Discussion

• March 9, 2006

  11:12 AM

  js writes:

  The twisted thinking of the CO legislature never ceases to amaze me. No, they should not have to pay more. How ridiculous.

• March 9, 2006

  11:47 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  Your thinking is just as abnormal as these so called "relationships".
  It should have never even come to this. Maybe you should talk about something more worthwhile. Remember, these people chose their lifestyle. They weren't born that way.It is sad that Colorado has even allowed these type of licenses.

• March 9, 2006

  12:06 PM

  Michelle writes:

  Totally unfair! Looks like same-sex couples have to jump through yet ANOTHER hoop in order to prove they deserve the same rights as straight married couples. This country's outlook on gay marriage is so sad...outlawing it isn't going to keep people in love from being together, no matter what. It's not going to eliminate homosexuality, either!

  If people are so concerned with the "sanctity" of marriage, maybe they need to pour their efforts into why the divorce rate is so high! Let's stop discriminating!!

• March 9, 2006

  12:08 PM

  Mr. N writes:

  Perhaps women, ethnic minorities, and religious people should pay more to get married too. The Civil Rights Commision spends money investigating claims filed by them too.

  There are plenty of people who are either racists, or women haters, or anti-religious, who wouldn't want their money spent to protect these people either.

• March 9, 2006

  12:57 PM

  Mark writes:

  A domestic partnership license should cost no more or less than a marriage license. It should have NOTHING to do with approval or disapproval of gay and lesbian relationships. lifestyles, or whatever label chosen. This is a CIVIL matter, not a religious or moral issue. It does not matter whether gay and lesbian people choose their path or believe they were born to it. Let churches discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (some will choose to marry gays & lesbians, some will not). Government (local, state & federal) should treat everyone equally ("All men are created equal..."). Unfortunately bigotry, sanctimony & hypocrisy still stand in the way of full, equal rights for gay and lesbian citizens.

• March 9, 2006

  1:01 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  There are none so blind as those who will not see. Open your eyes folks...I don't want my tax dollars giving legitimacy to sexual perversion.

• March 9, 2006

  1:08 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  The name is a crock. How can you have 'rights fees' when what these perverts are doing is wrong!?

• March 9, 2006

  1:09 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  The folks using their sanctimonious, bigoted beliefs to deny other American citizens equal rights are the ones needing to open their eyes.

• March 9, 2006

  1:12 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  The perversion is the way fundamentalist religious extremists selectively use their beliefs to discriminate. It ultimately will be their downfall.

• March 9, 2006

  1:39 PM

  Tracey writes:

  Wrong,Wrong,Wrong,Wrong,Wrong,Gay marriage or unions of any kind.It's wrong!Vote in November to stop it.

• March 9, 2006

  2:17 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Bad, bad, bad religious fundies. It seems some group of people must always fill the role of scapegoat for them. It used to be slaves during the 17th & 18th centuries (fundies claimed the practice was biblically sanctioned). Before that it was scientists who challenged the idea the earth was flat. In the 20th century it was black Americans and the issue of interracial marriage. Now it is gays, lesbians and evolutionists, among others, who bear the brunt of religious bigotry and sanctimony. Fundies claim to read and evenly apply a literal reading of the Bible. In actuality nothing could be further from the truth. It is this uneven, discriminatory, sanctimonious, bigoted application of their beliefs that is at the heart of violence against and even hatred of gay and lesbian CITIZENS of this country.

• March 9, 2006

  2:36 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Hey 1:09, 1:12, and 2:17.....the truth is a 'beech' ain't it? You don't have to be religious to KNOW that that kind of behavior is wrong. Just ask kids....they shudder at the thought, because they KNOW it is wrong.

• March 9, 2006

  3:08 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Amusing. If I asked my kid how we should live our lives, we'd never have to go to work or school, always eat candy and we wouldn't have to share. Thankfully we teach him the things he'll need to become a thoughtful person. Kids know only what they're taught or hear on the playground. Prejudice is taught not something we're born with.

• March 9, 2006

  3:38 PM

  Liz writes:

  I find it interesting that most of the people who posted comments about homosexuals being wrong, perverted, etc. chose not to post their names. If you have such strong opinions, why can't you take credit for them? Is it because they are small minded? If we believe everything the bible says then slaves are ok and women are the property of men, etc. I could go on and on. When there are so many more important issues (war, poverty, hunger) why are people so freaked out by love?

• March 9, 2006

  3:54 PM

  THE MAJORITY writes:

  Fine....My name is the Majority....as in most of the people of the U.S.A.........AND........most of the people in the world........AND........the majority of the people throughout the HISTORY of the WHOLE HUMAN RACE. And guess what, the majority is right on this one!

• March 9, 2006

  4:08 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  My loving partner and I were happy to spend a truckload of our money in Canada to get married last summer. I'm not giving a penny to "register" until I can celebrate equally, not just separately. I think straight folks are just jealous of our happy homes and good sex.

• March 9, 2006

  4:12 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Hey 4:08, do us all a bigger favor and move back to Canada. BTW, no one is jealous of perverts.

• March 9, 2006

  4:33 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  As Ronald Reagan once said 3:08, there you go again. Stick to the subject. Ask a child if it is o.k. for a man and a woman to hold hands and they will say 'yes.' Ask them if it is o.k. for a man and another man to hold hands and they will say, 'yuck.' Children know......

• March 9, 2006

  6:03 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Don't worry, 4:08. Bigots always lose in the end; they're simply on the wrong side.

• March 9, 2006

  8:16 PM

  Mark writes:

  A domestic partnership license should cost no more or less than a marriage license. It should have NOTHING to do with approval or disapproval of gay and lesbian relationships. lifestyles, or whatever label chosen. This is a CIVIL matter, not a religious or moral issue. It does not matter whether gay and lesbian people choose their path or believe they were born to it. Let churches discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (some will choose to marry gays & lesbians, some will not). Government (local, state & federal) should treat everyone equally ("All men are created equal..."). Unfortunately bigotry, sanctimony & hypocrisy still stand in the way of full, equal rights for gay and lesbian citizens. Bigotry is ALWAYS wrong, it doesn't matter what the context, it is ALWAYS wrong.

