Thank God there are still government leaders who are willing to stand up to this evil. Homosexuals have no right constitutionally, legally, or morally to force perverse, self interest motivated laws upon the majority. What I am refering to is the institution of traditional marriage; which for over 2000 yrs has held the majority voice. If one is gay, fine. I don't care, like so many others. Don't force your lifestyle upon the rest of us. This push to get gay marriage legalized is only to force the majority of society to support legally through public tax dollars their life- style. It's all about money. Child tax breaks. Special rights. Family income tax breaks. Yada yada. Consider something short of gay marriage? NEVER!

What Mr. Turrella fails to realize is that marriage is not a religious institution, it is a government institution. As soon as federal, state, and local governments began to offer benefits along with marriage, the "religious institution" argument is effectively null and void. Even were this not the case, opposing same-sex marriage based on the religious argument is disingenuous because many churches and religions are willing to accept same-sex marriage but those religions in opposition are legally tying their hands to do so.

In addition, claiming gays are "forcing their lifestyle" on others is poor hyperbole. Is it really more shameful for one group of citizens to seek basic rights to secure their relationships than to use the government to restrict rights on others? This is why organized religion has no place in government, and runs contrary to the libertarian ideals the United States was founded upon.

Justice Madsen speaking for the majority wrote:

"The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race..."

Really?

I am incapable of having children and I've been married 21 years now.

But, I'm allowed to.

And my wife gets ALL legal benefits pertaining.

There's nothing in the law that says I can't marry or remarry or am in any way prohibited from marriage based on my infertility.

In that respect, a gay couple is no different. With one exception. Should they decide they want to have children, if they are capable, it's an option. They can have biological children related by blood. And many do.

I can only have children through adoption.

Senior citizens, women past menopause, can marry,
people who've never had children, don't want children, can marry, as long as they are of opposite sex.

But, gays and lesbians can't.

No legal or logical sense to it.

If you look at what a mess heterosexuals
have made of marriage it hardly makes
the case for exclusivity. there are some
blissfully happy marriages and some royally
screwed up. What could homosexuals possibly
do to make it any worse other than for those
who are offended by the mere mention or
suggestion of homosexuality - which as has
been pointed out by at least one "politically
incorrect" comedian NEVER seems to extend
to lesbians - hmmmmm?

Duh?

Will the US ever join Canada, Netherlands, Spain, Belgium in recognizing gay marriage?
Is Canada wrong? Has the devil swallowed up BC?

Is marriage in America anything more then pillar of the christian agenda?

One must look at all the arguments against affording full civil marriage rights and obligations to gays & lesbians and one will realize they are not rational when questioned. The underlying reason is pure prejudice. One must also look at the language Mr. Turrella used and the anger this so called "Christian" or other religious people have toward the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered community or any persons they do not understand. Not all people of faith are against marriage equality, for growing numbers of people are standing with us, as is the case with ‘The Religious Coalition for Equality’. We are not perverse, immoral or any other derogatory term you may think of Mr. Turrella. Nor is our existence a "lifestyle". A lifestyle is a choice of actions, activities and interests one adopts and incorporates into their living; i.e. golfing, surfing, religion, etc. I never chose to be gay, as you did not choose to be straight. Or did you, Mr. Turrella? Ask yourself that question. I believe in God and my spirituality has taught me not to attack others I do not understand or differ with. We are all on this planet for a short time and seeking to understand that we do not is a trying but fruitful feat. I truly believe we all want the best for our families and through dialogue and education ultimately we will prevail. Namatse

One of the criteria mentioned in justifying
the decision was the determination that
homosexuality is not immutable - in other words
a "choice", a "lifestyle".

Well, if homosexuality is a "choice" then
"heterosexuality" must be a "choice" as well.

There is this notion that we are heterosexual
by default. And that what falls outside of
the "norm" must be by willful choice by
comparison.

Psychiatry stood on its ear.

And how exactly does this explain homosexuality
in the animal kingdom? Have they been endowed
with "choice" as well?

My apologies. I took psychiatry to mean
the study of human behavior (perhaps psychology
would've been a better choice of words.)

Certainly "Biology" would've been.

I don't consider homosexuality a "mental illness".

