Look at the problems that Chaplains are running into in the Military nowadays. They can't even say the name "Jesus Christ" in prayer now without the fear of punishment for violating someone's Equal Opportunity rights. A DENOMINATIONALLY ordained minister can't pray the way he wants to pray among like-minded believers for fear of a lawsuit or punishment! What's the point of a chaplain? Why not just hire counselors instead?

Do that to a Muslim in the military though...ask them to not pray specifically to Allah in their prayer and watch the lawsuits and backlash that results.

The word "tolerance" is becoming nothing more than aggression towards anything Christian in America. Might I remind you all that the 10 Commandments are all Judeo-Christian values. Are the things listed there bad ideas? All it takes is compromise on one point before you can justify compromise on every point. Pretty soon we'll be debating what "murder" or "theft" actually means in this country.

I always hear elderly people talk about how much the world has changed since they were young....I'm 27 and I can't believe how much it's changed since **I** was young. God help us.

You'd like for all who perceive marriage and have perceived marriage for centuries, as a legal, sanctified, blessed, union by God and State as citizens who have ingrained hatred against Gays. Well, your wrong.

It has nothing to do with Gays. It has everything to do with the sacristy of marriage that has been a wholesome state of our society since time began. It is about the need to dismantle this state of union for no valid reason other than to appease a minority of citizens that could obtain their legal rights without destroying and putting asunder what has been in practice since the begiinning of time. Don't put the onus on us for the mere purpose of leverage to obtain what a minority feel is their right and who are willing to take away the rights of the majority to get their way !

They should not have the authority upon themselves to remove the words Husband , Father, Wife, Mother or Spouse from a Legal Document employed and lawful for centuries. Who do they think they are? They should be removed from office and banned from ever holding a Government position again. What part of We The People do they not understand?

They are out of their jurisdiction and should be sanctioned. The people of California should not stand for their utter disregard of the majority to appease a minority and cast aside a legal document that has been in force for hundreds of years. SHAMEFUL!

I am a straight woman, I live in Amsterdam, the Netherlands and I am married to a man. Gay marriage has done no harm to my marriage, nor has it done any harm to marriages of christian, hindu and muslim couples I know. We all live by our own standards, we respect each others beliefs and we would never try to impose our rules and morals on others.

Why you christian fundamentalists keep using YOUR religious beliefs to interfere with OTHERS' lives is beyond me, since I always learned in school that all modern democracies have a strict separation between church and state.

I feel offended as an atheist by this discussion, I have a right to live according to my believes just as much as a christian, within the boundaries of secular law.

Why is it that as the years go by,we all must have more tolerance toward morality issues. I saw 2 guys ( I was going to use the word men) kissing at a park that my child was playing at. It was the most horrible sight and very discusting.If that is your game, please do it in privacy..

Thank god Adam did not have another man around. He may have chosen the guy instead of Eve. If that had happened, we would not be here in the midst of this debate

The whole notion of homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. It is a state that can never be achieved. It can't be consummated. If homosexuals want to have sex, want to love each other, want to live with each other,, etc, etc, so be it. Call it what it is: two homosexuals living together. If the courts want to classify the relationship, fine, call it what it is: two homosexuals living together. Now then, the courts can have something they created and can bestow all the rights and privileges of that 'special' union upon the two co-habitating homosexuals. When one of the two dies or gets sick or wants to end the relationship, the court can happily impose their will on the relationship. But to codify two deviants living together as a marriage is nothing more than the typical twisted logic coming out of san francisco.

Further, to say that homosexuals have some kind of rights as a group is pure fantasy. The founding fathers didn't address them because at that time those who willingly engaged in sodomy weren't held in the highest regard. But again CA has decriminalized sodomy. Wonder what that says about our legislators?

It looks to me like the homosexuals want it both ways. They want to endure in deviant relationships and they want to redefine the marriage definition to suit them. It's so blatantly simple. Sodomy is no longer illegal between us consenting homosexuals, we are no longer criminals, we are 'now' equal under terms of the various constitutions.

