The Modesto Bee reported on the California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage and posted it as the front-page story on their website. The article itself was mostly a string of quotes from either side of the issue, the real meat and potatoes was the comment section.

There are tons of fundamentalist religious folk who boast their republican party affinity (giving a bad name to republicans) screaming “God” this and “God” that. I posted a few responses to some of the crazys, but there were so many, my wrist started cramping around the fifth, so I wrote a general one.

I will post my response, and then the thread (so far). Here is a link to the article.

Here is my general response:

Bottom line, to all the religious fundamentalists that Modesto is so ripe with, the issue was the unconstitutionality of discriminating against someone based on their sexual preference.

Even if your religious beliefs are not in agreement with this ruling, they have no bearing over the rule of law. Our constitution protects the citizens from a religious faction controlling the US. That includes Christians, Jewish, Muslims and Buddhists.

You can scream my god this my god that, the fact remains, your god has nothing to do with the law. Let me also mention, if the fear of hell or the hope of life after death is the only thing that keeps you “moral” then you are probably a very weak person.

I’m more afraid of the religious fundamentalists taking over this country just as the the religious fundamentalists have taken over and controlled middle eastern countries.

You are more like them then you realize.

Here is the comment thread:

A good posting from an outstanding conservative about the state of the GOP in CA and nationally:

http://marktalk.com/blog/
dbostan | 05.16.08 - 3:24 pm | #

Boy! On one side, “Homosexuality is an abomination!”, “a SIN against God and Nature!”, “Let the freaks get married and see what hell we heretosexuals must go through!”, (I like that one!) and on and soforth. The flip side is one of jublilation, gaining equal status in the eyes of the law, yadda, yadda, yadda! Well boys and girls (if such distinctions still exist?) all I’d like to say is for the law to hold any force, any meaning, it must evolve to reflect our ever-changing society. And above all, it must protect the minority from the majority when the occasion arises. When the Founders framed the constitution I believe among “Life” and “Liberty” they did purposefully mention “Pursuit of Happiness.” Is that not one of the goals each of us strive for, to be happy in our homes and with whomever we choose.
amusedobserver | 05.16.08 - 3:10 pm | #

This ruling is just wrong in every aspect. We voted no! Why let people vote if you’re just going to override it. Dan is right about not spreading rumors about Republicans. Democrats are behind this because let me tell you, Republicans are conservative and have MORALS! Something Democrats severely lack. The governor is not a Republican, he is an ACTOR! I didn’t vote for him for that very fact. He is not a politician, he just tries to ACT like one. He says one thing and does another. He plays both sides of the fence like an ACTOR trying to get votes. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, like God intended. If you want to leave the church out of the state well here ya go:If it aint broke then don’t fix it. It’s worked all these years just fine. There weren’t any gay people until it became the cool thing to do about 10 to 12 years ago. My 75 year old grandmother never met a gay person, one because she lived in a state with morals but because it was never heard of until the last decade. People will grow out of it, they always will. They are confusing feelings of love in a friendship with those that are in a relationship between a man and a woman. My children will be raised in the church just as I was. Love man kind but there are something I will never accept because it’s disrespectful to my God. I forgive you, hopefully He will too.
A Republican | 05.16.08 - 3:00 pm | #

I hate to admit this, but I actually took the time to read every response thus far. Ir is actually comical, because other than Chris De Vries, every person has made multiple errors in their writing.

I’ll say that I’m strongly against gay marriage. But I’m also strongly against Americans with such poor ability to write with any sort of competency. Many of the responses are just hard to read- grossly written. From misspellings to using wrong forms of words, an inability to write and communicate our language is area for concern as well. If you aren’t able to communicate your concern in a manor that is halfway professional, people shouldn’t waste their time reading it.

Unless you’re able to write somewhat competently, keep your mouth shut!
JF | 05.16.08 - 2:48 pm | #

Wow, what a bunch of religious zombies. God, God, God….Man made God in his own image. Religious zealots only have religion in their lives as a way of lifting themselves above others through hatred and fear. You are the biggest group of mindless lemmings this side of Munich 1930. You people scare the hell outta me. Who honestly cares if two consenting adults share a commitment that can allow them to adopt (aka picking up the pieces of your so-called traditional marriage) and contribute to society? If it against your religious law, then it will be dealt with by your god, right? Honestly, the only reason religious sheep (they are called a flock for a reason, zealots) post here is to make them feel better about themselves. Get over it, and stop looking to hate everyone. Maybe its time to re-read the golden rule, as opposed to spewing the bile you supposed followers spill here.
Dantrez | 05.16.08 - 2:36 pm | #

Dan,
You are wrong.
there are plenty of repubics, who supports the abomination.
One of them is married to a member of the Kennedy family and is the governator of the state (and the way he governates, is, how shall I say, Kennedyian.)…
dbostan | 05.16.08 - 2:27 pm | #

To you modestan please stop spreading lies about the republican party. There is NO republicans that supports gays marry other Gays. No offense.Has anyone noticed how the democatic party starts with DEMO as in demonac? Yes, this is the work of Satan and they are demonac.No republican could every stand stand for this.
Dan | 05.16.08 - 1:27 pm | #

