What Would Jesus Do?

Advocate child abuse and murder amongst many other cruelties.

    Christians are always claiming, “he’s the lamb”, “our savior”, “the king of peace”, “the embodiment of love”, amongst the many other names they associate with a loving, merciful nature.  Jesus a nice guy?  Not in my book.  Nor in any other person’s who is capable of compassion and rationality.  Let’s examine who the hell the Jesus character really is.  These verses will show not only is Jesus’ “loving” nature a joke but so are the Christians who worship him.  Jesus’ real mission to come to earth:

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other.  He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.”  Matthew 10:34

Jesus says, “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth!  No, rather a sword lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine.  “The real beauty of this verse is that Jesus demands people truly love him more then they love their own family.  I ask you how can we love someone that we can not see or interact with?  Love is an emotion pertaining to physical existence not to faithful ideologies, yet God threatens you with Death just because your love for your mother maybe stronger than your love for him.  Matthew 10:34

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus.  “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." Matthew 10:21

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets.  He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament.  Matthew 5:17

Jesus advocates murder and death:

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20

Jesus, whose clothes are dipped in blood, has a sharp sword sticking out of his mouth.  Thus attired, he treads the winepress of the wrath of God.  (The winepress is the actual press that humans shall be put into so that we may be ground up.)  Revelations 19:13-15

The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire.  The rest of us the unchosen will be killed with the sword of Jesus.  “An all the fowls were filled with their flesh.”  Revelations 19:20-21

Jesus says he is the only way to salvation yet he purposely disillusions us so that we will go to hell:

Jesus explains that the reason he speaks in parables is so that no one will understand him, “lest . . . they . . . should understand . . . and should be converted, and I should heal them.”  Matthew 13:10-15

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell.  Mark 4:11-12

Jesus advocates child abuse:

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating.  He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”  Matthew 15:4-7

Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he’ll give your a big reward.  Jesus asks that his followers abandon their children to follow him.  To leave your child is abuse, it’s called neglect, pure and simple. Matthew 19:29

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.  Mark 7:9

A few other things about Jesus:

Jesus says that those who have been less fortunate in this life will have it even worse in the life to come.  Mark 4:25

Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea.  Clearly Jesus could have simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. This is called animal abuse.  Mark 5:12-13

Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season.  Jesus must not be as smart as Christians would have us believe, for he was retarded enough to do something this silly.  You’d think the son of god (god incarnate) would know that trees don’t bear fruit in dry season.  Mark 11:13

Luke 12:47 Jesus okays beating slaves.

These seem like extreme intrepretations of scripture but in a way they do point to reason why the Gosples (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) are used so infrequently in Christianist arguments. They contain widely varying accounts of the teachings of Christ that are hard to explain.  Some of the things you cite seem more metaphorical in nature than real life events would suggest. True, the whole "anti-pig" element in both the Old and New Testaments are comprehensible only in light of the presence of tricanosis contamination in swine that the ancient Jews would not have know. Yet they use swine as moral markers and bad examples based, apparently, on a universally-embraced belief the animals were somehow wicked because they caused inexplicable death in people who consumed them for food.

You can blame it on Christianity all you like..is that your only stance you can base your argument on??..you cant believe that man to man this is unacceptable behavior!!!! PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK...the main reason you are even attacking christianity is because it doesnt condone your lifestyle so you feel threatened..sorry about yor luck..

You claim that its because you were born that way...well guess what ..we were born this way and that is we find homosexuality WRONG plain and simple..

Think about it this way..we were born with a gene that clicks 'OFFENSIVE' whenever we are confronted with gays..its as much homophobic as you are hetrophobic..we cant help it just like you profess you cant help what you do..so get over it..you wont ever change our minds on the subject and you can argue and post all your christian negativity until you turn blue in the face .. It wont change us..

LET THE VOTING BEGIN

While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual’s life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of “gays” by an astounding “8 to 20 years” - more than twice that of smoking.

“[U]nder even the most liberal assumptions,” concluded the study, “gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. …. [L]ife expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.”

This morose reality makes a strong case for a fitting redefinition of so-called “homophobia,” that being “Homophobia:  The rational fear that ‘gay sex’ will kill you!”

The fact that we don’t have mandatory surgeon general warnings on the side of condom wrappers is a testament to the power and influence wielded by the radical homosexual lobby.  (Warning: Male-male anal sodomy has been proven to shorten your lifespan by up to 20 years.)

