News


Court upholds Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage

18,000 existing gay and lesbian marriages will remain valid

The California Supreme Court by a 6-1 vote today upheld Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage enacted by state voters in November.

At the same time, the court ruled that Proposition 8 is not retroactive and the 18,000 gay and lesbian marriages performed in the state before Nov. 4 will continue to be recognized.

The court said, "Those marriages remain valid in all respects."

Proposition 8 was approved by 52 percent of voters as an amendment to the California Constitution. As a constitutional amendment, the initiative overturned a decision in which the court ruled in May 2008 that the constitution's

guarantee of equal treatment provided a right to gay marriage.

The court, in a ruling issued in San Francisco, rejected three lawsuits in which same-sex couples and local governments claimed the measure could not be passed simply as an initiative because it was a constitutional revision rather than an amendment.

The court majority said the constitution gives voters broad amendment powers and that only a measure making "far reaching changes" in the state's basic governmental plan would be a revision.

Chief Justice Ronald George wrote that Proposition 8 "by no means makes such a far reaching change in the California Constitution as to amount to a constitutional revision."

George also wrote in the 136-page majority opinion that Proposition 8 concerns only access to the term "marriage" and does not affect same-sex couples' right to form families in domestic partnerships.

George wrote that gay and lesbian couples continue to have "a constitutional right to enter into an officially recognized and protected family relationship with the person of one's choice and to raise children in that family if the couple so chooses."

The court majority said that any change in the state's constitutional definition of marriage "must find its expression at the ballot box."

Justice Carlos Moreno said in a dissent he considered Proposition 8 to be a revision because it "strikes at the court of the promise of

equality that underlies our California Constitution."

A constitutional revision would require approval of two-thirds of the Legislature as well as a majority of state voters.

All seven justices said Proposition 8 was not retroactive for two reasons: because ballot materials did not unambiguously say it was retroactive and because invalidating previous same-sex marriages would take away vested property rights.

The court said that applying Proposition 8 retroactively would "disrupt thousands of actions" taken by married same-sex couples, "throwing property rights in disarray (and) destroying the legal interests and expectations of thousands of couples and their families."

In Washington, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said:

"I know today´s decision is a tremendous disappointment for many people. But I also know that the opinions of Californians are changing on this issue, and I believe that equal marriage rights will one day be the law in this state. This is already the case in Connecticut, Iowa,

Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont. So, I believe this issue will come before the voters again, and I am very hopeful that the result will be different next time.

"Today's State Supreme Court ruling also declares that the 18,000 same-sex marriages that have already taken place in California are valid, and I believe these marriages will allow people to see for themselves that marriage equality is a step forward for California and not a step back."

Responding to the ruling, State Sen. Ellen Corbett (D-10th), whose district includes Pleasanton, said:

"Today's ruling places us at a crossroads in California history where we, as a state must ask ourselves whether equal protection should continue to be a fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens under our Constitution without any exceptions. I am confident that the day will soon come when the people of this state recognize that we will not have true equality until all citizens of this state are granted the freedom to marry."

Julia Cheever, Bay City News;Jeb Bing

— Bay City News Service

Comments

Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 10:43 am

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

What a nasty message the California Supreme Court is sending out to the nation.


Posted by Pablo, a resident of Downtown
on May 26, 2009 at 10:51 am

Well actually I believe they are sending out the right message and that is that they will honor the will of the people and over 52% of Californian's voted this way. The roll of the court is to uphold the constitution and not make the constitution. The real interesting part of this as it cannot be overturned as now it is part of the constitution of the state.


Posted by Pleasanton Parent, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on May 26, 2009 at 10:54 am

I agree, should have been found as unconstitutional. The silver lining is that its not a matter of "if" same sex marriages will be viewed in the same (legal) manner as a marriage between a man and a woman, but only a matter of "when".


Posted by Pleasanton Parent, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on May 26, 2009 at 10:56 am

Pablo, I agree that the court should uphold the laws, but the court should also find that certain laws that suppress rights of a minority group are unconstitutional even if favored by the majority.


Posted by pablo, a resident of Downtown
on May 26, 2009 at 11:24 am

Pleasanton Parent,

It is the times we are in and the courts do not view it as suppression but rather feel the rights are protected under other laws. I think we are going to see that the court system is losing or has lost it's way.


Posted by Bob, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on May 26, 2009 at 11:30 am

pablo: "over 52% of Californian's voted this way"
No, only 74% or so of Californians actually voted, which means about 42% of Californians voted that way.

That being said the court did the right thing - upheld this awful initiative while also validating the 18000 existing same-sex marriages, and commenting on how completely broken the California referendum system is.


Posted by Pablo, a resident of Downtown
on May 26, 2009 at 11:42 am

Bob,

52% of the people who showed up at the polls voted for the bill and 48% voted no. Simple as that. Cannot surmise what the rest of the population who does not vote would have voted. It is what it is and it is the law so those are the facts like it or not.


Posted by Patricia, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 26, 2009 at 11:49 am

Actually, Pablo, you are wrong. If a vote by the people could change the constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman, a vote by the people can change the constitution to allow same sex marriage. And, frighteningly, it can change the constitution to limit marriage to people of the same race, people who are physically able to have children, people who agree to have children . . . or to say that all citizens have the same right to a civil union and the state will no longer "marry" anyone. I hope if that happens, the court will uphold my pre-existing marriage of 25 years so I don't lose my right to file joint tax returns or fill out special paperwork allowing me to be with my husband in the hospital, etc.!


Posted by Pablo, a resident of Downtown
on May 26, 2009 at 11:55 am

Patricia,

My points exactly as the people have lost confidence in their elected officials and the court system. You will see more of this but some things such as some you have mentioned are protected by the constitution of the US , such as voting rights and race discrimination. If they so chose the voters could ok marriage between a man and 2 women, 3 women, 4 women or vice versa. They could ok marriage between a man and his dog or cat or a man and his daugher or son. The point is that it is now the law of the state until such time as it can be changed and unfortunately based on the previous prop 8 results and polling sentiment recently I fear it will be a long time coming.


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 12:04 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

As funny as this is to point, the courts are "behind the people who voted yes on Prop 8"- let's not forget how hateful and how controlling people can be. Humans have made mistakes in the past that it's always possible they will make mistakes in the present. The ruling today is screaming "Separate but equal" and if you don't see that then I suggest taking a history class. And yes Pablo, this ruling does speak about the gay community being suppressed. The "noise" has been sent that if you live this way, you will only be given these rights and if you live this other way, you will be given superior rights. Sounds a bit like discrimination. And your ideas about bestiality would never hold up with any gay couple. It's so interesting to read and hear people using excuses like this- if gay people can wed than say can a man and his dog etc. When has a gay couple ever asked for this? Never. The only people who keep speaking these outrageous words are the ones who are trying to control the love of other peoples live.