Don Strachan… as I said before, you can’t control what desires you get (sometimes I desire to punch people in the mouth, but I restrain myself), but you can control how you respond to your desires. Men get desires to ogle women and more. But for the most part, we control ourselves. Homosexual desires are not a choice. They happen. I’m not arguing that. But violent desires happen to. That doesn’t make a person “violent” by nature. Sexuality isn’t what makes us. If a person’s sexuality is completely removed, they are still a human and still of absolute and infinite worth. Acting on our desires, and the ability to refrain from acting on our desires is an innate part of humanness. That is an ability that animals lack. They have no choice but to act on their instincts and desires.

Promiscuity is not the solution. And no it doesn’t help.

Gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage in that it distorts the intent of marriage…something God Himself designed and initiated. It was the first institution He created…between a man and a woman. When we fight for what we finite humans think is right, even though it is explicitly outlawed by our Creator, we are stepping away from the purpose of our creation.

It is no different than any sin in God’s eyes. But make no mistake, it IS a sin in His eyes. And even so, God loves them passionately and without end.
TheTruthHurts | 05.16.08 - 1:04 pm | #

Interesting. The California Supreme Court is made up of 7 justices: 6 Republican and 1 Democrate. Activist (Republican) justices?

The Republican Governor has said he respects the decision of the Court and opposes a constitutional ammendment banning same sex marriage. Activist (Republican) Governor?
Modestan | 05.16.08 - 12:05 pm | #

Mattyboy
We are a Republic not a democracy. The framers deliberately wrote into the constitution the mechanism for some issues to be beyond the reach of simple democratic processes. One would have to toss the entire constitution (preamble, statement of principles, fundamental rights etc.) and all the amendments and start from scratch change such fundamental principles as equal protection.
Don Strachan | 05.16.08 - 11:07 am | #

First homosexuality is not a choice like fries with your burger. You no more choose to be a heterosexual than one “chooses” to be homosexual.

Second if gays can’t marry (nice stable relationships) that means they must be promiscuous to express their given sexuality - how does that help?

Third: Explain to me how Gay marriage is any kind of threat to traditional marriage? More than divorce?
Don Strachan | 05.16.08 - 10:59 am | #

This is another nail driven in the soul of our nation by the trotzkyites, who are destroying our nation for over a century.
And the homosexuals do not realize, for the most part, what game they are pawns into.
No country/civilization on earth survived the rot from within.
That’s why every religion on earth, forbade homosexuality, as it destroyed the family, the crux of society.

Tomorrow, they will find another four judges to allow them child adoption, after tomorrow, the heterosexual family will be deemed less wholesome than the so called “homosexual family”, and so on.
And God forbid to say a word…
You may be charged with “hate crimes”.

We need to realize, that this issue, along illegal immigration, the destruction of our constitution, step by step, the destruction of our capitalistic economical system, the destruction of our Christian values are the means to finally impose the new world order, once known only as communism, for the benefit of a very few and the enslavement of the many.
pixie | 05.16.08 - 10:42 am | #

I dont care let the freaks get married, they might as well go through the hell us heterosexuals do with marriage. LOL
Mike | 05.16.08 - 10:33 am | #

Homosexuality is an abomination of God….Your liberal ideals wont protect you in the afterlife…..
Bob | 05.16.08 - 10:29 am | #

HEY KEVMO
Why don’t you do us all a favor and hold your breath while you wait for that war crimes trial
Ernie | 05.16.08 - 10:10 am | #

Next stop — Mary marries her little
lamb and somebody adopts their
gerbil. I think the country deserves
what it gets now.
JNR | 05.16.08 - 9:10 am | #

I don’t care if gays, lesbians, trans-genders get married. However, I don’t like how the court system can turn over the vote of the people (i.e. prop. 187): this is ridicules. Why have elections or for that matter democrats, independents, republicans or any type of government? If the people of California voted a certain way, the judges should respect that, and if a group disagrees with the vote, they can start campaigning to have it put on the ballot for a second time, third or more. Judges should not have the power to create laws.
Mattyboy | 05.16.08 - 8:50 am | #

And one other thing…

The “Rabbi” and the pastor who spoke out in support of this ruling… now that is truly sad. I understand God’s mandate for us to extend love to all, without condition. And I do my best to do so. It boils down to “hate the sin, but love the sinner”. What these two ministers are doing is taking the Word of God out of context and overgeneralizing it. Sure, it says to love. Sure it says to forgive as He has forgiven us. Sure it says to take the plank out of our own eye before judging others. But it also says very clearly in the texts that BOTH of them claim to preach that God hates sin. Period. And in many cases, it specifically points out homosexuality. The bottom line here is, in an effort to “love people in the name of God” these two ministers are misrepresenting God. If you are a a parent, you know that you love your child and you would lay your life down for them in a heartbeat. Do you love all their actions? No! There are times you want to throttle them. But you still love them. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Loving people in the name of God does not equal, nor does it require that we must also accept or advocate their actions or chosen lifestyle.