• March 9, 2006

  8:28 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  It's interesting that religious fundamentalists & biblical literalists never explain their hypocritical & inconsistent interpretation of the bible. They use it to bash gay and lesbians as perverts or worse. Yet they never seem to take the bible literally when it says its okay to own slaves, that women should never engage in intercourse during menstration, that people should never wear clothes of two different weaves, and a biggie, the prohibition against heterosexual infidelity. This topic is covered in much greater detail than any biblical prohibition against homosexuality. So why aren't Christian fundies out in droves protesting heterosexual sex outside of marriage? Why isn't Focus on the Family trying to get an initiative on the ballot outlawing hetero sex outside of marriage? Certainly that is a much greater threat to the institution of marriage than the few gay and lesbian men and women who would like the STATE (not any church) to recognize their relationships.

  Also intriguing: EVERY major mammal species on the globe exhibits some degree of homosexuality in its population. Yet it seems the fundies only find HUMAN homosexuality as depraved and sinful. OR are gay sheep, monkeys, penguins and other species going to end up in some type of hell too? Just something to ponder, I guess...

• March 9, 2006

  10:04 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Ya know, I'd rather be on the Religious Right than the Religious Left-Out of Heaven.

• March 9, 2006

  10:22 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  As if you would seriously consider the arguments and logic 8:28!

  You appear too set in your ways to spend the time understanding the right side of the equation...are you really going to listen as a 'fundie' (as you like to call them) explains the diff between the Old and New testaments?

  I agree with you though that sex outside of marriage is wrong and is a bigger issue. Unfortunately that war started in the 60's and has so permeated the culture due to a monopoly by left-wingnuts in tv, radio, newspapers, etc. etc. that it is hard to imagine anyone who has been indoctrinated...hey, here we go again....would even listen.

  But don't equate that with the totally unnatural act of homosexuality.

  Love your silly ending. God made man higher than the animals...we're not supposed to act like them.

• March 10, 2006

  4:17 AM

  Yaakov writes:

  One has to look into the minutes of the House Finance committee to see what their exact reasoning was. Otherwise, it is just speculation and nothing more. Govt's can attach fees to fund projects and charge what they like. If one disagrees with this, they need to talk with their representative and voice their opinions, concern, outrage, etc. If same sex couples balk at this...they can and more than likely remain partners and really do not need the stamp of govt approval. Simply put seeking govt approval is nothing more than a show...as I said before couples either same sex or otherwise will stay together or not as it has been from time immemorial.

• March 10, 2006

  8:28 AM

  Dimitri writes:

  Wow, I'm simply amazed at the hatred on this board. A simple question regarding the validity of charging one group more for a service providing the same benefits to another group for less has turned into a hatefest.

  This isn't about religion, or who's right and who's wrong - it's about creating a society where everyone is treated with respect and considered equals.

  I'm facinated by the fact that all of the people who have posted such hateful language on here don't have the courage to post their names. What are you afraid of? Some discourse, some discussion, perhaps even some enlightenment?

  My partner and I are moving to Canada this summer (our immigration as a couple has been approved), and we plan on marrying when we get there. I'd rather live in a land where all people are respected then this state where it seems discrimination is mandatory.

• March 10, 2006

  8:44 AM

  Tony writes:

  I'm so glad I live in the UK and that as our government and MAJORITY of UK people are forward thinking, I can form a civil partnership with my partner here. He will have to leave the US, his job, his family and his friends. But if it means that we will be treated equally and fairly then it is worth that upheaval. What the US loses in a talented, inteligent young man, is the UK's gain.

• March 10, 2006

  9:24 AM

  Dan writes:

  Actually the story is wrong on one point. The bill does not charge more for the same rights, it charges more for LESS rights. Please keep in mind that the Domestic Partnership Referendum does not grant spoussal rights for any Federal benefits such as Social Security benefits and joint tax-filing. Please urge your State Reps to remove the Crane Amendment when the bill reaches the full House.

• March 10, 2006

  9:59 AM

  Paul writes:

  Hey Rep Crane. Look up equal protection under the law and taxation without representation. It's in the Constitution.

  Oh and Rep Crane...I find you abnormal...does that mean my tax dollars should not go towards your salary?

• March 10, 2006

  11:03 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  Dimitri....Wow, I am amazed that so many will embrace sin as if it were normal. Thank you for leaving the USA.

• March 10, 2006

  11:18 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  Sorry Tony, you and your UK ilk aren't forward thinking. Actually, you can be accused with a lack of thinking. But hey, thanks for taking your pervert partner out of this country. The less of this grotesque behavior in America the better!

• March 10, 2006

  11:37 AM

  mason writes:

  11:03...who says it's a sin? oh you do.

  i don't. i don't think it's a sin and i think you're wrong.

  yep you're wrong not me. and nothing you say can change that.

  fundies think they can just say it and *poof* they're right. so i'm taking that away from you. you can i'm abnormal, or perverted...it means nothing to me, because you're wrong.

  see i said it so it must be true. in fact it is true

  you're wrong...wrong wrong wrong.

• March 10, 2006

  1:19 PM

  Bill Morgan writes:

  First, charging different fees for the same license is wrong. Of course, it is not the same license. It is the Domestic Partnership License not the Marriage License. So, they are not charging a different fee for the same license. That seems pretty clear.

  Secondly, a fee is not paid for "rights" or "legal protections". "Rights" and "legal protections" are granted. "Benefits" is a broad term, but typically in this situation refer to medical benefits. Medical benefits are provided by employers, usually in a cost-sharing arrangement with multiple tiers of fees to the employee based on the coverage desired. Most employers and insurers do not see "domestic partners" the same as spouses, but I believe will have to now with the domestic partnership legislation. But, the point is, the license isn't what gets you these rights, legal protection, or benefits. This is faulty logic.

  Thirdly, governments can determine licensing fees as they see fit as a revenue or cost-allayment issue. Unless the judiciary weighs in on a constitutional issue, licensing fees are administrative in nature. Since there are two different licenses, it would be difficult to see a constitutional issue although I am certain domestic partnership advocates will continue to push the rubric of the equal protection clause.

