Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban

Constitutional initiative drive under way in state to restrict unions

BREAKING NEWS
MSNBC staff and news service reports
updated 19 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

"Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest," the court said in a majority decision.

"Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

The cases were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march, which took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.

An initiative drive is under way in California to change the state constitution to restrict marriage to members of the opposite sex.
This breaking news story will be updated.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24649689/

Good.

Other than the Judge's opinion, what compelling evidence was put forth that determines a partnership isn't the same as a marriage?

In other words, what discrimination took place against people in a partnership, that didn't take place to those in a marriage?

Other than the Judge's opinion, what compelling evidence was put forth that determines a partnership isn't the same as a marriage?

In other words, what discrimination took place against people in a partnership, that didn't take place to those in a marriage?

In my opinion... the fact that someone can tell them they are not allowed to have the same type of partnership as opposite sex couples?

Remember, all men are created equal?

Other than the Judge's opinion, what compelling evidence was put forth that determines a partnership isn't the same as a marriage?

In other words, what discrimination took place against people in a partnership, that didn't take place to those in a marriage?


That is what the lawyers for the two opposing sides would have presented their arguments about, so if you truly want to know, and are not just tossing off a question for the sake of tossing it off, you may need to see if the arguments are available online somehow.

So stupid, no government at any level should be involved in any form in the institution of marriage.

There should be no tax breaks or any recognition of any form of marriage.

There is nothing deviant about a man loving a man (tho a woman loving a woman is hot and of course to be encouraged!! J/K!!)

Too many friends of the alternate lifestyle for me to ever believe different.

Waste of tax dollars by both sides of this arguement imho.

Should be a mandate passed by Obama , if he gets in, that the govt has no say .....all tax breaks removed etc etc (of course the tax issue is dear to me).

People bring up the tax issue a lot but the primary real consideration for most people is actually implicit power of attorney and other legal attachments to it that are often not provided in domestic partnership situations (some states do, some don't).

That being said I'm all for getting the IRS out of billing based on people's romantic arrangements. Then we can waste our tax savings arguing about drugs or guns!

People bring up the tax issue a lot but the primary real consideration for most people is actually implicit power of attorney and other legal attachments to it that are often not provided in domestic partnership situations (some states do, some don't).

That being said I'm all for getting the IRS out of billing based on people's romantic arrangements. Then we can waste our tax savings arguing about drugs or guns!


There was a presentation on Showtime or HBO some years back, I think the title was something like "If These Walls Could Talk", or something. Anyway, one vignette portrayed what happened when one of a pair of retired lesbians died, and her family forced the survivor out of the house they had shared because she had no legal say, as a married spouse would.

A very sad but realistic presentation.

I fully support this.

"Gay people have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us."
-Kinky Friedman

LOL...McCain the candidate of smaller government is saying how he will get that reversed if elected. Coming soon...the fight against homosexuals and their marriage habits.

LOL...McCain the candidate of smaller government is saying how he will get that reversed if elected. Coming soon...the fight against homosexuals and their marriage habits.


HAH!

Barry G would roll over in his grave at the idea. Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp were the last two Republicans even close to the smaller government and less taxes ideas of the old guard, and even Reagan played with the nation's money via messing with social security and federal employee retirement funds.

McCain, in making that statement, only reinforces the idea many have of him being Bush 2.0, as we have seen only too much how Bush feels he can overrule the courts and their legal opinions.

Crap - gay marriage was a hotpoint for the first election with Bush. I'm having horrid flashbacks here.

Sure we're at war, and in debt, and violating our own ethical standards internationally, but at least them gays ain't gettin' married. Yee haw!

Crap - gay marriage was a hotpoint for the first election with Bush. I'm having horrid flashbacks here.

Sure we're at war, and in debt, and violating our own ethical standards internationally, but at least them gays ain't gettin' married. Yee haw!


It's quite funny how the republicans, pretty much starting with Nixon and really picking up steam with Reagan, have been able to pull the wool over the eyes of the average American. They have convinced Americans that they are the protectors of them against big government, yet they have consistently pushed through legislation that has taken away civil rights, privacy even in your own bedroom.

They have had some real masters of manipulation working for them convincing America that they have been the people who respect the military and veterans, yet they have consistently cut corners on equipment for soldiers and Marines, they have consistently cut veterans benefits.

