That’s an utterly false analogy for three reasons.

1) Same sex marriages represent a tiny percentage of all marriages, one cannot “flood the market” with same sex marriages.

2) Same sex marriages are not “counterfeit”. These loving relationships are just as valid and valuable as any heterosexual marriage. Same sex couples care for, support each other, and enhance each others happiness just as much as opposite sex couples do. By benefiting the individuals involved same sex marriages make these couples more productive and improve society as a whole – same sex marriages are anything but “counterfeit”.

3) Same sex marriages do not devalue heterosexual marriages in any way. After opening marriage to same sex couples heterosexual marriages retain all the same rights, responsibilities, and benefits that they had before – they are not changed in anyway. You can still file your income tax together, receive pension benefits if your partner dies, make medical and funeral decisions for them, refuse to testify in court against your partner, get family discounts at businesses, etc. Regardless of how many same sex couples marry your marriage is unchanged in the slightest – your analogy is a false demonization of harmless gay couples.

That’s utter nonsense Tamara and it only goes to demonstrate the bizarre lengths you’ll go to to twist reality to justify your bigotry. Allowing same sex couples to marry doesn’t deprive you of anything whatsoever. On the other hand it is you who’d deprive those couples of a life-changing event to satisfy your own trivial whims. It is you who is stealing from same sex couples Tamara, not vice versa.

Constitutional rights reside in the Constitution. They are not “granted”, whether with or against the will of the people. That’s why we have a Constitution and a Judiciary. If we just wanted to go by majority whim, Tamara, we could eliminate the rights of all minority groups, be they ethnic, religious, or orientation.

It is the job of the Supreme Court to determine which laws are consistent with the Constitution and to disallow those that are not. What was it that you thought they did?

Clearly you are very ignorant about the roll of the Judiciary.

Nobody is stealing a right. Any supposed “rights” to marriage between a same-sex parnetship were given 1)against the will of the people…which is very much like stealing my property and giving it someone else, and 2)by judges that didn’t have the right to do so under the definition of their job description.

The only thief here is the person who advocates kidnapping marriage to molest and destroy it.

What about polygamy, which is still legal in some countries? A number of ancient cultures allowed same-sex marriages as well, such as the Chinese.

In the countries where same-sex marriage has been legalized, the number of marriages has gone down and the number of children born out of wedlock has increased.

Ah yes, this old saw. I’ve seen that claim as well, but the problem is that nobody has been able to demonstrate a direct, causal relationship between legalized same-sex marriage and declines in marriages overall and increases in out-of-wedlock births. Out-of-wedlock births have indeed increased in the Netherlands, but that’s been happening for more than 30 years, long before anyone ever tried to legalize same-sex marriage.

At the same time, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country, while Arkansas (which banned gay marriage in 2004) has one of the highest.

Same-sex marriage is a social experiment gone bad. In fact, it is so bad in some areas, that their governments are now trying to figure out how to reverse it. Spain, for example, is now paying its citizens to have children.

Again, declines in birthrates are occurring throughout Europe, and that’s been happening since long before same-sex marriage was legalized.

Do you see what you’re doing here? It’s called “scapegoating.”

I have done my research. First of all, there were 7 judges on that court, and three of them voted that Proposition 22 did not violate any constitutional rights. The four judges who did rule against Prop 22 did so based on a 1948 decision (from a racial decision) that ruled that it was a civil right to be married. However, if you go back and read that 1948 decision, it is specifically speaking of the civil right for heterosexual marriage–marriage between a man and a woman. It never rules that ANY kind of marriage is a civil right. In reality, the constitutions of states and the federal government regularly “limit” the civil rights of marriage: that is why polygamy is not legal…or polyandry…marriage between siblings, close relatives, or between child and parent. Even marriage between a minor and an adult needs to have the permission of parents.

The other thing that the 4 “activist” judges did was name homosexuals as a protected class, which puts their interests even above the civil rights formerly granted to others, such as the right to religious beliefs and the right to free speech. [The court found that gay persons are a Suspect Class and that discrimination against them is subject to Strict Scrutiny, similar to that against racial minorities or religion. This does not in any manner put their civil rights "above the civil rights based on religion or free speech]. This was a very dangerous and “activist” move on their part. It was outside of their role and especially without any concern for the will of the people of California. The federal constitution specifically gives the right to define marriage to the states…to the people. [Marriage is not mentioned in the US Constitution at any point.] Giving homosexuals a protected class clause in the constitution takes away the will of the people and also forces people to accept same-sex marriage…not only the marriages, but the educating of them to our children in public schools. No longer are parents deemed the most appropriate teachers of sexual education to their children–in fact, in Massachusetts, parents have been denied the right to remove their children from school on homosexual training days. [This is false]

