Town Square

Post a New Topic

CT Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban - one more step

Original post made by SkepticAl on Oct 10, 2008

Another state court sees the light! It will keep happening, state by state.
Web Link

Opponents of gay marriage can only hope that the US Supreme Court will find a compelling reason to ignore the Constitution's "full faith and credit" provision.

Short of religion and tradition, both of which have a long, failing record as legal arguments, there is no compelling legal reason to ban gay marriage, and the Constitution will prevail, as it should.

Frankly, it should already be the case that because gay marriage is legal in some states, it should be recognized by all. I'm sure it will take longer for the court cases, but the march of progress should be evident to all at this point.



Comments (59)

Posted by tj, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 10, 2008 at 11:25 pm

"McCain TV ad raises Obama's links to ex-radical."

Again, reasonable people can disagree on how to define "radical." But if you're going to say that Ayers is merely an ex-radical, even though he apparently hasn't changed his basic views or apologized for his violent past,
I'm a loss how you can ever use "radical right" about people who were never violent at all — and who far less radical than Ayers is today.

I mean pretty much every liberal in America refers to Gingrich-style Republicans as "radicals." If they're radicals, what the hell is Ayers?


Posted by he, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 10, 2008 at 11:30 pm

Austrian far-right leader Joerg Haider was killed in a car accident early today, the national news agency APA reported. It quoted police as saying that Haider died after suffering severe head and chest injuries when the car he was driving went out of control and rolled several times outside the southern city of Klagenfurt. APA said Haider was alone in the car.


I think this is a really funny coincidence.
The Austrian far-fight won a big election victory a few days ago. They wear che tshirts, believe it or not.
Then Austria unveiled a big che statue in vienna.
Now this guy gets killed.
It's just weird, I don't know what to make of it.
One gets the feeling sinister forces are stirring in the land of hitler

Out of control, no doubt, thanks to a little 7.62mm assistance where the rubber meets the road.


Posted by jd, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 10, 2008 at 11:49 pm

"Implications of the New Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Risk-Based Capital Standard," which was co-authored by none other than Joseph Stiglitz. The study's conclusion?
The exposure of the government to the risk that the GSEs [that is, Fannie and Freddie] will become insolvent appears quite low."


Posted by reality, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 10, 2008 at 11:59 pm






US stock prices suffered their worst weekly loss in history on Friday, prompting a pledge from global policymakers to implement an aggressive but broad-brush plan to combat the financial crisis.

Finance ministers and central bankers meeting in Washington said they would use "all available tools" to prevent the failure of any systemically important banks after a day of virtually indiscriminate selling in Asia and Europe and unprecedented volatility in the US.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Oct 11, 2008 at 2:46 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Obviously all government recognition of marriage must cease. When Webster is replaced by the Queen of Hearts, words are no longer relevant.


Posted by wow, a resident of another community
on Oct 11, 2008 at 5:01 am

So on the topic of marriage, let's see...
We've got tj spouting the same discredited smear about terrorism,
We've got he talking about the Austrian fascist party,
We've got jd talking about Fannie and Freddie,
We've got reality talking about the stock market,
and we've got Walter Wallis, who sounds like he's talking in code.

Walter, the Wide Man wants his Birdbath. (That means the money will be in the briefcase under the park bench).


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Oct 11, 2008 at 6:59 am

as long as the unelected courts define what words mean, we are not in a democracy.

may as well have the courts redefine the word "adoption" to mean promising to love and support anyone at any time, regardless of age.

After all, it is my right to adopt anyone I want at any time, regardless of age, isn't it?

It is nobody's business if I adopt a 30 year old, is it?

Oh, wait a sec, we already have the ability to do that..we call it a "contract". But, no matter, I want to change the word "adoption" because society needs to accept that the one I adopted when she was 30 is really my daughter in the same way as society accepts the one I adopted when she was 2 is my daughter.

It is only a word, after all.


Posted by Publius, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 11, 2008 at 7:45 am

Perspective,
Have you read the Federalist Papers? The reason for having courts that are appointed by the executive and confirmed by the legislature is to ensure that they are insulated from the whims of the people.
Sometimes it works better than others.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Oct 11, 2008 at 9:05 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

wow, I write to the expected education of the community where Lewis Carroll is hardly arcane.
Pub, judges sometimes forget they were appointed, not anointed. Do not denigrate the whim of the people since, in the end, that is all that keeps us alive.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 11, 2008 at 9:21 am

There are many people a man is not allowed to marry. A man may not marry his sister, his mother, his aunt, his daughter, his granddaughter, his grandmother, and so on. A man should also not marry someone for the sole reason to get them into this country, or so that they do not have to give testimony in court against him if he is on trial for a crime.

