Mari

how simple and pathetic your life must be to view the world in black-and-white, dichotomous terms!

There's more proof that Jesus existed in writing that George Washington. Check it out. I have a challenge for you. Prove evolution happened. Give me one instance where I can see, hear, feel, or smell it. Looks like you are trusting in evolution by faith, too. I've studied evolution scientificly and no one can absolutely prove it. Stop being so bitter at faith people and realize you have a faith too.

Why can you hate those that disagree with you but if you don't get your way it is a hate crime?

Is there more proof that God existed than George Washington?? I mean, I've seen pictures and paintings of George Washington, there is actually a face to his name. Yet on the other hand, where's God's face? I’ve never seen a picture of him, not even a painting….only of Jesus with blue eyes, blonde hair, handsome, yet he was Jewish.

Like I say, unless you can give me just one picture of him, a real one, a video, something that proofs what you are saying, then we can talk evolution.

What about the Taliban? They believe in a God and because of their God they have committed horrific crimes, to its own people, its own women, and to us, let's not forget 9/11......all these to please a GOD, so what makes you different, you are also an extremist who believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman because some book called the Bible says so, isn't that the argument here?

What makes you different than those so called "terrorists"? You are also attacking a group, in this case homosexuals. The Taliban attacks a different group, "Americas" for the freedom we have, which thanks to religious freaks, that freedom can and will be ruin, just like the court did today.

I think if it was up to you, slavery would still exist (because of the “majority” approving of it), women won’t have the rights to vote, because we should not go against the law, right?

The good thing here is that religion is on it's way to extinction, have you check the statistics lately??? Loving it! So, yeah, SCREW GOD!!

More proof of Jesus than George Washington? Are people really raised that stupid? There half of one book that so much as acknowledges the existance of this Christ figure. There are no primary documents speaking of his existance. The closest was written a hundred years after the fact. More than enough time in that age to create fact from fiction. These are the same people that believed a man in a chariot pulled the sun across the sky. Heck, there is more proof of the existance of Harry Potter than Jesus Christ. Sure he exists... and he is having tea with the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

You've studied evolution and still think no one can prove it? Sounds like someone got an 'F' in biology. There was a colony of butterflies that migrated to the same forest every year. One year, the forest burned down so only ashen stumps were left. Within 2 years, all the butterflies wing color matched the new burnt color of remaining tree stumps. Perhaps you would cite that as 'micro-evolution' and somehow it doesn't count. Where is the human proof? Back in 2006, the human genome project was able to identify over 700 sections of DNA where strong evolution has occured.

When you say screw GOD, that means that you believe there is a GOD. That you do not like HIS ways is another matter. You want a picture of HIM? Some day you will see HIM face to face like it or not. I hope you come to your senses before that day. Want a proof that GOD exists? Read The Bible. If you don't understand IT, get someone to explain IT to you. GOD bless you!!!!!!

God and religion shouldn't really be that important to this debate.

The real question, I believe, is why does government have any say or involvement in marriage at all? The only reason that SHOULD matter, is that marriage, between and a man and a woman, is the relationship that gives rise to the next generation of emotionally and mentally mature tax payers. Children from single-parent households typically have more problems due to lack of role-models, from either gender, and I would guess that the same would be true for children raised by same-sex couples.

So, until a scientific study that is broad enough in scope to cover the mental and emotional well-being of children raised in such circumstances, and covering a suitable time-frame, is completed telling me otherwise, I don't believe children should be raised by same-sex couples. I don't mean this as an offense to anyone; I also think unwed mothers should think of adoption first.

And since same-sex couples can't produce children of their own, I don't believe the government should sanction it with the same benefits as marriage between a man and a woman. I'm perfectly okay with civil unions that allow legal wills, and hospital visits, and such, but I don't believe that they should be given any tax exemptions or credits, because they aren't producing the next generation of tax payers.

If same-sex and heterrosexual couples are recognized as completely equal in every way, one has to wonder why the government is involved with the definition of marriage at all. At that point, I say take the government out of the equation completely. Let couples of either orientation do whatever they want, let the various religious organizations or atheist organizations or whoever, make marriages or partnerships as they see fit, maintaining their rights as private organizations, while the government gives no special benefits to anyone. That would end the debate, I think.

On a final note, California voters decided this legally. The court doesn't have the right to counter the voice of the people, and they don't have the right to legislate from the bench, as is happening so often all over the country. No one should want them to, either, even if it means not getting what you want from them. Think about it; you didn't elect them, but they can set policy over your head. That's not a democracy, or even a republic. These things ought to be decided by voters or legislators, not by governors or courts.

With that logic, barren heterosexual couples should never be allowed to marry. They also cannot produce the next generation of taxpayers. And there are so many children up for adoption that there are not enough heterosexual couples to take them all. Would you say it's better for them to be raised in foster care, with no permenant family, than by a single parent or a gay couple? Please. Even if you don't thing same-sex adoption is the best option, it's better than being raised by the system.

Legal marriage is just that - legal. Theology has no part in it. In this case, it shouldn't be left up to the people. If popular opinion was always allowed to prevail, we would still have segratated schools. Sometimes the people are wrong.

Working girl, so you have "studied evolution scientificly and no one can absolutely prove it"... does this mean you have "scientificly" proven creationism? And you can give at least one instance where you can "see, hear, feel, or smell it"? While you're at it, tell us some details on your assertion that "There's more proof that Jesus existed in writing that George Washington."

I suspect that this points more to the particular writings that you've limited your reading to than any true scientific investigation.

I do say "screw God" referring to the belief that God actually exists, not to the actual "person."

You want a picture of HIM? Some day you will see HIM face to face like it or not. I hope you come to your senses before that day.... Sure, just like the 70 virgins the Taliban promises suicide bombers will get when they die for the cause? LMAO!!!

Hamas activist, Abu Wardeh was quoted as saying: "I described to him how God would compensate the martyr for sacrificing his life for his land. If you become a martyr, God will give you 70 virgins, 70 wives and everlasting happiness."

Meanwhile, I leave you with two quotes:

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca the Younger 4 b.c.- 65 a.d.

Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! . BUT HE LOVES YOU! - GEORGE CARLIN

ghostcoon,

The reason that this is a big issue is that in our society, marriage confers those rights and benefits in a much more respected way than a civil union -- it is a civil contract in addition to also being a religious sacrament. I live in New Hampshire, which is about to enact marriage equality. Care has been taken here to distinguish between the civil contract and the religious sacrament. Religious groups will not be required to perform same-sex marriages if it is against their beliefs. At the same time, gay couples will enjoy all of the rights and benefits of marriage that other couples enjoy.

I frankly don't get what all the fuss is about. Who cares what other people do with their lives as long as they arent' hurting anybody? I wonder if those of you who are so against this actually even know any gay people? I do, and I can't say that I see much difference between them and the hetersexual people I know in anything but their sexual preference. I see this as a civil rights issue, plain and simple. It is sad that the State of California was hijacked by the religious right, very sad.

This is an issue where individual faiths should decide whether or not it is in line with their beliefs, not state entities. Period.

The fact that so many people need a law to ban it is not only overkill, it shows bigotry and want for segregation. Yet another example of man putting asunder what God hath brought together.

WorkingGirl, One word in support of evolution.. "Fossils". I can see them, hold them, touch them, smell them, and I suppose taste them. I can even Radioisotope date the earth they were found in just to be sure... I guess there's also another word that supports Evolution, which is "DNA". We can see them, sorta hold them, maybe not so much on the smelling and tasting, but as someone who scientifically investigated the topic, you probably get the idea. Like fossils, DNA records can show the subtle changes with time indicative of evolution and its process.

So, now, what of this god fellow though, I presume that you would not put your argument under the duress of requiring proof from the opposing argument that you yourself were not prepared to supply in regard to your own. But to be fair, one could, I suppose, make the argument that fossils and DNA do not provide 100% absolute proof of evolution, say only 99.9%, and as such asking you to "prove" the existence of a god and furthermore his creative talents seems equally unfair. To that end, I would simply asking for something along the veins of creationism that I could hear, see, smell, touch, etc. Perhaps you could site an animal that his no fossil history or DNA record. Something that "appeared", if you will, out of seemingly nothing as creationism implies.

In any event, I'll let you decide what the appropriate form of you proof is.

Religion is a mute point in this argument. I would like to comment on one of the few intelligent posts here by ghost. Overpopulation is a relevant issue in our society. Would you not agree? Taxes encourage a certain type of behavior. Tax cuts, also encourage or at the very least acknowledge a central idea or thought. Wouldn't it make more sense to give gay couples tax breaks if they do not adopt or expand a family as they are not contributing to overpopulation? For that matter, wouldn't it be logical to do the same for single people? Even furthermore on your reasoning, wouldn't it be logical to cut funding from single parents because their kids might grow up unbalanced or what not? The line of reasoning, just doesn't work for me, though I acknowledge the solid view.

This is not a logical issue. It's purely an emotional one, with underlying questions of why the government attempts to define people as married or not to begin with (cough***taxes***cough). And honestly, if they are two consentiing adults, citizens of our country, and not expecting religious institutions to show the tolerance the government must at some point show, what is the big deal? It does not effect me. It has nothing to do with me. If it makes two people happier to celebrate their love in a similar fashion as heterosexuals, and enjoy the priviledges of such a commitment...why shouldn't they? Ghost I think you outline one of the only solid arguments against it I have seen, and I also would be fine with a civil union type deal, but I think there would still exist some underlying unequalities in the same manner that segragation brought everyone up to par...but not really at all.

KM, I must say I'm impressed with your argument, and I see several good points. I'm also flabbergasted that you disagreed with me without namecalling. I really respect that. In the same spirit, I'm going to go over a few of the negatives to allowing gay marriage that have been ruminating in my mind.

Personally, I don't see overpopulation as a severe issue, at least not in this country, where the population hasn't grown significantly in some time (as evidenced by the baby-boomers getting old and not having a large younger generation to support them, i.e. social security finally failing like the government has been setting it up to do for years). I think my desire for a neutral scientific study on the wellbeing of children brought up by homosexual vs. heterosexual parents is very reasonable. Lots of people will say that the children from such households are doing fine, but they're just using statistics put together by one side or the other. I took some Statistics (a.k.a. "Lying with Numbers") classes in college, so that doesn't quite lolly my pop. I know no one has demanded the same questioning for heterosexuals, but the fact is that traditional marriage is the norm, and for the new guy on the block to be taken seriously, they're going to have to be tested. I do know there are studies that show that children do better with a mom and a dad vs. a single parent, and that heightens my concern. Honestly, the well-being of children should be our first concern in any such issue, not to heal the hurt feelings of all the adults out there that can speak for themselves, even if they don't always get what they want.

All that aside, I'm also concerned about discrimination cases being brought up against private groups who won't recognize same-sex marriages once they're legal. Everyone says that no one wants that, but private groups can't (nor should they be able to) discriminate based on race. If sexual orientation is given the same status as race, then eventually law-suits will be filed, legal precidents will be set, and religious belief to the contrary will be descriminated against as harshly as same-sex marriage is now.

Another argument that I saw also has some merit to it, to a point. All people, regardless of orientation, DO have the right to marry, IF they choose to marry someone of the opposite sex. Take that as you will, mostly I just thought the argument was funny.

Finally, I truly believe in the rights of the people to make the laws that govern society. In this case, following the constitutional and legal requirements, the people amended California's constitution. Just saying "they're wrong so we should be able to do whatever we want" isn't good enough, and it's immature. There are plenty of militia nutcase groups that don't believe we should have to pay income taxes, using exactly the same arguments. I imagine the same people who are saying the majority is "just wrong" in this case would say those militia crazies should just follow the law legally established. And before you say it's different, think carefully about it and realize that it's really not.

The same pathways that allowed this amendment to pass in the first place are open to everyone. Homosexuals can bring up an amendment of their own in the next election cycle and reverse the decision here, and their chances aren't bad, considering the margin was so slim.

Judges shouldn't set policy, period. They aren't elected officials, so they shouldn't act like them. This protects all of us, even if they didn't side with you this time. Think how furious you would be if you'd won faily with your amendment, and it was overturned by a court that decided it knew better than the people?

I believe all people should be treated with respect and kindness, regardless of our views. I can understand anger over not getting what you want, but the tolerance-seeking gay-rights activists show a surprising lack of tolerance for anyone that disagrees with them in any way.

