Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
History Is Made As Same-Sex Couples Marry
San Francisco - Uttering the two simple words "I do," dozens of same-sex couples were wed in the Bay Area on Monday evening as California became the second state in the nation to grant marriage rights to gay men and lesbians.
County clerks braced for an even bigger rush of couples who will tie the knot today when all 58 counties in the state begin issuing marriage licenses that no longer designate "bride" and "groom" but instead "party A" and "party B."
A crowd gathered Monday evening at the Sonoma County clerk's office in Santa Rosa, including 19 same-sex couples who had made appointments to marry. The crowd counted down the last seconds to 5:01 p.m., when the state Supreme Court's decision allowing the marriages took effect.
Mark Gren and Chris Lechman of Guerneville were the first couple to apply for a marriage license and wed.
"Now, by the power vested in me and in accordance with the laws of the state of California, it is my pleasure and honor to pronounce you married," Sonoma County Clerk Janice Atkinson told the couple.
In San Francisco, 200 couples have made appointments to obtain marriage licenses today at City Hall, said Karen Hong, director of the county clerk's office. Longtime lesbian-rights pioneers Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were the only couple wed there Monday.
So far, 2,303 same-sex couples have appointments to obtain a marriage license in the next 90 days in San Francisco. Nearly 1,800 of those couples will have their ceremony at City Hall, Hong said. She expects the rush of applicants for marriage licenses to level off over the next few weeks.
In Oakland on Monday night, Kenneth Latham and Keith Boadwee of Emeryville joined hands and looked into each other's eyes as they recited wedding vows to become the first same-sex couple married in Alameda County. They have been together 10 years and one month.
"We've been together so long we know what it means to be a couple," Boadwee said. "However, now that we have the legal protection, wherever we go throughout the state, people will recognize it."
Besides San Francisco, Sonoma and Alameda counties, weddings also were performed Monday night in Yolo and Los Angeles counties.
Like San Francisco, Los Angeles County married just one couple. Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, who were plaintiffs in the landmark marriage case, exchanged their vows in a traditional Jewish ceremony in Beverly Hills.
"We're not nervous. We've known each other 15 years," Tyler said.
Even as dozens of couples exchanged vows around the state, many more worked on last-minute wedding plans.
Salvador Valles and Dean Jansen, who live in New York City and have been together 14 years, are returning to San Francisco, where they first met, to pick up a marriage license. They'll marry in a ceremony this evening at a friend's Berkeley home.
They are registered domestic partners in California and New York but have never held any type of commitment ceremony.
"We really wanted to wait until we could get married," Valles said. They have worn rings on their right ring fingers and plan to put new rings on their left hands today.
"I can't wait to introduce him to others as my husband," Jansen said.
Protesters are expected in droves today outside county clerks' offices in several California counties. People opposed to same-sex marriage gathered on the sidewalk outside of San Francisco City Hall on Monday night but were quickly outnumbered by supporters of the unions.
A woman from the church of Kansas pastor Fred Phelps - whose followers are known for their harsh anti-gay rhetoric - stood behind police barricades in Civic Center, holding derogatory signs and singing songs with her two children. Someone else drove around the block in a truck painted to look like an American flag that read, "Sodomy is sin."
One of the protesters, Luong Bo, said he drove up from San Jose. Bo held a giant sign that read, "Homo sex is a threat to national security."
Others were there to support the couples. One man strummed a guitar and sang "The Chapel of Love," while Kathryn Werhane threw rose petals on some of the protesters.
"We want to support these weddings - it's love and tolerance for real," she said. "Any proclamation of love is good with us. Why are they crashing our party?"
Chronicle staff writers Erin Allday, Marisa Lagos and Heather Knight contributed to this report. E-mail the writers at wbuchanan@sfchronicle.com, jtucker@sfchronicle.com and cheredia@sfchronicle.com.
© 2008 The San Francisco Chronicle
77 Comments so far
Show AllThis sodomitical outrage heralds the beginning of the end for California and for the USA. But it is a necessary milestone on the road to perdition.