Making a mockery of marriage, as this gay marriage debate is, is lowering the time held beliefs of what is marriage, what is family and what is tradition. You can call an apple an orange if you want, but it is still an apple.

I fully support the gay community having all legal and civil rights withs with their partners as they want. But don't call it marriage, call it civil union, or domestic partnership or spousal coupling, but don't call it marriage. Give them a ceremony, religious blessing and ultimately divorce, but don't call it marriage. It is not marriage and just because the definition may change, it doesn't alter that fact.


Posted by Bruce, a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 11, 2008 at 10:26 am

Doesn't government have more important things to be concerned with than homosexual happiness?

Here in California domestic partners have all the rights of any marriage contract. And make no mistake that marriage is a contract nothing more and nothing less.


Posted by parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 11, 2008 at 1:02 pm

I believe the issue is that the state should not be in the business of "marriage" at all. There are too many people that give the word marriage a religious connotation - and the state is not in the business of religion.

The state is in the business of civil rights and contracts - the wording of the constitution should be changed to refer to civil unions only - in cases of man-woman or same sex. Religions can and should make their own definitions of 'marriage'.

Seems pretty simple.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Oct 11, 2008 at 3:38 pm

This is thought control. In the end, they want you, like Smith, to Love Big Brother. Ungoodthink must go.


Posted by good effort, a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 11, 2008 at 8:19 pm

but you should read your Lewis Carroll more closely. It's Humpty Dumpty who says that words mean precisely what he wants them to mean.


Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of Ventura
on Oct 11, 2008 at 11:28 pm

If voters want to decide that the state should get out of the marriage business, change the terminology, leave it to church, fine by me. (Of course, some churches perform same sex marriages, but whatever). But the courts are saying that traditionalists clinging to semantic distinctions are trying to have a "separate but equal" approach that doesn't pass Constitutional muster.

Those of you who see activist courts here have NEVER defined the compelling LEGAL interest that the court should use in telling one adult why the state should concern itself with the gender of the other non-related adult she or he wishes to marry. It can't be about child-rearing, as the state has never asserted, nor has anyone asked for any prior conditions regarding parenting as part of marriage.

We have compelling state interests that prevent incest and polygamy. There is also no established, protected class of individuals clamoring to make these legal.

So go ahead, someone. Try it: Bob want to get married. Tell me, from a LEGAL standpoint, what is the state's compelling interest in denying Bob the same legal rights as anyone else to choose his own non-related consenting adult partner?

Whining about it just proves you don't like it.
Labeling judges and courts or calling them names is not a convincing argument.
Saying voters want it that way is the same type of argument that has delayed - but never stopped - every prior civil rights issue. All sorts of discrimination have been popular in their time, and eventually the courts recognize that under the well-established principle of judicial review, they have the responsibility to overturn laws that fail to live up to the Constitution.

Twenty years from now, it will seem self-evident even to the stubborn elderly folks that the courts acted logically, and all the shrill warnings will seem like so much misspent hyperventilation. Take a deep breath, relax, and start getting comfortable with the idea. It's good for your blood pressure.


Posted by standards, a resident of Ventura
on Oct 12, 2008 at 8:22 am



Yawn--- if we allow same sex marriage we will have to allow poligamy-- if you want same sex marriage move to Holland,


Posted by Alfred T, a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 12, 2008 at 9:11 am

They are starting on the kids already. A first grade class was taken on a school field trip to a same sex marriage this Friday:

Web Link

So the ads were just fear mongering huh? Web Link

Wow, the election isn't even here yet and they can't wait to get to the kids!

Vote YES on 8!




Posted by John, a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 12, 2008 at 9:26 am

SkepticAl,

The compelling state interest in permiting only heterosexual marriage is to provide both a male and a female influence in the upbringing of children.


Posted by paly parent, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 12, 2008 at 9:41 am

John - what about the compelling interest of the children already being raised by same sex couples? What about the single parents - does the state force the other sex parent to spend time with their child?


Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2008 at 10:21 am

Unfortunately I am not able to find the link now, but I saw an interview of a MA couple whose kindergarten child brought home a book for homework about same sex parents. When the parents protested, they were told it was now the law and they didn't have any say in the matter. When the father demanded that they should be made aware beforehand of any such teachings in future he was told it was not an issue for parental notification or opting out of. To cut the long story short, the father was ultimately arrested because he wanted to be able to prevent his kindergartner being taught about same sex marriage in school. They had been told in MA like we are told here that it will not affect our children. Don't believe it.


Posted by John, a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 12, 2008 at 10:52 am

paly parent,

The state should not compound a problem, just becasue some cases are not optimal.


Posted by Yes on 8, a resident of another community
on Oct 12, 2008 at 11:25 am

..Parent
To be fair the father was arrested for violation of a court order. He should have placed his child in a private school. What the homosexual lobby fails to understand (because they simply do not care) the issues of sex are best left to the family and not the school.

Web Link


Posted by Sue mom, a resident of Gunn High School
on Oct 12, 2008 at 2:00 pm



The American College of Pediatricians Web Link stated the following regarding homosexuality and parenting:


" Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation.
Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts...

The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited.
The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development.
Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation.
This position is rooted in the best available science."


Posted by but seriously, a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 12, 2008 at 3:25 pm

The American College of Pediatricians was founded 6 years ago to same-sex parenting. Considering the agenda, its recommendations and findings are hardly surprising. Researchers have been evaluating these questions for at least 2 decades and have not found these do-called findings to be true. I believe in real research, not agenda-based, predetermined findings.


Posted by Smith, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 12, 2008 at 5:19 pm



We have seen the effect of homosexual marriage in states where it is legal.

It has driven Catholic Charities out of their long tradition of providing adoption services under threat of prosecution and jail.

A big and terrible mistake, we do not want this destructive law in California


Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of Ventura
on Oct 12, 2008 at 7:44 pm

John - thank you for attempting a serious, non fear-mongering response.

The problem with your assertion is that the state has never asserted or attempted to act on supposed compelling interest. The state does not disqualify anyone from marrying regardless of any evidence that they will make an unfit parent. A convicted child-murderer has the right to marry. But let's dial it back a bit. Likewise, couples that have no interest in having children, and couples that are already in their old age are able to marry.

Would you propose some parenting questionnaire to apply a qualifications test to all couples seeking a marriage? If so, that would be rather new to the state's practices in regard to marriage, but at least you'd have a rational argument. Not that I think this is rational or realistic, but just in theory, would you support gay marriage between partners who pledge not to become parents? To simply argue that the state's compelling interest has to do with parenting - when the state has never said so or acted on such an interest - seems like a stretch.


Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of Ventura
on Oct 12, 2008 at 7:53 pm

Regarding Catholic charities, it's unfortunate that they choose to carry out their activities in a way that is inconsistent with the necessities of state law. However, you can't deny people equal rights because of how some other people choose to react.

If there's good work to be done and Catholic charities withdraw from the field on principle, they're making a clear trade-off, and they're welcome to it - they have freedom of religion. We also have freedom from religion in this country, and those of us who don't live according to the precepts of certain denominations should not live in fear of their actions. To suggest we should is to put the church in a position of a blackmailer.


Posted by PAMD, a resident of Stanford
on Oct 12, 2008 at 8:03 pm


septic al

How about you devote your time to curing Gay Bowel Disease which is killing millions


The journal Internal Medicine (Tokyo, Japan) published an article entitled Amebiasis in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in which they stated the following the following:Web Link=
" While the overall prevalence of amebiasis is approximately 4% in the United States, certain high-risk groups have a much higher incidence of infection and disease. Prevalence of E. historylitica or E. dispar in the gay population of New York City and San Francisco approached 40-50% . Japanese literature also showed homosexual contact was the main risk factor for amebic infection."


Do you promote smoking as a civil rights issue? tax payers like me oppose disease promoting behavior that we end up paying for.


Posted by Sasha, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 12, 2008 at 8:20 pm



Homosexuality should be regulated just as other health risk behaviors like smoking, drug abuse and DUI

Homosexual marriage creates many negative consequences for our children and nothing positive, we have been tolerant of homosexuals but not approving, with good reason look at the 50% HIV/ AIDS rate in the Black MSM community the gays have not changed their behavior.