Marriage has been between a man and a woman throughout all of known history. In the countries where same-sex marriage has been legalized, the number of marriages has gone down and the number of children born out of wedlock has increased. [The truth is the exact opposite of Tamara's claim] Same-sex marriage is a social experiment gone bad. In fact, it is so bad in some areas, that their governments are now trying to figure out how to reverse it. [No governments are trying to reverse same-sex marriage. This is baseless and possibly springs whole from Tamara's imagination] Spain, for example, is now paying its citizens to have children. [I can find no evidence of this claim and Tamara provides none. I think it is likely a baseless falsehood. But were it true, there is no connection whatsoever between same-sex marriage and birth rate.]

Think of it this way. If I have a $5 bill, it is worth $5. But if the market suddenly gets flooded with millions of counterfeit $5 bills, suddenly my $5 bill (which is still genuine) is not worth anything anymore. Its value has been completely undermined by all of the fraudulent ones.

Lastly, I am not unsympathetic to the pains of discovering one might feel same-sex attraction. I do not hate such people at all. I do believe that two people who love each other should be able to visit in hospitals, etc., and that is covered by Domestic Partnerships in California. But a homosexual partnership is just not the same as marriage, and it should not be considered such.

Sometimes families persecute, or threaten ex-communication, sometime even kick out loved ones. Churches ban or ex-communicate members.

I didn’t come out ‘officially’ to my parents until I was 40 and my parents were the ones who felt bad because they felt that I couldn’t trust them with my ‘hidden secret’ (you do the math, single 40 and no girlfriends)

I encourage others to help others ‘come out’

To those who are scared to come out, think about these words from the song

Because of you
I never stray too far from the sidewalk
Because of you
I learned to play on the safe side
So I don’t get hurt
Because of you
I find it hard to trust
Not only me, but everyone around me
Because of you
I am afraid

I lose my way
And it’s not too long before you point it out
I cannot cry
Because I know that’s weakness in your eyes
I’m forced to fake, a smile, a laugh
Every day of my life
My heart can’t possibly break
When it wasn’t even whole to start with

If it is your family, your faith community, your neighbors, your co-workers, maybe giving those important in your life a chance of knowing the real you, will help release your potential to become the real you.

But also remember, coming out is not a one step process, but a life-long process at this point. A friend who was a teacher, after 16 years, decided to come out to his students, only to realize that he would have to come out over and over and over, with each new school year, new set of students, new set of families, new teachers, new neighbors, etc. etc. etc. BUT he lives a more fuller life, and he is truly happy.

Tanara, have you ever heard the phrase “tyranny of the majority?” The whole point of the courts is to ensure that the “will of the people” doesn’t trample on the minority. The California Supreme Court judges found that the law banning same-sex marriage violated the state’s constitution, so they struck it down.

I’m curious, did you know that in the early 1950s, most of the white majority in the South and some Midwest states approved of the Jim Crow laws? That’s why it took the U.S. Supreme Court to strike them down in Brown v. Board of Education, and the National Guard had to be called in to enforce the court’s ruling. In your view, was the Supreme Court “overruling the will of the people?” Were these “activitist judges” who were “legislating from the bench?”

Suppose for a moment, Tanara, that I wished to rob your house. I really really wanted to. I even believed that the world would be a better place if I took the things that you worked so hard for. I wanted them and felt justified taking them – and my friends all agreed.

Then suppose four cops stopped me.

How very unfair. How dare they impose their will on me. How dare they overrule my friends.

You see, Tanara, the judges are like cops. You wanted to steal my right to equal treatment under the law. And your friends all agreed that you should do so. The judges said “no” and now you are indignant.

But Tanara, you are in the position of the theif. Of course you don’t want to be stopped from stealing the equality I worked so hard for.

But, because the judges were my protectors, I’m certainly not going to share your indignation that they stopped you. And if you really thought about it, you’d come to agree.

I know it’s just rhetoric – this whole “activist judges” bull you guys keep repeating like a broken record. Still, I can’t help but wonder what you think the Supreme Court does all day?

Aren’t they there to objectively determine whether laws are constitutional or not? And, I’d like for you to tell me exactly what the political influence of these judges are. Are you even aware that the majority of them are registered Republicans (not exactly the party of gay rights)?

Here: you don’t like the outcome of a ruling because it re-affirms the law set out by the Constitution. That’s your beef. That’s why you guys want to change the constitution – not because it’s right the way it’s written, but because it contradicts your prejudice against same-sex couples.

Tanara – you are a persecutor of good people, a bad neighbor, and illiterate in the principles of our democracy.