Perhaps in the end, KM, to avoid discrimination, which I think is a laudable goal, the government should get out of the "marriage-defining" business entirely. The government can offer "civil unions" to anyone who wants them, (I think setting a legal age will always be reasonable) while marriage can be defined however whatever group you belong to wants to define it. This would also open the floodgates, however, to polyandry and polygyny, "married" free love societies, and the like. It's a slippery slope, either way you look at it. Whether it's fallacy or fact, however, will only be shown by history.

Ghost,

That is the most rationally spoken line of BS I've ever seen, grats!

Using the "won't someone think of the children" bit is pointless. I've know parents (mom and dad) who treat their children horribly. I've know parent (dad) who raised a wonderful daughter, and (mom) who raised a spoiled brat of a daughter. I've read (I don't know them personally, friend of a friend thing) of parents (mom and mom) who have raised a wonderful son. It takes a village ya know, it's not just the parents, so a good family/friend base is essential, not the makeup of the mom/dad situation.

As far as discrimination cases. That will not happen for churches (churches will turn people away for marriage now with no lawsuits). If a public company does dicrimintate, then yeah they should be penalized. However, places like Boy Scouts of America can and do discriminate against gays now because they are a private club. So nothing really will change.

And no, it's not funny, people use that argument and it's disgusting.

If the majority of a state wanted to vote that black people could no longer vote, and they won the majority, would that be ok? The whole argument of "well the people voted and gays should just learn to live with it", is so de-huminizing it's unbelievable. Just beacuse a person loves someone of the same sex does not make them a second class citizen. You speak as though they are just pouting "because they didn't get what they want". Well, they should be furious! Discrimination should have no place in this society.

And that is what you are talking around, you don't think people should be able to have the same benefits because they fell in love with someone you do not approve of.

Also, the slippery slope theroy goes both ways. So who's next? Constitutional ammendments based on the religious morals of the majority can take away much more. That nice Aitheist couple that got married at the courthouse? Well thats void. The couple that decided not to have kids? Well they aren't follwing the correct meaning of marriage, thats void. See? it can slide both ways, only this way takes more and more rights and benefits away.

So, how about to avoid discrimination, we just not discriminate eh?

How did you come to this decision? What logic have you used?

KM and Ghost,

just wanted to say that I enjoyed reading your arguments. Thank you!

I am surprised that so many people think that the opposition to gay marriage is due to the teachings of religion.

Actually it stems more from an innate sense of what is normal. If you see two male poodles going at it you will probably laugh, not because you are a hater of gay poodles but because what you are witnessing is obiviously an abberation of nature, kind of like a cat that follows a bird off a cliff because he thinks he can fly.

I do not have a problem with gays so long as they do not flaunt their gayness infront of me, and in turn I do not like seeing horney hetero teenagers going at it at the movie theater either. So the answer will be found in a mechansisim that is similar to marriage but can not be called a marriage. Come up with a name like, say Partnership or something and leave it at that. Gays should not insist on their unions being called marriages, because it will not happen. You can still get what you want you just have to call it something else.

Retardican, the problem with your argument is that you assume that your sense of "normal" is held by everyone else. Your entire argument falls victim to your flawed sense of logic.

There is no correlation between "a cat that follows a bird off a cliff because he thinks he can fly" and homosexuality, no one ever taught a cat that it doesn't fly.

Also, you have no right to say that people shouldn't "flaunt their gayness around you" since without realizing it you more than likely flaunt your straightness in front of everyone. The behavior of teenagers is in it's own category, that is simply a surge of hormones and is in NO way comparable.

You also cannot define or control marriage. Many people define marriage in different ways amongst different faiths, you have no claim over it. Pagans created marriage long before the dawn of Christianity, should they not be the only people allowed to enter into it then? My church believes that any two consenting adults who are faithful in their witness to god are allowed to be married and perform those ceremonies as such, your faith is no more valid than mine. Remember, the body of Christ is the people, not the organization.

Finally, it will happen, and you'd do well to remember that people of your opinion are very close to being the minority. You also need to become accustomed to the fact that this is a free nation, a nation where I'm free to do anything that doesn't infringe on the rights of others, a nation that also believes that my religious beliefs are no higher nor lesser than yours and no law may be passed respecting either of our views. As such, the Supreme Court must make the decision, not an amendment or law, and the Constitution overwhelmingly respects my right to have equal representation under the law.

I agree. It's not the court's job to change the constitution - that's up to the people. The court's job to to make sure the rule of law is followed. Don't blame the judges.

And calling people "bigots, retards, and hateful" just because they don't agree with you makes YOU look like the tyranical opressor.

"And calling people "bigots, retards, and hateful" just because they don't agree with you makes YOU look like the tyranical opressor."

Unless it's true.

Matt,

Most of the time it's not true. Therein lies the problem.

You can be religious and still support views that are outside of your religion. It's called being open minded. There are zealots on both sides. We should not point to the most vocal ones and say they are typical of all with those same views.

The gay community is alienating themselves and losing support from those that are sympathetic by making this a fight against religion and morality. Although this country's moral character is on the decline, we are still a country founded on religious principals and still have a strong belief in Biblical principals. Contrary to some arguments, this is not a civil rights issue. If it were, then civil unions with protected rights for the union and partners would be enough. This is a concept that many people would support & what the gay community first claimed to want. In fact, this is about having their unions sanctioned by God, our government and ultimately by each of us. That will not happen. People need to face the fact that we are not all equal, we do not all have the same rights or needs. We all have rights that are humane and acceptable to society as a whole. The elderly, the young, immigrants, minorities, bigamists, felons, wealthy, poor, etc. have rights that are protect their well being and dignity, but these rights are not always equal; fair but not equal.

If the gay community wants to have legal rights for their homosexual unions, they had better focus on Civil Unions and quit trying to redefine marriage. This is a losing battle.

This country is a democratic republic because the founders recognized that pure majority rule is, by its nature, tyranny. Just because a majority voted for it does not mean it is fair, or non-discriminatory. It is unfounded, and un-American. Remove those votes that are based on a desire to impose religious beliefs on everyone, regardless of religion, and see how much of a majority you have left. Marriage is not just a religious issue, as long as it remains a prerequisite to legal rights. Any church that encouraged its members to support this tyranny was engaging in political action, and should have its tax-exempt status revoked.

'Course, so should the rest....

I am religious. This issue has nothing to do with God. If Lutherans perform weddings for same sex couples, then I will address it with the church.