Posted by but seriously, a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 13, 2008 at 8:41 am

So if you consider it a health risk for gays due to amabiasis, would you let lesbians marry since they don't engage in high-risk anal sex? Would you forbid hetero couples to try it? I am just taking your argument to the natural conclusion, and wonder how you see that playing out if it is the rationale for not allowing gay marriage (and by the way, the state has never mentioned this as the rationale).


Posted by John, a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 13, 2008 at 9:15 am

SkepticAl,

The primary purpose of marriage has always been to provide a protective and nourishing environment of the upbringing of children. That is not the only reason for the marriage contract, but it is the primary one. Not all married couples will have children, but most will, if they are fertile.

Various other reasons for marriage, some valid, some not, rank much lower than the primary reason. State policy should reflect the primary purpose, not the secondary.


Posted by i'm sure, a resident of Professorville
on Oct 13, 2008 at 11:37 am

Because marriage has been great for Britney Spears's kids. I'm sure it'll work out for Bristol Palin's, too.


Posted by but seriously, a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 13, 2008 at 12:52 pm

There is *no* credible evidence showing that a child raised by two women or two men is impaired, other than possibly exeriencing the greater stress of discrimination. Here are findings of the APA:

Web Link

So. Given that children don't suffer if raised by two parents of the same gender, and given that gay and lesbian parents can adopt or produce a child by artificial insemination if they so choose (or remain childless, like heterosexual couples, if THEY so choose), I'm just not hearing the compelling state interest in preventing gay marriage.

"Homosexual marriage creates many negative consequences for our children and nothing positive" -- Sasha, I'm not hearing what those many negatives are. Are you seriously purporting that HIV risks to children are greater among homosexual couples than other demographics? So in that case, should we be preventing all persons who engage in high risk behavior (IV drug users, prostitutes, etc.) from having children? And how would you propose to enforce such a rule?

The thing is, you have to consider where your argument is taking everyone. If you make a rule on a particular basis, you can't just apply it at whim.

As for the concept that homosexua marriage is the same as incestuous marriage, the compelling state interest (everyone knows) is in not having inbreeding. Look what happened to the Egyptian royal family. This is not a new concept. And the reason for not allowing bigamy or polygamy is to increase the stability of the family unit by limiting partners so there are not more unsupported children out there (which brings up the question of what if the various women are supported -- is that ok?)

So let's hear some real, factually-supported compelling state interests so we can debate those, not just spurious accusations and claims.


Posted by mary, a resident of Gunn High School
on Oct 13, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other.
That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints.
Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person?
The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether.
With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender.
Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law.
This is clearly where the movement is headed.


Posted by but seriously, a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 13, 2008 at 2:01 pm

could you please cite your source(s)? If most gays do not want to marry each other, and those who do not could receive the tax etc. benefits (and penalties)of marriage without actually marrying, doesn't it stand to reason that the ones who DO want to marry do so out of a sense of commitment? What other reason would there be to marry if what you say is true?


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Oct 13, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Same sex marriage was primarily to tap a partner's medical coverage to accommodate the high cost of AIDS treatment.


Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 13, 2008 at 4:38 pm

So Mary, you know the inner motivation of the gay and lesbian communities because . . .

Walter, if gay marriage is about covering the cost of AIDS why do lesbians marry then?

You know this isn't an issue that I have strong feelings about--but there are some ugly posts in here. Ugh.


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 13, 2008 at 4:51 pm

The word according to John: "The primary purpose of marriage has always been to provide a protective and nourishing environment of the upbringing of children. ... Various other reasons for marriage, some valid, some not, rank much lower than the primary reason. State policy should reflect the primary purpose, not the secondary."

OK, John, let's pursue your insights. First we forbid marriage to post-menopausal or post-hysterectomy women, then we require divorce if either circumstance occurs. Right? Next we demand proof of fertility before we permit marriage. It's no big step from there to reinstate the anti-miscegnation laws, or to deny marriage to non-whites and/or non-christians.



Posted by John, a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 13, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Paul,

You're falling off the deep end! I said nothing about anti-miscegnation laws or anti-Christian biases.

I did say that some marriages, of secondary importance in terms of the primary purpose, are valid (those between a man and a woman who are in love and want to cement the relationship) and others are not (e.g. marriage to give cover for illegal aliens; marriages of convenience in order to gain insurance benefits).