Not surprisingly, that same homosexual lobby and its codependent enablers in the mainstream media moved quickly to sweep the IJE study under the rug.  Under tremendous pressure, the researchers who conducted the study even jumped into the political damage control fray issuing a statement which read, “[W]e do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.”

Yeah, so?

Of course, that’s all just worthless fluff.  All the political spin in the world doesn’t change reality, nor does it eliminate the study’s disturbing conclusions or practical implications.  The research left ZERO wiggle room for anyone who would argue that homosexuality is a “perfectly normal and healthy alternative sexual orientation.”

The risks associated with homosexual conduct are so drastic, in fact, that U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have had sex with MSM, from even donating blood.

SiouxCityranch wrote: "we were born with a gene that clicks 'OFFENSIVE"

Indeed you were, Sir. A sense of disgust is indeed a genetically determined mechanism that regulates behavior. Note that I said it's a "behavior".  Christian theory is that something is a behavior, then you choose it.

But that doesn't work out logically.  We behave "happy" when we're happy. We don't even have to make a deliberate choice to do it because it hardwired into our genes and brain.

It's the same with disgust.  We behave "disgusted" when we're disgusted by something. It's an emotion that is suddenly *there* under certain circumstances. Where we most often see "disgust" behavior is in people's reaction to foods or odors. Kids baffle us with their disgust reactions. A boy might like the tomato, meat, mayonaise and pickles on his sandwich but he will NOT eat the bread because it disgusts him.

Again, that's because our genetic wiring is such that individuals have a very wide variation in what does and does not disgust them.

Sex is a whole different area. A lot of disgust is express over sexual issues and they range from mild to estreme, just as reaction to foods.  For example, some people will register disgust when hearing the lyrics from a old song from the 1930s called, "It's Nice Work When You Can Get It."  The songwriter created it as a way of saying "falling in love is like work. It nice work, if you can get the job."  But others see the song as a veiled way of talking about having sex with someone and they are, as you say, "disgusted" by it.

Another more potent example: Suppose you check into a hotel room and you can unmistakable tell that the people in the next room are having sex, just from the sounds you can hear.

Some people are HIGHLY disgusted with something like that and will call the hotel management and complain. Others will just bang on the wall to let the neighbors know they can hear what's going on. Still, others will just sit and listen and maybe even enjoy the chance to evesdrop.

Now. Change the couple next door to a gay couple.

The people who would call the manager? They'll pack their bags and leave.!

The people who banged on the wall? They'll call the manager.

The people who just sat and enjoyed? They'll bang on the wall.

Finally, yet other people will not be bothered at all as long as their sleep isn't interrupted.

So different people show different "disgust" reactions.  There's an entire scientific enquiry into genetically-based behaviors such as the "disgust reaction". To find it, just use Goggle and use "disgust scale" and you can read about it.

One of the more interesting finding by these scientists is that some social groups are far more sensitive to a wider range of "disgust" scenarios.

Who?

Fundamentalist Christians, that's who.

Fundmentalists are pretty much off the charts on most sexual matters. Sex between people of different races, sex between people of different faiths and sex between people of the same sex really push their buttons.

To me that seems consistent with religious education. From childhood, Christians are actually taught to heighten their sensitivity to others because of biblical foundations in their education. The Jews eschew pork and shell fish for religious reasons. They are revolted by the idea of people have sex when a female is on her period and that disgust is reflected in their religous texts, in Leviticus.

People of high sensitivity also react to situations that most people never give a second thought to. For example, if you were on a camping trip and you had some soup to eat but nothing to stir it with, sensitive people would vomit if you used a used, yet thoroughly cleansed fly swatter to stir the soup.

Riding a bus is hard for some people. Some people will not sit in a bus seat if, when the sit down, they notice that the seat is still warm for the body of another person. They won't sit there.They'd prefer to stand up. That's a disgust reaction.

So, if you are disgusted by gays, welcome to the club. Many people are. You'll fit right in. But remember, other people may very well be disgusted by something about you too.  None of us are immune to offending someone else for something we have little to no control over. So your reaction is completely normal. Enjoy.