One of the first brilliant manipulations that they were able to pull off was back in 1983 with the "invasion" of Grenada. We invaded a tiny carribean island to remove a few hundred cuban contractors building an airport along with an understaffed company of Cuban light infantry and they pulled it off as some great victory against a hardened enemy, yet we killed more of our own with "friendly fire" than the opposing forces killed with their weapons.

Yet, on the same day that so called "invasion" took place 241 US Marines and Navy personnel were killed in a suicide bomb attack in Lebanon which we then pulled out of, effectively ordered to "cut and run" by the "great Ronald Reagan".

They very effectively deflect and use "sleight of hand" rhetoric to convince those that they do the most damage to with their policies that they, and they alone hold the keys to our safety, security and economic well being. They don't. They never have. They have simply and systematically removed oversight of their corporate sponsors and yet, at the same time, placed themselves in our bedrooms, our living rooms, our bank accounts and now in our telephone lines and emails all under the guize of a "war on terror" a war which protects us from no one particular nation but allows us to attack any nation, without any more justification than a mere suspicion, a war that allows our government to monitor, and arrest anyone, including you and me without any formal charges or the right of habeus corpus.

The modern republican politician has been able to politicize the most innocent of our children and does so with no regard to anything but their own desire to hold onto power to benefit their corporate sponsors. They have convinced American farmers that they have their best interests in mind while at the same time they have passed legislation that has cut their income and made it easier for their friends at the Banks to take the hard earned land and homes of those same farmers who helped place them in power.

The republican congress was able to deflect the growing war in Iraq with an argument over flag burning as the people bought into it hook line and sinker and yet now, three years later our son's, daughters, brothers and sisters continue to die in a land that never fired a shot at us in anger.


Sorry...I rambled...

Take it for what it's worth...they fucked us...plain and simple.

It's quite funny how the republicans, pretty much starting with Nixon and really picking up steam with Reagan, have been able to pull the wool over the eyes of the average American. They have convinced Americans that they are the protectors of them against big government, yet they have consistently pushed through legislation that has taken away civil rights, privacy even in your own bedroom.

They have had some real masters of manipulation working for them convincing America that they have been the people who respect the military and veterans, yet they have consistently cut corners on equipment for soldiers and Marines, they have consistently cut veterans benefits.

One of the first brilliant manipulations that they were able to pull off was back in 1983 with the "invasion" of Grenada. We invaded a tiny carribean island to remove a few hundred cuban contractors building an airport along with an understaffed company of Cuban light infantry and they pulled it off as some great victory against a hardened enemy, yet we killed more of our own with "friendly fire" than the opposing forces killed with their weapons.

Yet, on the same day that so called "invasion" took place 241 US Marines and Navy personnel were killed in a suicide bomb attack in Lebanon which we then pulled out of, effectively ordered to "cut and run" by the "great Ronald Reagan".

They very effectively deflect and use "sleight of hand" rhetoric to convince those that they do the most damage to with their policies that they, and they alone hold the keys to our safety, security and economic well being. They don't. They never have. They have simply and systematically removed oversight of their corporate sponsors and yet, at the same time, placed themselves in our bedrooms, our living rooms, our bank accounts and now in our telephone lines and emails all under the guize of a "war on terror" a war which protects us from no one particular nation but allows us to attack any nation, without any more justification than a mere suspicion, a war that allows our government to monitor, and arrest anyone, including you and me without any formal charges or the right of habeus corpus.

The modern republican politician has been able to politicize the most innocent of our children and does so with no regard to anything but their own desire to hold onto power to benefit their corporate sponsors. They have convinced American farmers that they have their best interests in mind while at the same time they have passed legislation that has cut their income and made it easier for their friends at the Banks to take the hard earned land and homes of those same farmers who helped place them in power.

The republican congress was able to deflect the growing war in Iraq with an argument over flag burning as the people bought into it hook line and sinker and yet now, three years later our son's, daughters, brothers and sisters continue to die in a land that never fired a shot at us in anger.


Sorry...I rambled...

Take it for what it's worth...they fucked us...plain and simple.

Your post reminds me of something I saw tonight for some reason... Listen to the Republican, and listen to the democrat... and listen to how brainwashed this republican is, that he argues without even knowing the facts or history.

6YN1qgb9Oe0

Your post reminds me of something I saw tonight for some reason... Listen to the Republican, and listen to the democrat... and listen to how brainwashed this republican is, that he argues without even knowing the facts or history.

