I do not want to offend anyone. This is not my intention. However, I must discuss the issue plainly.

What makes a homosexual a homosexual? What makes a lesbian a lesbian? The act of sex; sex between two persons of the same sex.

Sex is, usually, a private act between two consenting individuals. There are laws against sexual expression and exposure in the public medium. Anyone caught exposing their genitalia are arrested for indecent exposure. There is precedent set for private expression of sexuality.

For people of the same gender who have sexual relations, choose to tell the world about it by "coming out", and expect a change in laws, a high rate of tolerance, and undue rights afforded them, is the real issue. This makes gay and lesbian issues anti-social in every conceivable way. Who one chooses to have consensual sex with is a PRIVATE MATTER. There should be NO SPECIAL RECOGNITION OF ANYONE BECAUSE OF SEX!

If homosexuals and lesbians want the same rights as heterosexual married couples, what is it that cannot be accomplished with a will, power of attorney, a living trust, etc.

Besides Biblical reasons, which are much more prevalent, the California Court ruling must be seen as wrong based on the "Pandora's Box" that we will open if we grant rights to persons because of matters that should be otherwise PRIVATE.

The reason is simple, the homosexual wants affirmation that what they are doing is morally acceptable and right so they feel better about themselves and can sleep at night. Although I have spoken to many EX-gays who said even if the middle of their defiant, activist homosexual lifestyle they would sit awake at night knowing that what they were doing was DEAD WRONG! But if they have to force it down our throats to try and justify what they are doing so be it.

Your explanation of this perverse lifestyle is so simple and true that it goes right over the liberal loons heads. Thank you for your post.

I'm sorry but this is a really stupid argument. Yes sex is a private matter. Straight people generally don't have sex in public either but what in the heck does that have to do with marriage.

Of course it's not until the end of the post that we find the real reason for your objection-"Biblical reasons." I have news for you. Not everyone in this country is a christian and even those that are do not all agree on denying rights to gays.

Freedom of religion means that you canot be forced to have gay marriages in your church. It does not mean that you can deny equal rights to marry elesewhere because of your personal views.

Relgion is, after all, a private matter and not a basis for laws that affect us all.

"What makes a homosexual a homosexual? What makes a lesbian a lesbian? The act of sex; sex between two persons of the same sex."

Well, no. That would mean that I wasn't a heterosexual until I lost my virginity, and let me tell you -- if that's the case, I wasn't previously asexual for lack of trying...

"There is precedent set for private expression of sexuality."

Yes. And when somebody claims that gays should be allowed to have sex in public, you be sure to bring that up. I don't know what weddings you've been going to, but I like to think that marriage is about something other than Tab-A-into-Slot-B.

"Besides Biblical reasons..."

I know that the Bible makes this matter very clear: marriage is between a man and several hundred women. Still.

You poor ignorant bigotted soul

First off, at this point your bigotry and ignorance largely reflect upon you rather than offending anyone really. So to clarify your ignorance:

If homosexuals and lesbians want the same rights as heterosexual married couples, what is it that cannot be accomplished with a will, power of attorney, a living trust, etc.

In Washington state, there are some 2300 laws that explicitly grant rights and priviledges to "married couples" in ways that are not available to domestic partners. For example, how do you get shared custody of a child without marriage? Adoption doesn't work because that takes away the parental rights of the other same-sex parent.

And the list goes on.

Given that Biblical reasons are even incinsistently applied by those who are religious (do you stone your choldren to death when they speak back to you? Because the same Leviticus chapter that forbids homosexuality requires you to do so), what basis is there for discriminating in marriage?

And please don't say that its thousands of years of family history. What you conceive of as "family" is a structure that is about 200 years old. So called "family values" were largely the outgrowth of the european bourgouise to differentiate themselves from the seuxally permissive nobility and the semi-pagan peasantry.

And remember - in our nation, if there isn't a compelling state interest in regulating personal behaviour, then the state has no right to act no matter how popular the act may be.

Why do we deny brothers the "right" to marry sisters?

What is the motive behind the homosexuality taboo?

"

What makes a homosexual a homosexual? What makes a lesbian a lesbian? The act of sex; sex between two persons of the same sex."

>>Did you have a point? The act of sex between two persons makes one a heterosexual to the exact same extent that it makes one a homosexual. that being the case, how cna this represent a rational reason to treat homosexuals and heteroseuxals differently before the law?.