As I asked in a thread very recently and never read an answer, I'll ask you Pablo: How does a marriage I may partake in between my partner and I effect your life?


Posted by Patricia, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 26, 2009 at 12:08 pm

I do not think it will be that long in coming. This decision creates a very messy situation, with some marriages recognized and others not. And the trend in other states will force the courts to rule on whether a legal marriage in one state is valid in another. And younger people are shedding the bigotry of their parents' generation just as their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents shed their opposition to equality between the races and women's right to vote -- resulting in the constitutional protections you mention. Ultimately, our great-grandchildren will look back on this as we do on those issues and say, 'What was the big deal?'

Still, I think you are right. Proposition 8 must be overturned at the ballot box. And true equality will require federal recognition that civil marriage is a civil right, while religious marriage is a privelege that each religion or denomination can grant or withhold as its adherents see fit.


Posted by pablo, a resident of Downtown
on May 26, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Better get moving otherwise we cannot get it on a ballot but we must keep in mind we need to pick up a lot of votes otherwise it will go down in flames again and this next time it will be for good as people are really wearing thin on these voter initiatives. One other point. We need not be to radical as I believe it is turning voters away from our cause.


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 1:21 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

Pablo what are you talking about? Speaking of radical, the idea of wanting to marry a cat or a dog is radical and outrageous. Go walk down the Castro in San Francisco and ask any gay person whether they wish to do that- you'll get a 100% "no, that's disgusting."

2010!


Posted by interesting, a resident of Del Prado
on May 26, 2009 at 1:23 pm

It seems as the court only defined that a union between a man and a woman is marriage, and that it completely avoided whether or not same sex "marriages" can exist, only that they may not be called marriage. Congratulations to the 18,000 couples who can not be stripped of their right to remain married. Times are a changing and so will this. Be patient...


Posted by Jason, a resident of Del Prado
on May 26, 2009 at 3:25 pm

PToWN94566,

I think you might be missing the point which is being made and that is that a man and a man being married to each other and a woman being married to another woman is being viewed as unnatural as a person marrying their pet and revolts you very similar to straight people being revolted by the homosexual concept.


Posted by Beth, a resident of Foothill Farms
on May 26, 2009 at 3:30 pm

Honestly,

Not that I should even have to say this but you CANNOT legalize marriage between a person and a non-person.

Marriage is a CONTRACT. C'mon people - use your heads.

Today was a sad, sad day in California. That bigotry and religious views can be written into our State Constitution frightens me.

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't be in one.


Posted by Alexis de Tocqueville, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 3:34 pm

This is a great example of TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY! (right Stacey? ;)


Posted by AVHS Dad, a resident of Stoneridge Park
on May 26, 2009 at 3:45 pm

AVHS Dad is a registered user.

It's a sad day when the California supreme court says a we can vote away basic civil rights for a group of people based on nothing more than personal predjudices. Whether California votes on this again or not, this will eventually be decided by the US Supreme Court for all states under the 14th ammendment. Besides, aren't we all guaranteed "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independance?
Dogs and Cats? Pablo, you gotta stop visiting those nasty web sites!


Posted by Mary, a resident of Danbury Park
on May 26, 2009 at 4:14 pm

AVHS,

Unfortunately it is not eligable to be taken to the supreme court as it is now part of our constitution and thereby must be voted on and looks like 2011 or 2012 at the earliest.


Posted by Katie, a resident of Ruby Hill
on May 26, 2009 at 4:30 pm

Same sex marriage is insane. On many levels, one they are making something I call "marriage" and twisting adn turning it around for THEIR sake. Selfish much? What about when they get divorved huh?! I am aganist same- sex marriage. I am not a homophobe, stupid person... etc. Call me whatever you want. But when you do call me or others that, ovbiously you have lost the battle and that is all that you can resort to. Says more about you than about me. Man and a woman= BABY. two women? two men? and what about the child? they are going to have issues when they see their two dads, and another child with a dad and a mom. That is going to be hard on the child.

I am done with this. people make is worse by calling "us" rude and demeaning things, come on. Grow up! Why change it now?!

Obama where are you?? He hasn't said squat. WOW, what a great "change"!!


Posted by AVHS Dad, a resident of Stoneridge Park
on May 26, 2009 at 4:51 pm

AVHS Dad is a registered user.

Katie, please don't try and use the procreation argument. There are plenty of couples that can't or choose not to have kids. Would you deny marriage to them? Who do you think will have more issues: a kid with parents that love each other or a kid with parents that treat each other like crap? Don't try to say it's about the kids. They're kids! They don't care, unless their parents have told them that same sex couples are evil...or that interracial couples are evil, or couples of different religions are evil.
Marriage is a basic human right. Please, anyone, give me an argument to support this position. A reason I can understand to deny this right to this group. I haven't heard one yet.


Posted by Rae, a resident of Mohr Park
on May 26, 2009 at 5:02 pm

Ok, let me get this right, Katie. . .the only reason for "marriage", as you define it, is to have a baby?

So, if either a man or a woman in a relationship can not, or does not, want to have a child, should their "marriage" be denied based on the fact they will not have children?


Posted by John, a resident of Downtown
on May 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm

Well now it appears that the majority of the people agree with Katie and count me as one of them so to ahead and get angry and say nasty things as you guys always do but to paraphrase our president "we won so deal with it!"


Posted by PJ, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 5:38 pm

Questions for the pro gay marriage folks:

If a person is very much and sincerely in love with two others and they love him or her the same, and all wish to legally marry as consenting adults, are you for it?

Should their "rights" be denied?

Are you haters if you're against it?

Would you add their cause on to the 2010 proposition?


Posted by and the court rules, a resident of Foothill Knolls
on May 26, 2009 at 6:32 pm

According to the CSC now the majority can do anything they want, as long as it is by majority rule. Sorry folks. That is what the court ruled. Maybe we can refuse to grant tax exemptions to certain religions, keep certain kids from going to school, prohibit those over 50 from marrying (they aren't likely to have children). This is the very tyranny that the founding fathers feared.