This is a civil matter. Marriage is recognized by society because of the benefit to society, not benefit to the couple. If same sex marriage proponents can demonstrate a tangible benefit to society, I am willing to consider it.

What do you mean by religious?

Dave in NM

Very well said. This issue is about the legal ramifications of "marriage" and the legal rights associated with that form of commitment. Equal protection under the law means equal protection for everyone.

tjgalvin---you could start with taxes, as a benefit to society. "All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third it is accepted as being self-evident." Schopenhauer. Why do you think Black people coming out of slavery were finally allowed to get married? Because they were men and women and it was the right thing to do? NO! It had a monetary benefit for the powers that be.(they--blacks--were not allowed to marry whites---wonder why?) Are you starting to see a pattern here yet?

"The voters, across many socio, ethnic, political, and economic boundries voted to include the amendment in their constitution."

I have to take issue with the tone of this statement. Although "religious" was not in your list of demographic groups, it's clear that "religious" is "political" on this issue. The overwhelming demographic correlation on this vote was religious participation.

"84 percent of those who said they attend church weekly, who represented one-third of the electorate, voted for Prop. 8. Those who go to church occasionally — 44 percent of the electorate opposed it, 54-to-46 percent, while the one-fifth of voters who said they never go to church voted no, 83-to-17 percent." (The Santa Barbara Independent citing Edison Media Research polling for the television networks.)

Show me another demographic split on this issue that is so sharp. Since many churches explicitly affirm homosexual relationships, the religious polarization is even sharper than the 84/16 split in the poll. Note that the "traditional marriage" argument went over like a lead balloon with secular voters. This is quite simply a situation where members of large religious groups want to prevent secular recognition of the marriages performed in my church.

mathrec,

Well said! I hadn't thought of it from the angle of one powerful and well-financed group of churches (Salt Lake I am talking about you) dominating other groups of churches. Interesting.

I do feel and believe that this is also a generational issue whose time is coming. The young just don't get what the problem is. Maine and New Hampshire will have marriage equality very soon; other states will follow. The wind is blowing for equality.

Actually NHLucky,

From my perspective (given that I live in Salt Lake and deal with the leadership of the LDS church often in many different ways) this move by the LDS church leadership appears only to me to essenntially be the church's way of distancing themselves from GLBT groups. All this was immediately following many progressive moves by the church to engage GLBT groups that had garnered lots of negative national attention from right-wing pundits.

You also have to remember that the LDS faith is one of the most predominant faiths in California, it is kind of their turf too.

I am ex-LDS, I do not apologize for them, and I am not a fan of what they did. However, I see this and other moves as more political and I feel that the LDS church is simply taking a structured approach rather than all-out acceptance of GLBT people (read up on how tolerant the LDS church and local GLBT groups here are of each other some time, we're actually pretty proud of the groundwork that we've laid).

Once again, a word of reason ('i voted in favor of not legislating through the courts') is lost to religious banter. Partly because the... questionable... choice of wording for the question in the first place, and partly because of our need to polarize in one of two categories in this country (in this case the homosexual movement vs. the religious right) instead of letting discussion be heard from ALL viewpoints.

The court does NOT have the right to legislate. They have the responsibility to support current law. Only the CA legislature can change the law and have it voted on by the people.

If the majority thought as you do, would you still think "majority rules" doesn't make it right?

It isn't because MAJORITY said so that made it wrong; it's what majority SAID that was wrong.

When you deny or harm a group of people - it's shameful. Protect the religious institutions if need be and get on with it - this mentality of - "UGH, the people spoke, deal with it!" is a juvenile and ignorant mentality. It is terribly close-minded and comes from either ignorance, bigotry, or social/religious persuasion. You want your churches free from lawsuit - so be it. I just want EQUAL protection for my family. Who is ANYONE to deny that? CA is bankrupt - in every possible way.

Then by your logic... I don't have to accept Barrack Obama as my president. But I do even though I don't agree with nearly antything he has done or says that he will do. So maybe you should deal with it. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want your Democrat White House and Congress (which your "majority" gave you), but when other issues don't go the way that you like, you don't think "majority" should apply.

Great Logic there Ok2bedif.

Actually, silsecklady, if the law they created is unconstitutional, the court can overturn it.

yea if the law is unconstitutinal, but they were changing the constitution, totally different. Again the Supreme Court interprets the constitution, they do not write it nor do they legislate it. I agree with the decision from a legal standpoint, I disagree with it on principle.

personally I don't care if gays can marry or not. I believe in God and think marrriage should be between a man and a woman, but even in the bible it says I have no place to judge another human being, so I don't. If you choose not to believe in God and want to live as a homosexual then go for it, you're not harming me in anyway.

Foster:

When you deny or harm a group of people - it's shameful.

Many pedophiles believe they are decent people who are helping to introduce children to sexuality in a safe and loving environment.

I'm okay with denying them.

I'm okay with denying you.

Many pedophiles believe they are decent people who are helping to introduce children to sexuality in a safe and loving environment.

I am sure you are aware of the differences between homosexuality and pedophilia and you are just trying to shock people.

You need to find a new argument. This argument simply makes you sound ignorant and bigoted...or....maybe you are just ignorant and bigoted

I agree with your views. Unfortunately, many in this country have not been able to distinguish between objective and subjective thoughts and behavior. I am an agnostic but try to be respectful to those who are believers. However, extremism in any content is appalling. Let us not bring in the "God" issue, because I hope people know their American and World History where crimes against humanity have been based on religious zealots in the name of "God;" i.e. the Crusades, burning women at the stakes, slavery, the Inquisition, and it goes on and on. When two human beings wish to marry and have or adopt children, they should have the moral right to do so, no matter what their sexual preference. Any religion or church must show equality and compassion to all of "God's" children, if not, you have absolutely no right to be moralistic or judgmental of others.

OK2bedif

If you take the long view, you have to step back from asking the court to do something that the people are not yet ready to do. In a democracy, the laws reflect the will of the people. That will changes as time changes. Once, in America, slavery was legal and accepted. We no longer hold that view. But if a court in 1795 had said that slavery was not legal, it would have been ahead of its time... and wrong for its time. The people were not yet ready.

I believe that Prop 8 was wrong. I also believe that the voters of California had the right, according to their OWN laws, to change their constitution, and that their court was correct to step aside and let them do it.