6YN1qgb9Oe0


Thanks for the comparison :( I'm not a republican...although I know not what I speak of.

Thanks for the comparison :( I'm not a republican...although I know not what I speak of.

You must be sleepy, I didn't understand this post at all :)

Or maybe I am sleepy :(

You must be sleepy, I didn't understand this post at all :)

Or maybe I am sleepy :(

I thought you were comparing me to the republican student of history.

People bring up the tax issue a lot but the primary real consideration for most people is actually implicit power of attorney and other legal attachments to it that are often not provided in domestic partnership situations (some states do, some don't).

That being said I'm all for getting the IRS out of billing based on people's romantic arrangements. Then we can waste our tax savings arguing about drugs or guns!


Wrong. In my paternership we have wills, we have designated power of attorney and we have both done our living wills. Should one of us be sick or ill the other will not be barred from making the decsions.

In my partnership I pay a hefty tax on the premiums to have her on my health insurance/vision/dental. They tack it onto my pay BEFORE deductions so this inflates my salary and makes it look like I earn more than I really do. Which oh by the way shoves me into a higher bracket. I'd like to be able to claim her as a dependant and head of household it would really help me I pay thru the nose in taxes.

Oh and honestly, I don't want marriage. I don't care what they call it I just the same benefits that marriage allows. I've been with Leah for over 5 years now that's longer than my marriage to Ryan and longer than any of the 3 marriages my mom had. I don't see what the big deal is it's not like I want to walk into a Baptist church and ask to be married. Civil Union, parternship, I don't give a shit about labels.

Has the Governator made a statement regarding this? That'd be an interesting read.

It would be more interesting to listen to his comments then to read them. I still love cal e for ne a

I did see a blurb where Conan the Terminator said he'd abide by the ruling.

The simple fact is, those that oppose gay rights, cause this is really what this is about, are homophobic. They don't want to legitimize gay anything because deep down they are afraid that some how it demeans their straight lifestyle....and it's usually based on the opiate of the masses, religion.

I don't blame McCain at all, he's just doing what all good Republican politicians do, use the public's fears, real and imagined, to gain political power...as Rover said.

I don't blame McCain at all, he's just doing what all good Republican politicians do, use the public's fears, real and imagined, to gain political power...as Rover said.

I thought that's what Fascists did?

Incidentally, I don't oppose gay rights, what I oppose is changing a words meaning.

A "marriage" cannot occur between people of the same sex, any more than red can be called blue.
Partnership, legal civil union, all of these can encompass the same legal aspects that a marriage can.

Sooner or later, you'll see someone want to clairify the term with an "SS" in the front of marriage, thus nullifying the "same rights as everyone else" argument.

I personally don't care what you do in your bedroom, hetero or homo.

A "marriage" cannot occur between people of the same sex, any more than red can be called blue.

Why? Because you FEAR it will demean the religious connotation of the word. You are homophobic .... at least a little, face it.

What does Webster's dictionary say:

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/married) persons : wedlock (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wedlock) c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/married) status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>


...and about the word marry:

transitive verb1 a: to join in marriage according to law or custom b: to give in marriage <married his daughter to his partner's son> c: to take as spouse : wed (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wed) <married the girl next door> d: to perform the ceremony of marriage for <a priest will marry them> e: to obtain by marriage <marry wealth>2: to unite in close and usually permanent relationintransitive verb1: to take a spouse : wed (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wed)2: combine (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/combine), unite (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unite) <seafood marries with other flavors>
— marry into : to become a member of by marriage <married into a prominent family>

Sixee, do you consider a Jewish marriage as changing the word's meaning?

No, I don't think it changes the meaning of the word.
But if Webster's dictionary says it applies to people of the same sex, who am I to argue?
Ailwon, I am not homophobic, merely dumbfounded so much is being made over a label.
Wouldn't the bigger issue be the rights behind the issues, rather than the word itself?

Wouldn't the bigger issue be the rights behind the issues, rather than the word itself?

Incidentally, I don't oppose gay rights, what I oppose is changing a words meaning.

A "marriage" cannot occur between people of the same sex, any more than red can be called blue.
Partnership, legal civil union, all of these can encompass the same legal aspects that a marriage can.

I don't think anyone cares about the label as much as those opposing gay marriage...

Sooner or later, you'll see someone want to clairify the term with an "SS" in the front of marriage, thus nullifying the "same rights as everyone else" argument.