Woo-hoo!
I am for the respected legal recognition of any two people who want to marry, not against it.
That said, let's hope the "celebration" does not get so loud as to unthinkably turn California into a red state in November with turnout for a "negative" ballot initiative. This happening THIS year rather than NEXT year is a very unfortunate gift to McCain's supporters. They plan to make hay with it if they can.
Actually I'm hoping this becomes an election issue. Every time McCain and the Righties brings up Family Values and the "sanctity" of marriage, Obama can ask him if he's been divorced? And he can ask the same of uber-Repub Reagan.
Jeez, CD editors, how do you select your top headline items? I don't mean to belittle its social significance, but same-sex marriage hardly seems to outrank all the other current issues in terms of impact either domestically or globally. In fact, I thought most progressives considered it to be a non-issue.
I am happy for my lesbian 16 year old daughter. She too deserves to wed the person she loves when the time comes. A law permitting homosexuals to wed also just went through here in Norway. The usual naysayers tried to stop it. Thankfully they are not the majority.
Bravo California! Well done. I remind CD users that the decision to legalize was from both democratic AND republican judges. It was a rare instance of the *law* being reviewed in light of human rights and not politics.
Praise God! Gay people got it going on. Courage.
Yeahhhhh! I invite all souls to Northern California; JC comes by even. I've seen him.
For Love.
I think it's becoming a little obvious about now...GOD LOVES FAGS!!!!
Sounds like a grand idea to me. These are the things that make our country great. I am cosidering running my bulls separately from my cows from now on as it surely should be smart for them also. Some posters believe animals can think like humans and we are all one so it will no doubt be successful. There is nothing like overturning old out of date ideas for progress.
Of Course, SF Divorce Lawyers are salivating, bondage is a curse and a blessing. Property in the Castro, Polk and Noe Valley is gonna get carved up, de-lineated, deeded, liquidated, and fought over.
And that is freakin great, cept for the silly lawyers....Boalt Hall is only 20 miles away, a good mind there.
Maybe render an opinion empowering Blackwater to Infiltrate the Gay communinty; thus the killers will dress in tight pants and shirts and go the The Stud on Folsom and get laid; they will never look back except over their shoulders, while....well, you know....
Kernel wrote: Some posters believe animals can think like humans and we are all one so it will no doubt be successful.
**I dont believe other animal species think like humans. Its an insult to them to make such a comparison. Humans are stupid.
BTW
You are helping to fuck up the planet with your breeding of enslaved animal species. Do the planet and your fellow humans a favor--stop it. The more gays the better, less human population growth.
This is a landmark day for human rights. Those of us that are not homosexual should be celebrating too. At least part of America is still about freedom. Hopefully this is a sign that the shadow of religious tyranny can be driven back. Together we can overcome the shallow bigotry of Christianity.
"We want to support these weddings - it's love and tolerance for real," she said. "Any proclamation of love is good with us. Why are they crashing our party?"
Those nut jobs crash the party because they are so empty and lead such dull lives, that they have to worry with what others do behind close doors.
Besides my theory is that they secretly envy progressives, because progressive people are not afraid of living their lives according to their own beliefs. Unlike these "conservative" folks, who don't dare to think by themselves
Congratulations to all!!! I hope your marriages grow and thrive. May you all have long lives together. I'm beginning to think God hates Fred Phelps.
I think it's funny that a newly married gay couple goes home to a nice house and the Phelps clan retreat back to their doublewides.
kelmer___For a change, I will agree with you that animals seem more intelligent than humans. However, the reason for that is that they have great memories, but do not think so well, and just concentrate on existing as well as possible. Humans get themselves into much trouble with their great ideas.
As for your dumb remark about breeding enslaved animals, you better visit a real ranch some day and you will see that those animals are happier and better cared for than a lot of people in this country. Who do you think would care for them if they had to fend for themselves? When the blizzards come, those ornery humans are out there freezing in order to get hay to their animals who otherwise would die of starvation and thirst.