Perhaps, someday, the people of CA will vote a new proposition that repeals Prop 8. I believe that they should. But until they do, the law of CA has been properly clarified to reject gay marriage because the people don't want it. I do not have to like it. I don't like it. But the way to change it is NOT to change the court. It is to change the minds of enough people.

I do think that there is a federal issue, in some respect... but that's another question for another day.

Opinion, bigot.

Why? Because s/he does not agree with you?

Where has it been proven scientifically that a marriage where the family has a Male and Female guardian has been the best to raise a child?

If your argument is true, why are we not taking children away from single parents?

Ignorance and un-though out statements are what piss me off the most. What you have provided is an opinion, nothing more. I would be willing to bet anything that there are more gay parents that are better off adopting kids than there are poverty-ridden straight couples that continue to have child after child and mooching off of society.

Ok and I suppose you're the 'expert' on what is the best environment to raise a child in society. Wow did you get your degree in that? God must have a special purpose for you, giving you the right to decide what is the best way to raise a child.

It has been shown that your statement is not totally correct. Same sex parents have raised some very fine people who are inclusive and considerate citizens. They encourage their children to get a good education and job. They encourage their children to abide by the law but also think for themselves and not follow uninformed whims. They encourage their children to respect and acknowlege a higher power.

Does this sound familiar? Did you raise your children this way?

That has been disproven, OVER and over again. Good thing you're not a counselor, you would run every straight person gay. Btw: OVER 90% of children raised by *gay/lesbian* parents are straight and they are succeeding in life and are either married-NEVER been divorced and have lovely kids of their own. BTW: Same sex households COULD also consist of Grandmother and Mother (that is DOMINATE in some certain ethnic groups). Father and Grandfather--which, it does happen---BOTH households are SAME sex homes: sure they aren't screwing each other (hope not) but that goes to show how little society really cares and pays attention to what is going on.

Michael, I think you have a MAJOR Peter Pan complex--EVEN children would tell you how unconfused they are about the matter. You on the other hand-is the only thing confusing and the only person confusing yourself.

it's great that i was raised by a man and a woman in a very abusive family but now i see that it was the "gift" of being raised by a man and a woman. Thanks for the info.....NOT

I believe there are differences between a man and a women. Each gender can bring unique qualities to raising children. Some of you do not! This is the fundemental difference bewteen our opinions. Its not hatred, not bigotry or any other label you will no doubt reply with. I would bet those that do not believe in the differences are the same ones saying how great it is to have a wonan being nominated for Supreme Court, right? Why a woman ask youselfs? The answer is each gender brings a unique set of experiences that is mostly foreign to the other. Of course a gay couple can raise good children. That is not the issue here.

Marriage is in the child's best interests, regardless of the parents' gender(s). Your bigotry and hatred does more harm than good.

Who is this “Child”? Are we still letting infertile couples marry?

Larry,

I actually do have a PhD in Child Develolpment and I am unaware of any scientific studies that demonstrate any harm to children raised by same-sex couples.

Also, it seems to me to be a pretty weak argument in the face of the level of divorce, single parenting, etc. that are less than ideal and are very common under the current one man-one woman system. Many if not most children in America are raised by divorced parents living apart. How is that better than a same-sex couple living together? I just don't buy your argument. Professionally speaking.

nonsense. The state is not required to act in the best interests of the people. The state is required to follow the laws enacted by the people. If people pass laws that are not in their own best interests, the state is required to uphold them.

Somewhere along the way, we have to trust the people, not the state, to decide what is in the best interests of the people. In this case, the people made that choice. To many, it is the wrong choice. Those people should ask for another legal vote. (I suspect that they will).

But it is wrong to expect the state to act, or not act, in interests that are not decided by the people directly. That is tyranny, pure and simple.

so if it was ok for a man to rape a woman and sodomize little boys because the consitution hasn't *touched* or is STILL mainly 50/50 or even 75/25 for just letting these things happen, we should just 'wait' to get the results to see if it isn't ok to do anymore?

Kind of sickening, because there was a time when the constitution didn't give a rats ass about those issues...as we see it in 3rd world countries too: it brings about shame, horror and guilt. As it should to those who are simply religiously influenced.

I am a religious person, but I know where to draw the line. If it weren't for this country, I wouldn't have that freedom: I also keep in mind, whether I agree with someone else's lifestyle OR not, it is NOT my choice to make--especially if no one is being harmed by the matter...

But we breeders are harming people who are different from us: spewing hatred, stupidity and forcing religious belief's down their throats. It's a wonder we're losing people from the Christian faith....every day.

so the straight women who were unfortunately weren't blessed w/the power to conceive, are ill sinners in gods mind too? You seem to forget this is a debate over MARRIAGE not having CHILDREN. But in that marriage, if they do so choose to have children, then yes it probably will be adoption, artificial insemination, or a surrogate mother. because god designed everything we do to be done 100% naturally by ourselves huh? so, here's to hoping if you get cancer, your body rids it YOURSELF!

Love is love, people. Hide behind the bible all you want in this arguement but 'thou shall not pass judgement' and EQUALITY will prevail, sooner or later..

Of course it's okay to disagree, but I'd say that voting to deny an entire group of fellow citizens the same rights afforded others is hateful and arrogant.

How on earth is wanting the same right hateful? How is it arrogant? And how could anyone possibly consider it so?

Not every situation holds up to "How would you like it if....?" scrutiny.

No, the prupose of a democracy is to allow people to vote their desires and the majority rules. The people voted. The majority rules. No gay marriage.

And if we said heterosexual couples should not be allowed to get 'married' how would you feel about that? Why should you get all the tax breaks and benefits and we get nothing? We pay just as much in taxes, in fact, MORE because we are considered single in the eyes of the government so they take more from us. Do you think that is a fair way for the US government to treat its citizens? Immigrants coming to MY country to live get more rights than I currently do. Is that fair? How would you feel if that were you? This is about equality.

The majority rules in a democracy. If you don't like the will of the majority than it is your duty to work hard to change the will of the majority. Whining about it or expecting to be given something is not how democracy works. Democracy isn't free. It never has been. Sure you may not fight on a battlefield in a far off land but you still must fight for freedom every day. There will always be those trying to take your freedom away in one way or another. Be vigilant and work to keep your freedoms. Democracy may not be perfect but it is far above any other form of government invented by humans.