• March 10, 2006

  1:36 PM

  Jay Hull writes:

  One of the main reasons I moved to Los Angeles is because Colorado is a very republican state and will remain a Hate State in my mind. Until people are treated equal we will have no justice.

• March 10, 2006

  1:50 PM

  Happy Hetero writes:

  Call me crazy but isn't judgment God's job not ours? I do not care how homosexuals live their lives.

• March 10, 2006

  2:39 PM

  Jonathan writes:

  Regardless of the fact that it is a sin, it makes sense that a group which causes such extraneous expenses in law suites over petty issues defending their ludicrous positions (no pun intended) should be charged more. I don't even see the logic of wanting to have the same anything is important to these people who reverse the very ways of nature for the sake of being different in the first place.

• March 10, 2006

  3:19 PM

  Kat writes:

  I find it interesting there are so many who post comments to only condemn homosexuals and lesbians. I also find it interesting that as a country who has seen civil war and the utter humiliation of the African American race through slavery can basically dismiss rights that we all as humans should have! At one point in history women were not given the basic rights they have today. Women were considered morally inferior to men! I challenge anyone out there to say that a heterosexual woman shouldn't have the right to marry whomever she'd like. The issue here is not whether or not gays are evil. There are plenty here who have posted that opinion AND THEY ARE VERY WRONG!!!! The issue here is the amount of money gay people will have to put out in order to have their relationships validated in the eyes of the governement. I had a professor in college tell me that there is a difference between legality and morality. Unfortunately, the majority of America and the majority of Colorado, are too blinded by the light blazing from their bibles to see it. People may find homosexuality wrong within the context of their values. These are the same people who have their attorneys numbers on speed dial should someone dismiss or deny their civil rights. Give these people the right to validate their relationships. They deserve it as tax paying citizens at the very least.

• March 10, 2006

  3:38 PM

  Bill Morgan writes:

  Yes, let's have Gay Marriage Licenses. We can then also provide licenses for :

  1) Polygamous Marriages
  2) Man-Boy Marriages so that NAMBLA is happy
  3) Human-Animal Marriages so that you can REALLY love your pet
  4) Post-Life Marriages so that necrophiles are emotionally satisfied
  5) Child Bride/Arranged Marriages so that ancient traditions can be maintained
  6) Space Alien Marriages, just in case the UFO folks are right
  7) Multiple Personality Marriages (charge for each personality!)
  8) Close-Kin Waiver Marriages for them "lovin cousins"

  Heck, with all the extra money you'd get from those licenses, you could afford for the Gay Marriage license to be the same as a regular Marriage license. Am I right?

• March 10, 2006

  3:42 PM

  THE MAJORITY writes:

  Hey Mason, my name is THE MAJORITY. As in, the MAJORITY of people in COLORADO think you are wrong.....as in THE MAJORITY of people in the UNITED STATES thinks you are wrong....as in THE MAJORITY of people in the WORLD think you are wrong....as in THE MAJORITY of CIVILIZATIONS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE PLANET think you are wrong.

  And if that is not enough, GOD definately thinks you are wrong. Yes ,yes, blast me for being on the Religious Right, but it sure beats being on the Liberal Left Out of Heaven bandwagon.

• March 10, 2006

  3:48 PM

  Kat writes:

  Hey THE MAJORITY --- you must not have paid much attention to history classes in school did you? Are you aware that in the Roman and Greek civilizations the highest form of love is that shared between men? Oh wait -- no you probably didn't pay too much attention because you're too busy begging for God's attention that you haven't stopped to think about the rights of others right? Have you renewed your membership with the clan? Have you realized that by passing judgement on others the way you do that God will probably sit your self-righteous butt right on the Obnoxious Right-Wing Facist Wagon which follows right behind the liberals!

• March 10, 2006

  4:44 PM

  Happy Hetero writes:

  I think homosexuals are good for society because when someone attacks them for harming nobody you can tell that person or group are a$$holes. I call them my societal canary in a cage.

• March 10, 2006

  6:47 PM

  mason writes:

  majority - there's that circular logic again. just because you say it, it makes it so.

  that's sad. that you're only argument doesn't hold water, because i don't believe what you believe so...like i said you're wrong and i'm right. there's no need to argue it because you're wrong.

• March 10, 2006

  9:49 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Well Kat, if what I've seen produced by Hollywood depicting what the moral state of Rome and Greece were like is true, then the USA is headed toward hell....OR....for a major fall as they did.

  Mason...obviously you know not what logic is. Go ahead and live in your little fantasyland that says that anyone can do anything at anytime. As such, don't be surprised if we go the way of the Romans.

  Happy Hetero...you are misnamed.

• March 10, 2006

  10:14 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Well Kat, if God sits me there I'm going to be in a lot of company. But I'd rather be there with those who are right, than you sitting in the nasty foo-foo with the liberal-left-out-of-Heaven bunch.

  But please don't mention my butt, or, is that your gay way of flirting on the internet?

• March 11, 2006

  3:12 PM

  Jonathan writes:

  I think it is important to draw clear distinction between what it is that a person says and what it is that God says. It is clear that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin; however, often overlooked by Christian’s is the fact that when God explicitly stated seven sins that he hated, homosexuality wasn’t on there. Pride, lying, murder, and those that produce strife are well represented though. We can pass judgment on no individual, but when God said it, those erring are condemned. In no way do I intend to excuse this sin. I only desire that the “fundies” represent their statements in the context from which they came so that the erring can stop criticizing the speaker long enough to see the underlying principles.

• March 11, 2006

  7:33 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Jonathan, good points, but go all the way. What exactly does God say about homosexuality (and we'll just stay in the New Testament to address the current age)? He says:

  "Even their women exchanged natural relations for UNNATURAL ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with LUST for one another. Men committed INDECENT ACTS WITH OTHER MEN, and received in themselves the due penalty for their PERVERSION."

  So, hey, yes, it's not on the 'list' of hated sins, but remember the above is from God, and it's not like he takes ANY sin lightly (yes folks, including judging others).

