The hassle is over the use of the word Lesbian to mean homosexual even in Greek. Greek already has a word for lesbians, and using Lesbian to mean homosexual is a very new idea imported from English. So to analogize, it’s as if suddenly Americans started using “Texan” as a slang term for gay, and gay organizations began talking about “Texan Pride Festival” etc etc. I choose Texas because its a politically conservative area and so is Lesbos.

Excuse me? Here’s a list of states that allow, disallow, or otherwise restrict, gays to adopt and the generalized conditions: http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gaycoupleadopt.htm

So much for that “right.”

You’re so full of sh** its not even funny.
What are you trying to prove?
We are talking about California, not the rest of the country.
And even your own list says this about Californias adoption laws;

“California
Permits single GLBT and joint adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed.”

And then you blab away like you proved something and you say ” so much for that right”
They have the right Einstein ! And you proved it yourself after saying they didnt have it.

Dude, I would be really embaressed and just go away if I were you.

JMJ;
“You lost me here. Yes, of course it is! That’s the whole point!!! I want gays to have the same familial opportunities - and rights - as the rest of us. What the guacamole are you talking about???

Since you yourself just proved they have the right to adopt, why do they need marriage to make a family ?
Plus , they dont really make people, do they ?
I mean, do they add to the population ?
People who make people should get preference in my book. Ya know. The kind where a+b=c.
I see no reason in the world why gays should be treated equaly as a tradintional procreating couple. Because they simply are not.

JMJ:
“If they vote on a constitutional amendment the judges will NOT be able to rule against it. They are CONSTRAINED by the California State Constitution.

That does not answer the question at all.
There is no point in the previous vote where 61% of Californians voted against gay marriage if a few judges are just going to piss on that vote.
So once again.
What was the point in having the people vote in the first place ?

“Yes, and gays already have the right to adopt , even as single parents. And the appropraite tax breaks are applied to the dependants.”

Excuse me? Here’s a list of states that allow, disallow, or otherwise restrict, gays to adopt and the generalized conditions: http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gaycoupleadopt.htm

So much for that “right.”

“So marriage is of no consequennce in your fictitious cry for the “family””

You lost me here. Yes, of course it is! That’s the whole point!!! I want gays to have the same familial opportunities - and rights - as the rest of us. What the guacamole are you talking about???

And I never said you were anti-gay marraige. Actually, I wasn’t quite sure. I thought your argument was with the court decision. And with your position, I disagreed. I don;t see how that court could have ruled otherwise, constitutionally speaking.

“Why bother having the people vote on this if the judges are allowed to overturn that vote?”

If they vote on a constitutional amendment the judges will NOT be able to rule against it. They are CONSTRAINED by the California State Constitution.

JMJ

Polls ?
Screw the polls, the people alraedy voted on this once and it was 61% negatory bro.

JMJ;
“But I will say this - any institution that upholds and strenthens family ties seems beneficial to me.”

Yes, and gays already have the right to adopt , even as single parents. And the appropraite tax breaks are applied to the dependants.
So marriage is of no consequennce in your fictitious cry for the “family”

No hate, no spite or all that other crap you only wish were true. This is more about an infringment on the voice of the people than anything.
The peole have spoken in California and alreday voted yes on one of the most liberal same sex union laws in the country.
But they reject activist judges who are making law and not interpreting it.
Any constitution takes the voice of the people as precedense to a vote bt judges.

Answer me this.
Why bother having the people vote on this if the judges are allowed to overturn that vote ?

You guys just don’t understand constitutional law.

“How is gay marriage beneficial to the community?”

Well, for starters, I don’t give a hoot whether it’s “beneficial” or not as far as constitutionality goes. But I will say this - any institution that upholds and strenthens family ties seems beneficial to me. Also, it would guarentee that the wishes of gay people and their families be as opportune as they are for the rest of us, and that’s just fairness, which is also generally good for society. Also, many gay people have natural children, and marraige as an institution is good for their well-being as well. I just don’t see a downside to this at all. None whatsoever. It’s just hateful, spiteful, insecure little creeps looking for something to bash to make what’s under their cod pieces feel bigger. It’s also a great issue for getting hateful, spiteful, insecure little creeps to the polls at election time.

I saw a poll recently that showed 49% of Californians being agreeable to this. But we all know how polls goes…

JMJ

The lie you are trying to obfuscate from is not the questioning of the CSC interpretation.
It is you taking Parrotheads comment completely out of context and repeating it falsely.

As far as legalities goes.
“In its decision, the court invoked a 1948 California ruling lifting the ban on interracial marriage (one the U.S. Supreme Court did not follow until 1967), as a basis for its ruling (and a republican nominee wrote the majority opinion, declaring the state’s constitution protects “the right of the individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice.”
Unfortunatly we had no idea in those days that men would want to marry men, or women marry women. Today we have a majority in California that has clearly voted against gay marriage. The exact number being 61 %.
If I’m correct, the California Constitution gaurantees the voice of the people which differed tremendously in 1948 as to what the people say today, 60 years later.

Now, why dont you answer me a question for a change.
How is gay marriage beneficial to the community ?

“The system as we know it will go to hell in a hand basket if judges are allowed to do this as they see fit.”

Alright, you conservative geniuses: Exactly where did the CSC stray from the California constitution? I’d love to hear this lied about.

JMJ

Nice bunch ?
What should we call you?
You may not agree with our positions, but at least we dont put words in peoples mouths or misquote them or totally refabricate what others said.

Great bunch.

JMJ