Original post made
on Jun 26, 2013
This story contains 638 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account,
to get your online account activated.
No surprise. You can't base a legal argument on what your religious book of choice says. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
They had no standing.
Maybe the out-of-state Mo's will run another [portion removed] proposition, dump another ten million into bamboozling Californians about facts.
Think they'll win this time?
An excellent decision from the Supreme Court
Haters? Here we have it once again, that people who are opposed to gay marriage hate homosexuals. Interesting.
No thought given to the possibility that some people opposed to gay marriage question whether marriage is a nice thing to inflict on gays.
How about giving some thought to that now?
Now that it is the law of the land, can we stop calling it "gay marriage", as if that is a lesser kind of marriage. Just call it "marriage". Americans used to use the terms "black marriage" and "interracial marriage" to imply lesser types of marriages, but you don't hear those anymore.
The local [portion removed] have all given up. We won't see nearly as much of them compared to a year or two ago when they were convinced they were 'right'. Now? Only tears.
One has to look to the twitterverse to find the truly wacko.
Congratulations to all gay folks who would like to be able to marry. Agreed....gay marriage = marriage
You generalize, National responses
Generalizing how? Like using Gohmert's words to show he's a fool kind of generalizing?
Saying everybody's like that--
No, the really delicious thing about this whole issue was how it opened a door people really wanted opened - the door to talking about how much hatred there is in the breasts of backward people.
I am going to miss that!
To National Responses: +1 Well said.
Too funny! Maybe someone should finally tell the Palo Alto City Council and City Manager that they have been flying the LGBT (Gay Pride?) flag upside down for the past two months. Not that it matters, as the flag is not recognized by any federal or state law or statute. The flag was simply created by a San Francisco street vendor to make a buck off tourists. Oh well......
The only shame is that it took so very long!
First Congregational Church of Palo Alto Web Link would be happy to work with any couple to arrange a ceremony that reflects your faith and your unique relationship to one another. Whoever you are, wherever you are on your journey of faith, you are welcome here.
Who is really smiling today?..... Divorce lawyers ;)
This is a great day for California and the country. About time that this intolerance based on sexual orientation is removed.
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
The strong editing makes any discussion here futile!
It's true that nearly every blog is wrecked by the host.
I think maybe Not an Issue has the most stuff removed....
I have been looking into the history of marriage and found some interesting facts.
Prior to WW1, marrying for love almost never happened. Most marriages were for convenience, financial, security and property/power reasons, not for the idea of romantic love. Woman had so few rights that finding a husband was more often done by her parents for her future wellbeing and arranged marriages rarely took the feelings of the couple into account. A suitable husband had to be a good provider and a suitable wife was expected to be able to bear many healthy children. Only for second marriages (after the death of a wife in childbirth, for example) was the ability to look after children considered a required attribute of a suitable wife.
This happened in many cultures and literature and traditions reflect this. The traditional vows of "love, honor and obey" are because it was assumed that there was no love at the time of the wedding and that love would grow, therefore it had to be vowed. Reading classical literature, Shakespeare, Austen, Bronte and even Dickens show that marriages took place for economic reasons and love was often not considered to get married if the couple were not suitable in other ways. Romantic love was such an uncommon motive for marriage that some of the literature which included marrying for love became popular escapism rather than a reflection of life.
So it is very interesting to think about this very modern ideal of marrying for love rather than security and procreation.
Why was the post about Huckabee's quote removed? It was factual, made by a national (albeit large and odd) figure.
Huck claimed Jesus wept.
Tears of joy.
That's what unabashed liberals who believe in equality and fighting for the oppressed (i.e. Jesus) do.
Resident, thanks for your contribution.
Expect marriages of convenience NOW. Older people with wealth find themselves suddenly with more potential partners to choose from (personally I was hoping these changes wouldn't go through so I wouldn't face dilemmas). Thinking about your estate being able to pass to a spouse, and having a wider range of potential spouses to choose from...
Come to think of it, marrying for love paved the way for
a) a very high divorce rate
b) gay marriage
The big question, why does anyone want to get married? Not the greatest institution on planet earth. Better to be free to do your own thing, and not shackled to nagging, control freaks.
The court of appeals lifted the Injucntion-- gay marriage can proceed as of now. A great victory. Can't wait to see the reaction of huckabee and cordileone.