Posted by Dave, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Apr 26, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Let's see, the people of California passed Prop 8, and a gay judge struck it down (or attempted to), and one thinks that has no bearing on his decision for this case. Time to get your head out of the sand. Heck yes, he should have disqualfied himself from the case!
Posted by Julie, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Apr 26, 2011 at 3:52 pm Julie is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Well, Dave - what sort of judge do YOU think should have heard the case? A heterosexual? Should African American or Latino judges excuse themselves from cases that involve race discrimination? Female judges from cases involving rape?
If you think judges rule based on personal feelings instead of law, then thank goodness you are not a judge! "Walker said the gay marriage ban violated the federal constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection." THAT'S why he struck it down. How do you even know he wants to get married? Not all straight people want to be married, why assume that all gays do. Shall they grill Judge James Ware now regarding his orientation? Maybe he has gay family members!! It's a conspiracy!
Tennessee Jed, good for you to be able to see more than one side of an issue!
Posted by SteveP, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2011 at 8:26 am SteveP is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Since being gay has been deemed to not be just a lifestyle choice, but is closer to a genetic defect, by extension, this judge is not fit to serve in upholding the law or the peole who elected him to his position. Although, in Calif. with the influx of fruits, nuts and flakes, it's no wonder we have no morals being observed or upheld.
Posted by Tim, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2011 at 12:31 pm
The 2nd headline is correct, "Proponents 'grasping at straws because they have no legal case," Clearly Judge Walker made the right decision based on the Constitution. The other side has no REAL defense, so now they're attacking the messenger. All of us fit into various "demographic" groups, including judges. There would be no way for us to have any sort of judicial system if judges had to recuse themselves of any case involving the demographic group they fit into. Should Christian judges not hear case about discrimination against Christians? Maybe we should have male judges not be involved in cases where a man is on trial? Walker and ALL judges are required to base their rulings on the Constitution and the law. There's no evidence Walker didn't follow this requirement.
Posted by common decency, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Hmpf. Well, I'll give it another try. Here's what an above poster claimed: "Homosexuality is not a genetic defect, it is a psychological defect." But of course there is absolutely no evidence that supports such a claim, thereby making the claim either an intentional falsehood or an example of jaw-dropping ignorance. Either way, I will refrain from commenting on the mental health or lack of mental health of a person making such a claim.
Posted by freedom lover, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2011 at 9:32 am
I for one support bowwow's desire to marry his sheep. I've heard about how lonesone country boys such as bowwow -- and I'm certain he's very lonely indeed -- tend to think.
In keeping with the great liberal tradition, it is bowwow's right as an individual to do whatever he desires ... only to be prohibited if his action demonstrably causes harm to another human (or in bowwow's case, to another animal). This rules out marriage between a free adult (who can consent) and a child (who cannot yet do so); it also rules out marrying an animal and then inhumanely mistreating it. Of course, said sheep, beloved object of bowwow's desire and affection, being a nonhuman, sadly but understandably, would be ineligible for spousal partner rights.
But I support bowwow's urge to marry a sheep. I imagine that as intellectual partners they'd be a fine match, and it would be an antidote to bowwow's extreme loneliness.
Posted by b, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2011 at 10:29 am
What does winning an election have to do with anything? The Republican obstructionists didn't win majorities in the U.S. Senate or California Legislature, and yet seem to strangle most every piece of commonsense legislation that comes out of those bodies.
Gay marriage is a human rights issue. U.S. history is littered with egregious human rights violations, that were supported by majorities (and sometimes the US Constitution) in their time.
Posted by not right, a resident of the Amador Estates neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2011 at 9:05 pm
So freedom lover , you support the sheep boy. Would you support the brother and sister that wanna marry each other, how about the father and daughter , mother & son , sister & sister ,brother and brother? If this door is opened then we all lose. You cannot stand there and say it's okay to be gay and be married, and not approve a mother & son getting married when he's at age of consent .
You will have some weirdo wanting to marry his 21 year old daughter because they're in love , and they think they have that right . That will be next , and everybody knows it . You said that age of consent is illegal , so is gay marriage . But that's different right . If you change something that is illegal , to legal. Then you open up so many other doors . That's what is the world is afraid of .
Remember " In God we trust " It's gotten us this far .
Posted by freedom lover, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2011 at 9:33 pm
You can trust in your god. There are no boogymen living under my bed, no holy ghosts or goblins clamoring in my attic, I have no totem poles or statues of beejus to worship in my backyard. Of course it is your right to trust in your delusion.
I know the whole concept of marriage between gays is difficult for you. There was a time not so long ago when god-fearing delusionals like yourself were afraid of interracial marriage, too. And they used god as cover for their hated-filled rationale to keep the races separate. People got over it ... or did they? Have you?