The primary purpose is, as I said, to provide a protective and nourishing environment of the upbringing of children. We should be shaping our marriage laws on the primary purpose.


Posted by Christian, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2008 at 6:06 pm

Interesting discussion as to the primary reason for marriage.

The Bible talks about the desires of a man and a woman to become united as an instruction for both to leave their parents and form a new unit. This means that marriage is forming an institution whereby the man and woman can be united by the sexual act. It does not mention that children are the primary reason for marriage, only sex.


Posted by mary, a resident of Gunn High School
on Oct 14, 2008 at 11:20 am



On October 13, an opponent of Proposition 8 attacked and seriously injured Jose Nunez who was volunteering to support Proposition 8.
Nunez commented
"The other side wants to intimidate us, but we can't stop standing up for traditional marriage. I may be bloody and bruised, but I'm not giving up. Protecting traditional marriage is just too important for our kids". Web Link


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 14, 2008 at 2:27 pm

John:

I went "off the deep end" on purpose to illustrate the essential logical fallacy of your arguments. Reductio ad absurdum, if you will, but in this case sans reductio.

My chain of illogic(?) was patterned after claims I've seen from the freedom to discriminate people that same-sex marriage will lead to marriage between people and their pets, their pets and frogs, people and poison oak.

OK, I made up the last item, but I expect many would believe it unthinkingly if their guru proposed it. Besides, we both know there are many out there who do agree with my original cause-effect chain. That scares any reasonable freedom-lover.

Finally, I'm not going to divorce my wife even though she cannot have children. There is much more to marriage than you realize, and I feel sorry for you. Get help.



Posted by tj, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 14, 2008 at 2:34 pm



In the same week that the No on 8 campaign launched an ad that labeled as "lies" claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding.

Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.
The school sponsored the trip for the students, ages 5 and 6, taking them away from their studies for the same-sex wedding.
According to the Yes on 8 campaign, the public school field trip demonstrates that the California Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage has real consequences.

"Taking children out of school for a same-sex wedding is not customary education.
This is promoting same-sex marriage and indoctrinating young kids," said Yes on 8—ProtectMarriage.com Campaign Co-Manager Frank Schubert. "I doubt the school has ever taken kids on a field trip to a traditional wedding," Schubert said.


The lesbian teacher's wedding was officiated by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.
Newsom is featured in a Yes on 8 television ad, released last week, in which he arrogantly declares of same-sex marriage: "The door's wide open now. It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not."


Posted by John, a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 14, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Paul,

Try to get a grip.

I am not suggesting that you divorce your wife, becasue she cannot have kids. Lots of couples have that issue. My own wife, who bore me several kids, can no longer have them, yet I stay married to her, adn continue to love her. I don't think I need any help in that regard.

The primary and traditional role of marriage is to provide a nourishing and protective environment to raise kids. I notice, with some humor, that "Christian" says it is primarily, according to the Bible, to have sex. I don't know if that is true, however, I would suggest that all that sex begat many children, so draw your own conclusions.

BTW, if same-sex marriage is legal, then polygamy, at a minimum, should also be legal.


Posted by Sally, a resident of Ohlone School
on Oct 14, 2008 at 3:33 pm

If the voters do not overturn the California Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling,
teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

It's totally unreasonable that a first grade field trip would be to a same-sex wedding.
This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to understand it.
The SF field trip underscores the fact that children will be taught about same-sex marriage in public schools if prop 8 is not passed.

Not only can it happen, it has already happened in SF.


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 14, 2008 at 4:48 pm

"BTW, if same-sex marriage is legal, then polygamy, at a minimum, should also be legal."

If that's your position then take it to court like the same-sex marriage people did and fight the reactionaries at the ballot box like they're doing. Meantime, thanks for reinforcing my point about reductio ad absurdum, sans reductio.



Posted by Marriage changes, a resident of Esther Clark Park
on Oct 14, 2008 at 5:41 pm

Paul, or Skeptic -

Since the genetic-kid-making is now at least temporarily eliminated from the concept of marriage, why can someone not marry cousins, siblings, parents, children, friends, etc. in order to get the same legal and social standing as other married couples?

Especially older people, for whom a spouse is important due to restricted ability to socialize?

There are several points here. First, the change has more consequences than are generally pointed out. Second, the gay identity politics are essentially selfish, rather than oriented toward civil rights. If this were a civil rights push, the politics should push for rights to marry, not gay rights to marry.