The truth, however, is that both heterosexuality and homosexuality aren't only about sex but about one's inherent sexual orientation. One can, after all, be heterosexual or homosexual without ever engaging in sex with another person during one's lifetime.

"For people of the same gender who have sexual relations, choose to tell the world about it by "coming out", and expect a change in laws, a high rate of tolerance, and undue rights afforded them, is the real issue."

>>That isn't the real issue: the real issue is whether or not one may deny individuals substantive due process of law as guaranteed by the 5 and 14th amendments to the Federal constitution and similar guarantees in most state consitutions, on the basis of sexual orientation.

"This makes gay and lesbian issues anti-social in every conceivable way. Who one chooses to have consensual sex with is a PRIVATE MATTER. There should be NO SPECIAL RECOGNITION OF ANYONE BECAUSE OF SEX!"

>>I agree. In the past heterosexuals traditionally recieved that special recognition --only heterosexual couples were recognized as partners in civil marriages. Bu extending such legal recognition to same sex couples as well we're ceasing to extend such special recognition on the basis of sexual orientation.

"If homosexuals and lesbians want the same rights as heterosexual married couples, what is it that cannot be accomplished with a will, power of attorney, a living trust, etc."

>>You're proposing a 'separate but equal' accomodation, previously determined to be unconstitutional. Heterosexual couples automatically are vested with upwards of 1000 different state and federal benefits, priveleges, protections and obligations upon recognition as partners in civil matrimony. Requiring homosexual couples to secure these rights separately and individually (at great personal costs) is to deny them due process of law. In addition, there are many benefits heterosexual couples accrue upon marriage that cannot be acquired in any other way (such as all benefits extended to married couples under Federal Social Security.)

Would you argue that it would be constitutional to deny opposite inter-racial or inter-faith couples recognition as partners in matrimony, since at great personal expense and effort they might be able to acquire a handful of the rights matrimony vests?

"Besides Biblical reasons, which are much more prevalent, the California Court ruling must be seen as wrong based on the "Pandora's Box" that we will open if we grant rights to persons because of matters that should be otherwise PRIVATE."

>>Ignoring for the moment that there is there is no explicit prohibition against homosexuality in and of itself in the bible, biblical or otherwise religious reasons have no standing before the law, and state recognition of individuals as partners in civil marriage isn't a private matter: it's a public one.

truthpedla:

If homosexuals and lesbians want the same rights as heterosexual married couples, what is it that cannot be accomplished with a will, power of attorney, a living trust, etc.

To answer this specifically - there are tax implications involved as well as issues with health and welfare benefits. Also - who cares is they have substitutes. That isn't a reason to prevent them from being married. You can't argue a law is just by saying that people can get around the injustice it creates.

Secondly - your post is a better argument for banning marriage than it is for preventing gay marriage, anyways. If sex is a private matter - and gay marriage means gay sex if forced upon you, then a straight marriage means hetero sex is forced upon you. They would both be granting something based on something that is private.

Very clever argument indeed, however I don't think you are going to trick anyone with this little piece of sophistry puff pastry.

Apparently you are in fact a proponent of Homosexual Marriage rights and are using the Anti-Marriage rights arguments to trip them up, to wit:

Sex is, usually, a private act between two consenting individuals. There are laws against sexual expression and exposure in the public medium. Anyone caught exposing their genitalia are arrested for indecent exposure. There is precedent set for private expression of sexuality.

Only a nitwit (and there are plenty of those on the right wing side of the argument) would not recognize here that you are saying that sexual expression and exposure in the public medium is somthing that is not permitted for any sexual orientation, straight or gay. So in the first substantial paragraph you establish that gay sex has parity with straight sex. Brilliant.

For people of the same gender who have sexual relations, choose to tell the world about it by "coming out", and expect a change in laws, a high rate of tolerance, and undue rights afforded them, is the real issue. This makes gay and lesbian issues anti-social in every conceivable way. Who one chooses to have consensual sex with is a PRIVATE MATTER. There should be NO SPECIAL RECOGNITION OF ANYONE BECAUSE OF SEX!

Cute. Again, you drawing the boneheads into the argument with a clever ruse to equate marriage with a coming out ritual. Then in capital letters you hit them with equality clause - No special recognition of anyone because of sex! While the simpletons on the right are thinking No special recognition of anyone because of homosexual sex, you are in effect pummeling them with your real point - No special recognition of anyone because of heterosexual sex! In one sentence you draw them in and crush their argument.

