California Legislature Approves Historic Civil Rights Bill Recognizing Same-sex Marriage - Comments Page 7

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.
Read comments below, or read this article from the beginning.

Article comments

— go to most recent comments
  • 276 - Victor Plenty

    Sep 11, 2005 at 3:53 pm

    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.

  • 277 - Jamo

    Sep 11, 2005 at 4:02 pm

    "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.

  • 278 - max

    Sep 11, 2005 at 4:10 pm

    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.

  • 279 - Victor Plenty

    Sep 11, 2005 at 4:13 pm

    Through your smile I see the tracks of your tears.

  • 280 - max

    Sep 11, 2005 at 4:27 pm

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

  • 281 - Anthony Grande

    Sep 11, 2005 at 4:31 pm

    "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.




  • 282 - Jamo

    Sep 11, 2005 at 4:34 pm

    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.

  • 283 - Anthony Grande

    Sep 11, 2005 at 4:38 pm

    "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.

  • 284 - Victor Plenty

    Sep 11, 2005 at 4:39 pm

    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.

  • 285 - Anthony Grande

    Sep 11, 2005 at 4:41 pm

    Jamo, I am on your side. Reread comment #303 second paragraph, you didn't understand.

  • 286 - Victor Plenty

    Sep 11, 2005 at 4:41 pm

    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.

  • 287 - Liberal

    Sep 11, 2005 at 4:50 pm

    "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.

  • 288 - Anthony Grande

    Sep 11, 2005 at 4:54 pm

    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!!!

  • 289 - Victor Plenty

    Sep 11, 2005 at 4:57 pm

    Look it up.

  • 290 - Anthony, Equal Rights for EVERYONE, Grande

    Sep 11, 2005 at 5:04 pm

    "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.

  • 291 - Anthony, Equal Rights for Everyone, Grande

    Sep 11, 2005 at 5:09 pm

    "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.

  • 292 - Jamo

    Sep 11, 2005 at 5:13 pm

    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.

  • 293 - Victor Plenty

    Sep 11, 2005 at 5:13 pm

    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.

  • 294 - Victor Plenty

    Sep 11, 2005 at 5:56 pm

    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.

  • 295 - Steve S

    Sep 11, 2005 at 6:02 pm

    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!

  • 296 - Victor Plenty

    Sep 11, 2005 at 6:08 pm

    Good points, Steve. Thanks for the reminder.

  • 297 - Aaman

    Sep 11, 2005 at 6:20 pm

    Ah, the misplaced pleasure of the tyranny of the majority

  • 298 - practical joe

    Sep 11, 2005 at 6:42 pm

    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.


  • 299 - practical joe

    Sep 11, 2005 at 9:53 pm

    Victor -- don’t laugh too much -- the jokes have been on your positions.


  • 300 - Bennett

    Sep 11, 2005 at 10:06 pm

    "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.

  • 301 - practical joe

    Sep 11, 2005 at 10:14 pm

    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.


  • 302 - practical joe

    Sep 11, 2005 at 10:17 pm

    I understand that Bennet will be 13 next year.

    Isn't he precocious?

  • 303 - Matthew T. Sussman

    Sep 11, 2005 at 10:24 pm

    God should make this thread a sin.

  • 304 - Steve S

    Sep 11, 2005 at 10:36 pm

    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.

  • 305 - Steve S

    Sep 11, 2005 at 10:38 pm

    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?

  • 306 - Steve S

    Sep 11, 2005 at 10:47 pm

    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.

  • 307 - steve

    Sep 12, 2005 at 2:03 am

    with the cost of crude oil going up, did that effect the cost of ky?

  • 308 - RogerMDillion

    Sep 12, 2005 at 2:07 am

    Why are you going shopping soon, steve? you should save up for a sense of humor instead.

  • 309 - Phillip Winn

    Sep 12, 2005 at 8:20 am

    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.

  • 310 - Winston Jen

    Sep 12, 2005 at 8:38 am

    Responding to Red State on comment 54. How many orphans have you adopted? Are you in favour of government funding to help poor mothers?

  • 311 - max

    Sep 12, 2005 at 10:05 am

    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!

  • 312 - Phillip Winn

    Sep 12, 2005 at 10:26 am

    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.

  • 313 - nax

    Sep 12, 2005 at 10:50 am

    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.

  • 314 - troll

    Sep 12, 2005 at 11:06 am

    max - thank you for sharing

    your pov is noted

    feel free to get your wet dreams about forbidden anal sex off my bridge

    troll

  • 315 - Steve S

    Sep 12, 2005 at 11:22 am

    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.

  • 316 - max

    Sep 12, 2005 at 11:32 am

    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.

  • 317 - Aaman

    Sep 12, 2005 at 12:10 pm

    Only Rush will be alive then - and play at the Temples of Syrinx

  • 318 - max

    Sep 12, 2005 at 12:30 pm

    Aaman,
    We're heading that way...fast! 2112 might be a prophecy! Best album EVER.

  • 319 - RogerMDillion

    Sep 12, 2005 at 12:50 pm

    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.

  • 320 - RogerMDillion

    Sep 12, 2005 at 12:59 pm

    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.

  • 321 - troll

    Sep 12, 2005 at 1:06 pm

    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

  • 322 - RogerMDillion

    Sep 12, 2005 at 1:26 pm

    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)

  • 323 - troll

    Sep 12, 2005 at 1:29 pm

    hehehehe - serves me right

    troll

  • 324 - max

    Sep 12, 2005 at 1:35 pm

    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.

  • 325 - practical joe

    Sep 12, 2005 at 2:01 pm

    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!

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for Nov 30, 2009

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for October

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs