Hundreds of local protesters join rallies around country

Posted by Cid95 on November 16, 2008 at 4:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So Juan's "parents" are a now defunct lesbian couple?

Posted by Slick50 on November 16, 2008 at 5:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Parents are all different shapes and sizes these days?

What passes for parents may be all different shapes and sizes, but what started the process of giving life did NOT occur between two men or two women.

Why do you feel it necessary to protest over the outcome of the voting in California? The majority spoke, so shut up and deal with it, like a (er) man.

Posted by mac0cm4 on November 16, 2008 at 6:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmmm... the narrow minded get started so early. Probably still resentful that the Republicans are out, eh?

Posted by cwmcpa on November 16, 2008 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

At the age of 12, I was stopped by a man in a light blue 1966 Buick Special. It was 1969, but the things he suggested he could do for me, well time has not changed perversion. My father called the police, however they claimed they could do nothing, I would have had to get in the car and been touched. An adult male approaching a female would have merited stopping the car, but in the 60s an adult male and minor male was considered different. The event scared me, and for years when walking to and from school I kept a look out in the corner of my eye for that light blue Buick Special so I could find a tree or bush to hide behind. Is this a right in the constitution, to scare minors into having perverted sex and then scarring them with this for the rest of their life. This whole arguement is not about equal rights, but an attempt to numb the public into an acceptance of a life style that has been ignored by a large percentage of the population because its foundation is just too egregiouus to discuss. They are trying to disguise their need to get in your face and force you to teach your children to accept it is right for adult males and females to have sex with their same sex minor play things. Thankfully the voters and legislatures have overwhelmingly figured out what the real motivation is here. Unfortunately in a republic like the US it is not the will of the majority, but the perversion of a single judge.

Posted by zoomru on November 16, 2008 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

They should be protesting the fact that we HAVE WIND along our COAST but no windfarms !!!

They should be protesting the fact that Santee-Cooper is trying to build a COAL fired Plant instead of Harnessing OUR state;s natural energy ...FIRST !!

They should be protesting the fact that ALL our State's LANDFILLS SHOULD be closed DOWN forever using Plasma technology to turn OUR trash into energy to be SOLD back through the POWER grid to benefit the environment for OUR children and Grand Children!!

They should be protesting the fact that we have new Algae Bio-diesel to power our buses and trucks and cars produced by AMERICAN farmers, but instead OUR leaders DO nothing.

They would rather protect big rail, big oil, and big coal; when in fact it would have the opposite effect. THEY WOULD BENEFIT !!! Truckers would benefit !! Auto workers would benefit!! Farmers would benefit !! Rail employees would BENEFIT!!! Teachers would benefit !!

Not to mention the GAY couples !!! everything they BUY is delivered by a diesel truck or TRAIN !!!

Watch....
http://cc.pubco.net/www.valcent.net/i/mi...

Posted by karmann on November 16, 2008 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Marriage between a man and woman as sanctioned by God. I hope that our state legislators, senators, and congressmen/women have the moral character and courage to say no to "gay marriage."

Posted by zoomru on November 16, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What ...... !!

The Rev. Peter Lanzillotta, a minister at The Unitarian Church of Charleston who spoke at the event, said, "It's not gender that makes a family. Only loves makes a family."

Reverend....(Lord forgive ME!) I highly suggest you spend a few more moments this afternoon walking along the beach in reflection and contemplation !! Sir...with all due respect you said that love makes a family....WELL.. only if you ACT like it sir !! Actions..!!!!

Have you ever felt the breeze and asked the LORD why we don't use it for ENERGY ?? (WINDFARMS !!)

Have you ever been to Bees Ferry Landfill and viewed OUR trash as PLASMA ENERGY ?? To be SOLD ???

Do you know that OUR farmers should be producing ALGAE-Bio-diesel to power our trucks, trains and cars ??

Yes ..I too think we should love all American Citizens MORE !!!

..pray for me too !!!

Posted by sgtpsycho on November 16, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Looks like they took a day off from burning and invading churches...

Posted by pullmyfinger on November 16, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Not only do I want the same rights everyone has," Fennell said, "but they were mine in the first place and were taken away."
You all ready have the same rights as us..........the right to marry the opposite sex. The biggest poke at the gays has to be that most liberal state in America approved prop 8.
The people have spoken, just like they spoke for Obama.Deal with it!

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is not a civil rights issue, and blacks should be insulted that it is being sold that way.

This is an issue of trying to legitimize homosexual relationships.

States have the right under the constitution to define marriage. The people have spoken in CA. The federal government has defined marriage with the DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT on MAY 7, 1996.

All the name calling and labels can be tossed about to insult and try and silence those that oppose homosexual marriage, but the fact remains, it is not a natural means of sustaining the human race.

Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs.

If homosexual marriage, then why not bigamy/polygamy (having more than one spouse at a time)? BTW it was criminalized by Abraham Lincoln in 1862.

Posted by mnbvcxz on November 16, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rainbow flags rulez!

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is just another piece of the liberal agenda, that is meant to grow government in wau=ys that dictate how we the people should live. It is Simply mad -

Liberals clinically mad, concludes top psychiatrist
Eminent doctor makes case leftist ideology is a mental disorder

"Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government."

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PA...

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Again, part of the leftist agenda to destroy the United States and bring about radical change;

Orwell even told us, by name, the professionals who would lead us into the nightmare of 1984:
"sociologists," "teachers," "bureaucrats," "journalists," "professional politicians," "scientists," "trade union organizers," "publicity experts," and "technicians." (The term "community organizer" was unknown to him.) Those who enslave were those who taught students, who created the news, who sat in the halls of government power, and who defined official "truth" (at least truth de jour.)

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/o...

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Again, this is NOT a civil rights issue;

November 15, 2008
Beware: The Gay Enemies List
Rick Moran

Opponents of gay marriage in California are suffering the effects of a childish tantrum thrown by those who lost on Proposition 8. There have been attacks on Mormons for leading the fight for the ballot initiative as well as racial epithets hurled at African Americans because 70% of them voted "Yes" to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008...

Posted by steve on November 16, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What a sad world we live in. So much hate. Majority rule. Our Constitution in tatters, our nation being pulled apart because a "majority" have some sort of notion that granting equal rights to all citizens will somehow be the end of the world.

Your fears speak volumes. You hatred is a waste. Live and let live.

To the man who escaped a predator, at the age of 12, you sir were lucky. I was sexually abused buy 3 heterosexual men when I was 10 years old. What on earth would you do about that?

This is not about marriage. It is about the 1,000+ benefits offered by our Government to humans who choose to commit their lives to one another.

Stop the hate! Throw away the fear or you just may end up a heartless cold shell, hating the world that is different than the way you think it should be.

Posted by dawhetsell on November 16, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My GOD took care of Sodom and Gomorrah. This country is getting so perveted that GOD has turned his back on us. He left a remanent of Israel and I believe he will leave a remanent of us soon and send us into slavery if this country doesn't repent..
For the sins of their inhabitants Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim were destroyed by "brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven" (Genesis 19:24-25). In Christianity and Islam, their names have become synonymous with impenitent sin, and their fall with a proverbial manifestation of God's wrath (Jude 1:7, Qur'an [1]).

Posted by moonpie on November 16, 2008 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A small few try to turn the will of the people in the favor after we the people have decided over and over and over again that we recognize marriage as the union of a MAN AND A WOMAN! Sorry you lost. Move on with it, get your self a game show, campground, church (oh you got one in the Uniterians) and move on with your lifes.
100's protested here and hundreds of thousands here would vote against the measure! Anyway you libs add it up you would lose.

Posted by BlueGrits on November 16, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Constitution states "We the People" not "We the Majority" Thomas Jefferson and the founders intended on legislation in order to protect the minority against a tyranny of a majority.

This isn't over by a longshot. There are 1,138 benefits that are conferred by virtue of a marriage license. Gay and lesbian couples are not privy to those benefits that are automatically granted to married couples.

Gays and lesbians pay the same amount in taxes as anyone else and unless you're prepared to give these people a tax refund for refusing to grant them the same rights you have, then I suggest those of you who have a problem with this don't have a same sex relationship, mind your own business and go back to your caves.

Posted by dhshjh on November 16, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JimIslander..
If I were you I wouldn't preach on what God whats, because, obviously, from recent posts, you know nothing about God.
God loves everyone. Gay, lesbian, black, white, yellow. But marriage is for a man and a women, so if they want equal rights call it something else and change our constitution like we want to change everything else. I feel real sorry for our country.

Posted by ironhorse on November 16, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JimIslander,

How do you classify homo behavior as private? This vile behavior and assault on our religion, morals, and laws has been in our face. Loud, rude, and disgusting.

Homos want to compare themselves to minorities who were oppressed because of skin color. At least they achieved justice through peace.

Posted by mkris on November 16, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Simple solution, take down the businesses that supported the initiative. Spend no money at businesses, stop others from spending money at the businesses. When a boycott's over, the supporter will be out of business. THEN watch things change.
Business owners may be "good" christians but they'll sell thier souls for a sale.

Posted by BlueGrits on November 16, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And neither should any of you "preach" to know what you don't.

Stop saying that you are trying to protect the sanctity of marriage. If you were interested in doing that, you would propose a bill to outlaw divorce. What you are doing has nothing at all to do with sanctity. The only thing you are trying to protect is your own bigoted beliefs that gays shouldn't have the same opportunity to be miserable as the rest of us.

Get over yourselves already. Gays are not a problem. You are.

Posted by mkris on November 16, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

9 out of 10 Baptist divorcees want gays to stop destroying marriage.

Posted by steve on November 16, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What's up with the hate people? If you need to hate someone go with Bin Laden.

Ironhorse: As to "assault" there was not a single shot fired at yesterday's rally in Charleston. Lot's of horn blowing support, bewildered looks on tourists faces, happy people gay, str8, black, white, children, pets and a lovely handicapped lady I had the pleasure of walking beside, but NOT ONE curse, sign of hatred, or torch carrying crowd running the "Homos" out of town.

I classify "homo" behavior the same way I classify "knuckle dragging, loud, rude, red neck inbred bigoted breeders." What happens below your belly button is none of my business - your civil right to spew your hate is.

Posted by SCHSKR on November 16, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Personally I don't think that the government should be the one recognizing marriage at all. I think it's a religious thing. I do though find it very entertaining that they are protesting the will of the people. Should those of us who are conservative go out and protest the fact that Obama won? I personally don't want Obama to be president, but I respect the will of the people and I am not going to go protest their decision.

Posted by BlueGrits on November 16, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No, its not a religous thing. I can married at the courthouse. What part of that building or licence makes it religious? Marriage is a contract; plain and simple. Church marriages are optional; not mandatory. Again, the constitution says "we the people" not "we the majority" Gays pay taxes the same as you. Are you willing to give them a tax refund for denying them their civil rights?

Posted by UrGatorbait on November 16, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you Steve, well said.