Sort of like wanting to "clarify" it by calling it a partnership, but never a marriage? Separate, but equal?

You can still use the water fountain... just not the one marked white... you use that one.............

Wouldn't the bigger issue be the rights behind the issues, rather than the word itself?

Exactly...so why not call it marriage? Again I re-iterate because of an irrational, religious based fear that it some how demeans the heterosexual "institution" of marriage.

Are these "unions" lesser because they are homosexual? That's what Republicans think....mainly based on religion. Why should they be called anything else other than marriage? They shouldn't be called "civil unions", "civil partnerships", "unifications of like genitalia", or anything else...to call them anything but a marriage is insinuating they are something LESS than a marriage, somehow not worthy of the name.

I saw this a few weeks back, and thought it appropriate to post in this thread.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7376919.stm

Campaigners on the Greek island of Lesbos are to go to court in an attempt to stop a gay rights organisation from using the term "lesbian".

The islanders say that if they are successful they may then start to fight the word lesbian internationally.

The issue boils down to who has the right to call themselves Lesbians.

Is it gay women, or the 100,000 people living on Greece's third biggest island - plus another 250,000 expatriates who originate from Lesbos?


So if minorities are supposed to have equal rights, would the minority, in this case people from the islands that compromise Lesbos, have the right to stop the use of the word?

Citizens of Greece don't have rights guaranteed by the Constitution of THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA.

Are these "unions" lesser because they are homosexual? That's what Republicans think....mainly based on religion. Why should they be called anything else other than marriage? They shouldn't be called "civil unions", "civil partnerships", "unifications of like genitalia", or anything else...to call them anything but a marriage is insinuating they are something LESS than a marriage, somehow not worthy of the name.
Meh. Speaking of how labels matter, I think you more specifically mean neocons.

I'd consider myself a true Republican. It's not that I have particular love for gay rights. I just don't think it's the government's business to meddle in these things, any more than it's mine.

I'd consider myself a true Republican. It's not that I have particular love for gay rights. I just don't think it's the government's business to meddle in these things, any more than it's mine.

You are correct Sanchek, my apologies. Though it's the current platform of the Republican party, not all Republicans believe this. I should have said the Republican party or narrowed it down to specific people, like McCain or Bush.

...to call them anything but a marriage is insinuating they are something LESS than a marriage, somehow not worthy of the name.

Or you can take the view of Fild, who thinks her union is better than all the marriages she has witnessed.

It all goes into the mindset of the individual.

Meh. Speaking of how labels matter, I think you more specifically mean neocons.

I'd consider myself a true Republican. It's not that I have particular love for gay rights. I just don't think it's the government's business to meddle in these things, any more than it's mine.

$$ shot right there.

True Republicans believe in min. involvement in regular life.

Or you can take the view of Fild, who thinks her union is better than all the marriages she has witnessed.

It all goes into the mindset of the individual.

Well, not really. She said her relationship lasted longer than her marriage or other marriages she been associated with. She's concerned with making sure her marriage has the same rights. It's wonderful she doesn't care about labels like whether it's called marriage or not. My opinion is that as long as we call it something else, we are indirectly saying it's not legit.

Or you can take the view of Fild, who thinks her union is better than all the marriages she has witnessed.

It all goes into the mindset of the individual.

Not ALL marriages, just the ones I listed. Actually I know folks who have been married for more years than I have been alive.

One friend in Cali is getting married on July 2nd, I'm very happy for him and his man! :)


EDIT: And actually my point was you don't need a label to love someone. So many people say that they (gay marriages) don't last. When in fact I know several couples who have been together over 10 years, hell a few are hitting the 20 year mark...

length of the relationship, sex, sexual preference, religion, none of these should be a distinguishing factor for equality or inequality... I don't care what it's called you could call it bonding, unions, whatever I just don't think who I choose to love should cause inequal benefits. If you don't want to give them to me, fine tax everyone else the same and treat other couples the same ;) I've lived this long without them and it's not like I'm going to stop loving her if I don't get them but if you're going to mettle in these affairs make them equal.

So stupid, no government at any level should be involved in any form in the institution of marriage.

I agree with you completely! The government should not be involved in anything that is religious. If should not even be found in public school. Religious things is the responsiblilty of parents just as it is to get kids to school and food in the stomachs. If religion is taught in schools who is going to decide which religion is taught? The one that has the most power or money? EEPS! I teach my children their religion. I would not want to have school telling me that my kids will learn some other religion.

