Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Place An Ad | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Voters have spoken on same-sex marriage

March 24, 2013

DEAR EDITOR: Why in California do the citizens have no rights when it comes to same-sex marriage? They voted against the proposal and yet the Supreme Court has the right to overturn this issue....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(188)

MD1533USMC

Mar-24-13 3:58 AM

Agree! The majority should rule!

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DoubleDipper

Mar-24-13 7:03 AM

You better get used to it! (Statement from a proud log cabin Republican.)

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WarrenProud

Mar-24-13 7:15 AM

These Republican Same-Sex Marriage Laws are all unconstitutional. They discriminate against Americans who have an alternate lifestyle. Just like the Jim Crow Laws discriminated against blacks for generations, these laws need to be ended as well. Majorities should not rule when it comes to discrimination - think back to Hitler and his persecution of the Jews during WWII. People have a right to live the way they want in this country.

3 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DoubleDipper

Mar-24-13 7:49 AM

It always has been my observation in life that those that sound off the loudest against the gay community turn out to be the ones that are the least secure in their own identity. I certainly don't care who loves another consenting adult and neither should anyone else. (Food for thought.) My comment for Mr.Collins would be "what have you really been doing the past thirty years?

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Daniel

Mar-24-13 8:05 AM

Agreed Jim!

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Mar-24-13 8:27 AM

A person cannot believe in the American system of government and believe that the majority always rules at the same time. Such narrow thinking would allow a state to enact legislation that would violate the rights granted under the U.S. Constitution. That is why the courts have struck down laws that prohibited bi-racial marriages for example. It would be a very frightening country indeed that allowed the majority of it's citizens to dictate what freedoms the minority citizens are allowed to have.

6 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Mar-24-13 9:39 AM

You are wrong about that resistance, I'm about as liberal as it gets BUT I would be just as opposed to a citizen referendum on 30 round magazines as I would be of a citizen referendum to limit any other area of the U.S. Constitution. I believe in the referendum process BUT not when constitutional issues are at stake.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

XWarren

Mar-24-13 9:41 AM

Another issue brought to us by the gov't dept. of diversity (everybody gets free cheese unless you're straight, white, and pay taxes).

The real issue is not gay marriage, it's quota numbers and a bunch of fat gov't checks for newly created federal, state, and local gov't. Offices of Gay Affairs.

In addition to business being required to hire X blacks, X women,and X spanish speaking white people (the new invented group called hispanic), you now will need to hire X gays or face severe gov't penalties.

Let them get married. Just don't give any of the affirmative action goodies that is the real reason for this effort.

If things get much worse for United States born straight white men and women, I see a day in the not too distant future when they'll all be identifying themselves as homosexuals of Mexican descent.

How will the gov't quota queens prove they aren't?

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Mar-24-13 9:48 AM

In my view MM you can own 30 round, or 100 round ammunition magazines so long as the supreme court agrees that those magazines are protected by virtue of the Second Amendment. They, the Supreme Court, are the proper avenue to interpret the intent of the U.S. Constitution. If the Citizens do not agree with the interpretation then a Constitution amendment is the avenue available.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

liemonger

Mar-24-13 10:32 AM

" They, the Supreme Court, are the proper avenue to interpret the intent of the U.S. Constitution"

Sure as heck isn't simpletons like her.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

imback2cu

Mar-24-13 10:36 AM

WP..I wish we had the right to live the way we wanted to "in this country". But if you are a white boy you probably can't and if you are over fifty and white ahhh forget it. Affirmative action has seen to it that us whities just ain't goin' get to live like we want to. Unless of course you are a privileged white guy then the game changes slightly; but their are still quota's.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

imback2cu

Mar-24-13 10:38 AM

Let the perverts marry just don't call it marriage because it is NOT and can never be a marriage by definition. Well we could just change the definition to pacify people once again; but it will never make it right.

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mrright

Mar-24-13 11:28 AM

Who would have thought just a few years ago that many Americans would be OK with a boy marrying a boy, Thinking its a marriage. It's not a marriage.