I honestly have not thought through the issue of interfamilial marriage between consenting adults. For me, it would depend on what experts have to say about the likelihood of birth abnormalcies. Yes, I've read that interfamilial conjugation has a higher rate of abnormal births than other groups. But I'd need to know more about it. I do know that some advanced civilizations permit first cousins to marry. (One of my absolute favorite movies: Lone Star, in which brother and sister marry without knowing they are blood relatives. After they find out, they remain married, and quite happily so, which I found entirely plausible.)
But let's be real -- perhaps too tall of an order for someone living in a delusional fog of hatred like yourself -- but c'mon. You don't like gay marriage not because it might lead to brother-sister marriages. You just don't like gays, do you? And so strong is your attraction (and so the necessity for you disliking them so), that you're willing to deny gays the rights that all other U.S. citizens enjoy.
Your words: "If you change something that is illegal , to legal. Then you open up so many other doors . That's what is the world is afraid of ."
Nope. You're wrong. That's what YOU'RE afraid of. You're so rattled even at the prospect of writing about it that you can hardly make yourself understood. Your egregious grammatical failings (yet again) reveal much about you: you're hopelessly lost at sea in a fog of fear and hatred.
Posted by Julie, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2011 at 11:30 pm Julie is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Why are some people so intent on comparing the right for two gay people to enter into a marital contract with...incest? beastiality? Is that truly the fear, that if gays are allowed to married then all of a sudden fathers will want to marry their daughters; farmers will want to marry their sheep?
It's a ridiculous and illogical argument because there is no sane or logical argument to support gays *not* being allowed to marry. Another strategy is to focus on irrelevant facts. So the judge was gay. How do you know he wants to marry his partner? Plenty of heterosexuals enjoy being single. And, even if he does want to marry his partner, I still don't agree he should have excused himself from the case. Judges will always have personal feelings about cases because they are human beings. They put those feelings aside and rule based on law. The judge explained his line of reasoning. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't mean he was wrong.
Posted by still not right, a resident of the Amador Estates neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Nice, freedom " lover",
I never called you names , never put words in your mouth, never assumed something about you. I never said you were a hater . But you manage to do all that in your story to me . You don't know me, so don't put words in my mouth, You don't know if I'm black or white , Russian or French. I just put my opinion out, on what I think might happen . Somehow, you think this is a forum , for calling names and pointing fingers . I ask a question, and shared my concerns . You shared your feelings and concerns , before and I never called you names and pointed fingers at you . More importantly , I never put words in your mouth . I never said I hated anybody . What I said never spewed hatred like what you said to me. There are people out there that are gay , and have the concerns that I have . You have no idea if I'm gay , and have these concerns or if my brother is gay and he too has these concerns. We both maybe gay.
Please, don't respond to this message . You lost all credibility of having an opinion . You were close when you said "that you honestly hadn't thought about it" . That would have been a great start in having a good conversation about the topic. I am done talking to you. So please don't bother explaining yourself to me . Really just don't. I would like to read what other people might have to say . I'm not a hater. I'm really not .
Posted by truth be told, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2011 at 12:05 am
"If you change something that is illegal , to legal. Then you open up so many other doors . That's what is the world is afraid of ."
Beyond your blustery, bullying attitude that you turn into poor-little-misunderstood-me victimization whenever you're challenged, it really boils down to your grammar and inability to put together a coherent thought that trips you up and makes you readily identifiable every time you post; and these don't simply indicate sloppy thinking --- though they do that --- but more significantly, they reveal a conspicuously deep psychological torment. It doesn't take a ph.d. in linguistics to recognize this, though perhaps I see it more clearly than some others precisely because of my educational background. I've said it before to you on so many other posts: I feel badly for you and wish I could help you.
Posted by truth be told, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2011 at 12:51 am
Yes, you who claim yourself to be "still not right", I have a spell checker but I don't use it. I don't have to. I'm my own spell checker. Believe it or not, you who claim to be "still not right," that's what having a good education does for you.
We both know what is "still not right" though, don't we? And it isn't a question of phone texting or using a spell checker.
Posted by Active and Healthy, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 1, 2011 at 12:47 pm
... which I imagine makes @Because one rather boring sex partner, assuming that ... well, I won't go there. But I will say this. My husband and I have great fun exploring all sorts of multiple possibilities. Hey @Because, it's the 21st century. You oughta try to live a little! There's a lot to like! It might break down some of the barriers of prejudice you build and defend in order to protect yourself from yourself as well as others.
Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin, on May 1, 2011 at 10:46 pm dublinmike is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
I know several same-sex couples in the Tri-Valley, and they are bewildered by how some of you are hostile in your beliefs. They pay their taxes, they believe in getting along with neighbors, making sure their neighborhood looks great, safe neighborhoods and watching out for each other, watch out for strange cars driving through. But, you know what...! get this, some are Republicans! Go figure...