For most people who have a problem with this, the problem is "in your face with the gay lifestyle" rather than "keep these people from tax deductions."

The field trip is an example.


Posted by but seriously, a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 14, 2008 at 5:59 pm

First of all, the field trip was to their teacher's marriage, not just "a gay marriage." Givn the way the school sounds, i.e., groovy, there is no reason to think that they wouldn't have included the kids in a traditional heterosexual marriage had their teacher been involved in one. Note that the parents of the kids involved are not the ones complaining.

Second, the focus on heterosexual marriage is also ingherently selfish. It says only we can be married and no one lese.


Posted by SUMD, a resident of Stanford
on Oct 14, 2008 at 6:13 pm

The homosexual community need to focus upon their health high risk behavior
Male homosexuals have not curbed their promiscuous disease spreading behavior.
The diseases in question are virulent and deadly.
AIDS patients can be kept alive longer but they suffer dramatically accelerated aging and their chronic use of antibiotics has bred resistant strains such as MRSA Web Link

50 % of the African American gay/bisexual population has HIV/AIDS and the number are increasing.

The latest epidemic is MRSA Web Link ,which can easily spread to the rest of the population through casual contact.

The primary vectors for MRSA are male homosexuals.

Claiming this behavior is healthy in the face of the scientific evidence is worse than denying evolution.

Enough is enough, sooner or later society will hold those who engage in high risk behavior financially and legally responsible for the consequences.


Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2008 at 6:21 pm

A "field trip" during school time to a wedding, of any description is not on, in my opinion. Field trips in general are getting less and less educational and turning into fun days away from school all the time, the typical pumpkin patch trip is a prime example. A field trip to a wedding would never be classed as educational unless it had a political agenda as this one obviously had. Imagine if it had been a traditional wedding in a church, there would be outcry. No, if a teacher getting married wants to invite her students to the wedding then that is what it should be. It should be outside school time and the children should be invited through their parents with arranged supervision. Weddings and field trips do not mix.


Posted by mary, a resident of Gunn High School
on Oct 14, 2008 at 6:24 pm



More on MRSAWeb Link

anuary 18, 2008
"LONDON: A potentially deadly and highly drug-resistant strain of MRSA has developed that can lead to a flesh-eating form of pneumonia, Britain's Daily Telegraph reported yesterday.

The bug, which is spreading rapidly among homosexual men in several major US cities, can cause boils as large as tennis balls, blood poisoning or a necrotising condition that eats away at the lungs.

The newspaper said the type of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was identified in gay men in San Francisco, Boston, New York and Los Angeles.

The new strain is a far more vicious form of MRSA, commonly found in hospitals, and is believed to be resistant to most antibiotics.
It is thought to be spread by sexual contact, researchers have reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Experts, who found that sexually active gay men in San Francisco were 13 times more likely to be infected than heterosexuals, fear that promiscuous gay or bisexual men could spread the bug to the general community, mirroring the infection route of the early HIV epidemic of the 1980s. "



Posted by John, a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 14, 2008 at 6:27 pm

"If that's your position (polygamy) then take it to court like the same-sex marriage people did and fight the reactionaries at the ballot box like they're doing. Meantime, thanks for reinforcing my point about reductio ad absurdum, sans reductio."

Paul,

That is a reasonable position on its face, however I hope you understand that it is only one court decision removed from making it so, no matter what you or the rest of the people of this state wish.


Posted by tj, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 14, 2008 at 6:45 pm



From mary post

"Experts, who found that sexually active gay men in San Francisco were 13 times more likely to be infected than heterosexuals, fear that promiscuous gay or bisexual men could spread the bug to the general community, mirroring the infection route of the early HIV epidemic of the 1980s. "



This is outrageous, the gay community needs to put its own house in order, and fast, before lecturing about false flag " civil rights issues"

Quarantine is the public health measure used when people engage in behavior that risks spreading diseases.

Newsom should address the health issue aggressively and close the bath houses if he really had the interests of his constituents at heart.

This is a repeat of the disaster detailed in the book " And the band played on"Web Link


Posted by sue mom, a resident of Hoover School
on Oct 14, 2008 at 8:24 pm



I do not want my young son to be taught that homosexual behavior is a viable life style equivalent to marriage and family.