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 6:35 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

Lol Katie, I love what you stated: "...ovbiously you have lost the battle." Obviously, we have lost the battle but we haven't lost the war. You bring up the issue of selfishness. Isn't it selfish that only a defined group of people can take part in some activity while telling another group of people they can't because of what they feel? Being gay is NOT a disease and people seriously need start realizing this. If you're "revolted," as some call it, by the fact that two people, two human beings that bleed the same blood as you or I do, love each other then you are being discriminatory. Two human being, no matter what the sexual preference is, can never be compared to another human wanting to engage in acts with a dog, cat, horse, or goat. If anything is revolting is the fact that these accusations continue to fly around our society. As I saw on television twenty minutes ago, "There are gay people in this world...GET OVER IT."

Not sure if Katie will return since she claims to be "over it", but let me ask you this. I'm assuming you have kids (this is for other readers as well). If your children was partaking in a school activity about diversity and homosexuality was to be discussed, would you let them participate? Let me remind you, this class activity is about diversity that includes discussions of many cultures, not sex/family education- there is to be of no talk about sex. The basic definition of homosexuality would be two people who share the same sexual orientation and share the same sex traits. (O, and please don't say being gay doesn't have a culture. If you do, I urge you to go walk around the Castro all day this weekend).

Again, this issue is so interesting since people who aren't even involved in a gay persons life are thinking it's all about them and how their life is going to be ruined. We, us gay people, want out own marriage- not yours!


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 6:36 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

Quick note to some other responses, this can (and most likely will be) taken to the voters again in 2010 to have a new Amendment written into the California State Constitution.


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 6:37 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

Another quick note: after today's rulings, I'm curious as to what people think about "Gay Crow" laws..........


Posted by 8 is great!!, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 7:20 pm

The reason this proposition stood as a constitutional ammendment is because in California same sex couples already have all the legal rights of a married couple.

Marriage is a Covenant between God, one man and one woman. The law has nothing to do with it.

A "behavior" does not deserve constitution civil rights protection. A person's race is not a behavior.

Why do homosexuals want my church's legitimization of their deviancy? It will never happen, so go back to sodomize on your own, God won't ever be found there.


Posted by bobbi, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 8:24 pm

Gays have the same legal rights as a married man and woman. Marriage is between a man and a woman. always has been, always will be. (No matter what man decides) This country was founded on christian principles and the farther the country deviates from them, the farther our great country will go in turmoil. It will be hard for God to bless us. But then it does say the earth will wax worse and worse before our Savior's return.


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 8:28 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

8 is Great: This is isn't about having YOUR church legitimize same sex marriages. It's about the State as a whole, and all it's citizens, treating and recognizing that we are just as equal as you are. Additionally, we want to be recognized so the rest of the nation can stand by us to make eventually make it a federal law (which obviously will take time). We have "civil union" laws in our State but those provide minimal amounts of rights that "regular" marriages receives. How about we go and make federal laws stating that if you are married to a person who has blue eyes, you can't visit them in the hospital. You'll probably go out on a limb and say that is very different since you can't control your eye color, but the same thing can be said about one's sexual orientation- you can't choose who you are attracted too.

Anyway, continue on with contradicting your own religion, "judge not, least you be judged."


Posted by Rock Hudson, a resident of Danbury Park
on May 26, 2009 at 9:07 pm

Hey this is great and you don't think you have a long road ahead if you are Web Link to get gay marriage approved? Well read this as the public sentiment is moving away in California against gay marriage or sick stuff.


Posted by rock hudson, a resident of Danbury Park
on May 26, 2009 at 9:08 pm

Web Link


Posted by Pac Man, a resident of Del Prado
on May 26, 2009 at 9:09 pm

Rock Hudson,

just think if there were better laws years ago you would still be alive.


Posted by Juie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 9:34 pm

California's image as a trendsetter state is a myth. There are states that have adopted a 'no pesticides sprayed at schools' policy, while we spray away. And here we are banning marriage for people who don't look like the majority. We are a backwards state.


Posted by PJ, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 9:43 pm

4 HOURS AND NO TAKERS???:

Questions for the pro gay marriage folks:

If a person is very much and sincerely in love with two others and they love him or her the same, and all wish to legally marry as consenting adults, are you for it?

Should their "rights" be denied?

Are you haters if you're against it?

Would you add their cause on to the 2010 proposition?

This is a REAL issue: Web Link


Posted by Pac Man and Rock Hudson, a resident of Del Prado
on May 26, 2009 at 9:48 pm

PJ,

we are both for it as long as we can marry Doris Day and her dogs as well................hey a 5 some!!!


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 10:05 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

PJ, that is an interesting article. As long as a relationship as such does not foster abuse/neglect or any kind of maltreatment, I would vote in allowing them to legally wed. Their shouldn't be denied as that is what they wish for their own lives, not mine. It is never my right nor my place to tell anyone who they can or can't love, no matter how many parties are involved. Personally, I would never survive in a relationship as such. Having more than one partner sounds very difficult but if three, four, five etc people can handle it, more power to them. Love shouldn't have rules nor should it have laws.

As for the idea of placing it on a 2010 proposition, I would say no. The battle already begun long ago that something this different would place even a larger strain on the work that is ahead for the community I belong to. Also this issue takes on a much larger scale in the sense that marriage would be considered between more than just two people. I doubt that I would ever see a proposition pass in my life time that allows multiple partners to wed; even people in the gay community are quick to judge something as such. Every gay or lesbian person I know wants to have a monogamous relationship, so education would have to take before legal multiple partnerships take place. However, I would bet that LGBT people would be quick to open their arms and accept them for who they are; we've already been through hell and back of the taunts and torments of growing up that we don't wish that on anyone.


Posted by Jesus, a resident of Castlewood Heights
on May 26, 2009 at 10:09 pm

PToWN94566,

you are fighting a lost cause and one which will send you eventually to hell and with the hate in your heart you have for the righteous you should reflect on that.


Posted by Truth, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 10:20 pm

PToWN94566, concludes: Anyway, continue on with contradicting your own religion, "judge not, least you be judged."

You quote parts of religious text when you think it can work to support your position or belittle others who disagree with you.

Perhaps then you might consider these FEW examples of His desire for us to judge if you qant to quote the bible.

# 1Cor. 6:2-3 Do you not know that the saints [the saved; Christians] will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

# Prov. 3:21 My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight;

# John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

# Jer. 22:3 Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness...

# Phil. 1:10 so that you may be able to discern [judge] what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ...

# Phil. 1:7 It is right for me to feel this way about all of you [judge you]...

I have compassion for the homosexual person, but I cannot nor will I endorse homosexual behavior.