Marriage is religious IMHO and if two people who want to form a partnership to gain benefits from it then they both should be able to write up a contract and both sign it. This kind of contract needs to be done so that hospitals and banks will know who to refer to when the other partner is not able to make those decisions.

Regardless our government should not have to be mixed up in drama of what sex someone with and who kisses who....just is silly.

This has been my stance for a while now. Marriage should simply remain a religious institution - the state should have nothing to do with it. Want a marriage? Go to church. Want to marry someone of the same sex? Fine a church that supports it (there are plenty these days).

What the state should recognize is a universal civil union, or some such, and that's it. A contract covering property, rights, things of that nature. Basically, what the state calls a marriage now. Separate religion from the civil act, and see how that separates the crowd. Boom, problem solved.

This will always be a hot button issue I think from now till the end of time.
I think Ailwon is painting with a pretty damn big brush as far as us "religious right wing types" go. Personally I don't think homosexuality is a morally correct lifestyle. However I also believe that it is not my place in the world to dictate how people live their lives. If two dudes want to shack up and play swords hey more power to them. Not my cup of tea but then I'm not them. They want the same legal protections that I'd have if I were married, have at it. Just don't expect me to change my personal views because mainstream society has.

As far as the government goes, they really do need to GTFO of our bedrooms, straight and homosexual alike. I think the decision to allow Same sex marriage, or civil unions should be a state issue, not a federal issue. In an ideal world it would be a civil union for all, and then whatever the hell your choice of church/or lack thereof wanted to call it would be the label you put on it personally. That's not likely to happen anywhere in the near future.

What I don't get, is why doesn't the gay community as a whole push for the civil unions idea first. If they argue the point that they want equality under the law, and the same protection that Straight couples have, the "neocons" would have no legal standing to rightfully oppose it. Then in a few years, when everyone has become used to the idea you push for it to be officially recognized as marriages. Because by then thats what everyone will be calling it anyways.

This will always be a hot button issue I think from now till the end of time.
I think Ailwon is painting with a pretty damn big brush as far as us "religious right wing types" go. Personally I don't think homosexuality is a morally correct lifestyle. However I also believe that it is not my place in the world to dictate how people live their lives. If two dudes want to shack up and play swords hey more power to them. Not my cup of tea but then I'm not them. They want the same legal protections that I'd have if I were married, have at it. Just don't expect me to change my personal views because mainstream society has.

As far as the government goes, they really do need to GTFO of our bedrooms, straight and homosexual alike. I think the decision to allow Same sex marriage, or civil unions should be a state issue, not a federal issue. In an ideal world it would be a civil union for all, and then whatever the hell your choice of church/or lack thereof wanted to call it would be the label you put on it personally. That's not likely to happen anywhere in the near future.

What I don't get, is why doesn't the gay community as a whole push for the civil unions idea first. If they argue the point that they want equality under the law, and the same protection that Straight couples have, the "neocons" would have no legal standing to rightfully oppose it. Then in a few years, when everyone has become used to the idea you push for it to be officially recognized as marriages. Because by then thats what everyone will be calling it anyways.

That is the $100,000 question, and to answer that I say because the gay community has as many drama queens as the straight group does and as such do the same type of harm to a cause as anyone else.

It's the old argument between "These things take time, chill the fuck out" and the counter of "If we don't make a lot of noise, nothing gets done."

I'm personally in the former camp, but hey, if they want to fight pitched public battles to make the effort take longer, just another reason for me to not watch TV.



Wrong. In my paternership we have wills, we have designated power of attorney and we have both done our living wills. Should one of us be sick or ill the other will not be barred from making the decsions.

In my partnership I pay a hefty tax on the premiums to have her on my health insurance/vision/dental. They tack it onto my pay BEFORE deductions so this inflates my salary and makes it look like I earn more than I really do. Which oh by the way shoves me into a higher bracket. I'd like to be able to claim her as a dependant and head of household it would really help me I pay thru the nose in taxes.

I never said it was the SOLE reason. It looks like you went the extra effort to make sure most (but obviously not all, since you're still fighting to get someone declared as a legal dependent) of the implicit legal powers conferred by marriage were taken care of.