If homosexuals and lesbians want the same rights as heterosexual married couples, what is it that cannot be accomplished with a will, power of attorney, a living trust, etc.

Now you are getting coy. Implying that there is plenty of legal recognition for gay marriage already in place, you make the etc imply that marriage is the next logical step. I believe that the morons on the right won't even see that one coming.

Besides Biblical reasons, which are much more prevalent, the California Court ruling must be seen as wrong based on the "Pandora's Box" that we will open if we grant rights to persons because of matters that should be otherwise PRIVATE.

Ah....the coup d'grace. What you fail to recognize however is that most of the supposedly devout religious right wingnuts have either not read the bible or filtered the bible through their own prejudice. I have met very few Movement Conservatives who proclaim their love of Jesus that are not amazed when they are confronted with the fact that in the entire bible, there is not one single reference that Jesus makes to homosexuality. While he condemns the wealthy to hell over and over and over, not once does he say anything that would imply that gays and lesbians will not be admitted to heaven.

This is good stuff, but you need to lure some more pointey headed right wingnuts into the fray before you turn this all around on them. Get an audience going. It will be great!

If he was going to propose this rather flimsy argument at all, he had to first distinguish somehow between gay and straight sex, then use the difference between the two to make his point.

Instead, he simply made the case for gay marriage - as long as a gay couple treats married life the same as straights do, they should be afford the same protection under the law or in the case of his argument, suffer the same consequences!

I don't think he thought this out very well....

truthpedla:

If homosexuals and lesbians want the same rights as heterosexual married couples, what is it that cannot be accomplished with a will, power of attorney, a living trust, etc.

The right to basic decency can not be accomplished with a will, power of attorney or a living trust. If I may share a true story with you...

A couple that has been partnered for over 25 years, but is not given the right to marry has few rights in an emergency. One of the men has a serious heart attack, and his partner travels with him to the emergency room. The emergency room doctors do not let him see his partner because they are not married. He does not have time to go home to produce the proper legal paperwork. His partner dies alone, while he is forced to sit in the waiting room.

What about this scenerio is decent?

In response to this comment,

"Who one chooses to have consensual sex with is a PRIVATE MATTER. There should be NO SPECIAL RECOGNITION OF ANYONE BECAUSE OF SEX!"

I would ask the poster to understand that "civil unions" amount to special recognition of gay marriages. To ask to register a "civil union" means to become part of a specially-recognized status, created by government , for gay people.

Once gay people can marry just like anyone else, to whomever they please, there will be no more need of this special status.

lol dead wrong? no i sleep soundly at night knowing i don't have to be shameful about who I am, there's nothing inherently immoral about the way I or plenty of other homosexuals live our lives, regardless how much you'd like to pretend it is, all we're trying to shove down your throats is reality

Here's what I want to know: did you actually read the Court's ruling before posting here? How many of the people who are condemning this decision and trying to pass a constitutional amendment overturning it have read the opinion? How many have read the California Constitution, or have any idea on what the Court based its opinion?

I am a gay Californian lawyer with a domestic partner and three kids. We go to church every Sunday, my partner is on the PTA Board, and we are one of the most "traditional" familiies I know. So far, I am on page 82 of the Court's very well-reasoned opinion. It comes down to this: you can't deny people the fundamental right to marry based just on sexuality, and you can't discriminate against gays and lesbians just because there is a long history of discrimination. The Court expressly rejected the ridiculous incest/polygamy "slippery slope" argument, and it also rejected the ridiculous "marriage is for procreation" argument (noting that if that argument had any merit, that means a state could constitutionally ban infertile couples from marrying).

This decision has nothing to do with "family values," "traditional morals," or anything of the sort (and those concerns historically were used to justify denying rights to women and denying interracial couples from marrying). It's a legal decision, based on the Constitution, the statutes at issue, and solid legal precedent.

I am sure that when California struck down antimiscegenation laws in the Perez case (and when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its similar decision in Loving v. Virginia), plenty of people, like "truthpedia," claimed that interracial marriages were against God's law, and were horrified that they had been made legal. This is not about "sex," or special rights. It's not about "judicial activism," or subverting the will of the people.

It's about making sure that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are available to all. I congratulate the Supreme Court on its often beautifully-crafted opinion, and am hopeful that California voters will not take the hateful action of amending the state Constitution for the sole purpose of denying their fellow citizens their rights. As the Court said, permitting gays and lesbians to marry does not have any affect at all on heterosexuals' right to marry. There is nothing to worry about here -- and much to praise.