Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban

My hamster, Johanna, is very fond of my backyard squirrel, Judy. Johanna says they want to get married. But where? They are both females. That’s not normally allowed. Well, now there’s hope for them in California. They’re letting human females do it down there, so why not other animals? Hey, we’re all mammals, you know. And Johanna is perfectly happy to let Judy play the alpha role. But they’re limited in how much marriage consummation they can accomplish, given the obvious problem with incompatible equipment. But that's OK, they still love each other anyway.I'm all for love. So why not same-sex mammal marriages? Where’s the victim in that?Submitted by an atheist bird with all due respect for creatures of every kind.”HM

I can dig it. Anyone who opposes that is a bigot.”HM

Sock 'em to me.

But why should California or any other governmental entity sanction "marriage" at all? Why shouldn't governments attend to the matter of civil unions and get out out of the "marriage" business? Let the churches, casinos, love shacks, and animals shelters take care care of that.The elephant in the room is the fact that "gay marriage" is a only a device used by gays to annoy people for the sake of coming of the closet. If it were not the gays would be perfectly happy to be civilly united.”HM

---

A wink's as good as a nudge to a blind horse. ”Eric Idle

But it's too simple, as I have said before. Get the government out of the business of "marriage." I'm for gay rights, gay liberties, gay squirrels, and gay civil unions. If gays or squirrels want to get "married," let them go to a non-governmental agency to do that. Why do I have to live under a law that sanctions and regulates who gets "married"? That's the churches' business. The law should serve only the needs of couples or pairs or flocks or herds who want to be civilly united. Same's true for same sex: let them be civilly united, but why should they be legally "married"? They can't even consummate a marriage, which actually does have legal standing in terms of invoking a marriage annulment.Question for you Granny: Why isn't a CIVIL UNION between same sexes enough to make them happy?Answer: Because they want to push their agendas all the way up the noses of those straight sons-a-bitches. They want the whole biblical "marriage" bit, even if they don't have the right equipment to consummate it. The government doesn't sanction or outlaw sex between same sexes, unless it is the mired in antebellum politics, so why should it sanction same-sex "marriage"? You may be right about Eric Idle. Maybe I was thinking of an old Rod Stewart album.”HM

All right, forget the consummation part. It's got no legs. I'll sum it this way: I believe gay couples should have all the legal rights that straight couples have in the area of state-sanctioned civil unions. Beyond the government's legal interests, "marriages" should be the exclusive domain of free enterprise. Just take the word "marriage" out of the law.But that's not really the point. The point is this: Gays want to run their agenda all the up the flagpole with their squeaky battle cry: "WE'RE REAL HUMAN PEOPLE, TOO, WHO JUST WANT TO BE ACCEPTED FOR WHO WE ARE." And I believe they should be, I truly do. But I also believe that their self-proclaimed dire situation is NOT IN ANY WAY AS DIRE AS THE SITUATION OF BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICAN HISTORY.”HM

---

A wink's as good as a nudge to a blind horse. ”Eric Idle

Oh, come on. Skate boarders, women, and old people are getting killed just for being skate boarders, women, and old people. I really don't understand why a straight person, religious otherwise, needs to be labeled anti-gay and called a bigot just because he wants to see marriage preserved for couples of opposes sexes. How utterly traditional to the point of being savage!Please tell me what I gain by the legalization of gay "marriage." It's does nothing to or for me either way. Gay marriage is an out-of-the-closet issue of third-rate importance. Ranks in there with veteran benefits.”HM

Let me try to explain why it's not bigotry.1. Gay people already have every single right that I have under the law. They can get married, just like me, to any member of the opposite sex.2. There is no need to change the law or make a special one to accommodate gays. Just take the word "marriage" out of it.3. Unlike black people, gay people choose to be gay. So now they are the ones feeling left out for the choices they made. There is no scientific reason I know of to explain how a gay person's biology makes them gay.4. Bigotry is a term thrown by people who are bigots in their own right. Gay bigotry is another word for in-your-face, same-sex french kissing on the ferry while you're commuting home from work at night. Bigotry by gays is done all the time to offend people for their out-of-the-closet pleasure.Am I a bigot for not wanted to use Seattle's downtown public toilets that are inhabited by homeless people, drug addicts, and prostitutes? Do they even have a choice in the matter? Which is more offensive to human rights, a homeless person with no pot to piss in or a homosexual who can't marry his locker-room buddy?”HM

Goes double for snow boarders.”HM

So is that a good thing? I've been married three times and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.”HM

Taz, what balls you have! But they were slaves. They had a bigger problem to deal with, and it wasn't one of their choosing. Not sure I do. Well, if therapeutic measures become available then the gays can get straightened out if they want to. It will be a clearer matter of choice for them. So why do our laws need to flex with their whims and free choices? Maybe we need to enact other laws guaranteeing other peoples' free choices, too, like the freedom to raise dogs for food. Some cultures allow it. Possibly senile. I'm old, you know. But I don't recall that discussion. Furthermore, why couldn't biology have something to do with choice? Which is it? I think it's probably biology, and it think it probably can be fixed. And if it can, then it's choice.”HM

Funny thing, Granny, but I've never seen a man stick his tongue down the throat of his wife while riding home on the Bremerton ferry. But I've seen men do that to each other, and even stick their hands down each other's pants and fumble around, just to entertain and insult the straight folks. And I've seen it more than once.Gosh, maybe they would behave most decently if we let them get married and have babies...oops, forget the babies.”HM

Only one, the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."”HM

subbie, for me the answer is simple: I don't see a good reason why the government should be in the business of marrying people. Let it do its job of granting civil unions to couples for their legal protection. Then let religion do its job and take care of marrying people. If the government doesn't discriminate against same-sex civil unions then who cares if the churches want to marry them? It's none of my busines because it's none of the government's business. And I don't see why the definition of marriage should end there, either. If Frank wants to marry his pooch in the privacy of his own home and out of my sight, I don't care. Why should I? It doesn't bother me. I only care what my government is in the business of doing.Why do you insist that the government should be in the marriage business. Tradition, perhap?”HM

Any children yet?