Posted by SCHSKR on November 16, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You didn't read what I wrote... I said I don't think the government should endrose marriage AT ALL! And, that I think it's a religious thing... Emphasis on the "I think" Personally, as far as the government is concerned, I think unions should be done the same way as registering a corporation. Through the Sec of State's office you could register as a partnership which would allow couples to share employer benefits, receive possible tax breaks, and afford other benefits normally reserved for married couples. BTW the constitution also gives citizens the right to vote on matters like this.

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL, so predictable, opposition to another group that is somehow considered an oppressed minority is labeled hate. That is the entirity of the steve's arguement.

Label it hate. liberalism is such an easy road. wide and easy.

I hate no one, I stand in oppisition to an agenda I disagree with, that is my right...for now.

Posted by buzzinlikealdrin on November 16, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It just ain't natural...

Posted by JohnS on November 16, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am so glad this was made law in SC.

Posted by guidedbystewart on November 16, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Everyone is talking about will of the people....

But what does the will of the people have to do with something that is more or less a private matter.

There will always be homosexuals, so what is the problem with legitimizing it and giving them the benefits married couples do?

I could see calling it a lawful union, and not marriage, but anything less than that is an infringement of another’s belief and is a civil right violation.

Like it or not, not everyone has the same belief system, and the same god. And there are others like myself that are proud to be godless. What if it was the will of the people that I have to worship a certain god like it is in the Middle East.

I guess FREEDOM (a word conservatives like to throw around, but when it comes down to it, they do not really believe in it)is a right of the few, but not everyone.

Posted by ludwig on November 16, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Part I cwmcpa; First of all you are very ignorant about sexual matters. The man who stopped you was a pedophile and you must separate pedophiles from being gay or being heterosexual. In the pedophile population, there are approximately 99.9 of them are heterosexuals even those who do same sex activities and most often their sex object is someone of the opposite sex. Same sexual activities in pedophiles are usually situational. If they had their choice at the moment; they would be molesting a little girl about your age back then. The reason that police could do nothing back then is the way that the laws were written and the ignorance of legislators about sexual matters. The laws have now changed. Today this man could be arrested and currently there is a girl in Greenville County who was approached just as you were while she was waiting on the bus to go to school. Cops are now looking for him.

Simply because someone is gay or heterosexual does not mean that they are 'perverts' e.g pedophiles. Gay people are born the way that they are just as you might be born with brown eyes. Most gay people are the nicest people that you would ever want to meet or be a close platonic friend.

Under the US Constitution and the U.N.Charter of Human Rights ---the right to marry is a basic right for all people including gay people. Mrs. Roosevelt who wrote the UN Charter knew a thing or two about gay people--she had a long-term affair with another woman. Under the US Constitution the right to marry has been upheld by the Supreme Court in many law cases including the right to marry
a person of another race. (Loving vs. Virginia).

Back in the 1950s in Kansas there was a case Brown vs. Board of Education in which the courts ruled that Separate was not equal. The Bill of Rights contains an Equal Rights Amendment, which guarantees equal treatment of all people under the law. As you may know for many years; gay people have had, in some states, along with heterosexuals the right to have a Civil Union. Civil Unions are not the same as marriage and can not nor ever will confer the same rights. Just recently, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled (concurring with other State Supreme Courts) that Civil Unions are not equal to marriage, which confers more than 1000 to a married couple. It was ruled that Civil Unions are inherently unconstitutional and thus today anyone today can get married in Massachusetts and Connecticut and again sometime soon in California.

Posted by ludwig on November 16, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

cwmcpa Part II
The bans on same sex marriages in all states are in most cases illegal and unconstitutional because they violate the equality clause of the US Constitution among others including the right to privacy.

I am very sorry you were scared by a pedophile as a child but that is no reason for you to think that all pedophiles are gay people more often than not they are heterosexuals---remember all the little boys in recent years that were being molested by their female teachers such as Mary Letourneau--who did prison time because she had sex with her minor student?

Posted by BlueGrits on November 16, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mary K Letourneau is now married to the young man; who is now a 24 year old.

Posted by coolfreaknbeans on November 16, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice! Steve outed with what gays call heterosexuals(I had forgotten the term) They laugh behind our backs and refer to us as breeders. Hmmmmm Is that not hateful? To those who say the gay agenda isnt thrown in our faces and our kids....Years ago when my child was only 5 yrs old, she was in her room watching the very innocent Nick channel. She came in my room and asked," Mommy whats gay mean?" (her only being five) I responded with,"Thats another word for happy" Well she came back a minute later and asked " Mommy who is Rosie O'Donnell?" So I immediately caught on, went into her room and saw a "special" Nick channel show on gays and gay families! There was no warning prior to the showing and was on at like 5 pm. WTF?! I was sooooo pissed off. At 5 yrs old I hadn't discussed ANY type of sexuality with her, nor did I want to be forced into it by a channel with a gay agenda. Come to find out Rosies girlfriend was an executive at the childrens channel. Why should a childrens channel discuss ANY sexuality at all? (Nick at the time was basically geared for pre schoolers)

Posted by zekemire on November 16, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

WHAT A CROCK!

Gays and lesbians do have the same rights as everyone else! They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want to marry! See, like all the stupidity from the black population they do not want equal rights, THEY WANT SPECIAL RIGHTS!