The Bible provides quite enough knowledge and understanding to make each of us a righteous judge of behavior, even and especially our own if we r-e-a-d it and not just look at the words and use the total of what He says, not just the pieces that seem to fit an agenda.

Attempting to re-define "marriage, and demanding tolerance..... well there in lies the real contradiction.

"Tolerance" has become the most abused and misused word in the English language.

Disagree but please do not situationally redefine or conditionally apply His Word to suit political correctness, cultural tolerances,or modern ethics.





Posted by Beth, a resident of Foothill Farms
on May 26, 2009 at 10:20 pm

PJ -

Here you go. Here's your answer. Ready?

Marriage is a CONTRACT. I honestly don't know how many times I need to say it.

A contract can only be entered into between two people (or two entities). So you can have as many relationships with as many people as you want but only one of those relationships can be a marriage.

The h8ers need to get their religion out of my Constitution. Separation of church and state much?


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 10:25 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

O Jesus, if you haven't figured it out yet, hell is right here on earth! Hell could never be more painful than going to middle and high school with a bunch of nasty children/teenagers that like to push and harass others just because I'm different. I'm guessing you were one of those people, so I say: bless you. And no, I'm not righteous as I would never tell anybody that they don't deserve to get married just because of their own personal wants. If you want to live your life worrying about the lives of others, go right ahead. All I know is that I'll worry about myself and my partner- you're life choices have no bearing over me. Continue on with you xenophobic comments; as I said before they are just adding fuel to the fire of making gay and lesbian people more noticeable in our society.


Posted by PJ, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 10:29 pm

Beth,

Have you looked up the definition of a contract?

contract ( ) n. An agreement between two OR MORE parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law.

So Beth, do you have a better answer?


Posted by PJ, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 10:38 pm

PToWN94566,

Thanks for your honest answer that you believe a marriage is a relationship between two OR MORE consenting adults of any/mixed gender.


Beth,

Since a contract can have multiple parties to the ONE contract (as defined in the above post) do you also agree then that a marriage is a relationship between two OR MORE consenting adults of any/mixed gender?


Posted by Julie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 10:43 pm

Julie is a registered user.

Jesus! You are alive and living in Castlewood...cool! I guess you gave up the carpentry and preaching businesses to afford a home in that hood. If it wasn't an attempt to sound godly and your name truly is "hay-soos", then my apologies.

People against gay marriage will always throw in arguments about group marriage, marriage with dogs, etc. because that's all they've got.

I'm certainly disappointed in the ruling. To me allowing a simple majority vote to change the constitution should have never been allowed. When you think about it, that's scary. Those of you happy about the ruling simply weren't in the minority....this time. What if it's YOUR rights on the chopping block next time?


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 10:43 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

Truth, I don't follow any specific religion as for all I know there could be more than one God. It's seem a bit naive to live a life of believing in one spiritual entity when there is no proof of anything. Let me also point out that the whole meaning behind "judge not, least be judged" is to reinforce that the God, in monotheistic religions, is for people like you to not judge others, it's up this so called God. It also follows very closely the whole "treat others the way you want to be treated." People against same sex marriage are casting their judgments our way therefore we will cast ours back demanding that we receive equal treatment.

Know, let's have an English on what tolerance and compassion mean.

Tolerance: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own; the act of allowing something :a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

Compassion:sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it

"Truth": Today's court ruling is far from being free of bigotry. As for compassion, that you do not have. If you had true compassion it wouldn't bother you if two gay people wed.


Posted by PJ, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 10:55 pm

Julie wrote: "People against gay marriage will always throw in arguments about group marriage, marriage with dogs, etc. because that's all they've got."

Julie careful. You sound like an intolerant hater against persons who believe in marriage with more than one partner. These are real consenting adults with real feelings for each other and other. Read this, then tell me what you think: Web Link


Posted by 8 is great!, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 11:35 pm

The only bully's I know are people who want to take away the original intention of marriage and distort it into a disgusting and sickening perversion of a beautiful design for a man and a woman, and force the rest of us into having to legitimize you and your choices - no matter how destructive. Did you know in Canada hate speech has included churches having to omit the Scripture about homosexuality? We all know your agenda and I won't let you pervert the truth for my children.

There is a mystery that God designed that draws a man and a woman together and when they commit to one another under the Covenant God designed, marriage, he blesses you with an amazing thing that you gays will never know - no matter how jealous you are of us and no matter how badly you want to imitate me and mine. A true-marriage is also blessed by God with a child - all from him. The fact you cannot conceive a child proves God does not honor your "union".

You can believe with your entire being that you are correct, that you are entitled to have what I have. But no matter what laws you try and turn over, no matter how selfish you are to drag children into your life to "look" like a family (SOOO selfish) or how pathetically you search for significance in your life to justify your DEVIANT behavior you will NEVER, state-sanctioned "marriage" or not - be equal to what God has given to me in my God-ordained and blessed marriage.

Keep up your fight, dig in deeper and continue to make yourself suffer, because all of you will never, NO NEVER, know the real intention of marriage and you can lie to yourself in your still moments when you are alone or in a mass mob feeling justified in the Castro, but you will continue to deny for yourself what God intended for you.

Keep living in a shack on the sand when God designed a mansion for you on the Rock, because you have believed a lie. I am so sorry you were so sucked into a huge lie and distortion that is robbing you of God-given joy. Not only are you deceived, you are dragging others down with you when you have a choice.

You do not deserve "civil rights" protection because your deviant behavior is not equal to another human who is kept down by their race or gender. Figure it out and stop poisoning the rest of us with your filth.


Posted by Julie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 26, 2009 at 11:57 pm

Julie is a registered user.

Sorry PJ, I'm a fish with a brain & refuse to take your bait :) It's irrelevant.

8 is Great: So I have a female family member who is married to a guy, but she cannot conceive a child - does God not honor their union? Since you speak for Him, please tell me. And really, until you die, you will not truly know if it was in fact *you* that was "sucked into a huge lie". I don't judge you for believing what you believe though. I respect your right to choose your religion. What I don't respect is using that religion to treat others with hate. And yes, it is hate when you use statements like "...stop poisoning the rest of us with your filth". I thought God was about Love.


Posted by WOW!, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 12:01 am

8 is great!:

I've got to say you seriously scare the heck out of me! As a long time married middle aged heterosexual christian woman let me say that I would happily take a loving gay couple (married or not, parents or not) as my frends and neighbors over you any day of the week! I would not want you anywhere near my children or family.... EVER.