  Interestingly within the same context of the verses above is the following verse:

  "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things BUT ALSO APPROVE OF THOSE WHO PRACTICE THEM."

  You know, it's that last line that makes it so frustrating that the government (especially those liberals who seem to know what is best for everyone) goes forth and shows approval for such CHOOSEN BEHAVIOR with their passage of laws that create rights that don't even exist.

  So looking at 'the speakers underlying principles', this shouldn't even be a question. Doesn't matter how much it cost, there should be no such thing as a 'domestic partnership license.' And I think that is why you see such vicious comments here and elsewhere...people are tired of having the "unnatural" shoved down their throats as if it were normal.

  Got more, but gotta go.

• March 11, 2006

  7:34 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Jonathan, good points, but go all the way. What exactly does God say about homosexuality (and we'll just stay in the New Testament to address the current age)? He says:

  "Even their women exchanged natural relations for UNNATURAL ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with LUST for one another. Men committed INDECENT ACTS WITH OTHER MEN, and received in themselves the due penalty for their PERVERSION."

  So, hey, yes, it's not on the 'list' of hated sins, but remember the above is from God, and it's not like he takes ANY sin lightly (yes folks, including judging others).

  Interestingly within the same context of the verses above is the following verse:

  "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things BUT ALSO APPROVE OF THOSE WHO PRACTICE THEM."

  You know, it's that last line that makes it so frustrating that the government (especially those liberals who seem to know what is best for everyone) goes forth and shows approval for such CHOOSEN BEHAVIOR with their passage of laws that create rights that don't even exist.

  So looking at 'the speakers underlying principles', this shouldn't even be a question. Doesn't matter how much it cost, there should be no such thing as a 'domestic partnership license.' And I think that is why you see such vicious comments here and elsewhere...people are tired of having the "unnatural" shoved down their throats as if it were normal.

  Got more, but gotta go.

• March 12, 2006

  5:56 PM

  Kat writes:

  THE MAJORITY and the other person who is too chicken to give their real name--- if you look at my name you'd realize that KAT would be short for Kathryn. ANd gay women aren't as fascinated with the butt as much as straight and gay men. They just have a difference of perference which gender to stick it in. In no way would I hit on you. Regardless of what you think may be internet flirting --- I hate to disappoint you, but I'm hetero. However, I'm not right or left. I sit from a position where I do not enjoy having my rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness jeopardized. And I would never dream of encroaching upon the rights of others. It's not my place nor the government's place to tell the homosexual community that they are or are not morally inferior to the straight community. I leave that job to God and not humanity. I hope that someday you can recognize that people should be allowed to pursue their own dreams, even if they are not concurrent with your own dreams. Regardless of God disapproving with these people's actions (as you claim) they have the right to marry or even enter into committed relationships. Remember the golden rule (being the GOOD CHRISTIAN THAT YOU CLAIM TO BE)---do unto others as you would like to be done to you. As far as you personally knowing what's God says is good or not remember this -- until I see God and he/she him/herself tells me what is accepted and what is not --- we as humans have no right to put words into The Almighty's mouth. The Bible is not words from God, the Bible is written by men. The word of man is infallible. This means that no one can say whether you're right or I'm wrong. Because only God can do that. So the next time you decide to be the mouthpiece of God, maybe you should tape record the conversation you have with God so that we know it's truly God's words and not your own. By the by --- in psychology courses--- they often say that those who are soooo strongly opposed to something are secretly hiding their own perversions --- have you stopped to think that maybe you are sooo scared because perhaps you have your own perversions to deal with? Just something for you and your therapist to ponder.

• March 12, 2006

  6:24 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Kat....ha ha ha ha...thanks for the good laughs. Secret perversions because I so strongly oppose perversion? Maybe you should see the therapist.

  Obviously we disagree GREATLY....I do believe that God spoke to us through the Bible. Thousands of years of Biblical scholarship have it as close to the original as possible. You may believe that not a word was spoken that homosexuality is perversion, but that just means you also have faith. Faith in what, other than yourself, I don't know.

  I'll go with what God says in His word....and feel good that I have the guts to stand up for what is right, and to call perversion what it is, instead of being chicken and hiding behind a cloak of political correctness.

  And isn't it 'obvious' what my name is by the fact that I go unnamed. Your opening comment is SO stupid....how would anyone know that you are 'Kathryn' because you wrote 'Kat.' For all I know you're a stupid alley-cat.

• March 12, 2006

  9:38 PM

  Bob writes:

  To the previous poster, don't worry about the 'kat' types dude, she has obviously fallen for the 'tolerant' crowd. Ya know, anyone can do anything they like, and if you don't like it leave me alone you bigot. Those types will have a surprising experience when they leave the planet and stand before the judgement throne. Can you imagine their faces when they are convicted of being guilty of sin for falling for the lies? Sad but true.

• March 13, 2006

  8:37 AM

  Kat writes:

  I hope that someday you both encounter a situation in which you will be completely stripped of your own natural rights and so badly humiliated that you will think again before passing judgement on other people. It's not your job to tell other people how to live their lives. Hopefully that day will come. Until then remain in your sad, intolerant little boxes. You may feel justified in your beliefs and believe me, I do not begrudge you or judge you because of your faith. I admire those with faith. I do not, however, admire those who admonish others for not agreeing with their faith. Hopefully you will learn that it's not your place to admonish those who do not live by your faith. Remember you God Fearing Christians everywhere ---- treat others the same way you want to be treated. Have you done that lately? I doubt it. I hope you both end up with gay children. Then perhaps you'd understand! I have not called either of you stupid -- I have questioned your view point --that does not make me stupid. It's funny how when you've run out of arguments the only thing you can come up with is ---well you're just stupid. Enjoy your sad pathetic life of dooming others, when you could be more tolerant and open and perhaps actually learn something. Good day!

• March 13, 2006

  9:19 AM

  Peter writes:

  Isn't this just another form of codifying discrimination into the workings of state and local governments? If fees were qualized for everyone it would be more equitable. Put THAT money towards Domestic Abuse, Spousal Abuse and Child Abuse and other Human Rights issues. Aren't the legislators providing funds for only gays in the current bill? Why aren't the religious activists up in arms about specialized funding for only defending gays? Such hypocracy its shameful.