Posted by moephishwater on November 16, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While I am not homosexual, I fully support those who are. How can you claim marriage between a man and a woman is "sanctioned by God", when not everyone believes in a God, and when many people believe that there are multiple Gods, or have other beliefs about God. Just because the sexual acts between a man and a woman create a child, does not mean that homosexual relationships should not exist, or that they should not be privileged enough to result in marriage. Homosexual couples pay taxes like you and I do, they can hold jobs and be successful, can make excellent parents, and really are no different than any other couple other than they are of the same sex. Why shouldn't they be allowed the same rights? This isn't about "God", this is about equality. If you love someone, it should not matter what sex, religion, color, or nationality they are. Honestly, if marriage no longer represents love, then it is no longer of importance to me, and likely will not be seen as the ultimate act of two people who love each other any longer by many. By putting limitations on who can marry, marriage is becoming a selfish act that only those individuals who qualify can participate. Many heterosexual marriages end in divorce anyway, so apparently these relationships aren't always so successful. I am a 25 year old female, who is starting to not believe that marriage is really of any importance. If two males or females can not marry, why should I be able to marry my boyfriend? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Posted by tc1 on November 16, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

zekemire just summed it up well.

But it won't matter. They successfully redefined the word "gay" and eventually will do the same for the word "marriage".

Posted by ludwig on November 16, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bluegrits:
Yes I know she and her lover are now married and are quiet happy together. Perhaps you have some justification for their unethical relatonship when he was younger?

Posted by ironhorse on November 16, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The gays are trying to normalize in society something that is not normal, something very sick.

Today the sexual deviants will tell you being gay is a normal, healthy activity we should not only condone but endorse.

If they get their way, ten years from now the pedophile movement will try to normalize, ten years after that, the necrophilia’s, and so on.

If a group of heterosexuals even attempted the perverse public display seen in the Gay Pride parade they would be arrested on the spot for lewd behavior.

Just by saying they are gay, Elton John and Rosie O’Donnell invoke to powerfully sick visuals.

The politicians pretend to "accept" perverse deviant gays publicly. Thankfully, they despise them privately and with their votes. (Well, except Graham but for obvious reasons).

Posted by ColdBud on November 16, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

During the protest, I watched a football game, worked on my truck, went to dinner with my wife and then had a few beers with some friends at the house. I forgot there was even a protest. But then... I'm a man.

Posted by ludwig on November 16, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve:
Thanks for backing me up about pedophiles. I am sorry that this happened to you as it should happen to no child. Thank you for sharing because perhaps someone out here can draw strenght and inpiration what you have shared.

Posted by a_set_love on November 16, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

... Some how it just seems appropriate that the Homosexuals and other Perverts would want to have their protests in the City of Charleston....

Posted by geekboy on November 16, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)

"Simple solution, take down the businesses that supported the initiative. Spend no money at businesses, stop others from spending money at the businesses. When a boycott's over, the supporter will be out of business. THEN watch things change.

------------------------------------------

Oh, you mean like what the NAACP is currently doing. Yeah... that's worked out real well for them, hasn't it?

Posted by a_set_love on November 16, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now, Now JimIslander - Ya I remember that story, he was later outed as being a "Closet Socialist Democrat".

You white guys are so funny. You better watch that last sentence... "Your" true colurs are showing thru, Charlestonian.

LMAO - at you. JimIslander.

Posted by beefsaver on November 16, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nothing like ignorance to bolster an opinion grown of blind hatred. The arguments against gay marriage are, for the most part, spurious to legal rights and enormous appeals to emotion instead of reason.

The "Christian" crusade against endowing gay couples with the same rights as straight ones is an embarrassment to thinking people. "Christians" are taking a firm stand against people that want to be monogamous and committed in relationships. They're taking a firm stand against people that want to adopt children. The woman in the article actually adopted a *gasp* BROWN BABY that wasn't even a newborn! This is the war we're fighting? A war against monogamy, family, and adoption.

I'm a happily married parent and see no way in which anyone else's marriage between willing, consenting adults can degrade or change that. I've never heard a single logical argument to prove that it would. I've heard spurious claims that lunatics on Pride floats are the norm, that child molesters are the norm for homosexuals, and that this will lead to legitimization of bestiality, incest, and child abuse. All arguments blithely ignore any legal concept of consent or any knowledge of what makes up our population. Who says that gays have any sort of "corner" on the pervert market?

Zekemire, if you're so clear on the rights of people... why are women 100% guaranteed the right to marry men, but men aren't? Separate but equal?

Anyone that thinks that the "sanctity of marriage" still exists in this country in the rosy-tinted way described above needs to pull the sack off of their head. Heterosexuals have ruined the sanctity of marriage... enormous rates of spousal abuse, child abuse, infidelity, divorce, delinquency in child support... you name it. But yeah, gays getting married are going to "ruin" marriage.

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ludwig on November 16, 2008 cwmcpa

"Part II
The bans on same sex marriages in all states are in most cases illegal and unconstitutional because they violate the equality clause of the US Constitution among others including the right to privacy."

THERE IS NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY in the Constitution, nor a right to marry. If you are going to argue Constitutional rights, first, know the constitution, second try using the 14th amend. However, dont forget the 10th amend.

You look em up yourself.

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. This is what happens when the school systems no longer teach the constitution, but teach idiot talking points.

Posted by Time4action on November 16, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have always been open minded and nonjudgemental of other people. Growing up, my parents were very prejudice against blacks. Whenever I heard racials slurs or comments, even as a young child, I got chills down my back, I hated it. I have no explanation of why I felt that way other than I knew in my heart it was wrong. I remember feeling nauseous everytime I heard about homosexual, and still do. I have no explanation of why I feel that way other than I know in my heart it is wrong. I would never treat a gay person differently but I wish they would keep their sexual preferences to themselves because I don't really want to know. Just like I'm not going to tell people what I do in my bedroom (or whichever room). I wish I knew about all the 1,138 benefits when I was married. I think I got cheated!!