I have no love for feedlots either, as I live within a mile of one, but we do not live in a perfect world, and there will always be abuse of both animals and humans.
BTW__ I also agree on the gays-- they cannot make new life with their wonderful choice of lifestyle, so let them worry about themselves, they should decrease when they realize it is a dead end road.
Bo held a giant sign that read, "Homo sex is a threat to national security...unless it is two young attractive girls going at it...that is just a threat to my PANTS!!"
A quietman persists:
Your assertion that this issue is trivial is an insult to those of us who have been denied the rights and recognition that come with it. With your attitude on marriage, I certainly hope, for her sake, that you are not married.
a quietman continues persistently:
Your opinion that marriage is trivial and that it is a con game is just that - an opinion. And the question that begs to be asked is this: If marriage is so trivial, and worthy of such contempt by you… why have you expended so much energy on this thread and others regarding the gay marriage issue - rather than using your valuable time commenting on issues of life and death?
******************
Okay, one more time and I promise that if you still do not get it I will cease and desist my efforts to explain it to you.
It is not marriage that is trivial, it is the state sanctioning of marriages that is the con-game.
Those gay couples who have their magic "certificate of marriage" are no more or less "married" than they were before obtaining those magical "certifricates". Those certificates will do nothing except allow those possessing them to show their fealty to the conforming power issuing them.
So now gays can get married in CA and MA and meanwhile...can we get back to some real serious threats to everyone else on the planet? Things like war, climate change, water depletion, imperialism, etc.
All those gay and Lesbian couples will wake up tomorrow (or whenever the day after their big event is)and realize that nothing much has changed. Welcome to the reality of state sanctioned relationships which have about as much validity as state sanctioned anything else..
Yuck! (I'll deal with it.)
Sodoma County
"All those gay and Lesbian couples will wake up tomorrow (or whenever the day after their big event is)and realize that nothing much has changed. Welcome to the reality of state sanctioned relationships which have about as much validity as state sanctioned anything else.."
Nothing much has changed? Are you nuts? The security and legal rights are a pretty big something.
Their day to day lives will not have changed much. Which means....????...
We're not the ones who will wake up to reality. It is the homophobes who have fought this who will wake up and realize their marriages haven't been affected at all.
kernel -- i suppose people would say that it's 'natural' since when we ran a colt and a young bull together in the same field the colt liked riding around on the bull's back, but also naturally when they matured and were with their own kind they both sired absolutely beautiful babies . . . sexual maturity is an undervalued asset . . .
Judging from the hetero marriages I have observed over many years once the honeymoon is over it becomes some heavy lifting to keep
it going on. I wish all the happy newly weds the best of effort and reward!! I welcome, not fear, progressive change like this in an election year it will help to magnify the predictable vile behaviour of the reactionary right in this country. As a famous American philosopher once said, " Bring it On!"
Yo, Poet, I can feel those clenched teeth from here!
Your comment reminded me of a party I attended (pre-9/11/01), in which some would-be academic with advanced degrees (in what, I never learned) solemnly lamented that the present younger generation didn't have the Great Issues to wrestle with like we did in the Sixties. He ticked them off: Civil Rights, The War, The Sexual Revolution.
NOW, he opined, there are only these MINOR "issues" or "causes" that they have to inflate into something earth-shaking: vegetarianism, humane treatement of animals, the environment, "gay rights".
I enclose the last in quotes because that's how I heard it. If he didn't actually SAY "much ado about nothing", that was the gravamen of his argument. I did point out that since gay people were still subject to occasional crucifixion due to their sexual identity (this wasn't long after the Matthew Shepard murder), it probably seemed a worthy enough cause for THEM.
It wasn't an argument, and the monologue either petered out or was interrupted.
Anyhoo, no grinchy cavilling will disrupt my heterosexual ass from performing an incipient conga dance for the remainder of the day. 8)
"sexual maturity is an undervalued asset..."