I certainly hope for your sake that if/when you eventually arrive at those pearly gates above the folks controlling the entrance are not readers of the PW forum!


Posted by PJ, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 12:14 am

Julie,

Bait??? Irrelevant???

Isn't that a cop out and callous attitude towards a minority group that has the same basic rights as the rest of those gay and straight in this and other states who enjoy marriage? Web Link

These are REAL people and you call their relationships and wishes of equal marriage irrelevant? That's cold.

You defend gay marriage but judge their relationships as irrelevant. How do you reconcile that?


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 12:14 am

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

My partner and I were just on the phone; he sends his love to all the Yes on 8 people.

And let me say Wow as well to "8 is Great." I never thought I would "meet" someone from Pleasanton that is straight out of the movie "Jesus Camp." I guess I can cross that off my bucket list now. The statement "The fact you cannot conceive a child proves God does not honor your "union" is the most hurtful thing I have yet to read on this current thread. How sad it is for someone such as yourself, "8 is Great", to condone other women who may have health problems, either genetic or from environmental circumstances, who cannot conceive a child. And whatever your "...God has given to me in my God-ordained and blessed marriage" I would never want. The God I know doesn't treat people as such and if your God is the All Mighty, then I still wouldn't want to be a part of it. I pray that if any of your children or extended family are gay that they never have to cross your path of religious righteousness. It's people like you that are responsible for planting the seeds of low self-esteem in today's gay/lesbian youth- but then again you probably wouldn't care if some gay teenage boy took his own life because he was constantly ridiculed at school and then returned home to be treated like an inferior by his overly religious parents.


Posted by John, a resident of Birdland
on May 27, 2009 at 9:01 am

Funny that most CA citizens and now the state do not think it should be legal but the gays and lesbians do. I bet murders and drug dealers think that should be legal also.

For all those gay and lesbian Christians out there what do you plan on telling God? By the way he thinks it is wrong too.


Posted by downtown resident, a resident of Downtown
on May 27, 2009 at 9:06 am

This is so shocking to hear the evil from the so called "Christians", God is about love in your heart right?!!! "8 is great", you should really take a step back and revisit what being Christian or following a religion truly means. It is not, and should not be used to judge, hate, and descriminate. I am a straight female and I believe in love between two human beings, period! Stop using your religion as evil - you should be ashamed. And I completely agree that when you arrive in heaven, I hope God forgives you for your evil nature. You are obviously not a very happy person or you would not be so overtaken by other people's desires. I would never want you around myself, friends, or kids with your hateful talk! Again, please revisit your meaning of being Christian as I think you have completely the wrong idea.


Posted by 8 is great, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 9:47 am

For those of you who have judged my relationship with God, sorry, it's solid.

For those of you who think you have settled the matter by trying to get others to feel sorry for you - sorry your actions are still wrong.

For those of you who think I can't say how I feel - that homosexual SIN is wretched, then you are the pitiful ones.

Condoning, legitimizing, or any establishment of telling gays they have a right to do what they are doing is THE epitomy of hate.

I am a loving person, but I have had enough of others telling me that I can't speak the truth and have my own opinions because I am a Christian. You cannot limit me because you have decided you agree with the opinion of a group of sinners who have not repented.

Sorry, you can't get around that.

To my "Christian" brothers and sisters out there - you should watch the if/when comment about my salvation, because I am already sealed with the Holy Spirit, and that is that until the day of redemption which I would never say you were.

You all say that there is nothing wrong with homosexual love. Hello, deviant sexual behavior is wrong on any level. God said it, I agree with his stance on things. He is the Creator and he didn't create that perversion that you have twisted it into.

I live within God's plan and you all think I am scary. Trust me, growing up in the Bay Area I know first hand about the propoganda that has been pushed as "tolerance" since I was young. I think you are flat out wrong - you cannot justify yourself to me and use your diluted arguments that "God is love". You know God is a lot of things including absent of sin.

So the god you claim to know is not mine, because what you are telling my God with your homosexual behavior is that he is wrong. WOW! Don't mix up an attribute of God with a misguided attempt at that attribute. I can assure you what you are doing, no matter how you have convinced yourself, is not love. Have much pride, do you to tell God what is right and wrong? WOW!! Continue your pride and self hate.


Posted by John, a resident of Birdland
on May 27, 2009 at 10:04 am

Hey Downtown Res....

Do tell me I have it mixed up. You are the wrong one here. Man shall not sleep with man nor beast. enough said.


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 10:10 am

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

"8 is Great" stated "You cannot limit me because you have decided you agree with the opinion of a group of sinners who have not repented." The flip side to your words are just as true; you cannot limit a group of people because of you're own opinions that are justified by your own religion. There is no national religion here in the United States, there are no laws that state Christianity is the ultimate rule and law of the land.

If you can't see the fear, hatred, and discrimination in your own words, then you're more religiously "high" than most other people on this thread: "that homosexual SIN is wretched, then you are the pitiful ones....deviant sexual behavior is wrong on any level."

By the way, I would never want someone such as yourself to feel pity or sorrow for me; "...then you are the pitiful ones."


Posted by Patricia, a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 27, 2009 at 10:19 am

Actually, 8 is Great is right. Her faith in her beliefs is absolute and we cannot and must not seek to change her religious beliefs. So, if she insists that "marriage is a Covenant between God, one man and one woman. The law has nothing to do with it" then surely she will agree that marriage is the province of churches and the law should only be in the business of civil unions for all. Thus men and women who want to join together under the law would get a civil union with all the same rights and recognition as a gay couple who want to join together under the law. Those who want a sacrament under God could get married in church. Obviously, gay couples would not be able to get married in 8 is Great's church, but I welcome them at mine -- and so would all those ministers I saw marching in downtown San Francisco on last night's news.

I have no desire to change 8 is Great's views on religion, her church's teachings or practices, any more than I would allow her to change the way I worship or follow Christ. But I do believe in our constitution, especially the 1st Amendment that states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So if marriage is a convenant between a man, a woman and God, then the government should not be marrying ANYONE.

Would that work for you, 8 is Great?


Posted by Follow the money, a resident of Ruby Hill
on May 27, 2009 at 10:19 am

If the state had not poked it's nose into marriage in order to get revenue, we would not be having this debate.

Marriage is a sacrament for those who have belief in God and his commandments. The state made it a contract. Let the state give a legal contract to ALL unions and then let those of us who hold God's commandments to be sacred have a marriage in addition to that.