Posted by ironhorse on November 16, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

On second thought......why not let gays marry? Shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us?

Posted by ludwig on November 16, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

cwmcpa Again you are showing you ignorance about sexual matters. Homosexuality (which is not a good term for the love relatioship of two people of the same sex) is not a perversion. It is just as natural as heterosexuality and occurs in all the animal plant kingdoms You would not be male if you did not have a feminine gene. What makes males males is the XY chromosone. Females are YY. Please enroll in a Human Sexuality Course at a College somewhere. Preferably not some religious college because they tend to distort and put a spin on things that are not true.

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

beefsaver "Nothing like ignorance to bolster an opinion grown of blind hatred."

Please spare us the insults and the Political correctness duct tape. No doubt there is hatred by some on both sides of this issue, but you not all opinions are based on ignorance.

The following is a pretty good site for info on court cases involving this issue as well as other "marriage rights" issue.

"The Supreme Court said in the 1977 case of Moore v. East Cleveland that "the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition.

Of course, there is disagreement today as to what constitutes a family and what persons are entitled to receive the constitutional protections of parents."

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects...

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects...

Posted by ironhorse on November 16, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only time that guys should be on top of each other naked is in an Iraqi prison.

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JimIslander "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"

Thats not a right, thats part of the Declaration of Independence.

Again, try the 14th amend.

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JimIslander "If one group is discriminated against for seeking the same status as another group based on sexual preference this is discriminatory and directly infringes on an individuals right to the pursuit of happiness."

Ok, sounds great, so if a 14 year old girl wants to have sex with a 40 year old guy, then there should not be a consent law. Plus, prostitution should be legal, as well as using illegal drugs.......and so on.

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ironhorse, that is plain stupid and ignorant.

Posted by ludwig on November 16, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Slick 50 the majority did not speak---what spoke was the fear and perverted propaganda by the Mormon and Catholic Churches ---clearly an illegal interference of the Church getting into State business. They have created a special unequal class of people---heterosexuals. Minorties have rights also. This is MOB rule not democratic rule where everyone is equal under the law.
If you were a minority would you like for your rights to be taken away from you or be run over by a mob? This is an unjust situation.

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jimbo, it is not a right innumerated in the Constitution.

The phrase is based on the writings of John Locke, who expressed a similar concept of "life, liberty, and estate (property)". Locke said that "no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions."

Again, try the 14th amend.

Its time for some football. Have a nice day.

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JimIslander "Well YES! All but the 14 year old girl, she is still a child."

LMAO, PERFECT! Yet that same 14 year old can drive across state lines in some states and get a legal abortion! Child? Please...tell me you actually believe in something of substance.

BTW, in reference to prop 8 in the leftist state of California, exit polls found that majorities of blacks and Hispanics supported the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. I guess they dont see it as a civil rights issue.

Commercial is over, back to football.

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JimIslander "No one is saying you have to hire prostitutes or do drugs. If you do it's your problem."

If it is legal, than as an employer, I would eventually have to hire them, or I would be discriminating...right?

"The world would be a much better place if you bible thumpers...."

Show me one post in this thread where I referred to the Bible.

Such anger and hatred for "bible thumpers" - intolerance by a hypocrite.

Posted by ludwig on November 16, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

coolfreaknbeans , you are way behind the times and were when your child was 5 years old. I grew up in a time when sex was not mentioned at all in polite company and women died of embarrassment because they would not tell their male physician about their female problems.

Ignorance can kill and breeds ignorance and prejustice. Kids get the wrong information about sex (don't believe? then it read the archives of Dear Abby).

These days young children are getting pregnant at age 10 years old--the fathers are children who think that they have to get a girl pregnant so that will not turn out to be gay (that is just some of the weird false information kids believe). We are forced to give kids information these days that our own parents did not give us until we were 14 years old or older. We see HIV, syphillis and gonorhea in kids as early as age 11. Parents are forced to put daughters on birth control pills as a defense and fathers maybe forced to teach their sons about condoms before the usual time. If your daugther has ever been around when someone was watching daytime soap operas--she has seen more simulated sex acts than I imagined in the 1950s. Back then such stuff would not be allowed on television.

Now you were pissed off about your daughter. I understand your feelings but at the same time you should be glad that she learned about this because she will learn that unless she was born gay there is no way she will ever be and thus when she gets older ---her female friends cannot tease here into having heterosexual sex before she is mature enough to make intelligent decision to do so. I have heard young girls tell another girl that she must be a lesbian because she is still a virgin. Ignorant Anita Bryant tried to perpetuate the myth that being gay was a choice and gay people stood on street corners to recruit people to be gay since gay people were not "breeders". Of course that is false---many gay people are 'breeders' and no one can be made gay who was not born to be.

One of the big problems about this is that many parents do not feel confortable about discussing sexual matters with their kids and they might be just as misinformed and believe myths such as 'eating oysters will make you pregant" as the child is. IF you do not; please take an unbiased course in human sexuality to make sure you have all the facts before you or your wife talk to your daughter about sex.

That your daugher was watching 'Rosie' does not reflect upon your parenting abilities well. You should not allow your daughter to watch any tv programs or be on the internet that you do not personally supervise or approve of second by second until she gets old enough to be left to her own devices.
You can get the content of most tv progranm by reading about them in newspapers or on the net.