I don't know where you live but it's possible to claim anyone as a dependent regardless of involvement if you provide sufficient evidence in every state I've been in. You may want to talk to a local tax attorney or CPA to see what hoops you have to jump through, but as long as you're filing on their behalf and you meet the fiscal qualifications for supporting them it doesn't actually matter what your relationship is AFAIK.

The situation I was referring to was "the Married Filing Jointly" scenario, which is a nice extra deduction but not on par with the power of attorney issue to most people I've spoken with. I used the general "most cases" because obviously it's going to vary depending on everyone's individual situation.

I thought that's what Fascists did?

If the boot fits (not you Sixee)

This will always be a hot button issue I think from now till the end of time.
I think Ailwon is painting with a pretty damn big brush as far as us "religious right wing types" go. Personally I don't think homosexuality is a morally correct lifestyle. However I also believe that it is not my place in the world to dictate how people live their lives. If two dudes want to shack up and play swords hey more power to them. Not my cup of tea but then I'm not them. They want the same legal protections that I'd have if I were married, have at it. Just don't expect me to change my personal views because mainstream society has.

As far as the government goes, they really do need to GTFO of our bedrooms, straight and homosexual alike. I think the decision to allow Same sex marriage, or civil unions should be a state issue, not a federal issue. In an ideal world it would be a civil union for all, and then whatever the hell your choice of church/or lack thereof wanted to call it would be the label you put on it personally. That's not likely to happen anywhere in the near future.

What I don't get, is why doesn't the gay community as a whole push for the civil unions idea first. If they argue the point that they want equality under the law, and the same protection that Straight couples have, the "neocons" would have no legal standing to rightfully oppose it. Then in a few years, when everyone has become used to the idea you push for it to be officially recognized as marriages. Because by then thats what everyone will be calling it anyways.

Well said... Can't add much more. If them homo types want to get married fine with me. Well said on Gov't and states rights.

My take on it is that people should do what they want as it's their own business. I have had and have gay friends and they are no different than anyone else imho.
Personally it's something that i'd never do but as long as it hurts no one i'm ok with it. (My motto is live and let live....lol)
I think that the day same-sex marriages will be accepted by all is when they can produce children with NO outside help. (just the two people, no adoption, artificial means, ect) So that pretty much negates any chance in most people's eyes...:p

Now, homosexual couples raising children is a whole other kettle of fish.

Now, homosexual couples raising children is a whole other kettle of fish.Which raises of course an important series of questions. Do we let them congregate? Just simple sex? One night stands via internet, or are we okay with bars and clubs? Live together, but can we allow them to rent property? How about living together, but only with pets? Adopted children? No?

Statistics being what they are, it's hard to really measure the stability of a gay marriage, although the straight community certainly isn't winning any awards for stable families, both inside and outside of religious families. Gay marriages supposedly have a higher failure rate, although that statistic is often attributed only do the additional stresses associated with a relationship most of society considers wrong. I will say that I have yet to have any meetings for children who are from gay families and abused, but I get plenty of those from straight families. The two students I know who have gay parents are both very well adjusted, accepting, and friendly individuals, and while my anecdotal experience certainly doesn't qualify as scientific, I do question the limits we place on individuals based on sexual preference when the normals aren't even getting it right.

The day may come but more than likely not in my time....folks will not say...this is my husband or wife they will say this is who I am contracted with....LOL

Now, homosexual couples raising children is a whole other kettle of fish.

Is it? Why, do they not make good parents? Is it a decorating vs baseball thing?

Is it? Why, do they not make good parents? Is it a decorating vs baseball thing?

I'd personally much rather have a homosexual couple raise children than a close minded bigot.

Is it? Why, do they not make good parents? Is it a decorating vs baseball thing?

No, I don't think they make for a good, well rounded, nurturing environment for a stable childhood. IMHO( I know how far that goes around here) only male and female role models can do that. Get married and drive each other nuts all you want but do not bring children in it.

No, I don't think they make for a good, well rounded, nurturing environment for a stable childhood. IMHO( I know how far that goes around here) only male and female role models can do that. Get married and drive each other nuts all you want but do not bring children in it.

You think...or ooops...I see

I don't think


My bad...I see now

Parents aren't the only role models a child can have. I agree that children should have both male and female role models, but they don't necessarily have to be the parents.

More and more families have two working parents, requiring a nanny or day care or something else along those lines anyway.

You think...or ooops...I see




My bad...I see now

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh boy that was good.. Had me in tears there for a second..hahaha ooh my.. golly that was good.