And I know the American Psychiatric Association
doesn't either.

What alot of people don't get is that Homosexuals are just asking to Get the same Rights as Staight people.Not special Treatment. When People say that it destorys "traditional marriage" You might as well say black people shouldn't marry White people. Cause it doesn't bring fully white people into the world. If your thinking thats dumb. Think how people who agrea with same-sex marriage re-act to your belief.

Marriage, Yes it should be banned to everyone.
Marriage is defined by RELIGION. It has no place in the government. All Governments are guilty of this fact. Civil Unions are the type of documents that should only be issued. I can see we are a country that is NOT in agreement of the First Amendment of the Constitution on the United States. " Freedon of Religion" NOT freedom to FORCE religion as most think now a days. But here is something to think about, if you BAN for one, then you have to ban for all or is it a pick and choose as to who you discriminate with NEXT?. I think that the more we put into this BAN, the less we really get done with the real issues. Lets Stop Messing with the freedoms that our men and women in uniform have fought for and get on with solving some realy items, LIKE including the disabled, or including everyone, NOT jut the lucky few!

I am not interested in bikkering in an argument, so this will stay on purely an acedemic level. Mr. TMW states "What Mr. Turrella fails to realize is that marriage is not a religious institution, it is a government institution." That statement is called a misrepresentation. How? Through just about every culture around the globe, which includes judeo-christian roots of this one, marriage is a religious ritual. Using the christian faith as an example, from the teachings of Moses, marriage is the unification between a man and a woman. It is done through cerimony, which is symbolized as being done in the presence of God, and of God. Now I am sure every other faith around the world has their way of performing this ceremony. What it boils down to is which institution could survive without the other. Marriage does not rely on the workings of government. The opposite does. Without marriage, there is no foundation for society to hold itself together; therefore government invariably is harmed. Now the clincher. Mr. TMW is like so many other liberals who have an agenda, which has been going full steam ahead since the middle 70's, to not only attack the institution of marriage to destroy it, but destroy American society as a whole. First, they base their beliefs on a foundation of lies that only lead to the death of the family unit. Homosexuals cannot procreate. Biologically, it is moot to continue pursuing this truth. Second, homosexual attacks against the marriage institution in America is another attempt to corrupt our youth. It is taught as being an acceptable alternative in the school system. It is taught that homosexuality MUST be tolerated. Where does toleration stop and oppression/forcing their beliefs on others who don't share them begin? In conclusion, America is a democracy. Where in the definition of a true democracy does the minority have a greater say than the majority? Or is a democracy what you homosexuals really wish to live under?!

You failed to answer to any of questions I raised, and instead are apparently content to rattle off Joe Fuiten talking points. Also, the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. True democracy is moot outside a population of a very small town, so I will grant you that my homosexual thugs and I do not wish to live under true democracy. I don't think you would, either, if you knew the definition of the word.

Unlike Massive-gay-broke-a-chew-setts where the supreme court illegally removed the people's right to determine what happens to their taxes, we in Washington still have a supreme court that will address the concerns of all in our state and not the few perverts who reside here in.

I don't want a single cent of my tax money or my paycheck going to support homo-faggot-ism and its sick theology. I have a right to put in my two cents on this issue against gays as the Constitution gives me that right!

The liberal, Islamo-fascist hugging, socialist, moral lacking left and the American Democrat nazi party have created excuses of "biggotry" to advance their sick agenda into our lives. When New York City created a gay high school to preach fag-ism to children, that was the last straw.

It's time America woke up and saw the dangers of fag-ism and how warped their "life choice" really is and how destructive it has become to our Constitution, our rights to free speech and our right to protest what we don't like!

Hell no to gay marrage, not one cent of my pay to pay a couple of rump jumpers.

One more thing to remember about gays. They have been protesting against the War on Terrorism and were the first group of fruity leftist nazis to protest the invasion of Afghanistan. Don't you find it the high point of hipocrisy for these freaks to protest the removal of the Taliban who took great pleasure in expending Allah's justice via crushing gay men under walls of stone?

It is the way it should be, Man and Women. If we extend the law to protect gays then we should also prtect fat people, people that wear glasses, short people, and so on. Where does it stop? It has, gays do not need protection...