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/s...

Posted by RTC on November 16, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I had to put away all of the older storybooks that should have been collectibles to be passed from generation to generation. Who in the hell is going to read their child or grandchild a story called "The Qu**r Little Baker"?
You see, a word that is supposed to mean strange or odd is not even allowed on these blogs. What a shame.
The PnC telling you to watch your mouth, because that word is not allowed.
Why is our freedom of speech being denied?

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In a 2006 Washington state Supreme Court decision, Andersen v. King County that upheld state legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage:

"Thus, the State is required to demonstrate only a rational basis to justify the legislation. ..... The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State’s legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children."

A 2007 Maryland Supreme Court decision, Deane & Polyak v. Conaway also upheld similar legislation, using similar reasoning based on the issue of procreation:

"We agree that the State's asserted interest in fostering procreation is a legitimate governmental interest."

Procreation creates a biological inequality between heterosexual and homosexual couples, an inequality that in light of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, can not be addressed or corrected by law, because it is a result of nature and not a man made inequality.

Posted by coolfreaknbeans on November 16, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ludwig- You are an idiot. I said repeatedly in my post my daughter was watching the pre school channel NICK!!! NOT ROSIE O'DONNELL!!! Why in the hell do you think I had a problem with it? It was a "special" on a childrens only network. Can you imagine if heteros had a special on kids tv about how we screw? My children have never been allowed to watch any fn soap operas either. So you believe at age 5 you should approach your child and explain gay sex?! And for the record I don't think the year 2000 is so "behind the times" as far as child rearing. I would never teach my child hate and if they ask questions, I answer them honestly- but AGE APPROPRIATE!!! I don't know what type of parent you are or if your are...but WOW! I'd have to wonder if you would feel the need to discuss gay sex ed with your 5 yr old in fear she'd be knocked up at ten! High expectations you have.

Posted by Tides on November 16, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All these homosexuals are going to hell, according to the Bible. Why doesn't God want these people in his Kingdom?

Posted by Tides on November 16, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gays and lesbians ... freaks.

Posted by guidedbystewart on November 16, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"In a 2006 Washington state Supreme Court decision, Andersen v. King County that upheld state legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage:

"Thus, the State is required to demonstrate only a rational basis to justify the legislation. ..... The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State’s legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children."

A 2007 Maryland Supreme Court decision, Deane & Polyak v. Conaway also upheld similar legislation, using similar reasoning based on the issue of procreation:

"We agree that the State's asserted interest in fostering procreation is a legitimate governmental interest."

Procreation creates a biological inequality between heterosexual and homosexual couples, an inequality that in light of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, can not be addressed or corrected by law, because it is a result of nature and not a man made inequality."

So arguments of the such (like the one up above) is a complete logical fallacy.

This is because of these indisputable facts.

Not all people get married to procreate.

Not all people that get married are religious.

Not all people that procreate are married.

Also the sanctity of marriage argument is flawed because of these facts also.

Basic Logic

Another truth,

Many people get married because of love and support.

This does not have to be gender specific.

Another fact,

Many couples live together as if they are married, whether the State recognizes it or not.

Just because the State does not recognize gay marriages, is merely an act of prejudice and can not really be argued otherwise.

Posted by guidedbystewart on November 16, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, and there is the religious justification people point to uphold this prejudice. People tried to do the same thing to justify slavery.

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

guidedbystewart - "So arguments of the such (like the one up above) is a complete logical fallacy."

LMAO, those are actual legal decisions by state supreme courts, not my arguements. LMAO.

guidedbystewert - "Just because the State does not recognize gay marriages, is merely an act of prejudice and can not really be argued otherwise."

prejudice? based on what? LOL, there is no law at this time that can support a prejudice is happening.

YOU CANNOT CHANGE THIS FACT;

"Procreation creates a biological inequality between heterosexual and homosexual couples, an inequality that in light of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, can not be addressed or corrected by law, because it is a result of nature and not a man made inequality."

biological inequality - who are you going to sue for discrimination? God? Darwin? DNA? Nature?

Disclaimer - I am not advocating the isolation of any group or persons, I am just trying to make a point -

If you put 20 male or female homosexuals on an Island for 100 years, seperate from the oppisite sex - they would all be extinct. Gone...because they could not procreate, or reproduce, or propagate the species.

I didnt make any religious arguement.

If homosexual marriage, then why not bigamy/polygamy (having more than one spouse at a time)? BTW it was criminalized by Abraham Lincoln in 1862.

Posted by gamecockdoc on November 16, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If homosexuality is "natural and normal and you are born like that" and you agree with Darwin of survival of the fittest, then why can't two men or two women have children?

I think that question alone debunks any argument. Simple. Done.

One last thing...THE MAJORITY SPOKE WITH THEIR VOTE....GET OVER IT!!!!

Posted by guidedbystewart on November 16, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SimplyMad,You are not getting my point. Sure homosexuals can not procreate, but not all marriage is based on procreation.

We are not middle ages where people are dieing from the plague and the population is decreasing. Also there are the facts I made earlier.

This is because of these indisputable facts.

Not all people get married to procreate.

Not all people that get married are religious.

Not all people that procreate are married.

Legitimizing marriage because of procreation is flawed, but I take your point that it was a court decision and not your argument, yet you were backing up your argument based on this particular court decision.

As long as it consenting adults, I can not see a problem with polygamy, but I do not think that polygamy comes natural, especially for women. But then again who am I to say.