• March 13, 2006

  9:32 AM

  stimpy writes:

  I don't get it: The Bible has a far bigger issue with adultery, but I don't see people trying to send adulterers to jail. Somehow homosexuality is mentioned a few times, and that requires changing the Constitution, etc???

• March 13, 2006

  9:34 AM

  JB writes:

  Wow-
  What a horrible thread to stumble on to while reading my morning paper. I don't know why you all continue to argue this. Those on the far right, who use the bible to justify their beliefs come from a long line of people who have justified prejudice and ignorance in the name of God. You will never convince them otherwise. The believe that the current translations are ner-perfect, even though nothing could be further from the truth -- they claim that they will have the last laugh as everyone else is condemned to hell and the are in heaven. But let me ask you, would a truley Righteous man enjoy this, and continue to use a catch phrase like "Left Out of Heaven?" Let's face facts, true Christians know that one of the most fundemental lessons of the New Testement is tolenance and forgiveness, so even if homosexuality were a sin, it should be one that is to be forgiven. Remember, "may he who has no sin cast the first stone." We are also taught in the New Testement that no one sin is considered worse than another and are all shunned by God equally -- therefore your sin of judgement and Pride is just as eggregious as the sin of homosexuality. But, as I said, there is no sense in arguing with these folks, so I choose to disregard them outright as right-wing-nutjobs who are probably stockpiling weapons and training with their local militia, while flying the confederate flag and making sure their lynching plan is complete (not so nice being judged is it?) That said, throughout time people have used religion to justify horrifying acts, and history has taught that they simply cannot be reasoned with.

• March 13, 2006

  9:58 AM

  Tim writes:

  Funny how this thread has degenerated into the most shameless of name-calling on both sides.

  This doesn't seem like much news to me. I guess if I were pursuing one of these unions I might be upset that I have to pay $42.00 more, but this is a once-in-a-lifetime event, theoretically. Plus, homosexuals statistically are one of the most affluent groups in this country -- they tend to have an average income of double that of heterosexuals. Last year they didn't even have the right in this state to get unions -- now they do, and they're crying about $42.00? Maybe it's wrong, but I just don't see what the big deal is one way or the other.

• March 13, 2006

  10:03 AM

  L writes:

  Remember we are still in the times where men and women are working the same job, yet the men are making more money. So it's no wonder they would ask more for gay couples. We live in a backward society.

• March 13, 2006

  10:17 AM

  Tom writes:

  $42?big deal. I still don?t think that gay couples should be able to be married. Less than 1% of the population is considered to be gay, and until just a few years ago, homosexuality was considered to be a sexual deviance in the psychology profession. Political correctness has labeled being gay an ?in? thing, when in reality it isn?t.

  I personally don?t care what people do in their own bedrooms. I have gay friends, and they understand my position. Just because I oppose gay marriage/unions, don?t make me a bigot or whatever else is cleaver at the time.

  I simply don?t think that a sexual deviance should be labeled normal or mainstream. Also, I don?t think that gay people ought to be able to adopt children either. Here?s why, we?ll assume this:

  - Being gay is not a choice.
  - Homosexuality physiologically cannot bare children.

  
  With these two assumptions homosexual couples physically/naturally cannot have children. In the natural world only a female and male can procreate to spawn children. As Jean Rousseau said in Emile, ?In the union of the sexes each alike contributes to the common end, but in different ways?I grant you this is not the law of love, but it is the law of nature, which is older than love itself.?

  Being gay is OK, but don?t expect to be embraced as a normal entity in society.
  

• March 13, 2006

  10:45 AM

  Tom writes:

  Codified discrimination?I guess somebody can call certain laws and social norms that. Consider this, NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) wants the ?right? to be able to love who they choose. They believe that, as they say, ?NAMBLA's membership is open to everyone sympathetic to personal freedom. Our goal is to end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen, mutually consensual relationships.?

  OK?so where do we as a society draw the line on personal freedoms and societal responsibilities? Should a man be able to love whomever they choose?

  No.

  Should a 14 year old boy be able to love whoever they choose?

  No.

  Should two grown men be able to enter a loving bond together?

  Of course.

  Should gay unions/marriages be allowed.

  No.

  Here?s why. In our Western European based culture the institution of marriage is based in religious tradition. Much of the gay legitimization attempts are based in historic documents, but those are also confused with an era that supported pedophilia.

  No matter, in modern times marriage has been accepted as between a man and a woman. Society has to have a standard for normalcy. Gay marriages are not that. I believe that gay marriage/unions are an attempt for the gay community to be fully accepted into mainstream society, but by their very nature, they are not and cannot be considered to be such.

  The argument of ?stripped of natural rights? was brought into context here. Kat said that she hopes that one day we are stripped of our natural rights. Kit isn?t as astute in her logic as she hopes, because we as a society have in fact had that happen, and daily.

  We are taxed from our labor, we are stripped of our natural right to defend ourselves with a gun, we are forced to pay a tax on where we live, and we no longer can voice our opinion without it being considered a hate crime. That?s just the tip of the iceberg.

  As I said before...I don?t care what a person does, just don?t expect for those actions to be considered normal.

  
  

• March 13, 2006

  11:29 AM

  Stevan writes:

  For those who subscribe to what the Bible says, don't forget: Let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone.

• March 13, 2006

  11:40 AM

  Yaakov Watkins writes:

  Stupid law. It discriminates against family members for no apparent reason. There are genetic reasons to disapprove of incest. But forbidding incestuous gay domestic partners is ridiculous.

  Unless of course, one wants to cite religious reasons.

• March 13, 2006

  12:25 PM

  I Still Believe! writes:

  Oh JB, how you fall into the traps:

  The New Testament never uses the word 'tolerant'. But so many who don't agree with the Bible become experts by pointing out that it does. Go figure.

  What you should say is that Jesus said to love one another. Fine. But He also very clearly pointed out the sin in people's lives. He condemned the religious leaders of His time expecially. But not just for what was in their hearts, but because they didn't point out the truth of sin in others.