Well said. It's nice to know that there is someone out there who understands that people already have equal rights. Marriage to a member of the opposite sex is not forced upon anyone, gay or straight. Kudos to the CA court for upholding a decision made by its constituents.

Well, pal joe, obviously you are corrrect. The new law does not state that homosexuals cannot marry. It does state, however, the usual, customary and reasonable definition of marriage.

If homosexuals want to be given the privilege to marry one another, it seems to me that their most probable positive course of action would be to advocate for an amendment to the US Constitution on the order of amendments XV, XIX and XXIV (which all address voting rights) wherein it might be spelled out that "the right of any citizen to enter into marriage with any other citizen shall not be denied."

I don't know how successful homosexuals would be in getting such an amendment written, passed and enacted, but it seems like a logical move for them. Otherwise, it should be clear to the homosexual community that they will not convince the public at large to accept "same-sex" homosexual marriage.

James Lee,

My problem here is with the statement "If homosexuals want to be GIVEN THE RIGHT..."

Since when to some citizens in America have one set of rights and some citizens must be "given" them? Oh, yeah,maybe in 1862? Before Lincoln freed the slaves? Of course, to be accurate, I don't believe slaves were actually citizens, were they?

Silly me, I thought all American had the same rights.

The majority rules in a democracy.

False. In a democracy, first everyone is considered equal and given the same rights. Then majority can make decisions. None of those decisions can strip any members of rights.

NHL,

I am truly sorry. I thought I said given the privelage instead of given the right. There is a difference.

There is a difference in the meaning of the terms. But you cannot give either to a certain group based on arbitrary restrictions. So really, the distinction of privilege/right isn't relevant here.

James,

would you care to explain the difference and how it relates to this issue?

So PurpleMonkey what you are saying is its the taxes that you are most worried about. What about me? I never intend to marry again so I will always pay more taxes no matter how long I date my boyfriend. Is that fair? Shouldn't I get the same tax breaks as married couples since we are in a committed relationship? Shouldn't I be able to get on his insurance? Or how about if I was living with a sister? We are related and her insurance is way better, why can't we get a break on that?

You miss the point, you should read some of our founding fathers about this.

I think it is you who misses the point. The country was founded on the democratic process of majority vote. When politicians ignore this process, as seems to be the case too often, it undermines the democracy as a whole. There is nothing to say that this issue cannot come up for vote again. It is up to the losing side to sway voters to change their mind, that is the way the process works. It is not the courts place to ignore the results of the vote or set their own policy but to interpret the will of the people.

Not really, the US constitution was set up to protect the rights of minorities from the majority, and that's why it is so difficult to amend. In Calif the rights of the majority "win" and I, and our founding fathres, disagree with this. In the future if atheists become the majority and vote away the rights (and tax exemptions) for churches, by your reasoning it is fine. The basis of the US constitution was to prevent such injustices. If you honestly beleive in a full democracy (ours is not, btw, but a representive rebublic) than that's fine. Iran now has such a system,. the majority pushes their beleifs on the minority.

Wow, I learn something every day Alfio. I thought the US Constitution was set up to establish the three branches of government and to detail their seperate powers. I further thought the Bill of Rights was added to restrict the powers of the federal government over the citizenry.

I do not rememember that minorities were protected in any way in that document. In fact, some were not even considered a full person and were denied the right to vote.

To what part of the Constitution are you referring?

Once the Gay and Lesbian community starts to couch their legal objections in language and actions that punish at the ballot box, and financial bottom lines, all the fuzziness will start to come into focus. People will not do right because it is right. They will do right if they need you and/or your money for some purpose. Go "there" Gay People and you will find what you seek. Guaranteed!!

James Lee, let me direct you to the Fourteenth Amendment. It is commonly referred to as the equal protection amendment. It requires states to proved equal protection under the law to all citizens. The current Constitution goes beyond the original document, you know. It has been amended to improve it.

NHL, thank you for your observation, but please recall that Alfio said the US Constitution " ... was set up to ..." When the US Constitution was set up, the fourteenth amendment did not exist.

Jim,

Nevertheless, the Constitution at present encompasses all of the amendments -- it is a whole document. As I am sure you well know, the fourteenth was designed to address issues related to a minority and has been applied since to other minorities. I am not a lawyer, and I have been impressed with your posts even though I don't agree with them. But in this case I believe that you must agree that the Constitution includes its amendments.

They already are.

Let's see...

You've got the White House.

You have a majority in the House.

You are a swearing in away from a SuperMajority in the Senate.

You want to have your cake and eat it too, but pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered.

Mark,

It would appear that you're conflating the Democratic party with those that want gay marriage in California. While there is assuredly some overlap, the two groups are not the same. This is just as bad an argument as kj0928's implication that those against Prop 8 are necessarily white. Next time try and pull it together and make a cogent rebuttal.

Oh, and your mixed metaphor at the end is completely nonsensical in this context.

You are right... I indeed misread the "white" reference and mistook it for something else. And more to the point on the first issue... I would have a hard time finding anyone opposed to Prop 8 that voted Republican... so yes... those that opposed Prop 8 have a triple majority. I did not intend to mean that every Dem was for gay marriage... only that those opposed to Prop 8 certainly are in more of a power position in the entirety.

And as for the metaphor... the two actually do work hand in hand. If you have your cake and eat it too, then you are nothing but a hog and we all know what happens to them in the end. The power that is being enjoyed by Democrats will not last long.

GTMac & Mark,

"Mixed metaphors?" "Nonsensical?"

Please ease off. You guys are making me feel illiterate and unworthy!

everyone is equal... anyone can marry anyone of the opposite sex, so long as they are both willing and of age...

gay marriage is asking for SPECIAL rights NOT equal rights.. get it straight.

No, actually. A heterosexual person could marry someone of their own sex. So the right to marry anyone would be extended to all parties, not just to gays. It's not a special right.

Um Carms, you do understand that the definition of heterosexual means that you DONT want to marry the same sex?

So, like rochestertiger said, it's asking for special rights.

So as long as gay people deny who they are, then they're not being denied any rights.

This argument is so bad, I don't think you can even convince yourself that it's valid.

Prop 8 is bigotry, and it won't last.

