Ridiculous.

Joe- thanks for weighing in…. I definitely agree with your comments. Interesting hypothetical actually.

The commenting back and forth is only a joke if those involved are not open minded to listen to the other side. That’s doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting different results. And Einstein said that was the “definition of insanity”.

I was actually giving the hypothetical of a man’s rights being stripped, not a woman’s, but it’s the same argument. What if I had said Christians voting to remove voting rights of non-Christians? Or Non-Christians voting to remove Christians rights? Surely both are just as heinous.

At one point a black/white couple could not marry. It was “immoral”. The courts changed this, legally. Church’s were not required to marry black/white couples as a result of this (but may do today).

It’s fine that you believe as a Christian that marriage (in your Church) should be between a man and a woman. But LEGALLY, 2 people should be able to form a partnership that protects their assets, death benefits, tax benefits, heath decision making, etc.

I appreciate that for you it’s a black and white issue. For may Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc it is not. The Bible is open to interpretation (I’m sure it was used as a reason against black/white marriages.)

My favorite from the Bible is Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You. I’d allow others to marry whom they wanted so I could marry whom I wanted to.

Put another way, your right extend up until the point they infringe upon mine. I don’t see same sex LEGAL marriage infringing on RELIGIOUS opposite sex marriages. Again, if the word marriage is the issue, change the religious or the legal word.

Thanks for reading this.

1. Either the government should issue “marriage” licenses to all couples equally or to none. Period. If you don’t like the term, move to have all issued licenses called “domestic union” license (or whatever term doesn’t offend you). Each church can honor (or not) these as it chooses (I’m sure some will and some won’t and that’s fine.). That’s the separation of church and state. An examplr along these lines is that the Catholic Church doesn’t “honor” legal divorces. (You have to get an annulment through the church for the Catholic Church to see your marriages as at an end.)

2. Doesn’t the simple majority rule to pass a proposition (in California) seem wrong when dealing with civil rights? Here’s a Hypothetical: If 51% of the population of California were women and they decided to get a Prop “W” on the ballot defining a voter as a biological female, and all of the women voted for the measure (51% of the populace) then a man’s right to vote would be removed. Surely the ability for any % of the populace to be able to remove another groups rights is ridiculous. Either it is a right, or it is not.

I realize you will argue that that marriage isn’t a right (even though the California constitution expanded that right to include gays, at least temporarily), but why shouldn’t any two people be able to form a legal partnership that protects their joint property, finances, health care decision making, etc.? If you don’t like the term “marriage”, fine, change it for all. We’re confusing the legal with the church. They may both use the same term, but neither requires/forces the other to honor their “marriage”.

Just my 2 cents.

Again, you comments don’t address the issue. Did you think about having your voting rights rescinded? Would it be juvenile to fight to keep them?

Also, you don’t have valid points except that I would agree there is no excuse for harassment or violence… towards ANYONE…. but, in defense of the protesters, I have to say I understand and have the same frustration.

We can and will fight for change… it is far from juvenile. Food for thought: a proposition to take away a woman’s right to vote is passed in Idaho… would it be juvenile to fight for your right to keep it?

SO, THE END = JUST THE BEGINNING.