  Yes, homosexuality is a sin and should be forgiven....WHEN the sinner acknowledges and repents of their sin. Unfortunately for all you non-reading Bible 'scholars', your interpretation that people should just ignore other people's behavior (and thus help corrupt others around them) stems from putting yourself in the place of God, i.e.. if it were up to you, this is how God should do it. But that's not the way it is. He's God and you're not.

  Funny, WHO really casts the first stone? The gay community has been shoving their beliefs down the general public throats brilliantly since that book came out in '89. Amongst their many strategies is to continually paint anyone who has the slightest question about their behavior as intolerant bigots. You can't even have a calm debate or conversation about the subject w/o that being thrown in one's face (believe me I've tried).

  Something else interesting...you and others like you continually bash Bible believing Christians with the accusation that they select a few verses to go crazy about, ie, the verses regarding homosexuality. YET, you and others always select a few verses yourselves to justify your argument. If you are going to use the source too, you need to consider the whole source, not just pick out those lovely verses that you like. I believe this is called hypocrisy on your part.

  Finally, you are wrong that pointing out the truth (as opposed to arguing as you claim) will NEVER change anyones mind. I was 20 before becoming a believer in Jesus. Before that I loved arguing w/Christians and trying to upset them. Even took great joy in making some of 'em cry with my vicious attacks. But instead of running away and hiding under a cloak of political correctness or some other such silliness, they kept talking to me. Remember, the shepherd went looking for the one lost sheep and left the other 99 behind. The arguments are worth it if one poor homosexual sinner realizes the wrongness of his/her ways and turns from them.

  May you also have the veil of blindness lifted from your eyes......

• March 13, 2006

  12:30 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Kat,

  I'm sorry to call you stupid.

  Obviously you are just a dumb broad.

• March 13, 2006

  12:54 PM

  Stevan writes:

  Tom, with your reasoning as given:

  Being gay is not a choice.
  - Homosexuality physiologically cannot bare children.

  infertile couples fit into this category. I guess they will never be "embraced as a normal entity in society." So sad. Of course, couples who "choose" not to have children will be accepted as "normal."

• March 13, 2006

  1:35 PM

  Tom writes:

  The issue that rises with gay couples adopting children isn’t the act of love, or bestowing love to a child. The act of parenting is to provide a child with the tools necessary to function in normal life whatever that life is that they choose to have.

  Considering that most of the people in the United States are born into a traditional family (although this is declining due to a decay in morality), they are traditionally raised by a man and woman.

  This is important for two reasons. The first is that the child knows how to function between the sexes. The child is socialized by each parent and the family unit. A gay couple by definition lacks one or the other sex based parent. Two dads, no mom. Two moms, no dad. Now a favorite is a gay dad, a gay mom, sharing the child…sharing that replicates a broken home.

  Secondly, the child is not shown a normal family. Two dads, two moms…whatever…is not a normal family. You can try to argue that two dads and two moms may be good enough, but it isn’t. Its still selfish people trying to normalize/legitimize a relationship based in sexual perversions.

  Im not against gay people, but there are some places some people have no business going, one of them is marriage and the adoption of children regarding homosexuality. Im not telling anybody (except NAMBLA) that they cant love or enter a contract with anybody, but the limits are what is best for the child, the long sense of society, and that’s it.

  I as a man have no business going into a womens locker room. Maybe I should, equality between the sexes…right.

  As a white man I have no business entering a Miss Black USA. Maybe I should, equality between the sexes and races…right.

  As a married man I should be able to marry 14 other women. Maybe I should, the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

  Where do you draw the line?

  I draw it here. If I don’t it’s the same thing as saying that I support polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, and a host of other freedom issues.

• March 13, 2006

  1:45 PM

  Kevin Jones writes:

  I am getting so sick of the gay rights discussion that I'm ready to start supporting anti-sodomy legislation, Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding.

• March 13, 2006

  1:57 PM

  Friego writes:

  One hugs assumption being made by the funamentalists in this string is that everyone is Christian. WRONG!! There are people of other religions and beliefs who do not subscribe to the teachings of your bible. I guess everyone who doesn't read or live according to biblical teaching is going to hell--whatever that may be. When I die, I will cease to exist except for those friends and gfamily members who wish to keep me alive in their memores.

  It is very, very sad that your god is a hateful god. the god I worship is a loving god, to whom I give thanks for my gift of sexuality (gay).

• March 13, 2006

  2:26 PM

  Jesus writes:

  The Top Ten Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

  10. Homosexuality is not natural. Real people always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
  9. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
  8. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
  7. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still aren’t supposed to marry whites.
  6. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if homosexual marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
  5. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Homosexual couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
  4. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
  3. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in North America.
  2.Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
  1. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

• March 13, 2006

  3:33 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  That was poor 2:26.

  What the real Jesus said was, "Haven't you read, that at the beginning the Creator 'made them MALE AND FEMALE,' and said for this reason a MAN will leave his father and mother and be united with his WIFE, and the two will become one flesh."

  Of course, all those non-reading Bible scholars will dispute that Jesus ever said anything against homosexuality. Oh brother.

• March 13, 2006

  3:44 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  I'm surprised that so many gays and their supporters are surprised that there is all this 'hate' being bandished about here. Where do you folks live? Fantasyland?? It certainly can't be America, or else you would expect some opposition.

  No, this IS America. You know, the country that was established with the idea that it's people could have "Freedom OF Religion" not "Freedom FROM Religion." As such, those folks have every right to voice their opinion, even if is full of faith based views.

  But again, what do you expect? That everyone will just roll over and accept you for what you choose to be? I don't. I am a Christian. That is a choice I made. Do I expect everyone to agree with me? No way (as proven by a lot of comments here). Do I expect them to respect everything I say? No way. Do I expect them to respect me as an individual? Are U Kidding me!? It would be nice, but to expect it is just plain silly. Do I expect some to oppose me. You bet I do. Do I expect some to hate me. Absolutely.

  The fact is, I choose that path. But, I don't expect you all to get my point either. Is too bad.

