Court halts Calif gay marriages indefinitely pending appeal

That's a bit depressing, but it'll become legal in just a few months unless it's referred to the SCOTUS, then it'll become law of the land. WOW!! < :-)

Good. Someone in CA still has a little sense left.

RR

That's a bit depressing, but it'll become legal in just a few months unless it's referred to the SCOTUS, then it'll become law of the land.

Good, then maybe they guy in bookkeeping will shut the hell up about injustice and what not. By and large I couldn't care less but the homosexuals in Ferndale and around where I live are so annoying I find myself wishing it would just get legalized so they can go on being miserable like the rest of us. Two roads diverged in a yellow wood and I choose the one (hopefully) quieter gay people.

So much fuss about nothing. Once they can marry they will want the next "obstacle" to their happiness/progress/lifestyle/whatever removed.

adaydream, it will be so darned funny if your prediction comes true! It will be hard to resist the urge of rubbing that in some people's faces!

Rights need no court to support them. They're not given and taken away by monarchs as of old. So much for a Republican Democracy!

"It will be hard to resist the urge of rubbing that in some people's faces!"

That's below the belt, on this topic at least.

The 9th Circuit tend to be the most liberal of the Court of Appeals. Don't be surprised, at the end, they'd still rule against the ban.

Madverts why is this below the belt?

"It will be hard to resist the urge of rubbing that in some people's faces!"

I see that people have been keeping gays from getting married for a long time because "they" don't think it's right. But why should gays be stopped from marrying because a bunch of zealots believe differently. These zealots rule the country, huh? I hope it slaps them real hard. < :-)

Thank God. How can a society mix up the definition of marriage? It is between the opposite sexes. As for rights for other people who are dependent on each other, I am all for it. Orientation is a non-issue.

Rights need no court to support them. They're not given and taken away by monarchs as of old. So much for a Republican Democracy!

There has never been a right for Homosexuals to get married. And, if rights come from god, as the founders believed, its even less likely. If however you think homosexuality is ok, and are intolerant of others views, then your wish for harm to those who disagree with you is, perhaps understandable.

The argument the courts will have to decide is whether same-sex attraction and activity is a conduct or a status. If it is conduct, it doesn't fall under the equal protections. If it is status, then it does. The argument that it is status is that people are born with their sexual preference. If that is the case, then pedophiles will have a case saying they are born with the attraction to pre-pubescent children.

Look for the courts to rule that being a homosexual is a conduct.

RR

" If that is the case, then pedophiles will have a case saying they are born with the attraction to pre-pubescent children."

I'm sorry but the fanatics in the anti-gay crowd have for far too long tried to equate homosexuality to paedophilia. This makes your argument seem pathetic, whithout touching on the documented research between homophobia and latent-homosexuality.

Let them get married for pete's sake. Concentrate on more pressing issues, like the economic mess you're in or the un-employment.....

There was a lot of rights that have to be defined. The rights of men, women, blacks, whites, handicapped, etc to receive equal rights. There was never a right for women to vote till it was defined and legislated then amended. There should not need to be a defined right that allows gays to marry, but it'll be done. < :-)

Interesting. If this this goes all the way to the Supreme Court and the Justices decide there is a constitutional right to gay marraige, then it will mean gay marraige everywhere, not merely California.

Triumvere, that's what I'm hoping for. < :-)

I'm sorry but the fanatics in the anti-gay crowd have for far too long tried to equate homosexuality to paedophilia. This makes your argument seem pathetic, whithout touching on the documented research between homophobia and latent-homosexuality.

It is the same thing. Homosexuals claim they are born that way, and that because they are homosexual, they cannot be expected to be normal. Pedophiles are essentially the same. The difference of course is one of consent. However if Homosexuals are born gay, and not simply giving in to abnormal tendencies, then you essentially have to say the same thing is true of Pedophiles. If a Homosexual can't help it, then is a pedophile any different? Its a slippery slope here, and not just on the issue of homosexuality. If the state cannot say that deviant marriages are not ok, then under the equal protection clause, can the state say anything deviant marriage is not acceptable? If so, then they are also overturning polygamy.

Interesting. If this this goes all the way to the Supreme Court and the Justices decide there is a constitutional right to gay marraige, then it will mean gay marraige everywhere, not merely California.

On the other hand, if they rule against it, it means its not required anywhere.

Moderator: Readers, no more references to pedophiles please. It is a completely different issue.