Well, to continue on the non-religious aspect of this argument I would simply respond by saying, sorry, no way. Homosexuals do not represent the mores of most in this country. They do represent the degradation of our society. And marriage is as we've known it for centuries, between a man and a woman. If homosexuals want to cuddle, they're free to do so, that is guaranteed by the constitution.

A religious argument is by far the simplest and easiest to support. God is pretty clear on the whole idea of homosexuals. The good Lord set forth the rules. He didn't hide them, disguise them, or make them difficult to understand, He is a loving God, but break the rules, you pay. He doesn't care for some of the things people do, sodomy, for instance. Not much more to say in this area other than a short word to ministers of the Christian faith who espouse homosexuality, marriage included: You are sorely misguided. and a true blight on the efforts of honest hard working clergy.

On a political note, all the America haters should be elated by CA's court. Just another step in the right direction. Decadence, moral decay, financial collapse, etc, etc..............the dying throes of another 'great' society. "Change we can believe in" It's already started To those who say they're not concerned about two men getting married, wake up, you should be. Homosexual marriage is visible, tangible evidence of moral decay, what do you condone about that? And if you condone that, what else is lurking?

Yes, we have a war going in Iraq for some pretty lame reasons, we have some financial problems, we have energy problems, and a host of other problems. But without a sound moral base, high standards, and strong ethic, all the problems don't really matter.

Have fun before your next flight Tony!

Marriage is more than 2 people simply loving each other, be they heterosexual or homosexual. True marriage is the extension of love beyond just the 2 individuals. Heterosexual individuals who marry just to please each other and themselves quickly discover something is missing in the relationship. Most of these self-centered relationships which have been labeled 'marriages' fail. Bringing children into a marriage, be they conceived or adopted by the couple, is the most common, yet not the only way of extending the marriage.

I have no doubt many gay people would make great parents. However, Nature has made it perfectly clear that a heterosexual union is the preferred method of not only bringing a child into the world but also raising him/her. Yes, people have made the argument that it would be better for a child to be adopted and raised by a gay couple than to be raised in an orphanage or by the State. Although any child lacking of people to call family is a sad tragedy, placing that already scarred child in a gay home risks compounding his/her existing mental and emotional problems.

As far as gay couples conceiving a child in whatever fashion for the sole purpose of introducing a baby into the family, I'm sorry... but this is wrong. If someone really wants to have a child, he/she should put the needs of the child ahead of his/her own desires to go through life with a particular person. It was intended for every child to have a mother as well as a father. Every newborn deserves this intention, regardless of whether he/she ultimately gets it. A person with a strong desire to eventually have children should focus on preparing to become a good mother or father rather than on acquiring a spouse of whatever gender and believing they deserve the right to have their own children. The couple that honestly contemplates and assesses what is best for a child not yet brought into this world is deserving of having children to call their own.

My hope is that I did not insult anyone in anything I said. I also hope I did not take my valuable time in writing this editorial just for the sake of being heard. Anyone still reading should realize marriage is more than just a union of 2 people, it is a union that serves others before it serves itself. Those of us who are married and have children do not view gay couples as enemies. We are all members of the human race and we should treat one another with dignity and respect. But we should also be allowed to distinguish between a union and a marriage.

As for God's love, it's true God love's all of us, no matter what , he is merciful, but hey, I love my children and if they disobey me by making up their own rules which I know will hurt them, then certainly I will take action, God is no different which is why Jesus was send down to start the church to help guide us.

Let's put it this way, if we all decided to have a relationship with the same sex, then we will simply erode because there is no reproduction, so it is a concern.

For those who don't think it would be harmfull, it is harmfull because when same sex couple adopts a child, based upon the example they give to the child is that reproduction is not part of God's plan to continue his creation.

Your opinions, Mr. Perkins, of it's "morality" or it's potential effect on society are, therefore, irrelevant and, frankly, a little boring to read (especially as a lead story! ).

The Constitution is a limit on the power of government, NOT on the "self-evident" rights of the people. Rights are not granted by the government or the majority (or by you). Any future law that would seek to limit the rights of citizens is, by definition, unconstitutional and will eventually be struck down.

The tide has turned, and you are drowning...