What is the "he IJE study". My doctor would be interested to know what, for example, to watch out for with my 85 year old husband health.  This sounds like Paul Cameron's "studies". He did a survey of gay publications about 15 years ago and tabulated the age of gay people who had died based on the obituaries that were available. This, or course was in the height of the AIDS crisis, when there was no treatment for the disease.

Cameron then published is "study" and concluded that life expectancy among gays was, as you reported, 8 to 20 years less than the average heterosexual.

So, the real flaw of that should be obvious.  Most gay people don't have their obituary in gay publications. They show up in the local newspaper. Second, Cameron got his data from the locations where the highest incidence of AIDS deaths occurred. Yes, people were dropping like flies. But that's what happens in a serious health crisis.  The same thing happened in Philadelphia with straight men attending an American Legion convention with a disease that became know as "Legionaires Disease". So, using Camerson same method, a researcher could have gone to Philly, read the newspaper and saw that all the American Legion guys had died "8-20 years" earlier than the average life expectancy.

But legitimate researchers don't do what Paul Cameron did.

SiouxCity wrote: "(Warning: Male-male anal sodomy has been proven to shorten your lifespan by up to 20 years.)"

Do you see it as your duty to others to report such a serious warning without telling anyone where you learned it, who discovered it and what the facts are based on?

You said "Proven".  Absent an infectious agent, like AIDS, how would anal sex "shorten your lifespan" with gay people (your words: "male-male") and not hav the same health effects with straight people who, by the way, also practice anal sex both for pleasure and for birth control reasons.

The IJE Study, it turns out, is a report on what happens to people infected with AIDS/HIV. The International Journal of Epidemiology (IJE) publishes studies of the findings on people who are afflicited with an epidemic disease.

In other words, while it may be true that gay men with AIDS die 8 to 20 years earlier than SiouxCityRanch,  gay people who don't have AIDS live normal lifespans.

While gay men who engage in anal sex with a person who is HIV-positive have a significantly high risk of contracting AIDS, the IJE study doesn't address healthy gay men who do NOT engage in sex with an HIV-Positive person AT ALL.  In other words, SiouxCity, you grossly misrepresented health finding by not saying the study ONLY applied to people who are HIV-positive.

SHAME on you! You liar! Don't you have ANY moral scruples at ALL?

SiouxCityRanch reported: "Under tremendous pressure, the researchers who conducted the study even jumped into the political damage control fray issuing a statement which read, “[W]e do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.”

In other words, the IJE researchers, THEMSELVES, condemn EXACTLY what you just did with their findings

You LIED by not saying the IJE study was about people infected by HIV in order to give the impression that even HEALTHY gay people died "8 to 20 years earlier than I do."

You LIED by not saying the IJE study was about people infected by HIV in order to give the impression that ONLY gay men (no straight people who do the same thing) who had anal sex would have a  shorter life span by 20 years. You DELIBERATELY did not mention that finding ONLY applied to a person who infected by HIV to give the impression that ANYONE gay would have a have a shorter life span by have anal sex - EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T HIV POSITIVE.

This is sssoooooo troubling when people of usual common decency stoop to lying to deliberately create a negative image of homosexual.

That's DISGUSTING!

 sioux: "You took over one of California's most beautiful cities (San Fransicko) ..it needs to stop there.."
 

How, precisely, did they "take it over"? Do you have to wear pastels when you visit there? Is your heterosexual marriage no longer valid in that town?

"I had my son with me the other day and he went into the store..he came back out freaked because some gay weirdo tried to hit  on him..Your going to tell me that when the numbers increase around town if  gay  activists get their way ..some gays wont eventually feel more comfortable about trying to hit on young hetros they think they can convert into experimenting with the gay lifestyle..or at the least  just wanna see what kind of reaction they will get due to feeling bolder because they feel their acceptance is gaining ground because of increased numbers of gays in our community??"

I hate to break it to you, but the legalization of gay marriage didn't cause that guy to hit on your son. And if your son gets "freaked out" because someone hit on him, it does not bode well for his future. If a little thing like some dude hitting on him spooks him that badly, how sheltered has his life been up until this point? I'll give you a bit of advice, from someone who's been hit on plenty of times, by people of both sexes: it is a good thing. It means you're attractive, and carry yourself well. If you think they were trying to "convert" him, I can see why your son got "spooked". So please tell me, why is being hit on a bad thing? (Oh, and what did the guy tell your son? What constitutes being "hit on" in his/your mind?)