This from a woman who insists every gay relationship has an element of man-boy love to it, and every straight relationship has an element of man-girl love to it...
Huh?
Sexual maturity has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Sexual maturity exists and does not exist in relationships that are gay or straight.
Overall maturity is evident when one accepts that people are people and what is natural for one is not natural for others - and supports everyone's right to an equal chance of happiness and togetherness. I hope you can reach that point someday.
So, when will it be legal for me to marry my dog? We have such a connection! Maybe I could even get a tax break!
I want to reply to Arvy, who posted a comment saying that "progressives" consider the human rights of gay men and lesbians to be a "non-issue." I find this attitude extremely disturbing. Progressives in fact believe in the liberation of the oppressed. The long and arduous struggle of gay men and lesbians for a life of dignity is one of the great international movements for social justice in our time. Same-sex marriage rights in the U.S. (even though limited still to just two states out of 50, with no federal recognition at all) is a landmark achievement. It is deeply homophobic to consider the human rights of gay men and lesbians to be a "non-issue."
Copenhagen,
It will never be legal for you to marry your dog. Why do idiots always have to bring up animals or incest or polygamy on this issue.
Bestiality, Polygamy and incest have no more to do with homosexual unions than they do with heterosexual unions. They have nothing to do with marriage.
Grow the fuck up!
A Quietman asserts:
"We're not the ones who will wake up to reality. It is the homophobes who have fought this who will wake up and realize their marriages haven't been affected at all."
***************
Methinks you overestimate the learning capacity of homphobes or other bigoted people. Still, your assertion is interesting and falls right into the trap of such bigoted people who frequently assert that "gay rights" is nothing more than a proselyting tool to lure straights into their lifestyle. (I know, I know, this is just a bunch of nonsensical bs but so are most of the reasonings of bigoted people).
****************
Quietman then sermonizes:
Overall maturity is evident when one accepts that people are people and what is natural for one is not natural for others - and supports everyone's right to an equal chance of happiness and togetherness. I hope you can reach that point someday.
***********************
I couldn't agree with your point above more and would add that another sign of maturity is to not project your own opinions on to others.
*************************
Little Brother proclaims:
Yo, Poet, I can feel those clenched teeth from here!
Your comment reminded me of a party I attended (pre-9/11/01), in which some would-be academic with advanced degrees (in what, I never learned) solemnly lamented that the present younger generation didn't have the Great Issues to wrestle with like we did in the Sixties. He ticked them off: Civil Rights, The War, The Sexual Revolution.
***************
My teeth were not (and are not now) clenched. My intended point was exactly opposite of the would-be Professor Perkins (See Jen Sorenson's great comic "Slopoke" if you are not familiar with this character).
All of us, gay, strraight, black, white, (yellow brown, and red too!), male, female, north south, etc. have so many more serious things to ponder and wrestle with that this, by comparison, is just so much trivial pursuit.
State sanctioning of relationships (which was the original and intended focus of my comment) is nothing much more than a conformist con-game that those who are in power play on those who are not. Those two elderly gents pictured (and the octogenarian lesbians prominently married in SF) will not have their relationship change one iota now that they have their "marriage certifricate".
******************
Little Brother concludes:
Anyhoo, no grinchy cavilling will disrupt my heterosexual ass from performing an incipient conga dance for the remainder of the day.
****************
Since I believe that we should all dance at least 5 minutes daily (10 is much preferred but 5 is a kind of emotional MDR)I would urge you to enjoy the celebration, but remember when the dancing stops that our world is still in great need of concerted action on so many other issues that are truly matters of life and death.
Poet,
I do not believe I was projecting my opinions on anyone. That accusation could be used against anyone participating here, yourself included.
Your assertion that this issue is trivial is an insult to those of us who have been denied the rights and recognition that come with it. With your attitude on marriage, I certainly hope, for her sake, that you are not married.
Does the basis of the Bill of Rights mean anything to you? You know, the right of all people to the pursuit of happiness? Apparently not if anyone sees marriage as a vehicle to that happiness.