Yes yes that's right I forgot I'm a racist for not liking Obama and a sexist for not liking Hillary. I forgot. My bad. I'm also a racist because of my stance on Illegal Immigration.. yes yes it's all coming back to me. I forgot how wonderful and righteous you all are. Funny.. I'd gladly vote for a Rice or a Powell or Michael Steele or a few others, but because I don't share in Obama's Black Liberation Theology I'm dumb racist cracker. You guys need to RRRRREEEEEAAAAALLLLYYYYYY get your face out of Randi Rhodes' sausage pocket and do some soul searching. Have no fear I do not plan on voting for Juan Pablo McCain either... I wonder what Jesse Ventura is doing come November.. hmmmm:rolleyes:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh boy that was good.. Had me in tears there for a second..hahaha ooh my.. golly that was good.


Yes yes that's right I forgot I'm a racist for not liking Obama and a sexist for not liking Hillary. I forgot. My bad. I'm also a racist because of my stance on Illegal Immigration.. yes yes it's all coming back to me. I forgot how wonderful and righteous you all are. Funny.. I'd gladly vote for a Rice or a Powell or Michael Steele or a few others, but because I don't share in Obama's Black Liberation Theology I'm dumb racist cracker. You guys need to RRRRREEEEEAAAAALLLLYYYYYY get your face out of Randi Rhodes' sausage pocket and do some soul searching. Have no fear I do not plan on voting for Juan Pablo McCain either... I wonder what Jesse Ventura is doing come November.. hmmmm:rolleyes:

No, you're just really, really fucking ignorant for thinking that a homosexual couple wouldn't raise a kid as well as say ... the heterosexual role model of Britney Spears and "K Fed".

K-fed and Britt are by no means proper roll models either. Their junkies and should not be raising children either. oh and I don't flame you for thinking Adam and Steve can raise little johnny with no issues so I fail to see the hate here. Do you secretly wish you were me?

K-fed and Britt are by no means proper roll models either. Their junkies and should not be raising children either.

Lemme ask you a question...

You think that 2 adult males, one of which has a high paying career, and the other of which stays home to watch after children and such, would not be fit to have children?

And would you be in favor of enforcing that ban?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh boy that was good.. Had me in tears there for a second..hahaha ooh my.. golly that was good.


Yes yes that's right I forgot I'm a racist for not liking Obama and a sexist for not liking Hillary. I forgot. My bad. I'm also a racist because of my stance on Illegal Immigration.. yes yes it's all coming back to me. I forgot how wonderful and righteous you all are. Funny.. I'd gladly vote for a Rice or a Powell or Michael Steele or a few others, but because I don't share in Obama's Black Liberation Theology I'm dumb racist cracker. You guys need to RRRRREEEEEAAAAALLLLYYYYYY get your face out of Randi Rhodes' sausage pocket and do some soul searching. Have no fear I do not plan on voting for Juan Pablo McCain either... I wonder what Jesse Ventura is doing come November.. hmmmm:rolleyes:

Your just an idiot because you generalize and think there's nothing wrong with it, I don't think you're a racist because you don't like Obama, I think you're a racist because you bring race to the conversation and use it as a negative point:

Black Liberation Theology

or

homosexual couples raising children is a whole other kettle of fish

or

If them homo types want to get married fine with me

You're clueless, you lack real world experience and I truly feel sorry for any kids you raise.

I think in the proper raising of a child the should have a strong maternal and paternal influence. I am sure that child would be well loved, but for proper psychological formation a proper "family" structure would be needed. Now, this is my opinion. I have 0 psychological studies in front of me to reference. Only that of the homosexual couples that I do know if they had children they would be fawked... Please do not confuse this with Roll models.. I am quite surer there are MANY homosexuals in the world that are excellent roll models for people.

Your just an idiot because you generalize and think there's nothing wrong with it, I don't think you're a racist because you don't like Obama, I think you're a racist because you bring race to the conversation and use it as a negative point:



You're clueless, you lack real world experience and I truly feel sorry for any kids you raise.


Ok, milky nipples, what is real world experience?



I also submit I don't bring race into it.. I suggest Obama himself brings race into it by the company he keeps..

I think in the proper raising of a child the should have a strong maternal and paternal influence. I am sure that child would be well loved, but for proper psychological formation a proper "family" structure would be needed. Now, this is my opinion. I have 0 psychological studies in front of me to reference. Only that of the homosexual couples that I do know if they had children they would be fawked... Please do not confuse this with Roll models.. I am quite surer there are MANY homosexuals in the world that are excellent roll models for people.