I do feel that people’s that are gay are just being who they are, but then again I am not homosexual, but this belief of mine is substantiated in other ways (empirical observations and the fact my sexuality is not a choice for me, So I feel that the same goes for them).

Either way, it is a matter of prejudice to be against gay marriage.

Posted by guidedbystewart on November 16, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BTW, there are plenty of people procreating, so a few less people procreating will not hurt anything,considering they are 6 billion people on the planet and growing.

Posted by cubfan on November 16, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hardly ever comment..I just sit back and read how much stupidity and hate there is going on out there. A lot of you comment on every single story posted, whether it affects your life or not. You just have to have something to say. Must be nobody listens to you in your "real" life-if you have one. So you get on here, day after day, and spout off about things just to hear yourself talk. I have only commented about 3 times-about things that meant a great deal to me. I'm a mother of 4..not gay, not bisexual..got a great husband. HOWEVER, there are people near and dear to my heart that ARE gay. That does not make them perverts, pedophiles, or any less deserving of love and respect than anybody else. Well, let me rephrase that..they deserve MORE respect than a lot of the regular posters on here-because you live your lives to hate others. And now you hate gay people because you don't approve of whom they love and they have the AUDACITY to want to marry the person they love. Are you jealous because you have no love in YOUR own sad, pathetic lives?? You sit behind your computers and make anonymous, hateful comments day after day after day. No, I'm not a liberal. I just happen to think if someone is lucky enough in this world to find someone who loves them unconditionally, then good for them. The world could use a little more love. And those of you would like to use that sickening quote about man should not lay with a man the way he lays with a woman..or whatever the exact quote is..how about try THIS one? "Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself." Yeah, I know this site is for people to voice their opinions..but there is a core group here who has an opinion on EVERYTHING. Here's a thought...instead of spending your days by sharing your intolerance on everything from race, homosexuality, rich people, poor people, Democrats, Republicans, guns, and generally hating everything and everyone that doesn't agree with you...spend your time learning to spell, learning grammar, and generally trying to be a little less nasty and hateful towards your fellow man/woman...gay/straight...whatever. If you have any spare time after all that, GET A LIFE.

Posted by lynn_marie_0125 on November 16, 2008 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cid95 Posted: "So Juan's "parents" are a now defunct lesbian couple?"

Yes, Holly Thomas indicated that she and her former partner have two adopted children, Juan and Evan. Unfortunately, like 50% of the straight population, they have essentially been through a divorce. The huge difference is that there are no legal protections for them or their children, like there are in a heterosexual divorce. What the P&C doesn't say is that Holly and her former partner, Cathy were foster parents to many infants, toddlers, and young children while they were together for about 11 years. They've cared for medically fragile children, beaten and neglected children, sexually abused children, and were blessed to have adopted Juan and Evan. These children in state custody came to them because their heterosexual parents were not able to care for them, or took it upon themselves to neglect, beat and/or molest them. What part of this makes Holly and her former partner "parents" and not parents. Whether they are still together, or not doesn't negate the fact that they were excellent foster parents to many and are excellent mothers to their boys. Too bad the Post and Courier didn't feel that it was important to include some of these facts.

Posted by etfilmjunkie on November 16, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A few thoughts from an American that values her SECULAR society...

1) This IS a Civil Rights issue! this is the gay civil rights movment. What you are telling the gay community is they do not have the right to build a family. How would you feel if your lover of 50 years was in the ICU dying and you could not spend your last moments together? How is that fair. What if your lover was ALL you had and you died...you lover would have NO rights to the funeral arrangments. Is that fair?

2) These bodies of legislation are discriminating the Heterosexual community also. My mom has a masters degree in education. She is also unmarried. Under the new laws passed in these states would exempt her from adopting just because she is umarried. I truned out just fine and she raised me as a single mother.

3) The bible is NOT our book of law, it is the Christian book of law. SPEORATION of CHURCH and STATE or do you biggots out there want to also overturn that?

4) WWJD? Not this. He would not discriminate.

5) the guy that is scared of the blue truck. That really sucks but that is not a gay issue!!! Many members of my family were molested by the OPPISITE SEX as children...by a PEDITRITION no less.

6) Get to know gay people in your community and then make these biggoted and divisive claims.

7) Every little girl dreams of her wedding day...even lesbians.

8) I left the Christian Church at 16 because of biggots like some of you that have partcipated in discrimination.

YES WE CAN! TODAY IS BRIGHTER THAN YESTERDAY! ONE DAY GAY POLITICIANS THAT REPRESENT SC WILL BE ABLE TO STOP LIVING A LIE AND REPRESENT THEIR STATE (and I am not talking about Ketner...I'm talking about those currntly serving) Out of respect for this persons descretion I will not type his name but there it is SC...you continue to elect gay's to represent you but you want to strip them of their rights.

-A straight Woman that will continue fighting for equality!

Posted by lynn_marie_0125 on November 16, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

cubfan...YOU ROCK! I have tears of joy in my eyes and have just shouted, "you go girl!!!" You have wrapped it all up in one utterly fantastic post!

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL, cubfan, can you use some line breaks in your next rant?

Not all those that oppose homosexual marriage "hate". There are many legal ramifications, from tax law, to states rights that need to be considered.

It is easy to sit back and label the opposition as "haters", (which would seem to be judgmental on your part), but it isn't so easy to sit there and debate both sides of the issue.

Either we except the teachings of the 3 major religions, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, or we except the theory of evolution and Darwinism.

On the one hand, homosexuality is a sin and is condemned, on the other hand, evolution and survival of the fittest would logically conclude that homosexuality is a self defeating means to survival due to the inability to reproduce.
This would mean that left to nature, homosexuals would become extinct without some type of emotional or sexual indoctrination to promote homosexual behavior.

