Gay people are the one group that is still legally discriminated against in this country. I can't imagine why anyone feels that it's okay to deny the same right to marry to gays that we straight people take for granted.

If you don't like gay marrigae then don't have one. Otherwise it's none of your business.

It is our business when AIDS is one of the largest killers of young men in California and will influence our children! And the reason we are opposed to gay marriage is BECAUSE WE DON'T TAKE IT FOR GRANTED! It is a sacred gift from God which is why (hello) only a man and women can naturally have children.

It is not a civil rights issue it is a moral issue. And just like smoking, drugs and alcohol it is an addiction which is brought upon by dysfunctions in someones past and or upbringing. People can say that same sex has been around since the beginning which is not true but it has been around since the day sin and evil entered our world. Future consequences of this evil decision the almighty court justices are forcing upon us will prove the error of this looney liberal society and pray for mercy from our creator.

Because. . . .

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.

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.

Get your religion out of your argument, along with your fuzzy thinking and misinformation about what AIDS has to do with this, and you will find you have nothing.

News flash: I am not a Christian, nor am I required to live by the rules of your "god". Ever since we didn't become a theocracy, our LAWS are based on secular reasoning, not your stupid and inconsistent theological drivel.

Another news flash: Lesbians have the very lowest risk of contracting AIDS. I guess we're the only ones who should be able marry, huh?

kaiso:

Get your religion out of your argument, along with your fuzzy thinking and misinformation about what AIDS has to do with this, and you will find you have nothing.

News flash: I am not a Christian, nor am I required to live by the rules of your "god". Ever since we didn't become a theocracy, our LAWS are based on secular reasoning, not your stupid and inconsistent theological drivel.

Another news flash: Lesbians have the very lowest risk of contracting AIDS. I guess we're the only ones who should be able marry, huh?

Kaiso,

You make some great points. The Bible is not a basis for secular law but even if it were I don't think Lesbianism is prohibited even by the Bible.

I think the Biblical basis for saying homosexuality is a "sin" comes primarily from a few lines in Leviticus which state that "a man laying with a man, as with a woman is an abomination" or some other such nonsense. Notice that it says "man laying with man" not "woman laying with woman" so even the Biblical literalists should have no objection to lesbianism as far as I can tell.

Of course the Bible also says slavery is okay and Leviticus also says many other things are abominations such as eating shellfish. Have you noticed any Fundamentalist Christians picketing red lobster? I haven't. I don't see them trying to pass laws banning the eating of shellfish either.

If Fundamentalists really believed that everything in the Bible is literal then they'd have a lot more objections to our society but they seem to pick and choose what they object to and the Bible is just a handy excuse for their prejudice.

I think a lot of people just find the idea of homosexuality strange and think that gays are somehow really different then the rest of us. To be honest I felt this way myself in my younger days until I worked in a place where there were a lot of gay people in commited relationships and you know what? Other then who they were attracted to they weren't much different than me.

I have faith that things will change. Not the kind of "faith" that allows me to believe something because it was written in a book thousands of years ago even though science proves it's wrong, but faith that the American people will realize that discriminating agianst people because of sexual preference is just as wrong as racial discrimination.

Marriage is defined by different religions in different ways: a man and a woman, a man and multiple women, etc.

Marriage is defined by the state to be the civil partnership between two people. Because the state is prohibited from using religious arguments and standards to define marriage, states have traditionally focused on the economic and civil aspects of the partnership. In a sense it is the definition of a partnership with legal effect in domestic law cases.

For those who ascribe purely a religious context to marriage, do they think that divorce should be illegal since it is a rejection of a gift from the almighty? Do they consider people married in secular or other non-Christian ceremonies truly married? Should states adopt policies that only marriages performed in a Catholic church (just to pick a denomination) be considered legal marriages because otherwise there was no Sacrament of Marriage and no Sacrament of the Eucharist performed?

A church has every right to determine who qualifies for marriage according to their religious doctrine and has no obligation to recognize a marriage performed by another entity with regards to church activities. For example Buddhists who were married in a Buddhist ceremony and then converted to Southern Baptist could be required by the Southern Baptist church to remarry in a Baptist ceremony in order to be considered married by the Baptist church. Or the church could recognize the Buddhsit marriage - it's their discretion.

Marriage as recognized by the state is merely affirmation of the desire to enter into a "civil union" witnessed by a duly appointed state or county official. Hence the phrase always heard at weddings, "By the power vested in me by the State of..." The key point is that the power is delegated from the state to the wedding official. As a matter of expedience, priests and other clergy are licensed by the state or county to serve as that official. In many states (at least CA and VA) anyone can apply to be licensed for a limited period of time in order to perform a marriage service.

Because the state is prohibited from using religious tests in determining eligibility for state benefits or entering into a contract, the state cannot deny marriage (in the state's eyes) based on Biblical prohibitions on homosexuality. Also, because everyone - even the icky people - are guaranteed the same rights, in order to forbid gays from entering marriage contracts there has to be a very clear public danger to gays marrying. The CA court found that the arguments presented by those opposed to gay marriage did not meet the standard of being a very clear public danger. All of the traditional non-religious arguments against gay marriage (they'll recruit our kids, they'll bring AIDS to everyone, it'll lead to bestiality) are laughable. Also, in this context, whether or not homosexual behavior is a choice or not is immaterial. Otherwise the state could deny marriage to heterosexual couples who don't agree to refrain from oral or anal sex.

And yes, most likely TX would be required to recognize a legal marriage of two gay guys in CA. Just as they have to recognize a birth certificate or driver's license from CA (even though the CA written driver's tests is laughably easy). They would also have to deal with homosexuals living openly among them - the horror!

The arguments are laughable, indeed - but the number of people who swallow them hook, line and sinker and spout them as Revealed Truth is not funny at all.

Reading the arguments against gays and marriage equality in various forums can lead to a near-total loss of faith in humanity. The worst kind of idiots reveal themselves and their total invulnerability to logic.

Your Church marraige may be a "sacred gift from God", but by the Constitution of the United States a state marraige is a legal contract. It is the only legal contract the state has the discrimates against a group of people.

Please get your facts correct about AIDS, it is not a homosexual problem.

Finaly, homosexualality is not defined by medicine or science as a "dysfunction", please stop confusing your chosen religious beleifs with facts.