"Everyone I know plan on voting this down..what the courts did was wrong  everything about this is wrong in my MHO... which I have a right too also.."

Sadly, yes, you now have the "right" to vote for bigotry. Hooray for "democracy". And it is also sad that everyone you know is voting it down. It means you lead a sheltered life, free of differing opinions. It helps me understand a bit more why your son is the way he is.

Sioux, where in the Bible does it say homosexuality is a "sin"? Do you follow all of the rules the Bible says are sins? Eating shellfish and wearing mixed fibers and all? Or do you get to pick and choose which "sins" are actual Sins, and which are just a paranoid, primitive society's rules which really have little bearing on today's modern society?

So the gays stormed the Bastille, eh?   Why didn't they include pink in the Tricolor, then?

SiouxCityRanch: "..hes (son propositioned by gay) got my full permission to nail the next gay that acts out towards him.."

HM: "We teach our daughters to do the SIMPLEST THING: Slap their face, or embarrass them in public."

Here's a glaring example of emotional parents teaching their children to be violent and break the law by committing assault or battery of another instead of properly filing a legal complaint and using the judicial system to resolve the matter.

Sorry, no one gets to legally assault another unless in self defense of a clear and present danger of PHYSICAL attack. You don't get to "nail" people for verbal contact with you.

How about we put it this way:

It is clearly and unequivocally against the law, to physically attack or "nail" anyone simply for talking to you whether they be male, female, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, asexual or otherwise or whether or not they "coming on" to you, the jails and prisons are full of dummies who believe otherwise.

SiouxCityRanch: "..one example of how the gay community can destroy our values if they are allowed to proceed.."

It is unclear how one's personal values can be "destroyed" by homosexuals, promiscuous or otherwise.

Please explain this phenomenon?

I'm voting "yes" on propsition 9.  It bans all red heads from marrying each other.  Hopefully the ban will reduce the number of freckled, red headed babies born in America.   Our skin cancer rates will plummet threby reducing our medical insurance rates.   It's a win win.     Vote YES ON 9.

BTW    Look for next year's proposition 10.  It's a ban on marriage between Hasidic Jews and Swiss cowmaids.  We anticipate the ban will eliminate braids througout the world.   ~~~crossing our fingers~~~~~

Husbandmaterial, your class, poise, dignity, and gentlemanliness are as impressive as their contrast.

Thanks, Audrey, for so humorously pointing out the absurdity of this measure.

You're a funny lady, AudreyB.

I expect people to disagree with your statement by saying that you can't compare homosexuality with braids. Only people with no sense of humor will say that, though. 

You have to give the woman credit for a good sense of humor.

Give me a break, Pax.  The Roman Catholic Church was, and still is a walking contradiction.  During the time of the French Revolution, the Roman Catholic Church held more power, land and money than all Monarchs combined.  Ironically, for a people who were supposed to be living their life for God and God alone usually had far more personal wealth than any commoner.  It was not uncommon for Catholic Clergy to completely ignore their own code of chastity.  For centuries prior, Popes held power over vast military might and even controlled personal armies.  Don't sit there and act as if the Catholic Church was completely innocent.

Well, at least it wasn't left up to the voters to decide on intrigration in the 1960's, or it probably would not have happened at that time, so we will see in November if Californians are for or against discrimination.  No matter how you try to sugarcoat it with religious doctrine (which is responsible for most wars) it is still discrimination underneath.

I don't understand why many Christians are so adament on forcing their narrow-minded views on everyone else.  They've done it with many issues, not just gay marriage.  Christianity in America seems to be swaying from a religion to a dictatorship.  I feel like Christians want to take a cross, stab it in my back, and wind it up...like a toy robot.  I know that not all Christians are like this, but sadly, so many are.

Thanks to bram981 for making such a valid point.  I find it hypocritical that Christians pick and choose what they want to follow in the Bible.  (Ever notice how many chapters say "The Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, etc.)  Nowhere does it ever say the gospel according to Jesus or God.  Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, and if he did, it was probably something positive.  You know, during that big chunk of his life that the Church decided to omit from the Bible.

I just wish that people who are against gay marriage would MIND THEIR OWN MARRIAGE and make sure it fits their self-righteous standards, and leave the rest of us alone!

As Floridastategrad points out, homosexuality has been accepted in many previous cultures which have included marriage.

