on worn out images – hey…contradiction happens

    BUT – his position is stated clearly in many comments

    He needs to take his process up a step and learn to reflect on his writing – IMO the rants don’t work for him

    He might look at some texts on how to do political commentary like Orwell’s Politics and the English Language

    troll

  • RogerMDillion

    Yeah, his position is he’s all for something that he belives doesn’t exist.

    That’s all fine and dandy when talking about mythical gods and messiahs, but in the real world that doesn’t fly.

    Now take your Eng 101 commentary off my bridge.

    T.I.T. (troll in training)

  • troll

    hehehehe – serves me right

    troll

  • max

    No, I didn’t get off to kicking their ass. But I did get off on the weed. I really didn’t think it was cool to do this…peer pressure, but I’m sure you know all about that. We never really hurt anyone…It was called “rolling the fags”. No, I quit all drugs, even alcohol when I was 17. By choice. I just started to dislike feeling high, and being drunk was the worst. So, to answer you question… No, I was no man at 16 & 17…And never a fag. Sorry.

  • practical joe

    The people of California voted to approve a “Defense of Marriage Act” as an initiative statute. The text reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

    The Proposition was ratified by a 23-point margin, an overwhelming majority of voters.

    It won in 52 of California’s 58 counties, including all of the major metropolitan areas except for San Francisco.

    The rabble have spoken.

    DOWN WITH THE RABBLE!

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Politics editors thought this post was great and worthy. Click HERE to find out why.

    This is late due to me, Temple, overlooking them. Still worthy. Thanks.