Personally, I don't presume to know the answer, I just look at the legal aspects and come to the conclusion that at this time, there is no constitutional right for them to marry. That states have the right under the 10th amend. to enact laws to define marriage, as the people of the state vote representatives that support that view.

Again, this is NOT a civil rights issue;

November 15, 2008
Beware: The Gay Enemies List
Rick Moran

Opponents of gay marriage in California are suffering the effects of a childish tantrum thrown by those who lost on Proposition 8. There have been attacks on Mormons for leading the fight for the ballot initiative as well as racial epithets hurled at African Americans because 70% of them voted "Yes" to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Posted by cubfan on November 16, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't "except" teachings, SimplyMad, I "accept" them.
Yes, I did rant..because ignorance and hate really tick me off and I had to vent.
You say I'm being judgmental by calling some of these people haters? Have you read some of their postings?? They certainly aren't trying to spread love and joy..

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL, sorry for the one "accept" error! Geez, get over yourself. What are you, the grammer Queen? Are you one of those elitist educrats?

And yes I have read some of the crap posted. I even responded to it.

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ironhorse, that is plain stupid and ignorant.

Posted by SimplyMad on November 16, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL, I just realized I committed a homophone error!

I am sure that you, cubfan, know what that means but for others; homophone errors in writing involve sound-alike words - Accept/Except!

Posted by cubfan on November 16, 2008 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am the Grammar Queen. Unfortunately, that is more of an honorary title, which is why I work as a medical transcriptionist to pay my bills.

Posted by cubfan on November 16, 2008 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you, Lynn Marie. I really appreciate that. :)

Posted by UrGatorbait on November 16, 2008 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A few things that get the locals riled up, liberals, gays, people that can think, people that have new ideas, and people of different color. So much hate and intolerance.

Cubfan, your post was dynamite. Spot-on

Posted by dhshjh on November 16, 2008 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

cubfan.. If you are going to correct grammar and spelling, do it for everybody. Not just the posts you disagree with.
etfilmjunkie's is really bad. I had to read it a few times to understand everything.
No, not all the posts against homosexuality are hate posts. I have had many gay friends and relatives and love them very much. That doesn't mean I have to agree. And if they are "born" that way then why are so many bisexual. More on the female side then male.
You all can fight God all you want, but as stated by
ludwid on one of the posts...
"These days young children are getting pregnant at age 10 years old--the fathers are children who think that they have to get a girl pregnant so that will not turn out to be gay (that is just some of the weird false information kids believe). We are forced to give kids information these days that our own parents did not give us until we were 14 years old or older. We see HIV, syphillis and gonorhea in kids as early as age 11. Parents are forced to put daughters on birth control pills as a defense and fathers maybe forced to teach their sons about condoms before the usual time. If your daugther has ever been around when someone was watching daytime soap operas--she has seen more simulated sex acts than I imagined in the 1950s. Back then such stuff would not be allowed on television."
Why do you think this is happening? And everything else going on in our world.
Too much freedom and no GOD

Posted by jimmy1370 on November 17, 2008 at 5:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So they are protesting a proposition that was voted on and passed because they don't like the results?? Does that mean that all of us who didn't vote for Obama can protest that vote and try to get it overturned?? What would all of you who support these folks say about that?

Posted by mkris on November 17, 2008 at 6:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Most importantly, stop patonizing the businesses that support anti-gay laws. Put them out of business. Force thier doors shut. They have every right to express thier opinion, now you have yours and just put them out of business.

Posted by greyrider on November 17, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Real simple - Marriage (whether you like it or not) is a religious term. Its origins are in the Bible. A "marriage" is a relationship between two people AND GOD. It is a bigot who wants to use a Judeo-Christian religous term to "legitimize" a relationship that the Bible condemns. If gays want to have "civil unions" that's fine, who cares? But it is a slap in the face to Jews and Christians everywhere for gays to ask that the term "marriage" be associated with their relationship.

Posted by mkris on November 17, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Which marital relationship in the bible? Multiple wives? Abraham and his wife and his manage-a-trois? The concubines or maybe the sex slaves? Or the rape of a barren widow by her brother-in-law if she had no children?
Take you pick.

Posted by mkris on November 17, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Bible is guidance for many in South Carolina.

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

Posted by just1reader on November 17, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So is the absent parent in the "now defunct lesbian couple" paying child support for the kids?

Posted by lynn_marie_0125 on November 18, 2008 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Unlike heterosexual divorces, where child support is mandated by the courts, there is no law about child support when lesbian or gay people end a relationship--and yes, gay relationships do sometimes end. One of the huge reasons for legalizing gay "unions"/"marriages"/"partnerships" (call it what you will) is to ensure that gay people have legal rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES; including the right to adopt children, the right to pass along social security benefits to a surviving partner, the right to visit your elderly partner in a nursing home or GASP!...live in a retirement community together, as a couple. It also means having the legal responsibilities of child support, in some cases, alimony, and all of the other responsibilities that go along with marriage, or whatever it ends up being called.

To answer the question above about these people financially supporting their children...the answer is a resounding YES. They are like every other "divorced" couple with kids out there...coordinating soccer practice, school field trips, Boy Scouts, what's for dinner, sitting 'round the clock by their son's hospital bedside with a broken knee from a school accident, and being their for their sons, emotionally, financially, spiritually, and so on.

Not sure who decided on the term "defunct", but it's disrespectful and rude.