• March 13, 2006

  3:48 PM

  Sal writes:

  Interesting that the word "homosexual" did not appear in any version of the bible until the early 1900s. By that time, Jesus Christ had been dead for 1900 years! Another example of "scholars" interpreting things to fit their needs. And for those of you who claim homosexuality is a choice: With the reasoning, heterosexuality would also be a choice. When did YOU decide to be hetero?

• March 13, 2006

  5:07 PM

  Jack writes:

  > I am getting so sick of the gay rights discussion that I'm ready to start supporting anti-sodomy legislation

  I know how you feel, Kevin. I'm so sick of black rights discussion that I'm ready to start supporting anti-interracial-marriage laws.
  

• March 13, 2006

  5:28 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Give me a break 3:48. A child is born a boy, you know its a boy. A child is born a girl, you know its a girl. A child is born black, the child is black. A child is born Asian, you know it is Asian.

  There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that a person is born a homosexual. But because you think its right, you make it so.

  Some things are so simple I guess you just can't see from high up in that ivory tower.

• March 13, 2006

  5:41 PM

  Jack writes:

  > "... at the beginning the Creator 'made them MALE AND FEMALE,' and said for this reason a MAN will leave his father and mother and be united with his WIFE, and the two will become one flesh."

  How terrible that people like you even exist. You're quoting a religious text, something you believe in (which is fine) but many others don't, and you want to limit the freedoms of others because of your religious beliefs.

  That might fly in a country not founded by victims of religious persecution, but not here. Just come right out and say it: you believe religious freedom is wrong.
  

• March 13, 2006

  6:27 PM

  Ribs writes:

  Yes it is just. Gays refuse to accept that on a strictly human level, their lifestyle is second class. They should subsidize their own thin skinned, wounded feelings lawsuits.

• March 13, 2006

  6:34 PM

  Jack writes:

  > Gays refuse to accept that on a strictly human level, their lifestyle is second class.

  Just like some blacks refused to accept that their race was second class.
  

• March 13, 2006

  6:47 PM

  Gay Man writes:

  I am so sick of these gay bashing postings. If you are against gay marriage then don't do it. The only men that are afraid of gay men are the ones that are not sure they are 100% straight themselves. Get a life and stay out of ours. Oh, and stop hiding behind the bible to back up your hatred. Not all of us believe in your bible...

• March 13, 2006

  6:58 PM

  Jim Rath writes:

  So, what happened to the belief that God created us all in His image and that God doesn't make mistakes? I believe in God and He believes in Me. Oh, yes, I am gay. Why? Because He made me that way. And I have two kids who love me as I am, not as some bible-thumpers say I should be.

• March 14, 2006

  9:16 AM

  David writes:

  I see it this way. Everyone should pay the same for benefits. Everyone should have the same rights. Maybe the legislation should be to remove marriage from the constitution and law. maybe marriage should just be left to the religious sects and let them decide what is a recognized union by their own religion. This should not even be a government issue in this day and age.

• March 14, 2006

  9:32 AM

  Jon writes:

  In 1 corinthians 6:9 arsenokoitai is the greek word which has been translated sodomite or homosexual. Here is the translation of the word "arsenokoitai". The principle elements of the word are as follows: "arsen" meaning "male" or "man", "o" the combining form of compound words in Greek, "koite", meaning "couch", and "ai" the Greek masculine ending (the singular being "arsenokoites").
  The stem "koit" in Greek comes down to modern English via Latin in the word "coitus", with it's meaning unchanged. Hence, the literal translation of "arsenokoites" is "he who couches men". It is a reference to those who have sexual relations with men.

  Biblical scholars throughout history have come to the conclusion that Paul was speaking of the act of homosexuality.

  I do not believe in Gay bashing, Adultery bashing or Fornication bashing. But neither do I think that any of these behaviors are normal nor should they be encouraged.

  People lie and cheat and steal and hate and any number of other sins. They are not normal bahaviors either and they should not be encouraged either.

  Society functions best when all that is sin is discouraged, and all the is right is encouraged.

• March 14, 2006

  9:33 AM

  Tom writes:

  “Get a life and stay out of ours.” I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately I have to deal with gay people now wanting to adopting children and get married. These two items alone were reserved for straight, normal relationships.

  Now the gay community wants to get involved into our lives by asking for these things. I don’t care what people do..I really don’t. If you want to smoke pot in your own home with money that you earned…go ahead. If you want to stay at home and have sex with another man…go ahead…it’s your home.

  If you want me to legitimize your relationship at the same level as my wife and mine…I wont…because it isn’t.

  Consider this, a Constitutional ban is in the works to debunk gay marriage. Why…simple…1% of the population is gay and people are tired of hearing about gay issues.

  People should be focusing on over taxation, abolishing affirmative action, and forcing the rule of law to be upheld rather than whining about the legitimization of gay relationships.

  As a married man I don’t want to be n a category of Will and Grace because normalcy is reserved for me, my normal actions, not a sexual pervert.
  

• March 14, 2006

  9:38 AM

  T writes:

  If you choose your sexuality or who to love and can not be protected under American rights because you "choose it", why can you be protected under American rights when you choose your religion? Isn't it the same thing? Gay marriage is between two consenting adults who claim to love one another. Who can that possibly hurt? Is rape okay since it is usually between a man and woman? Is it okay for an adult male to have sex with an underage female? The last two scenarios hurt people. The first one doesn't. Jesus said to love one another without a "clarification". Hurting one another and being the one who judges others is a "no no" to Jesus. Allowing gays to marry changes nothing for straight people. Nothing.

• March 14, 2006

  9:43 AM

  T2 writes:

  If a man and woman have exclusive rights to marriage, then would it be okay if I, as a female, had a sex change and then married another female? Would that be normal now? I guess so. Do we rank heterosexual marriages differently? I don't think other religions and their marriage ceremonies are as "normal" and acceptable as mine either. I wonder if I can get that written into our constitution...hhmmm...