11 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FamilyGuy

Mar-24-13 11:39 AM

With the Progressive agenda, it matters not what the people want nor the Constitutionality of an issue.

It is a matter of imposing the views of the powerful national Progressive caucus on first, good traditional Democratic reps from fly over country and secondly by interpretation of the resulting legislation by an ever increasing number of progressive judges who are determined to legislate from the bench - the Constitution or the will of the citizens be damed.

Have we heard of any ground swell demand for or against gay marriage in our own community or state?

This front burner status is Progressive operating tactics to try to influence the Supreme Court on a California issue. Not an Ohio or a Warren issue.

The 10th amendment would preclude Federal involvement in a state issue.

Seems like we are always getting our shorts in a knot over the over-reaching Congress or Supreme Court getting involved in state issues in spite of the 10th amendment.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Mar-24-13 11:52 AM

Be very careful resistance, If you follow your simplistic view of the second amendment then NO you do not have the right to a ammunition magazine of any size because (1) the Second amendment makes no mention of ammunition magazines and (2) there were NO SUCH THINGS AS AMMUNITION MAGAZINES for almost 100 years after the constitution was written. So if you only read the words you would find that the words DO NOT EXIST. It is in cases like this that the SCOTUS must determine what the intent of the founders was. Verstanzig!

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Mar-24-13 11:56 AM

cleanup, Whether they do or don't burn in hades, or whether such a place even exists is not a Constitutional issue. It is NONE of the Federal Governments business whether a citizen burns in*****or not or to certify the existence of heaven or hell.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Mar-24-13 12:02 PM

God only wrote ONE TIME in all of history. That one time was when HE wrote the Ten Commandments. Using resistance's logic of IT IS IN THE WORDS, then God didn't make homosexuality a sin, MAN DID. God DID make adultery a sin, in writing, however. I truly wonder who it is that is going to burn in hades.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

reallytiredofit

Mar-24-13 12:06 PM

Familyguy, Ever hear of "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness".

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ElusiveMan

Mar-24-13 1:06 PM

The question is were do we draw the line? What's next? Are pedophiles, rapists and murderers going to want their rights to do what they want also? And if we don't like it we would be called a bigot?

And before you tell be there is a big difference, Immoral is immoral. plain and simple. Not every pedophile, rapist or murderers effect me personally, But is sick non the less.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Daniel

Mar-24-13 1:26 PM

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FamilyGuy

Mar-24-13 1:32 PM

reallytiredofit:

"Familyguy, Ever hear of "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness"."

Yup.

It's clearly stated in the second paragraph of THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

Our elected officials have sworn to protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION.

If these elected and appointed officials would just limit the scope of their activities to the actual provisions of the Constitution, we would have many fewer disputes among ourselves.

It's all about a small group of people imposing their will - based on authority they really don't have - on citizens who are just trying to live their lives and don't want any part of this one-size-fits-all Progressive Statist government but don't have the time or the where with all to fight back on the never ending challenges to our freedoms or traditions coming at us from all directions.

We are just getting overwhelmed with "fundamental transformations".

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neversummer

Mar-24-13 1:45 PM

I'm all good with same sex marriage as long as both chicks are really hot.

What I'm against is legislating homosexuality as a protected class.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Daniel

Mar-24-13 1:45 PM

a lot of pedophiles, rapists or murderers pursue their life liberty and happiness. What they do to achieve it does not make it right.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neversummer

Mar-24-13 1:49 PM

Leviticus. Cool. Don't pick and choose what's convenient for you though, live by ALL of Leviticus. I'd love to see that Daniel.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DoubleDipper

Mar-24-13 2:16 PM

A lot of closet cases out there today. I, for one, would not take advantage of marrying another man even when it does become law. All one has to do is look at the divorce rate among so called straights to see that I want no part of legally being tied to someone. Why would I want to be equally as miserable as my married friends and family? No thank you to giving up half my pension, home, savings, and having to pay child support, alimony for a divorce rate that pushes 50 percent.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 188 comments Show More Comments
 
 
 

 

I am looking for: