wow 10 views and no comments, I must have hit a nerve.

Ya... cant wait to show Frisco it cant bully the rest of us Californians around again.

I have a question for you before I jump to any conclusions about your stance on this issue.  Are you advocating that "marriage" should be between a man and a woman, but that such a thing as civil unions could exist in your state?  Or are you simply trying to outlaw allowing gay couples to form any kind of union to show their committment to each other?  If you are trying to get across the latter with this plea to California, then I would have to say you are a very prejudiced and intolerant person.  If you are trying to bring light to the concept of "marriage" as a church sacrament being between a man and a woman by holding that specific bond, entitlement, and ceremony sacred...then I can respect your ideals and can understand your passion for this issue. 

I personally don't know about what happened within the courts there in San Francisco, but I can't stand those who are completely against allowing gay people to enter into some type of union or bond recognized by law in their states.  Again, I'm not assuming you are one of those individuals, just thought I would ask where you do stand on the issue.

Why should teachers have to teach children the difference between a heteosecual marriage and a gay one?  That alone in itself is madness.  And that is why there will always be the confusion and why there has to be a law allowing people to do what ever they want between two consenting adults! [hows that for a discussion?! - seriously!]

I have no problem with gay marriage but agree that it should be legislated properly. 

I have no problem with gay marriage, though gay and marriage don't seem to be compatible terms from what I know of the concept in reality.

Gay = happy, and marriage and happy are so infrequently together in practice, so is a gay marriage really even possible?

How about this: I have no problem with gay marriage, gays are just as entitled to an unhappy marriage and nagging spouse as anyone else is

Can I be serious for a minute? Yeah, I guess so.  Honestly, I really just don't get that worked up over the gay marriage thing.  Don't shove it in my face and it doesn't become my business.  If two people of the same sex want some sort of legally recognized union, let 'em have it, but make sure they know that they'll be responsible for carrying insurance for their spouses, could be made to pay alimony, lose half their community property, etc.

What I will agree completely with Moderate Man on is that the issue should be decided by the people and not the judges.  The judges need to accept the outcome of the referendums and stop trying to make their own beliefs the laws of the land.

Eh, me neither. I'm vastly more interested in health care issues and social security and the price of gas 'n groceries and crime and keeping our kids off dope and...

AND TWINS!!!

~Zoo

Just over a million people, not millions, signed the petition.  A quick search revealed the population of California to be, in 2006, roughly 36.5 million people.  So a representation of 1.1 odd million people is hardly a majority. 

Having said this, I agree with Roy.  There are far more important issues folk could be concentrating their time on than this. 

Quite frankly the government, and the courts, have no right to legislate whether or not two consenting adults cannot get married. This means, by default, they should be allowed to marry just the same as straight folks. We keep hearing from a lot of conservative folks the whole "don't tread on me" song and dance about the evils of big government sticking their nose in people's personal business when they shouldn't (like religious issues, gun ownership, etc etc... and for the record I'm pro gun before you jump to any conclusions)

Yet, when a topic comes up that they disagree with, suddenly they want the same government to stick their nose in other people's private lives to stop them from doing something that they think is wrong.

The courts have no place in the home or relationship of two consenting adults. Unless there's abuse of some kind or a divorce underway (two topics out of the scope of this discussion) it's simply none of their business.

If you want no gun control and "small" government that doesn't stop kids from praying in schools that ALSO means you'll have to settle for a society that tolerates gay marriage and abortion. Why? Because at the root of all these topics is the age old argument of personal freedom vs the power of the state. If the state has the power to say who can and cannot get married (again, consenting adults, please don't use the whole "but this will mean pre-verts marryin kids and animals comes next!!!" argument) then the state can easily legislate who can pro-create, who can practice their religion and who can't, and who can have a voice in the public sphere (media, for example)

Hey, we can agree on this issue, at least without the editorial.

There is a big difference between going to the polls, and signing a petition.  A million signatures shows a great deal of interest in the issue and perhaps a majority (it can evaporate before the actual voting).  Of those 36 million, 40% are either not eligible, or will never go to a poll, leaving an actual "potential" voting block of about 20 million.  Of those 20 millions (since the petition requires that they be eligible to vote), 5% went out of their way to sign it.  Thi is not having it put in their lap, but taking an active part in the process.

It is not conclusive, but it is significant.  And part of it is that regardless of personal views, Americans hate to be dictated to.  When judges make law (as they have done here), people naturally rankle at the thought of having no say.  So even some that would normally be on the fence (as many are - they just dont care, or see other issues as being more important), will vote on it just to take back their rights.  A knee jerk?  Sure.  But part of the process that those who seek to circumvent the electorate through the courts have brought upon themselves.

I think that "marriage" should be between one man and one woman. I have no problems with civil unions between gay couples.

I hate Sanfran freako and its anti American stances.

That is the problem, they are teaching "there is NO DIFFERENCE"!