Thanks for your thoughts. I think your team would be well advised to reflect on them. As for me, I shudder to think that guys like you might get in a position to steer your movement.

You might win, and that would be a catastrophe.

I trust, instead, that the religious haters and the anarchists will continue to “lead”, and civilization will be spared the awful consequence of sacrificing its foundartional institution to appease a tiny minorityof victims suffering from an an unfortunate disorder.

I understand what you’re saying Keith, and I agree, to a point. But if gay couples have to wait for people like Rick DeLano to come around to the idea of gay marriage…Well, I’m afraid that might just never happen.

Funny you bring up the ’60’s civil rights movement.

“…First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”

That’s Martin Luther King Jr. Sound familiar?

Wow, Ned. Thanks for that ^^

Oh, and this post isn’t showing up on the main page. Was that deliberate?

Marriage equality NOW!

Oops. I’ll put it on the front page.

Does Marriage fall under the definition of Church or State, if so should there be a separation of the two?

As always I am stunned by the view held by so many heterosexuals that they have the right, that they are entitled to make decisions about my personal life as a gay man. It’s pure fascism, it’s supreme arrogance and an appalling betrayal of what this nation is supposed to stand for. The fact that California heterosexuals stripped away rights from fellow Americans is a national and even international moment of shame for this nation. Straight men do not have the right to control women’s bodies and lives. Whites do not have the right to make decisions for blacks. And heterosexuals do not have the right to tell me how to constitute my family.

Rick,

I pray to God that you are joking.

You don’t have to condone providing equal legal rights among Americans under the law if you don’t want to, if you can’t see that people deserve the same inalienable rights as you. How you couldn’t, I have no clue. But what’s more offensive than your total ignorance and lack of decency is that you hide behind God to demoralize. How pathetic.

Marriage is not a right and never has been. I don’t see it in our Constitution or Bill or Rights. Marriage is completely biological and has been between a man and a woman in every culture since the dawn of man for the procreating of children. When 2 men can procreate a child between them, then I will agree that they can be married, otherwise they never should be allowed this sacred institution. No one has the right to redefine an institution that is not only biological but is the foundation of every society.

Thanks, but not thanks. We’ll continue the fight in federal court next. Nobody is our authority.

If you haven’t had your fundamental rights voted on, you’re a wimp, and you wouldn’t be able to handle it.

Thanks for your continued support!

Stacey,

i fail to see how marriage is “biological”. Are male and female squirrels “married”
based on their biological ability to procreate… a male and female squirrel of course. Thee is nothing biological about a license, especially license that stems from religion. How can you even argue that marriage is a scientific union?

I also fail to see how marriage is the “foundation of every society” there probably other things involved in the formation of social unions, like protection, attainment of resources, procreation (in the physical sense not the religious, holy act that you refer to)

also based on your logic that marriage isn’t in the constitution or bill of rights government then has no right to either withhold marriage licenses from people or give them. Let the church form a militia to prevent the impious union of wicked gays.

finally what the fuck, you’re just wallowing in your own ignorance and bigotry. “noone can redefine this sacred institution”, sacrifices were once sacred, as was slavery, get off your pedestal. I can’t even comprehend how hateful one has to be to genuinely feel that two responsible individuals who love each other can’t be married. Quite frankly i deem it sacred that hateful ignorant college students ought not be allowed marriage based on their tendency to rear more hateful and bigoted people, and yet I’m not going to petition your wedding.

Keith:

I am not joking.

I understand you consider it self-evident that gays have a right to marry.

Forgive, please, those of us who insist instead that this is the very question at issue, and it is not self-evidently a “right” at all.

In fact, it would appear to me to be self-evidently a “wrong”, given:

1. The fact that no human civilization has ever, regardless of religion or lack thereof, so much as hinted at the existence of such a “right”, until the advent of the gay “agenda” in immediately recent years.
2. The concept of “right”, must, after all, have reference to some external criteria. Yours, it seems. must fly in the face of at least two very important ones- that marriage first of all expresses the coming together of the two genders of our species for the procreation of children and the rearing of children; and second, that marriage between a man and a woman is in fact the expressed democrtic will of the people of California and thirty other states, while gay “marriage” is the expressed democratic will of zero states.

This means that the arguments of human traditiona, natural law, and democratic self-governance all argue against any such “right”.

It is indisputably the case that you will have to make your case much more effectively than to simply assert that those of us who disagree with you are simply troglodytic bigots– though I am entirley comfortable with you continuing to employ that “strtegy”, if you like.

I think it is a sure-fire loser for your side.

IF Marriage is not a Right, then it would not be Recognized by the Government. Since the dawn of time. You mean the primitive human beings that lived seventy thousand years ago? Before the 15th century, Christian Marriages were just a promise made to each spouse. These were not recognized by the state. Do some research before making yourself look dumb.

Christian Marriage may be about procreation, but Marriage as a whole is just the conjoining of to individuals into a committed or uncommitted relationship. Seeing the in the past it was common to have multiple wives and many mistresses. A great many Marry today, that have no intent to ever have any kids. To blanket all Marriages with the intent to procreate is ignorant in itself.

Ned hasn’t yet gotten due props for totally owning the author of this opinion.

We love you Ned.

OK- the answer to this has always been really simple in my head.

I don’t think people choose to be gay. I think that if you are a homosexual person and you have found someone you want to share your life with, you should be entitled to the same rights as hetero couples.

If some people are saying that marriage is traditionally supposed to be between a man and a woman, thats only because the word “marriage” as it was defined in the bible made it that way. Last time I checked, we werent supposed to have cultural institutions defined by the bible.

So in my mind there are two options. Either cease issuing marriage licenses and make everything a civil union, being to the genders of the applicants, or recognize marriage and a cultural and not a religious institution and let everyone get married. It really doesnt seem liek that much of an issue in my head.