Molenir; "deviant", "abnormal", are you for real? I doubt many homosexuals would wish to be born that way. Many suffer because of their sexuality and calling it disgusting names and mentioning similarities to peadophiles is something i would expect to hear from a lunatic extremist preacher that normal people laugh at.

There is nothing wrong with gay marriage. It isn`t catching.

I can see that we're going to have some really disappointed people when it's decided that gays have the right to marry. They have been so comforted for years because they have resisted the rights that should have been given to gays decades ago. < :-)

Molenir; "deviant", "abnormal", are you for real? I doubt many homosexuals would wish to be born that way. Many suffer because of their sexuality and calling it disgusting names and mentioning similarities to peadophiles is something i would expect to hear from a lunatic extremist preacher that normal people laugh at.

Thank you for your opinion. Apparently though you don't know what the definition of either 'deviant' or 'abnormal' is. Both descriptions are correct. Homosexuality is deviant behavior. That is, behavior that differs from the norm. This is what makes it abnormal. Thats not offering moral judgements, thats simply stating reality. Now if I was going around calling people fags, or something, you might have a valid complaint.

Likewise the similarities you fear. That also is simple reality. However I'm not going to go into this again, as the Mods have already requested no more on the subject.

From my own religious point of view, I think that homosexuality is wrong. People are born with various desires and tendencies. Our overcoming them is what makes us people, rather then just animals. The effort to make people who have chosen to live a homosexual lifestyle, who have essentially given in to those urges, socially acceptable, is not a good thing. No, its not good to go around insulting them, or condemning them, any more then I would a drunk, or an adulterer. I pity them for the mistake I believe they have made, however when it comes down to it, its their life, and their choice. And as long as people are consenting, and no one else is hurt, its their choice. That said, I think that trying to make deviant behavior socially acceptable is a bad idea. Since that is really what the gay marriage debate is all about, I'll leave it at that.

I can see that we're going to have some really disappointed people when it's decided that gays have the right to marry. They have been so comforted for years because they have resisted the rights that should have been given to gays decades ago. < :-)

I know you hate to hear this, but every single homosexual has the same rights as the rest of us. The right to marry a person of the opposite sex. They don't wish to do this, but that is their choice. You are hoping to see an additional right created, specifically for them. That is, the right to marry someone of the same gender.

In my opinion, which is worth about the same amount that your does, is that homosexual tendencies are normal for some and abnormal for others. A gay man wouldn't expect you to be gay or comfortable with it, no different then should a homosexual feel comfortable living as a heterosexual. It's a natural instinct and you either accept it or you can fight the tendency. Some win, some fail.

People are born with instincts, no different then animals are. Because some one like yourself wants to turn it into a sin, that is on you. Just because it's wrong to you doesn't make it wrong. < :-)

Just another manufactured wedge issue to get everybody worked up and fighting each other. Let people argue about things that don't matter so they don't notice the things that do.

At the end of the day it makes no difference to anybody else's life if a gay couple is legally married or not. Only that for some people it means there is something happening that they don't like. Oh my God, it is abnormal!!! Society making and imposing value judgments on what is or isn't abnormal is not a basis for making laws, it is just the tyranny of the majority.

"Only that for some people it means there is something happening that they don't like."

It's deeper rooted than that in my opinion, with scientific tests proving a vast majority of homophobes are actually latent homosexuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_homosexuality

So much so, the more pathetic amongst us would couple sexual preference with the sickness of paedophilia. (see above)

The whole damned human race is "deviant".

I feel sorry for these gay couples who want to get married. They thought they were going to get married this week, but now they'll have to wait until December to have sex.

"They thought they were going to get married this week, but now they'll have to wait until December to have sex."

Most adults, straight or gay these days are having sex long before marriage.

"Most adults, straight or gay these days are having sex long before marriage."

That's not good, is it?

"That's not good, is it?"

My first question would be who are you or I to decide what other people do?

But I know the right-wing crowd prefer, like in the case of gay marriage, to deny that right to individuals they are afraid of.

We're not afraid of gays, we don't care if they want to live together and have sex, all we want to do is preserve our institution of marriage. What is so hard to understand about that?

Sarge, Why are gays so threatening to your marriage? Do gays threaten your masculinity, do they make you feel uneasy being with a woman, huh? You and other posters here on JT whine and cry about how gay marriage threatening the institution of marriage. Explain how? < :-)