If your are gay, then there are churches that will bless that union as well, just PLEASE do not ask me to compromise my beliefs and deny my Lord so you can get your way. This is not about you, it is between me and my Lord. I do not hate you, I just love the Lord enough to try and follow Him even when it makes me an object of your hate.

I love all my friends-straight and gay-and I do not condone any of their sins-sexual or otherwise. My sins are just as reprehensible to my Lord, even though mine may not be a noticeable to the community. Let's not judge each other. God will judge us all soon enough.



Posted by Majority Tyranny, a resident of Golden Eagle
on May 27, 2009 at 10:45 am

As Alexis said... majority tyranny... That is exactly what is happening in Washington DC. The majority is ram-roding legislation through without consulting the minority, GOP party. So, where is the justice in that if one is objecting the fact that majority rules. Let's not have your cake and eat it too! Hypocrisy is too rampant amongst the public. You take positions that suit the occasion. I see not consistency in any of the arguments.


Posted by Have a laugh, a resident of Danbury Park
on May 27, 2009 at 10:51 am

HEADLINES FROM THE YEAR: 2029

Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Mexifornia, formerly
known as California.






White minorities still trying to have English recognized as Mexifornia's third language.

Spotted Owl plague threatens northwestern United States crops and livestock.


Baby conceived naturally! Scientists stumped.

Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual marriage.


Iran still closed off; physicists estimate it will take at least 10 more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels.

France pleads for global help after being taken over by Jamaica . No other country comes forward to help the beleaguered nation!


Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking.


George Z. Bush says he will run for President in 2036.

Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to $17.89 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only.



85-year $75.8 billion study: Diet and exercise is the key to weight loss.



Average weight of Americans drops to 250 lbs.


Global cooling blamed for citrus crop failure for third consecutive year in Mexifornia and Floruba.



Japanese scientists have created a camera with such a fast shutter speed they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut.

Abortion clinics now available in every
High School in United States .
Senate still blocking drilling in ANWR even though gas is selling for 4532 Pesos per liter and gas stations are only open on Tuesdays and Fridays.


Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals violates their civil rights.


Average height of NBA players is now nine feet seven inches with
only 3 illegitimate children.


New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2030..



IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75 percent..



Floruba voters still having trouble with voting machines.

Now, send this to whomever you want and as many as you want, then, guess what....NOTHING will happen. No miracles, no money, absolutely nothing, except you might make someone smile or very very scared.

I Love This Country!

It's The Government That Scares Me!


Posted by Me, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 10:55 am

Pablo -- what is we had a state initiative that said all people with latin names we forbidden marriage and it was voted up 52/47. You would feel violated. I'm a strait married man with three children. My marraige was not in any way threatened by those same sex marriages. It is a sad time in America "the land of the free" when we vote to create an excluded class.
Hopefully this opens the door to US Supreme Court to end institutional hate nationwide.

As an added benefit if we allowed same sex marriage we would be collecting more marriage penalty taxes.


Posted by Confused, a resident of another community
on May 27, 2009 at 10:56 am

To Majority Tyranny-


??? What are you trying to say? Can you rewrite your post as a coherent message?


Posted by Pablo, a resident of Downtown
on May 27, 2009 at 11:04 am

Do your research folks. Prop 8 cannot be heard by the Supreme Court but rather if to be changed must be changed by voter majority as it is now an approved part of the state constitution.


Posted by Pablo, a resident of Downtown
on May 27, 2009 at 11:08 am

Confused, her or his message is pretty clear. The majority in Washington DC, Obama and the Democrats are just slamming legislation down the throats of the minority the Republicans just as the majority of Californian's had their way with prop 8. Pretty clear I believe.


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 11:14 am

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

"Her faith in her beliefs is absolute and we cannot and must not seek to change her religious beliefs"

The exact same can be said about gay people. Their own faith and belief in God are just as valid as the heterosexual couple next door. Why is it people against same sex marriage is so set on the notion that gay people are trying to alter this religion so justly? And if there are so strict of rules for marriage between a man and a woman, in the Christian religion, then all the other marriages between a man and a woman who are not Christian must stop as well. When a gay couple does wed, they don't want to be part of a church that would ultimately shun them from that particular community; I would never want to step foot in "8 is Greats" church.

If I'm not mistaken, the only way Prop 8 can be changed is if the justices went back and changed their vote (which is highly unlikely), or taking the decision to the United States Supreme court (which is even more highly unlikely), or getting a new proposition on the ballot in future elections- which will more than likely happen.


Posted by 8 is great!!, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 11:16 am

I absolutely agree with statements here about marriage and the state. Marriage should be a protected part of religious beliefs. Everyone should be seen as equal under the law - and we are already. You don't get to hijack my religious belief for a non-sactioned belief of a church. You don't get to have my religion both ways! That't the point.

I am tired of the "velvet maffia" ramming down their "lifestyle" of a behavior as a legitimate civil right, comparing themselves to a race or a gender. A behavior is not the same as a that.

The push of the lesbian/gays with the demand of my religion's approval is enough already. Pretty soon they will demand that my actual church will be liable for not performing a homosexual marriage in a sacred place to me and other believers. JUST LIKE IS HAPPENING IN CANADA already because they started down the road of so-called "tolerance".

This starts at the ballot box and I will fight, using the legal system just as Paul used the laws of Rome, to keep things safe for my children.

I don't hate a homosexual, I feel to much compassion for you. However, my compassion does not include lying to you and letting you believe I don't think what you are doing is wrong. If you were my family member, I'd love you the same. I would also tell you I love you too much to lie to you. Jesus told the prostitute that he forgave her, but he then followed up and said, "now go forth and don't sin.".

You can try and water down my faith in your uneducated opinions of the Bible but I actually study it, implement it and live by it. You cannot use the Word of God against me or pretend you know it better than I. I understand it's context, you obviously do not.

I still sin as a Christian, but the difference between you and I is that I agree with God that I am sinning and I turn from the behavior. You may think you believe in my God, but you cannot then justify your behavior because God said, "If you love me then you will obey my commands."

Are you obeying? Do you love God? Do you agree you are in sin or are you calling God a liar? If so then you serve another master and why would you want a "marriage" in a church that the God of that church abhors? It really is black and white no matter how you try and blur the lines.