Personally, I don't buy into this "slippery slope" concept whereby allowing homosexuals to marry will lead to marriage with farm animals. That is a ridiculous conclusion. It's like saying drinking water leads to heroin addiction because 100% of all addicts have consumed water.

If you think your particular viewpoint of family will be harmed by allowing gay marriage, you have very little confidence in your own family values.

You still haven't answered the question though, Marilee. You have purported that the Constitution has nothing to do with it, the Supreme Court is full of liberals thus invalid.....so if the people vote against you, will you accept it?

It's a simple question.

Pax wrote: "Somehow "Bastille Day" didn't have a friendly ring to it."

It shouldn't. Yet, now it's the Catholics like you who are doing the throat cutting.

Rightthinker (Marylee Shrider) wrote: "Yes, I realize current divorce rates are a poor testament to heterosexual marriage, but we have not yet seen the outcome of the social experiment that is gays raising children."

Gee, what does it take to get you to pay attention? Gays and lesbians HAVE been raising children for ALL TIME. You just won't look. I mean, don't you even READ the court cases, such as the one in Hawaii, Washington state and California where the social research cited goes back 50 years on homosexuals who INDEED raise children?

The reason you don't know about it is that researchers couldn't find any BAD news to tell the public. That's the only kind of news that newspaper print.  So you call it a social experiment?  I should introduce my daughter to you, Ms. Shrider. I DARE you to refer to her as an "experiment".  Talk about insulting other parents!!!

You OWN newspaper just asked the public the question, "Where were the parents?" when the children of several HETEROSEXUAL parents beat an 81 year old woman to death!  On this, you see blind, but then, it makes it so much more convenient for you (blindness) to then say gay parenthood is merely "experimentation".

The NOTIBLE thing in social research about gay parents that you Deliberately choose to be blind to is how compassionate and accepting the children of gays are to others in EVERY class of diversity: race, religion, disability, sex, age, etc.

We know what you're REALLY saying. You are afraid the children of homosexual will BECOME homosexual.  Well, all you have to do is READ the social research. You'll find that the children of gays identify as homosexual at the same rate they do in the majority heterosexual community, or, about 3 to 5 per cent of the children of ALL homosexuals will identify as homosexual in adulthood.

What that means, of course, is your veiled theory that homosexuals have children to "recruit" them to homosexuality is just another bald-faced LIE exposed.

Go ahead. Keep doing the Anita Bryant thing where you issue false warnings about homosexuals being a danger to children. The statistics readily available form the State of California make the liar out of you. One would assume that, if homosexuals are the predators that the Marylee Shriders of the world say they are, and California has the largest concentration of homosexuals in the entire country, the incidents of child sexual predation in this state would exceed all of the other 49 states in the union COMBINED!

That's not the case AT ALL. The incidence of homosexual being the perpetrator in a case of child sexual abuse is FAR below their representative percentage of the population.

About 95% of ALL the perpetrators in cases of child sexual abuse are heterosexual, regardless of the sex of the child who was abused. In the MOST case, the heterosexual abuser is a parent, especially a father, but close male heterosexual family relatives and friends account for the remainder.

Authoritity?

1. The Connecticut Penal System Study of ALL incarcerated felons jailed for child sexual abuse: Finding: NO homosexuals!

2. David Finkelhor's study of 1,200 day care centers. (Finkelhor head the largest research group in America that compiles research on child sexual abuse, at the Univ. of New Hampshire:  FINDING:  Statistically Insignificant. (Translation: less than one per cent of all perpetrators were homosexual)

3. Childrens Hospital of Denver. Study of ALL children entering the hospital (the largest in Colorado) in a calendar year who were victims of sexual abuse.:  FINDING: In 377 case, ONE case had a person who was of homosexual orientation, and note: like so many other cases, the person was a close friend of the child's family.

So, base on these, the largest studies of their kind that specifically sought to determine the sexual orientation of the prepetrators, the only conclusion you can arrive at statistically is that gay's are the perpetrators in cases of child sexual abuse in less than ONE PERCENT of all cases NATIONWIDE. In California, where cities like San Franciso and Palm Springs have gay populations exceeding 25% or more of the city population, you would expect to find gays in higher percentages as prepetrators. Under Ms. Shrider's insinuation, the children of San Francisco and Palm Springs would be a FAR HIGHER risk of being victims than any other city in the WORLD. But that's not what California crime statistics show.  Both San Francisco and Palm Springs show LOWER rates of child sexual predation than virtually ALL cities in the United States. So Shrider's insinuations are noting but her bigotry showing through her teeth.