The rate of domestic violence among homosexual couples is off the charts, the smoking, substance and suicide abuse rates are off the charts even in Holland which has had approval legislation for decades.

The issue needs to be treated as a public health matter.
The life expectancy for a male homosexual is 20 yrs less than a heterosexual male.

Lets face the facts and evidence and stop the PR spin



Posted by well, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2008 at 8:28 pm

tj,
HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease. It's transmitted by unprotected sexual contact. Which is why it's important to have some form of sex education for youth. Abstinence-only will only get you so far (cough-cough Bristol Palin). When youth do have sex (and they do), they need to know that getting AIDS is a real danger, no matter your or your partner's persuasion -- that just because you're not gay, you won't get AIDS.


Posted by PAMD, a resident of Stanford
on Oct 14, 2008 at 9:00 pm


Posted by well, a resident of Another Palo Alto


Provide evidence for your claim,

In fact homosexuals are 2.3 % of the population and they and iv drug users are now 95% of the HIV + s in the population.

How do you account for the 50 % HIV/ AIDS rate among American Black homosexuals/ bisexuals? it is the later than vectors into the the non homosexual but in very, very tiny numbers.

ACTUP has tried for 20 yrs to promote the myth that AIDS would infect the non IV drug using heterosexual USA population, it has not happened over 20 yrs and it will not happen.

The whole campaign was an attempt to get money, which has been wasted because homosexuals refuse to change their behavior.

As a doctor and a tax payer I feel it is time to tell the truth

MSRA is the next epidemic, there will be others, Gay Bowel Disease among them.
It is time to face reality, homosexuality and IV drug use kills and costs the tax payer billions


Posted by sue mom, a resident of Hoover School
on Oct 14, 2008 at 9:08 pm



It is typical of the activists to equate AIDS and other diseases to creating life as in the Palin daughter matter.

Good that the truth is now revealed about the same sex marriage agenda, the voter will decide based on this opinion no doubt


Posted by SkepticAl, a resident of Ventura
on Oct 15, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Say what you want about health issues - they have nothing to do with marriage. Say what you want about your biases regarding supposed hidden agendas. Heck, maybe for some people, the agenda is overt. So what?

When you as an individual want to enter into a marriage, the state asks nothing about your plans to parent, your plans for sex, your politics, your commitment to "protect the institution of marriage" - nothing except your age, basically. If the state asks nothing of two hetero people, it has to come up with a compelling interest to infringe on the rights of same-sex couples simply based on WHO THEY ARE. Do you want the state making separate policies for individuals based on a fundamental aspect of their identity? It's an entirely backwards way of thinking, grounded solely in traditional biases and religious thinking. In other matters, the courts have consistently held tradition and religion are not substantial LEGAL reasons to deny people access to the same rights or priveleges others enjoy. They're starting an obvious trend towards undoing the hypocrisy regarding gay rights, the same way they had to jettison tradition as a reason to preserve segregation, and bans on mixed-race marriage.

NO GROUP OF PEOPLE is clamoring to start the whole slippery slope process that gay marriage opponents love to trot out. There's no ten percent of the population begin shut out by current laws in the same way gays and lesbians have been. And if someone wants to start a movement for incestual marriage or plural marriage, then we'll have that debate. But it's not the same debate. It's not happening. It's barely relevant. And what might happen hypothetically - some day - according to the small minded fear mongers, STILL doesn't stand up as a legal rationale for denying individuals equal rights and privileges here and now.


Posted by Marriage Changes, a resident of Esther Clark Park
on Oct 16, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Skeptic -

You seem to be essentially saying that your logic applied to the constitution allows this slippery slope, but the reason we should move down it a little now is that 10% of the population wants it. We shouldn't be afraid of going further down the slope because there is no 10% wanting to do it.

There is no discrimination going on with marriage defined as being between a man and a women (except against hermaphrodites). You seem to be asking for affirmative action to remedy the inconvenience of your choices.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Touring the Southern California “Ivies:” Pomona and Cal Tech
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 2,583 views

Chai Brisket
By Laura Stec | 3 comments | 1,836 views

Sometimes "I'm Sorry" Doesn't Cut It
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 1,007 views

Couples: Parallel Play or Interactive Play?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 946 views

SJSU Center for Steinbeck Studies to Honor Author Khaled Hosseini on Weds Sept 10
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 605 views