As far as those that say, "Don't judge others lest they be judged..."
Study up people, I never said that you weren't saved (that's what you *questioned* about me) and that is what the verse speaks to. Some of you questioned my salvation because I don't agree with your justification of a deviant behavior. Interesting how "tolerance" goes one way. FYI, we DO get to judge each others behaviors as wrong or right - we don't get to judge salvation. That is up to God. I am judging your behavior, not your salvation.

I used to work with children professionally for the county and had a child with "two dads" that adopted him from Guatemala. They were very nice men and I served them and their "family" professionally. The child's Latin name was Ivan (in English pronounced, eye-van, in Espanol pronounced ee-vahn). Well, his two "dads" asked that he be called "Ya-vonne". Nice. The only positive to this one child's story is that he was mentally retarded and will never truly understand what these two men were doing or what happened to him. I can't say other children are that lucky. Ivan deserved a mother and a father. You don't justify your less than treatment of a child with the lack of parental responsibility by others. Just because his hetero parents failed him doesn't mean he deserves a homo couple who will do the same. How cruel! He deserved the best.

By the way, that "couple" soon broke up and one of the "dads" later confessed to a social worker that they never should have adopted him. That was 7 years ago and he later became "adopted" by one of the dad's sisters and her traditional family - like he should have from the beginning.

Homosexuality is a sin. I will not back down from that. You do not get to use my religion to justify yourself, no matter how far you take the law.


Posted by WOW!, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 11:17 am

8 is great!:

It appears you have totally misread my post....did you note that I said I was heterosexual (ie: I am a woman married to a man). By your interpretation of your God's "plan" I am "A OK"! I think I may even get brownie points (again, in your interpretation) since I waited until I was married to have sex at all and have NEVER strayed from my vows and committment (more brownie points in your God's plan???).

I do not believe anyone, especially me, is trying to silence you and am further always quite shocked when those that believe they are the only "true" and "right" Christians start in on the whole "we are so oppresed" deal. The issue is that if you ask 1,000 Christians to interpret the bible, you will get 1,000 different interpretations and EVERYONE will think they are correct. I know, I know, but you believe you are the only correct one. Here's a shock......the other 999 believe they are the only correct ones too!

You have every single right to pursue your beliefs and attend any church you feel does just that. Having said that, so does the guy down the street who wants to worship a head of lettuce or the gal at the grocery store who dresses in all black and thinks the snake is her god. You have an absolute right to believe you are "right" even though I and many others (I hope many, many, many others) do not.

P.S. - You still scare the heck out of me and I don't want your beliefs anywhere near me or mine.

Have a good day!


Posted by Me, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 11:18 am

Pablo - do your research, the interpertation of the US Constitution is soley at the discretion of the US Supreme Court. It is the Supreme Law of the land. State soverienty to does not extend to allow violation of those rights. Many laws were in the GA and AL constitutions that were overturned through specific court interprtations or the US Civil rights act. The court may be reluctant to address the issue, but they are certainly well within thier charter to do so.


Posted by 8 is great!!, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 11:27 am

WOW

"It appears you have totally misread my post."

No, I didn't bother to read it after the first couple of words, neither did I the second.

When you have a valid argument to make that contains actual logic and judgement and reasoning, perhaps I will repsond to you. I wasn't above. The only person I was responding to in particular was Patricia.

The message was otherwise a "group" memo...


Posted by John, a resident of Del Prado
on May 27, 2009 at 11:28 am

What is it you people do not get? The majority of the people have spoken by a 52% to 47% margin and the court upheld it by a 6-1 margin.................get over it you lost!


Posted by yomama, a resident of Amador Estates
on May 27, 2009 at 12:18 pm

I agree with John, we voted, prop 8 passed, it's over now. If you don't like it, move to a state that does allow same-sex marriage (it'll make California a better place for the rest of us).

Furthermore, we ALL have equal rights, all men are allowed to marry a woman and all women are allowed to marry a man. I fail to see why people are saying that not everyone has equal rights. We ALL are living under the same laws.


Posted by Me, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 2:33 pm

Pablo - FYI Web Link link to article to push to US Supreme Court


Posted by Julie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 2:45 pm

Julie is a registered user.

PJ, I'm not judging anyone's relationship as irrelevant. I am judging your attempts to incite me as irrelevant.

John: "Funny that most CA citizens and now the state do not think it should be legal but the gays and lesbians do. I bet murders and drug dealers think that should be legal also." Words cannot even describe how reprehensible it is to hear someone compare gays and lesbians to "murders (sic) and drug dealers".

8 is great wrote: "When you have a valid argument to make that contains actual logic and judgement (sic) and reasoning, perhaps I will repsond (sic) to you." Okay, considering all of your posts, that comment is the epitome of irony!! Religion is built upon faith (& fear, emotion, etc.) and has NOTHING to do with logic. It would be mildly interesting to hear "valid arguments and actual logic" proving the existence of "your God".


Posted by John, a resident of Downtown
on May 27, 2009 at 2:54 pm

I want to marry my pig and consummate my marriage. That's illegal though. Where are my rights as part of a minority group of zoosexuals??


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 2:57 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

"No, I didn't bother to read it after the first couple of words, neither did I the second."

So I assume that 8 is Great expects us to read his/her words and expect them to be valid but he/she can't read all of ours. Go figure. What's next? Not providing health benefits from a job I work at because I'm gay?

Yomama:"Furthermore, we ALL have equal rights, all men are allowed to marry a woman and all women are allowed to marry a man. I fail to see why people are saying that not everyone has equal rights. We ALL are living under the same laws.
Report."

Are you that ignorant? Your words are basically telling gay and lesbian people to go go against what feels natural to them and just suppress their feelings and marry the opposite sex. Further more, if you don't like gay people maybe you should move out of the State. Gay people aren't going anywhere, so as I stated yesterday, get over it. The gay community isn't going to band together and move just to please you. We have families, the same thing you have, we have blood, the same kind you have, we have emotions, etc etc etc.

2010 will be an interesting year to see how the margins of both sides to this issue will turn out. If and when it a new proposition passes, allowing same sex marriages, will then be my day to say "the election is over, the people spoke, so get over it."


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 3:01 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

John as soon as your pig can walk on two legs, speak the English language, and be able to sign His name, I'll make sure to pick you up and drop you two off at the court house.

Most ridiculous "reason" to not have same sex marriage. Continue to compare us to animals such as dogs, cats, horses, pigs and we'll continue to fight more. Those words are hateful; treating others less than you are just because you disagree with who they are. Before you know it, there will be rules and laws about how a gay person can breathe.