God loves all…gay or straight. But he also hates all sin. ALL sin.

Homosexuality is sin.
TheTruthHurts | 05.16.08 - 8:46 am | #

I am so completely sick of people comparing sexual preference to ethnicity. It is NOT the same thing, nor will it EVER be the same thing. You don’t PREFER to be a Hispanic person. You ARE a Hispanic person. If you are gay, you PREFER to have sex with a person of the same gender. You were not MADE to have sex with a person of the same gender. A simple check under the hood will make that abundantly clear. Tab A, Slot B…. not rocket science. Your sexual preference, straight or gay, is just that…a PREFERENCE. Your identity as a male or female is an inherent, indellible part of your being. If you have a penis, you are a male. It doesn’t make you a man, but it does make you a male. If you have a vagina, that makes you a female. Men were DESIGNED in such a way as to facilitate sex with females, not other males. Likewise, women were DESIGNED to make sex with males possible. Your PREFERENCE for sex with the same gender is not an inherent part of your being. It is your preference, your desire, your CHOSEN way of life. If you are gay, the fact of the matter is, you are choosing to live contrary to the way you were designed. God did not make you gay. Don’t even try to go there. He made you a male or female on purpose and with great intention and care. Your choice to live your life contrary to your design is…well… your choice. So PLEASE, for crying out loud, PLEASE stop equating sexual preference to ethnicity. It is not, nor will it ever be the same. A person cannot choose to be white. But he or she CAN choose to be straight or gay. You cannot control what your desires are, but you can control how you react to those desires. That’s the truth. Someone needed to say it.

And now, let the name calling begin.
TheTruthHurts | 05.16.08 - 8:36 am | #

Part of the job of the judicial branch of government is protecting the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. I see this as exactly the same as when the California supreme court struck down a law barring interracial marriage. Although the decision seemed controversial at the time, in retrospect this ban was clearly racism. Frankly, for everyone who is disgusted by the idea of gay marriage, there is one simple solution: Don’t marry someone of the same sex… I am fairly certain that the so called “gay agenda” doesn’t include denying the right of heterosexual couples to marry.
Chris De Vries | 05.16.08 - 7:01 am | #

ex-mexicali,

The Supreme Court is charged with protecting the rights of minorities. Here’s one of the best quotes taken from the court document. I suggest you read the document before you jump to conclusions; They really thought it through first. You can find it here. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cour…courts/supreme/

“The architects of our federal and state Constitutions understood that widespread and deeply rooted prejudices may lead majoritarian institutions to deny fundamental freedoms to unpopular minority groups, and that the most effective remedy for this form of oppression is an independent judiciary charged with the solemn responsibility to interpret and enforce the constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and equal protection.” - California Supreme Court Justice Kennard’s concurring opinion
Beth Holden | 05.16.08 - 6:49 am | #

“I bet you wouldnt be so over joyed if the people would have voted for a canidate of your choice voted them in office and the supreme court says no we want this one in.”

You mean like Bush? Man, can’t wait for his war crime trials to start. Also, use a spell check, it’s 2008 for christ’s sake.
Kevmo | 05.16.08 - 6:36 am | #

1960’s
“We’re just protecting marriage! No Negro should marry a white!”

2008
“We’re just protecting marriage! No same sex marriages!”

My question is what about all those divorces? What about that? I want divorce illegal for everyone if gays cannot marry. It’s only fair and something that should be forced.

/strait but not narrow
Kevmo | 05.16.08 - 6:31 am | #

VOTE THAT EVIL AND (MUST BE BI)GOVERNOR OUT.YOU NOTICE MASS. IS THE ONLY STATE THAT ALLOWS GAY MARRIAGES.AND GUESS WHAT THATS WHERE THE KENNEDYS RULE.AND WHO IS HE MARRIED TO,A KENNEDY.ENJOY YOURSELVES NOW BECAUSE WHEN YOU STAND BEFORE THE REAL SUPREME COURT THERE WILL ONLY BE ONE JUDGE(GOD)AND HIS FINAL RULLING WILL NOT BE APPEALED.YOU WILL HEAR THE RULLING,DEPART FROM ME THOU EVIL AND WICKED SERVANT.NO APPEAL FINAL RULLING.
ex-mexicali | 05.16.08 - 6:31 am | #

Of course you are over joyed beth.But that doesnt change the fact that the people of california voted and passed the ban.That only shows that the supreme courts are are interpretting the law their won way.But let it be known that the people of california will suffer the consequences for this injustice.I bet you wouldnt be so over joyed if the people would have voted for a canidate of your choice voted them in office and the supreme court says no we want this one in.The supreme courts are using their power to support their own agenda, not the peoples.
ex-mexicali | 05.16.08 - 5:53 am | #

Cynthia and I really are overjoyed by this decision, and are getting married as soon as possible.

Thanks to everyone who has supported us over the years.
Beth Holden | 05.16.08 - 1:41 am | #