California’s homosexual marriage ban was written nine years ago (Prop 22). It passed with a 61.4% majority. The ban lasted more than eight years until May 15, 2008, when Prop 22 was struck down in a 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court, because it was viewed to have violated the State Constitution. The State Constitution was rewritten to remedy the ambiguity. The revision reached the ballot in November 2008, and passed 52.2% to 47.8%. Last week, the Court affirmed the revised Constitutional language, by a 6-1 margin.

Of the (soon-to-be) six states that allow homosexual marriage, none have been the result of a vote of the people, all have been initiated by liberal government intervention. California could become the template to ban homosexual marriage in other states.

America should reject the notion of homosexual marriage because it is perverse, deviant behavior and the State should not endorse or license deviant behavior. Religion MUST play no role in the decision.

The purpose of marriage is the protection and financial support of women while they are pregnant and nursing babies, and of young children. I think that gay marriage is more an issue of attention-getting than actual passion. Geez, look at the state of marriage today and honestly tell me this is something you crave? Legal issues such as parental rights, property, and inheritance can be resolved by contracts, wills, and so forth; while marriage is in fact a contract, it has the above-stated purposes which for the most part don't apply to same-sex couples.

I'm curious why the writer of this article, Bonnie Goldstein, has listed "unwed mother" among her various professional occupations? It seems incongruous and out of context. She doesn't list any other personal information such as religion, hair color, or bra size, so is this a brag? A challenge? A confidence? I don't get it.

I'm stunned by that "unwed mother." identity. Is she proud of that? So, did she just decide to mate and have a child just to have her own child? That says something very unflattering about her, doesn't it? As far as the homosexual marriage controversy goes, I, for one, shall eagerly await the very first study of homosexual and lesbian marriages with a keen eye on their divorce rate. That might be very intriguing. There might not be one for that very reason. Or, if there is, watch and see how many qualifications and rationalizations crop up from the same people who sneered and scorned the heterosexuals for their alarming divorce rate.

nbellayu

“it is not deviant behavior number one. Second the government has endoresed (sic) deviant behavior for decades.
-------------------------
First, one man attempting to impregnate the feces of another man is perverse and deviant behavior. Only another deviate could think otherwise.


“Do we not give more welfare for the more kids you have and less if you marry the man that you have the kids with. So the government condones procreating outside of marriage thats defiant.(sic)
------------------------------
Second, when a man and woman have sex and a child is the result, that’s normal behavior. When the government pays welfare for irresponsible conduct, that’s stupid!

The interstates are NOT studded with gun shops, nor is the rest of the state. I have lived in New Hampshire for 15 years and I do not know where I could find a gun shop. This proves that a literary license has nothing to do with the truth.

uhlerrobertj

“Legally, it'll be hard to hold gay marriage to the "mommy and daddy and stable nurturing home" standard when legally it doesn't even apply to heterosexuals.”
-----------------------------
So, did I mention the "mommy and daddy and stable nurturing home" standard?” I’m referring to Daddy #1 “packing fudge” while Daddy #2 squeals with delight. Then they switch. Any way you cut it, that’s deviant behavior. Nope, no justification for "marriage."

First of all, the courts should not even be wasting their time on this issue. It is ridiculous. What we have here are individuals who choose to engage in perversion, and want to impose their lifestyle choices on everyone else by trying to force the rest of society into accepting this perversion as acceptable. Well, it is not acceptable. If you have a disorder, which homosexuality is one , then get help like everyone else who suffers disorders. Homosexuality is perverse, it is NOT normal, it goes against nature. GET HELP. And for all the heterosexuals out there who are fence riding, and too afraid to be politically incorrect, shame on you. You people are the first ones to criticize any one of us who have the moral courage to call an apple an apple. This situation is repulsive. It is an abuse of our court systems, constitution and the moral intentions behind why we have these tools. GET HELP.

uhlerrobertj

“That you think homosexuality is deviant is irrelevant. “
----------------------------
Totally irrelevant. That the people of California (twice) decided homosexuality does not meet the standard for marriage, that’s relevant. That the California Supreme Court (6-1) affirmed the State Constitutional revision, that’s really relevant!

California could become the template to ban homosexual marriage in other states.

Thomas Jefferson said;"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certian inalienable rights, among those are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" I know I would feel extremely angry if someone, or a government told me who I could or could not marry. It's simply wrong. The Supreme Court of the State of California failed to protect individual rights that should be guarenteed to all. Whats sad is that the very people that voted for the ban, would cringe if someone tried to tell them who they can or cannot marry. What makes anyone think they can deny rights to others that they enjoy?

I seriously doubt Thomas Jefferson had Homosexuality in mind when he included "The pursuit of happiness." Again, here we are twisting the moral intentions behind statements of our past leaders. Well, if someone wanted to engage in perverted acts with their mule, "In the pursuit of happiness," should we also legalize this as well? My God.

It is on one hand humorous to see all the different ways our constitution is being twisted to justify perversion. On the other hand, it is disturbing. I strongly defend the fact that when the constitution was written, it was written with moral intentions. And it is a disgrace that it is being abused, and twisted in such a fashion, simply to justify immoral acts. If you want to engage in perversion, go for it. But leave the rest of us out of it. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Rose... I think you missed my point, You're talking about perversions and morals. I was talking about equal protection under the law. I'm certainly not a proponent of gay marriage however when a court fails to stand up for individual rights they abdicate there responsibility. This reminds me of flag burning. While I abhore people that burn Old Glory in protests, their right to burn it is part of free speech guarenteed by our Constitution. Our freedoms have been paid for with the blood of hundreds of thousands of brave Americans and free speech is one of those rights and so is equal protection under the law.