Posted by Freddie, a resident of Danbury Park
on May 27, 2009 at 3:07 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Posted by Julie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 3:08 pm

Julie is a registered user.

John, it must be nice to reside in the majority and have all of your rights and therefore have the luxury to sit around thinking up irrelevant arguments that degrade the real and true discrimination being experienced by gays and lesbians. First you compare gay and lesbians to murderers and drug dealers, now you compare their desire to enter into a loving, consensual marital contract with a person wanting to marry a pig. You are not humorous, you are a complete idiot. And I'm not simply bashing you, I'm basing my comment on actual logic and judgment I've utilized in analyzing your posts.

Don't kid yourselves, if you hate gay people you'll have to move to an uninhabited planet since that's likely the only place they don't exist. Big surprise some of you *think* you don't know any gays - they are keeping it secret to avoid harassment from you.

I wonder if the same people who suggest that we "get over it" are the same people going on and on about how they hate Obama and the job he is doing....


Posted by John, a resident of Downtown
on May 27, 2009 at 3:09 pm

PT...66

Why are you being so hateful and insulting to my pig? Shouldn't I as a zoosexual have all the right as anyone else in this state? I'm surprised you of all people are so closed minded.


Posted by What??, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 3:09 pm

PToWN94566 -

I have read with interest your posts on this specific topic and to tell you the truth all I can say about your perspective is...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You're too funny!!

Listen, friend, even the "tolerant" ones you think support you are laughing at you behind your back. No one really believes you or what you are doing is normal.

Whatever...you "know" better than the majority of humanity, right? HAHAHAHAHA! What a joke.


Posted by John, a resident of Downtown
on May 27, 2009 at 3:28 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language and excessive and/or repetitive post by same poster]


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 4:26 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

What?? the same can be said on the flip side as well in relation to organized religion, "the "tolerant" ones you think support you are laughing at you behind your back. No one really believes you or what you are doing is normal." I wonder how many people that attend church do so just to please their husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend etc. As for what is considered normal is a bit objective. All the people who aren't Mormon may be laughing at the Mormon group because their views are "weird." All the people who aren't Christian may be laughing at Christians' because their beliefs can, at times, be extreme. Whatever feel normals to you, then go and do it; same for me. I'll do what feels comfortable for myself and not really worry about pleasing other people.

As for gay people being compared to drug dealers and murders, couldn't the similar situations be stated about overly religious people? The far side of religion creates people like Hitler, people who want to control Others for sake of benefiting themselves. Since I brought up the word benefit, let's also set this straight: me getting married to another man does not provide or take away any type of benefit(s) for the outside party.

And no one has yet to answer a previously stated idea: if people who aren't Christian get married, why are they still allowed to? Atheists and people from many different world religions get married in the U.S. and their marriage has nothing to do with Christ, God, being sinful etc. Since some people are so compelled to throw in the religion ideas, why are you still letting non-Christians wed in this nation? Shouldn't their union be called just that? A union.


Posted by What??, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 5:56 pm

Kind of reaching aren't you PT?

Still making me laugh. HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Keep telling yourself what you *want* to believe. Someone is right and someone is wrong...who do you think it really is? A bunch of "enlightened" gay guys? HAHAHAHA!

There is a reason you are a "small" percentage of the world!

HAHAHAHA!


Posted by Julie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 8:56 pm

Julie is a registered user.

PT94566, I agree with you. This whole argument demonstrates how the lines between church and state have been blurred. The state government should have never adopted the religious term "marriage" to define a contract it bestows (especially if years later that term was going to be restricted to only "certain citizens"). I say get rid of the term marriage in our state laws. Churches can have the word - get married in a church; receive a "civil union" from the state. Let's keep church and state separated.

What?? - you use percentage as a means of deciding "right" and "wrong"? So if a large percentage of the world suddenly converted to Buddhism then that would be "right" and you would convert? Remember, Galileo was in a "small percentage" that believed in a "Sun-centered" universe. The powerful Catholic Church, which supported an "Earth-centered" universe considered him a heretic and eventually sentenced him to life imprisonment. I think we know who ended up being "right".

And, I will consider the views of an enlightened gay man over you ANYtime!


Posted by Rock Hudson, a resident of Foothill Knolls
on May 27, 2009 at 8:58 pm

Who you calling a gay man? :O)


Posted by PToWN94566, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2009 at 10:08 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

What?? it's funny how you have to divert your opinions and statements to the whole "who's right and who's wrong." Go take an elementary psychology class and you'll learn that tossing ball back and forth like that get neither party anywhere.

Julie the whole separation of church and state has been blurred since the moment this country was founded. It's funny how the people who founded this country came here for many reasons, a large one being religious persecution in their own home country. They wanted to be able to have any type of person come to this land and live how they want to, yet that still doesn't happen. Also, I think it's quite comical how people take something so personal when has nothing to do with their immediate life. People are so scared that something is going to happen to them or to their community/religious group. Why is it so hard to understand that a gay person who never want to wed in a Mormon temple or a Christian church (unless if the Christian church is accepting of gays and I've seen quite a few churches that do). People that don't "agree" with gay people can feel that way, but it's when they try and make me feel bad for being myself is when it gets nasty and ugly. I don't go around shaming Mormons or Christians- that is who they are and their daily worship has nothing do with my life.

It'll happen eventually, and I know I'll be alive to see. The people of my generation are way more accepting of gay people than people my parents age (mid 60's).


Posted by Liberty and Justice for ALL, a resident of Apperson Ridge
on May 27, 2009 at 10:53 pm

The weirdest part of the debate for me is why the people who want to "protect marriage" care so much? All the money they are wasting by trying to limit the rights of gay/lesbian couples would be much better spent on helping the existing messed up unions between the heteros.

Where do you think all the messed up kids come from? Not from the gays, they can't reproduce. But what they will do is adopt the little bastards that the heteros end up with as a result of a one night stand.

The sad part is that there really is no argument that can be made to persuade the Yes on 8 folks. They have a fairy tale and an imaginary friend on their side. How can we logical, peaceful, loving people compete with that?

It's just a matter of time until liberty and democracy prevails for all good people of this state. Maybe then the defenders of marriage will focus their efforts on fixing heterosexual marriages and protecting the heterosexual families from themselves.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Tough new rules on water are necessary
By Tim Hunt | 10 comments | 1,066 views

Circumstances without Pomp
By Roz Rogoff | 3 comments | 882 views

‘Much Ado’ or is it Adieu for ObamaCare?
By Tom Cushing | 0 comments | 24 views