[Bernard Marx]

I don't know if it's okay to post the whole column but I strongly suggest going to the source and reading the whole thing -- no matter what state you live in. This arrogant decision by our black-robed Masters will affect this entire nation.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Just think! Forty years ago the libs and hippies were telling us that marriage was not necessary in a relationship if you were sincere. It was ONLY a piece of paper anyway.

Now marriage is very important to a “relationship”, but ONLY if you are gay.

[VOA]

Prager bump

[frankiep]

Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison and their peers went to war over much less.
I am sickened over just how apathetic to the cause of liberty and self government the subjects (not citizens) of this country are today.

[rlmorel]

Wow! That is a great piece! A keeper for sure!

[444Flyer]

Pro-marriage Californians, give em’ a damn good fight this November. I am sick and tired of judicial activism. The four judges should be removed from office and their benches should by Lysoled.

[Mark]

Since the Marriage amendment changes the Constitution, why not add another amendment to more easily(quickly) get rid of Supreme Court judges?

[Yardstick]

Prager does a good job of presenting some of the downstream effects and unintended consequences of redefining marriage — things that don’t immediately come to mind. It is quite disturbing. The European countries that now allow gay marriage provide provide something of a test of his predictions. Do they present gay marriage as just another choice on par with hetero marriage in their public school text books? Do their wedding ring sellers show his & his and her & her rings in their advertising? Would be interesting to hear what FReepers who travel to Europe (I think these are mostly Scandinavian countries) have seen.

[DoingTheFrenchMistake]

Looks to me like a chicken & egg kinda of thing, had the public not attempted to legislate their version of morality on the rest of the legitimate citizens of the state then the judges would have not had to step in and correct the oversight.

Same thing happened over the questions of slavery and civil rights, once it was a capitol crime to marry someone of another race, today we have no such restrictions. No doubt back when folks were first allowed to intermarry between races dire predictions were made that never came to past.

In 100 years the dire predictions made regarding gay marriage will look just as foolish and bigoted.

[Darnright]

I’ll be interested to see if some of Prager’s worries come true. If they do, our grandchildren will live in a very different world than do we.

[fwdude]

An insidious change has already taken place because of this decision; one not recognized by most people, and discounted by the left. "Brides" and "Grooms" can no longer legally be called by these terms based on reason and reality, since the wording the CA marriage license has been changed to refer to "Partner A" and Partner B." So natural heterosexuality has been supplanted by a new-world order terminology by the decision of 4 "feelers" and the quick stroke of a pen. I would doubt that a man and woman getting married would have the option of using the old form - thus the radical left has won the war of words and ideas in this state.

Quick question: If the marriage amendment passes in November, will the marriage license forms revert back to the traditional wording, or will the time and money to reprint be the excuse of the left to keep the ground won in hopes that they will have another chance at battle?

[Guenevere]

bttt

[Vision]