So, Ms. Shrider. Now that you know this, I look forward to the ceasation of your scare tactics and falsehoods regarding homosexuals in their parental roles. You just lying when you sprinkle your commentary with talk of "experimentation".

Btown let it rest.......Why do you continue to waste so much of your negative energy, as it is here on a subject instead of just letting people live a life of peace. I mean really does it not get old to you?  If you don't have to sleep with someone,pay their bills,or answer to them does it really make a difference? PEACE!

Random: Gays and lesbians already enjoy "equal protection under the law" and defining marriage as between one man and one woman doesn't deny homosexuals the basic rights we all enjoy, including the right to marry. None of us, however, has the unrestricted right to marry whomever we like - a father can't marry his daughter, a brother can't marry his sister and none of us can marry the husbands or wives of others.- MaryLee

You can't be serious.  Gays and lesbians do not enjoy anything close to equal protection under the law.  As individuals, they are denied the right to marry who they want.  They can't have a long-term partner step in to be their medical proxy.  When they do go through the cost (which hetero couples don't need because they  can marry) to make their relationship a legal relationship, it doesn't protect them from small minded bigots who go around the partner and call next of kin in as the proxy.  How would you feel, Marylee, if your husband were grievously injured  and the doctor looked at you and said, "I'm sorry.  You have absolutely no say in what we do to him.  Go to the waiting room until his family arrives." ,...would you still argue that you were being given equal protection? 

What if you, Marylee, were left guardian of another relative's children?  What if you went to the funeral...packed up the kids...moved them into your home and gave them some semblance of life...only to have a bigoted judge decide they should live with the hetero sister who sued for custody?   Would you still call that  "equal protection"? 

What if you, Marylee, decided to have a child with your partner?  You go through thousands of dollars and invest a great deal of emotion and time into getting pregnant.  You have the baby.  Your partner is this baby's other parent for ten years and you die.  Guess what - there's a very good chance that the child you had together will be taken from your partner.  Despite the fact that the partner has supported the child for ten years.  Despite the fact that this is what you wanted.  And, even despite paperwork which should make things legal.  Do you think it's "equal protection under the law" to take the child away from the partner?  There are very few judges in this country who will perform an adoption for homosexual couples.  Equal protection?

I could go on and on.  But, you and I both know that "Equal protection under the law" is a stretch.  An abusive husband has more "equal protection" than a dedicated same sex parent.  That you not only support this, but advocate for it, is unreal. 

I doubt Marylee even reads these responses.  She probably posts her agenda and opinions and then never gives the blog a second look..afraid of being challenged, maybe?  Like many (but not all) Christians, she is too introverted and pompous to hear what her opponents have to say.

Actually, in Marylee's defense, she does read the responses.. she also gets a lot of emails (a few months back I emailed her regarding this issue in general, it took her a few days to respond due to sheer volume). 

the sad fact about this is....the public voted on this back in 2000.

along with prop 187 back in 94, the will of the people was trumped by activist judges who, unhappy with what they have completed in their life, attempt to legislate from the bench.

now if that's not unconstitutional........

now if that's not unconstitutional........

It's not.   Laws are overturned all the time.

 MAN plus WOMAN, ='s MARRIAGE !!!

Learnem wrote: "the sad fact about this is....the public voted on this back in 2000.along with prop 187 back in 94, the will of the people was trumped by activist judges who, unhappy with what they have completed in their life, attempt to legislate from the bench.

I've got news for you, pal. Thanks to so-called "activist judges" black people just like you can marry any white person in America, or didn't you know about the US Supreme Court ruling in 1961 in the case of Loving versus Virginia. Had your father married a white woman in that time, without the intervention of "activist judges" you'd be legally regarded as a bastard in the states where inter-racial marriage was illegal.

Had it not been for "activist judges" you'd have been educated in some barn before "white only schools" would have let you in the door.

What kind of society do you want, Sir? One where the majority can just vote you off the island because they don't like your black skin? there are plenty of places in this country that would do just THAT. If you don't the bigots will do it to you again and laugh about it.

Then i'll get in your face and gloat that "Oh. We voted for that years ago and some activist judge tried to impose his will on the majority." 

