[nufsed]

It is highest form of convolution language to deny people the liberty to do something and then call it a victory for liberty. Paging Mr.Orwell.

[goldstategop]

That's not the author's argument. He says its wrong for the state to impose a particular arrangement on every one else. If gays really believe in liberty, all they have to do is propose taking the state out of licensing marriages. If they don't want to do it, then their motives will be obvious to all.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[calex59]

No one's liberty has been denied. They have the right to marry anyone as long as it is a member of the opposite sex and both parties are willing and free to marry. They have the same rights as straight people. Plus they can form a civil union that confers the same rights as being married. This is not about "rights", it is about controlling people and destroying morality so the government can step in and take the place of religion.

It has been done over and over again in communist countries. The plans are all laid out by the communist. clear as bell. Try reading some communist BS sometime, it might open your eyes.

The bottom line is this, their is no constitutional basis for same sex marriage, you can't "deny" a right that never existed.

[scripter]

Gays have been screaming they are born with the same-sex attraction for decades and for decades, science has disagreed.

If their one and only argument for decades has been wrong from the outset, why, on this fact alone, should California redefine marriage, especially when gays already have the exact same benefits of marriage without the name?

Are you of the opinion that any group, no matter how fringe, should be able to redefine marriage? If not, what fringe group crosses the line for you? That is, where do you draw the line on redefining marriage?

[MaineConservative]

It is highest form of convolution language to deny people the liberty to do something and then call it a victory for liberty.

I agree. This is BIG GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVISM at its worst. It is not a victory of LIBERTY, it is a victory of SLAVISM.

To me, Conservativism is for SMALL GOVERNMENT and States Rights (and the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut are using their rights of being a state for gay marriage), not for Big GOVERNMENT that tells you what you can do in your house.

Personally, I'm not for gay marriage but gays should have to RIGHT to visit each other in the hospital and to adopt OLDER kids.

This issue is what is causing us to lose elections IMHO>