• March 14, 2006

  9:46 AM

  Heather writes:

  Wow...now I remember why I stopped being a Christian when I was 20! Christians, as a whole, are the biggest group of hypocritical, hateful people I have ever come across. Calling someone a dumb broad on a discussion board? That is SO loving and Christian! Jesus's love is just pouring over me now, hallelujah!
  Seriously though, the people who claim to be Christian that have posted here are absolute morons. The thing about being a right-wing fundamentalist asshole is that you need to shun education, live in a concocted fantasy world, and ignore the plight of the poor and weary in order to do some good old fashioned fag-bashing! That's spreading God's love for sure! While we're at it, why don't we cover up for some pedophile priests (gotta love those Catholics!) and be racist assholes like the southern Baptists! Or we can be money-grubbing whores like Dobson and crew! Praise the Lord, hallelujah!
  Gay people are born the way they are and science has proven that (oh I forgot, Christians hate science because they have to actually think and it hurts their little brains). And I don't recall waking up one day and saying "I think I'll be straight", I was born straight. I have noticed that gay-hating Christians all have one thing in common - they don't actually know any gay people! They never, ever sit down and ask a gay person about who they are and where they are coming from.
  And chicken s**t poster who calls women dumb broads - I'm pretty sure you are, deep down, really attracted to men. Does your wife know? Or maybe you just can't get it up and you are just super frustrated because you don't feel like a "real" man. I noticed you keep mentioning NAMBLA obsessively, is it possible that you, deep down, like little boys? I mean, you are really, really obsessed with it. Last time I checked, not a single gay person I have ever known has molested any kids so the gay=NAMBLA argument - don't buy it. I am convinced that Christians like to peek their noses into other's bedrooms because their own sex lives are so boring and lacking that they don't have anything better to do than fantasize about other people's. I still haven't heard any so-called Christians posting here answer any questions about adultery. Are you planning on introducing a ballot question this year that outlaws divorce and pre-marital sex? To jail single mothers, since those damn whores just can't seem to keep their legs closed? I mean, if you are a REAL Christian, why haven't I seen any bills going through the legislature to outlaw these sinful things? Oh right - forgot, because you are hypocrites and it's easier to bash gays than single mothers since there are fewer of them to attack.
  But then, I guess I'm a sinner who's going to hell, which sounds much more inviting than being in heaven with a bunch of complete idiots. But then again, hell is another fantasy concocted by the religious wrong to scare people into believing what they do since they can't get intelligent, educated, thinking people to "come to the flock" on the basis of one 2,000 year old book that is one among many, many religious texts, and I guess we're just supposed to swallow that (oh wait, that would involve turning my brain off, once again. There goes my master's degree!).
  If America falls like Rome, it will be because your idiot president ran this country into the ground (on the Christian principles of tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the poor and unending war, because Jesus was all about outsourcing, capital gains, bombs, and tax cuts for the wealthy, he talked about it all the time in the bible!), not because some gay dudes hook up. Personally, I can't WAIT until "The Rapture" comes, because then all the fundies will dissapear and the rest of us can live happily ever after.
  Praise the Lord! Hallelujah! Thank GOD I'm not a Christian.

• March 14, 2006

  10:11 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  > Unfortunately I have to deal with gay people now wanting to adopting children and get married. These two items alone were reserved for straight, normal relationships.

  You also have to "deal with" mixed-race couples wanting to adopt children and get married. Guess what? Giving them the same right you take for granted took nothing away from you.

  > If you want me to legitimize your relationship at the same level as my wife and mine I wont because it isn�t.

  If you mean it's not legalized in your country now, that's a circular argument. If you mean your religion forbids it, it's irrelevant, because different people have different beliefs; the only way you'd want to make something not legal just because it's against your religion is if you don't believe in religious freedom.

  > Consider this, a Constitutional ban is in the works to debunk gay marriage. Why? simple 1% of the population is gay and people are tired of hearing about gay issues.

  No, it's because those in power (who happen to be christian) know it's a popular viewpoint - because of people like you - and they care nothing for religious viewpoints other than theirs either.

  And should we have stopped talking about racism because some people were sick of it? Here's another idea - stop the discrimination, so there will be nothing to talk about.

  > People should be focusing on over taxation, abolishing affirmative action, and forcing the rule of law to be upheld rather than whining about the legitimization of gay relationships.

  If you were prohibited from marrying, would you not care about it because of all those other issues?

  And remember, the law can be wrong. Slavery was legal. Would you have said the same to the people "whining" about slavery?
  

• March 14, 2006

  4:21 PM

  Laurent writes:

  Convincing the religious is akin to trying to turn a stripped and rusted bolt on a machine no one has any use for. They can live in their little world as long as we get to live in ours. Besides, what's normal is a matter of perspective, and 10-20 years from now, more and more people will consider gay relationships normal, even if they do manage to pass this waste of ink called "The Defense of Marriage Act" we all know is nothing more than an attempt to bring back the sodomy laws.

• March 17, 2006

  10:33 AM

  Dustin Stambaugh writes:

  If you don't like gay relationships, move to Israel with all the other religious fanatics. This country is founded on the principal of choice and non goverment involvement in those choices. Doesn't matter if you are gay, straight, bi, black, mexican, chinese, or any other type of minority.

  Now, let us take a moment to look at some other things happening while we waste our time arguing about gay marraige: men/women are dying in Iraq, Bush and Co. is suppressing our rights to information and privacy, jobs and tax money are going to foreign labor and immigrants, and kids are shooting up schools and each other.

  We are wasting our time on an issue that doesn't effect the important things in life. Gay marraige is not going to tear apart the country; but an economic collapse will. Let us put our priorities in the right place and accomplish some real tasks that would improve the lives of everyone.

• March 18, 2006

  12:49 PM

  Jack writes:

  > If you don't like gay relationships, move to Israel with all the other religious fanatics.

  Israel has many religious fanatics, but they are by no means the majority. Perhaps one of the Arab countries, where homosexuality is a crime, would be a better example.

  > We are wasting our time on an issue that doesn't effect the important things in life.

  Again: This may not be important for you; it is important for others. If you were the one not permitted to marry, would you not mind because there are other issues? Should women not have cared about being unable to vote because they were other problems facing the country then?
  

• September 29, 2006

  10:55 AM

  Nwuskiqigpo writes:

  pregnant group sex gay black group sex pictures