7 comments

• 

  A Cowboy's Wife

  1 year ago

  I was so glad to see this happen because a good friend of mine cannot marry the love of her life. NOW she can!!! YEAH for her and all the other gays/lesbians:)
  reply
• 

  Judiith

  1 year ago

  I did a post for the event on gay rights as human rights, if you're interested you can find it on my blog, as well as an essay on marriage (the most and second-most recent posts).
  reply
• 

  The BoBo

  1 year ago

  You just know if I stop to comment here, it's going to be a dissenting vote! Marriage is and should always be between a man and a woman. The purpose of marriage, which is a religious tradition, is for procreation. Yes, it has evolved over time to be more than just that. However, marriage is a sacrosanct tradition. Same-sex cannot procreate and therefore should not be open to them. I always knew Arnie was a closet liberal! But, coming from a California court, this doesn't surprise me at all.
  
  What I will say, as a defender of the constitution, this choice should always be left up to each state. I do not believe this is an issue that should be decided or even put in to our federal constitution or decided at a federal court level. This is a state issue and should be decided within each state by the citizens of each state.
  
  However, living in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriages, regardless of where these individuals move to outside of California, unless it is to Massachusettes, they will not be able to obtain benefits and will be subject to the laws of the other states. Essentially, if they want their so-called marriages recognized, they are practically imprisoned and confined to that state. Federal laws, i.e, HIPAA Privacy, IRS, Social Security, Medicare, etc - will not recognize these marriages either.
  reply
• 

  Allen

  1 year ago

  There is a separation of church and state. The state is what runs marriage law... not a religion. Therefore, you can be as upset as you want with a law that a state puts in place. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion. I also do not see how this has anything to do with being liberal. Two humans want to be legally conjunct and I see no problem with the humans both having the same sexual organs. It is rather silly that it is even a debate. To me it feels like arguing over whether a person with blue eyes should ever be allowed to shop in Walmart. Since Walmart never mentioned specifically that blue eyed humans are allowed to enter their establishment. I think there should be a list of people you allow to visit you when in intensive care and you select it just like a will. Then there is the power of attorney thing. You can select anyone you want as your power of attorney and they could visit you. So if people just took the time out to sign over the power of attorney before this type of thing happened they would be fine to visit. Also, if you tell a nurse about your problem they will let you visit the person in the room anyway. Just talk to people and be decent.
  reply
• 

  The BoBo

  1 year ago

  Allen - where did you get the idea there is such a thing as "separation of church and state?" Could you tell me exactly what law this is? There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution either. Our founding documents are all based on Christian doctrine. The so-called "separation of church and state" you guys like to cite came from a speech that Thomas Jefferson made at the Southern Baptist Convention and was taken out of context. It is not law and has not been codified in either the Federal Register or the Code of Federal Regulations. The problem is that leftist groups like the ACLU file suit after suit against government bodies. Those government bodies who are supposed to be good stewards of the people's treasury have to give in because they cannot use public funds to oppose lawsuits brought on by private organizations such as the ACLU who does absolutely nothing to really protect civil liberties at all. They are only about promoting the liberal agenda to include holding up homosexuals and pedophiles as examples.
  
  Also - it has EVERYTHING to do with being a liberal. Conservatives do not think this way..so..ergo..duh..it is a liberal way of thinking - you might want to look up the definition of liberal versus conservative. The problem with two people having the same sexual organs who want to "conjunct" as you put it is a perversion, it's un-natural, and its immoral. The problem is that there is a congenital defect at birth where there is an abnormal hormonal imbalance. Rather than treat it medically, people like you have accepted it as natural rather than correct it medically as with all other congenital defects that are treatable.
  
  The problem is that it is not "politically correct" for medical practitioners to speak out, yet there is plenty of peer reviewed studies and documentation that proves what I have stated. It is a liberal agenda to allow this to continue rather than do what is right for these people to lead normal lives by providing them the medical treatment they need rather than allow them to continue this way. The APA was forced to remove homosexuality from the DSM-III because of political pressure - but - the APA still feels it is a medical and psychological condition that is treatable.
  reply
• 

  Lemur

  1 year ago

  Yeah, BoBo, have you considered that you (and conservatives in general) wanna tell other people how to live? You can't just leave people alone? What's it matter to you if two guys in Maine wanna get married because they're in love, or a woman in Florida would rather have her partner visiting her in the hospital than her (possibly hostile) family? But no, if you can't understand something, it's gotta be a sickness, or a perversion. Because of course it has to fall under your definition of "normal and natural", or it's perverse and evil.
  That, to me, is the mental illness, and "people like you" have "accepted it as natural" and think it's the normal way to be.
  I'm perfectly natural- a human being like everyone else, and not evil, and certainly not mentally ill. (By the way, we've been around since recorded history, and we haven't eaten all your babies and ass-raped your pets so far). And if, as you say, the APA still feels that all gay folks are crazy and that it's reversible... cite your sources. Tell me where the APA specifically states that. 'Cause I think you made that up.
  You freakin' panty-sniffers are more concerned with checking genitals and sticking your noses into bedrooms of consenting adults around the country than letting its citizens- ALL of them- lead normal lives. On their own. Without your input.
  A#&hole.
  reply
• 

  Catch a cheating husband

  5 months ago

  I agree with lemur's post. Why can't someone live with someone who makes them happy without having people like you interfere? And' what's this about it being a sickness??
  
  "there is plenty of peer reviewed studies and documentation that proves what I have stated."
  
  I would like to read these "studies".
  
  You're a sick person bobo.
  
  -Kris
  reply