Again, the courts ruling on the constitutionality of poorly crafted law and poorly crafted voted measures does NOT equal legislating from the bench.

Judicial critics are happy when the rulings go their way but are all too quick to blast the courts when a ruling is not to their liking.

Bad law and bad measures need to be fixed or discarded, we need the courts to do just that.

Bible beaters are often successful at these measures because armies of them show up at the polls and vote while the rest of the sensible people stay home figuring not enough people are stupid enough to pass this sort of trash and that it will be struck down, anyway.

In this case, a constitutional amendment designed to skirt a previous ruling which abrogates human and civil rights will not stand, either.

But afterward, the evangelists will bemoan the court's decision saying the court ignored the will of the people.

These extremists think that just about anything a majority calls for  is okay, they just don't get the fact that majority might does no make right and that's why we have and need the courts to quell gang rule.

They want religious rule of the world.

In the immortal words of AMY WINEHOUSE, "I said NO NO NO!!!"

Amy Winehouse, defender of the sanctity of marriage:

http://www.popcrunch.com/bl... 

Again. 

 Will Marilee accept how the vote goes if her side of the issue loses?

Amy Winehouse: that great preserver of traditional marriage, getting a divorce?

For SHAME!

anti wrote: "Will Marilee accept how the vote goes if her side of the issue loses?"

Looking at the history of bigotry in civil equality cases, the odds are she'll go to her grave holding resentment. At least Jesse Helms didn't do the same (at least in public) after he saw the light on his position about integration.  There's hope. Ms. Shrider is a pretty smart cookie. But we'll never know if she has ever defeated her bigotry until she says so in public. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Marylee wrote: "This is, after all, the same court that just two months ago basically told Californians their opinion on gay marriage didn’t count, that the one-man-one-woman definition approved in 2000 by 61 percent of the voters was unconstitutional."

Two thoughts: one, isn't it interesting that there seems to be no annoyance at the people who wrote the 2000 inititiative to make sure it was constitutional in the first place? And two, the state and federal Constitutions give the courts the power to tell voters their opinions may or may not be correct, as a matter of course. I'm sure you'd have to problem with this if the court had affirmed the decision.

It's amazing to me, a constant source, in fact, that this old saw keeps getting dragged out....that unless the court agrees with your opinion, it must therefore be wrong. I think the court got it exactly right, in this case: their decision in this matter was based upon the legal concept that the proposition did not change the Constitution, which would have been necessary to affect this. What part of that is so hard to understand?

I don't believe in The Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny, Leprechauns or Hobbits. I don't believe rabbit  feet or four-leaf clovers have special powers. I also  don't believe in jesus christ, satan or the immoral bible; and I believe there's no such thing as miracles.

Why should I be subjected by others' belief in those superstitious things?

The will of the people prevails.....unless of course that will is unconstitutional. So, one side of the issue says the Court is legislating, while the other side says they are interpreting Constitutional law.

This is a Republic, not a true Democracy. Like they say, a true democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. The Constitution protects individual rights. Like the sheeps right to stay off the menu.

Substitute black for gay. If the people of California suddenly voted that blacks could not marry, the Court would over rule that one too. It would have nothing to do with democracy, and everything to do with Constitutional rights.

The court cannot legislate, but they CAN interpret the meaning of the law.

Both left leaning and right leaning justices sometimes interpret badly, but they do have the final say on constitutional law. The checks and balances come in when the legislators ammend the constitution, or if it is not a constitutional matter, re-write the law so that there is little room for interpretation......and........

That's why we love this country so much, checks and balances! 

Check please.

Bravo, HM.  I respect your thoughts, and way to stick up for yourself.  It's my experience that homophobes typically only have to look inward to know that homosexual thoughts are very real.

I've been hit on by gay men before.  I simply say that it's flattering (gay men like good-looking guys, so I guess I'm good enough looking), but then I politely tell them that I'm not gay.  Most gay guys don't want to waste time pursuing what they can't have.  Those that can't take the hint, like straight guys who can't take the hint, should be reported to an authority.  Simple.  

On a side note, there is a lot of homophobia in this town.  Wow!  I wonder if there is a direct link to the size of your truck and the level of your homophobia?  My guess is yes. 

Crankinpin..you sure like that homophobia word dont you..you use it all the time..shows a limited mentality to me..might consider getting a new dictionary