TwinSnakes you are evidently NOT a fan of Boston Legal, or you would understand implicitly what Carms is saying. Marriage, sex, and law are separate entities that will eventually blend together in ways that will make all this blathering about marriage, and what consenting adults want to do with their personal lives a MOOT point.

rochestertiger,

That is the most overused, banal, and paper thin argument. EVER. And all to easy to shoot down.

May opposers of legalizing homosexual marriage use the argument that homosexuals may marry-- members of the opposite sex, and thus, have equal rights. But the point is homosexuals don't want to marry members of the opposite sex. They are not attracted to the opposite sex, as heterosexuals don't want to romantically be with members of their own sex. They want to be with the ones they love, and have equal protection for those loved ones. How is this asking for "special rights"? All they want is the SAME legal protection afforded to monogamous straight couples. If they wanted special privileges, like say, pay less taxes than a married straight couple of the same income bracket, okay. That is special. But wanting the same tax breaks, being able to preside over medical decision/final arrangements, and other benefits that come with martial bliss, is only asking for equality. I'm sorry, you have absolutely no argument.

Marriage should be between a man and a woman. Sure there are the couples that are infertile, etc. as you say, but if 100% of the couples were homsoexual, what do you think would happen to the human race? I am sure there are people out there that would want to marry their pets. It doesn't mean it should happen.

first off, 100% of the population is not suddenly going to turn to homosexuality just because gay marriage is legal...the population will continue to thrive, and there will still be thousands of children dumped by their heterosexual parents in the foster system, awaiting adoption. Next, your argument on people marrying their pets is absurd. An animal cannot give consent in courts. So please stop with this whole "if we allow gay marriage, then people will marry children, pets, goats, whatever". The court will not recognize a child as giving consent, and they will not recognize a pet as giving consent, so your point is invalid.

Personally, I think we should go the whole France route. Get rid of the legal term of marriage...if you go through the law, you have a civil union. if you want to get it blessed or recongized by the church, that's your own decision, but then legally, everyone will have the exact same rights. Religious followers want to claim marriage as a sacred term--then it should not exist in the law. All consenting adult couples (heterosexual and homosexual) legally obtain a civil union (with all the rights and benefits that come with it), and then you can call it what you want. Would that work for you?

Suggestion - move to France.

It always amaizes me that people who want to marry their pets want to jump on the marrage for gay's bandwagon. Lets keep it in the species.

I was merely asking that if we took marriage out of the legal context, and everybody received a civil union through the law, would that work for you? I read your other post where you said a man+woman= marriage...well, then, let's turn everything into a civil union, and you can call it whatever you want. Would that appease you? Because the battle here seems to be over the word marriage. Religions want to claim it as a sacred word, but it's also the legal term. If we pulled the term marriage out of the government, then it seems to solve a lot of problems. gay couples get their civil unions with all the rights and benefits, and you can get your marriage blessed by a church.

renee - I agree with you 100%....however, you would never get Amercia to agree with that....

I have been saying for years that the documents you get at the court house, issued by the gov't should be a civil contract (because lets be real, it is only a contract, that can be broken at any time!).  If you want a "Marriage" then that comes from your church (or whatever).  That way we are all covered. 

Renee- I am not saying that 100% of the population is going to turn gay if they legalize gay marriage. I am saying that it is unnatural and goes against the the theory of self preservation. Theoretically, if it were a majority, natural phenomena and by the astronomical chance that 100% of the children born in a generation were gay, the human race would die out. On the basis of that, I do not support taxpayer dollars supporting something that is detrimental to the human race. If gays want to live together and build a life together, that is fine. I just do not think they should be awarded for living a humanely detrimental lifestyle.

...that is the most bigotted comment i have ever heard.

Gay people pay taxes too. Its not just "hetero" tax dollars... Gay people pay taxes too. What threat is it to you if 10% of the population is gay? Are they having sex in your bed? I dont think so. Unless you stick your nose in it you wouldnt even know whats going on in their lives.

How would you like it if you were of a certain race and 52% of the people of the state voted on an amendment that said that race had no rights to certain privileges that the majority enjoys. Would suck for you if you wouldn't it? These people just want the same rights. Marriage is a contract. Thats all they want. To be able to sign the same contract as everyone else. Please dont pass judgement on others...thats god's job not yours.

I find it very sad that it seems so easy for some of the posters here on this blog to just demonize and dehumanize those whose life they cannot possibly understand. Live and let live, I say. I like the idea of making the legal union of two persons a civil union, leaving the marriage to the religions. But only if it is the same for everyone. That is the problem with civil unions as they stand now, and that is why my state, New Hampshire, is moving to marriage for all. It is only fair.

Sorry EllaDgreat, but you are a truly ignorant individual who does not deserve a place amongst the living in the 21st century. If this is not a civil rights issue than I don't know what is. I bet you would've been out there with your white mask over your face too if you'd had the chance.

hey monkey with a purple brain, call me ignorant but i'm not worse than your wasted brain. Time immemorial, the law speaks the truth and no gay can ever change that not even in the 31st century. Yes this is not a civil rights issue because this is an issue for mentally disturbed people like you who thinks that equality can be measured through marriage between same sex individuals. I am a straight person who is not hiding in a mask of pretention. I am a woman who does not pretend to be a man like you.

Please tell me this...Did you hear this directly from god or the insane voices in your own head? Unless god comes down from the heavens and preaches live on MSNBC, please keep your own biggoted views about homosexuals to yourself. What gives you or a church the right to determine what is the norm? I'll be praying for your soul.

you can pray for your soul because no one in heaven will waste time hearing you. If you don't know the norms, go educate yourself for I will not waste my time to teach you. You are telling me to keep my views to myself? then what gives you the right to say that. Well, i'm not a bigot and I do not condemn the homos. its their improper actions that I despise and what are those??? you can ask that yourself. Read well ignoramus for everything will bounce back at you.

I agree with you totally!

According to the article "While gay-rights advocates accused the court of failing to protect a minority group from the will of the majority"; Does that mean the druggies , the alcoholics, the bigamists, can have the same arguement, that the courts are failing them also for not protecting them since they are also the a minority group?

Please, let's be civil (no pun intended)! Concerned, are you being willfully obtuse? I fail to see how you can equate law-abiding, tax-paying, school-teaching, doctoring, lawyering gay people with drug addicts, alcoholics etc. That is just plain smear and you should be ashamed.