I guess he is entitled to his opinion on this... But the question is... should it be law?

No.. no law. Just my opinion. No state or gov't should regulate that.

I think in the proper raising of a child the should have a strong maternal and paternal influence. I am sure that child would be well loved, but for proper psychological formation a proper "family" structure would be needed. Now, this is my opinion. I have 0 psychological studies in front of me to reference. Only that of the homosexual couples that I do know if they had children they would be fawked... Please do not confuse this with Roll models.. I am quite surer there are MANY homosexuals in the world that are excellent roll models for people.


What the fuck does a persons sexuality have to do with anything other than who they have sex with? Please tell me...I am willing to listen. Having raised four kids as a single father I'm wondering how my kids have been fucked over...please let me know.

I also submit I don't bring race into it.. I suggest Obama himself brings race into it by the company he keeps..

LOL...ok...I get it...you can't possibly be serious...thats something straight out of an Ollie G spoof...

I am sure you have done a great job and they are hardworking excellent children. Again, strictly opinion and I do not know enough about psychology and it's formation through the formative years. I just can't think it would not be better to have the "family" as I call it then a homosexual upbringing. Besides you were a single father not a homosexual partnership that raised your children. In a perfect world and not judging you situation don't you think a mother in their life full time (again not judge your situation) would not have been best? This is all perfect world models though and I'm sure there are large excpetions to these models.

LOL...ok...I get it...you can't possibly be serious...thats something straight out of an Ollie G spoof...

Dead serious on this point though.

don't you think a mother in their life full time (again not judge your situation) would not have been best?


I had thought about keeping their mother around, but it would have been a "Weekend at Bernies" thing...plus after a few weeks the smell would have been unbearable, so I figured I'd do it by myself.

I had thought about keeping their mother around, but it would have been a "Weekend at Bernies" thing...plus after a few weeks the smell would have been unbearable, so I figured I'd do it by myself.

LOL like I said I didn't know your personal situation.. Just personal opinion for a perfect world situation. Hate that is what happened though...:(

What Osg is getting at, or what I think he is trying to get at anyways, is that in an ideal world a child has both a Mother and Father role model. And While Adam and Steve or Anna and Eve might be two sets of loving nurturing parents no matter how femme Steve is, or how butch Anna is, they are not a 100% perfect substitute for an actual mother or father.

My personal take on it: I have seen people from traditional nuclear families with loving parents come into adulthood so fucked up I'm surprised they don't have to wear helmets and straight jackets. And then on the other hand I've seen friends come from homes so broken and dysfunctional they should be running their own Scremo band but they're relatively well adjusted and don't carry much baggage.

As an aside though, just because two guys like playing hide the sausage does not preclude them from being racist/bigot pieces of shit. Homosexuality =/= always open minded and non-judgemental. This theory that children growing up in a gay household would automatically be raised to be free-thinking and accepting of everyone is a load of shit, just as assuming that anyone raised outside of the standard nuclear family is going to be a failure in life is a crock of crap too.

Not much more to say, after reading Elemak's post. Sums it up nicely.

/agreed

Gay, straight, alien or whatever, the most important part of raising children is making sure you do you best to raise them to the best of your ability. The idea of a nuclear Leave it To Beaver type home is one that gets held up all of the time as the ideal. However, we must realize that it is just that: the ideal. Most real life partnerships of any type don't look anything like that, even when both birth father and birth mother are involved. In fact, I've yet to see any household that resembles that fairy tale in any way, shape or form. Real life is messy, rough around the edges and can't be wrapped up in neatly packaged 30 minute episodes.

Every parent is going to make mistakes, but trying to improve yourself and your child rearing skills to ensure your kids are functional adults is more important than your sexual preference. Taking an interest in your kids and being involved in their lives is more important than remaining married to somebody you might not be able to stand any more so that your kids grow up in a house with a Mommy and a Daddy. It is far better to have a parent who doesn't live with you who is involved in your life in a positive way.

I've read recently about new adoption procedures that have the birth mother of the child involved in their life in addition to the adoptive parents. I think that this tack on things (open and honest, if not conventional) is an outstanding development. It is also one that can be applied to non-standard child rearing environments of any type.

This is neat.

http://marriage.about.com/od/germany/p/germany.htm