I fail to see how you can equate law-abiding, tax-paying, school-teaching, doctoring, lawyering gay people with drug addicts, alcoholics etc. That is just plain smear and you should be ashamed.

What if they are genetically predisposed to being a hetersexual drug adict just as some are geneticall predisposed to be gay and sober? You can't argue "it's not a choice" only when convenient.

Naftel,

The difference is that the behaviors you are describing are criminal. Being homosexual is not a crime. All groups have criminal elements; committing a crime IS a choice. Homosexuality is not. While there may be genetic or social reasons for crime, our society generally agrees that these factors do not make it OK to commit a crime.

Naffel,

Truly being a homo is not a crime because it is a type of a personality, but their actions, their desire to "sleep" with the person of the same sex I believe is an idiosyncratic behavior. And to demand for an idiosyncratic behavior to be legalized (ex. marrying with the same sex, incest, smoking marijuana as medicine) is not acceptable in our society. Why? because its not normal duuuhh!. The harm it can affect or the negative impact maybe greater than the the benefit you can enjoy. Obviously an educated normal or people with values will not allow it, who are they? the majority of Californians.

But discrimination is only appropriate to speak about when a protected class is involved. Put your penis in a toaster for all I care, but that choice doesn't award you protected-class status in my estimation.

r1ch; your comments make no sence. We live in a fallen world and the sin is of rejection of God and His principles. What I hear you advocating is "tradition" If every one is doing it then lets call it good. Then you finish by saying that you are the one who knows truth by what you have decided - as you have chossen to cast the written Word of God into the your personal trash heep. Come on "Hate Mongers"? Who is the true hate monger here?

John-1087047: You may think my comment makes no sense (but at least my spelling does). I never claimed to know the"truth" about anything...again, it is my belief when I make reference to the fact that I believe it to be genetic and not choice to be gay. That's another problem with those who claim to know the "truth" about God. You see, you cannot call something truth unless you can test it against a measurable criteria and arrive at a positive "proof"...until then it is just a belief...nothing more.

But r1ch; The Bible has been historicly proven, if you had paid attention when you were raised in the evangelical church. Even the crucifiction of Christ and his resurection has been recorded in secular history of that time. A friend once told me "show me the money". Meaning proof that Jesus came. Jesus did come and made Himself visible to all, and even many who spoke to Him, touched Him and saw what He did still did not believe. You are not alone in your refusal to believe. It is your choice.

EllaDgrat,

I'm guessing you don't get out much... homosexuality was removed from the list of mental disorders in 1973!! Furthermore, it's been supported time and time again in varioius scientifc studies that homosexuality is inborn. The old theory was genetics, however it's coming to light that it has more to do with the mother's hormone levels, and what levels of testosterone and estrogen are delievered to the fetus at certain times. One cannot choose to be a homosexual anymore than one can choose to be black, or blonde, or blue-eyed! So yes, withholding basic rights from a monogamous homosexual couple IS discrimination against a group of people-- a "minority" so to speak. Also, homosexuality is present in not only the human species, but in 1400 other species as well!

The ban needs to be deemed unconstitutional, because it is. It is infringing on the rights of a group of people, in a nation that prides itself on its equality. It's the judges' job to determine whether prospective laws are constitutional or not. The USA is NOT a Democracy, contrary to popular belief. We never were. We are a Democratic Republic-- that thank the Gods-- or we would be going on the voter majority-- and blacks would still be slaves, women still wouldn't be able to vote or own land, and interracial marriages would still be illegal. Prop 8 makes us look like bloody hypocrites.

P.S. We are "lowly animals". The scientific definition of an animal is, "Any multicellular organism that is not a plant." We are definitely made of more than one cell, and the last time I checked, humans weren't photosynthesizing their energy from sunlight. So, that leave only one category: animal.

Neurofuzzy,
Since you brought up the mental disorders, here's the update on the "current" 2009 International Classification of DISEASES 9th Revision and check where you can classify yourself:
302. Sexual deviations and disorders
302.0 Ego-dystonic homosexuality (ego-dystonic lesbianism; homosexual conflict disorder)
302.1 Zoophilia
302.2 Pedophilia
302.3 Transvestism
302.4 Exhibitionism
302.5 Transsexualism
302.50 Trans-sexualism Nos
302.51 Trans-sexualism, Asexual
302.52 Trans-sexual, Homosexual
302.53 Trans-sex, Heterosexual
302.6 Psychosex Identity Disorder

P.S. We are "lowly animals". The scientific definition of an animal is, "Any multicellular organism that is not a plant." We are definitely made of more than one cell, and the last time I checked, humans weren't photosynthesizing their energy from sunlight. So, that leave only one category: animal.

Neurofuzzy,

I don't consider myself in that "lowly" category maybe you yourself do. We may be in the animal kingdom, but we are Rational beings. That's what makes us different from that class. We have cognition(power to think) and the power to exercise our intelligent minds.

You know fuzzy, we are all a part of this society, of rational individuals(if you consider yourself one) that is why we go to school, we are taught by our parents and we try to educate ouselves with information available in order to exercise our decisions to the best of our ability. Some of the best "learned tools" we use are the values we learned from our elders, the books we read, the internet we browse and even the Bible or the Qur'an as the guide for one's faith. The government has a constitution and laws to execute and this is what makes the society civilized, systematic and organize because of our appropriate interaction based in our common actions and beliefs.

So fuzzy, imagine if we don't have rules and laws to follow, what do you think will happen? what if I insist that its not fair for the government to not make it legal if I want to marry my brother? or my sister(by the way we are twins) because I love her very much hmm? Do you think its gonna be ok with my parents. In a different scenario, how would people react if Pastor Samuel is having a sexual interaction with Mrs. Jone's 19 year old son because same sex is already legal anyway.

I really don't buy the statement of "I cannot control to be like this" because for me being gay is not wrong but to act based on own "lustful desires" of same sex encounter are like lowly animalistic behavior is what i think is wrong regardless if you are gay or straight. We are always in control, we just have to use our "learned tools" in order for us to be appropriate according to our class as homosapiens (latin for "Wise Man").

Actually neurofuzzy, since you admit already that you are one of the "lowly animal" as you mentioned above, now I know why you have these kind of views in life. But I encourage you to be" in the know" 'cuz its fun to learn things. Try to discover how our mental process works.

Peace!