Your opinion that marriage is trivial and that it is a con game is just that - an opinion. And the question that begs to be asked is this: If marriage is so trivial, and worthy of such contempt by you... why have you expended so much energy on this thread and others regarding the gay marriage issue - rather than using your valuable time commenting on issues of life and death?
ECS June 17th, 2008 9:12 pm -- 'I want to reply to Arvy, who posted a comment saying that "progressives" consider the human rights of gay men and lesbians to be a "non-issue."'
That's not what I said. First of all, I referred specifically to same-sex marriage, not to gay rights generally nor to 'the struggle of gay men and lesbians for a life of dignity'. Secondly, when I said it was a 'non-issue', I meant only that it was generally accepted by most progressives without much controversy. I acknowledge its societal importance (at least symbolicly) to those concerned. I just don't happen to think that its significance overwhelms many other global issues with lower rankings in today's CD headlines.
Arvy,
To answer your original question, which was:
".....how do you select your top headline items?"
Maybe they make the selection on what story the major news organizations are exploiting the most. Or, maybe it's just because this is the first day of gay marriages - and that they feel many people have an interest in it.
It doesn't have to be 'life and death,' Blood and Gore (or Bush) all the time...
Fair enough. I stand rebuked. :^)
Please check your heterosexual privilege at the door before you declare this a "non-issue" or "poor-timing." I love how the civil rights of Queers isn't news worthy to many so-called "Progressives."
We hear so much about "sexual orientation" in these discussions as if it is pre-ordained from birth the same way your hair color or body shape , etc are determined.
Maybe it would be more accurate to refer to "brain orientation" because that is the reason for the homosexual condition in most cases, and that explains the dramatic increase in the last decade or two.
For that matter, even heterosexual behaviour is controlled by the brain, not by one`s bodily functions.
bellejared___ interesting that the term "queers" has not been used much lately, but it was the only way homosexuals were described until they misappropriated the term "gay".
It is best for people who live in the US state of California to accept the fact that gay people can have legal marriages there. It is futile to resist Christians - just as it was when you tried your best to ensure that interracial couples could not marry after that became legal. You lost the fight Christians so...deal with it! Ok?
Perhaps Christians could instead lobby for such isues as making divorce more difficult, legalizing polygamy, or even advocate for adults to marry teenage people - rather than lobby for the prohibition of gay marriage. After all, the former examples are more in line with biblical standards that the USA has chosen not to become law.
Arvy, thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood. I thought that by the term "non-issue" you mean "unimportant" or "trivial."
As for separating the issue of marriage from the right of gay men and lesbians to a life of dignity - I don't think it can be done. Along with the very important legal rights and responsibilities attendant upon marriage, marriage is also a "status" or an "identity." Marriage is a recognition by the culture of the dignity and worth of the relationship, and of the individuals who form it. Dignity and worth is precisely what gay men and lesbians have always been denied, through violence, taunts, jail, enforced invisiblity, sodomy laws, psychiatric abuse, etc. There are many aspects of our struggle; marriage is just one of them, but an important, necessary, and even crucial one. Nothing could establish the essential dignity of gay men and lesbians in the public mind so firmly as our ability to enter into legally recognized lifelong loving partnerships. Even those gay men and lesbians who choose never to enter into a legal marriage will benefit from the shift in cultural attitude.
To those who think marriage is simply mindless conformism, not worth fighting for . . . well, I would just ask that heterosexuals stop trying to dictate the way gay men and lesbians live and form relationships. That has been going on to long, in fact thousands of years too long. Allow us to choose for ourselves; offer us minimal respect; do not denigrate our struggle or try to dictate our strategy and tactics. We know what we are doing.
Poet persists:
"It is not marriage that is trivial, it is the state sanctioning of marriages that is the con-game. Those gay couples who have their magic 'certificate of marriage' are no more or less "married" than they were before obtaining those magical "certifricates". Those certificates will do nothing except allow those possessing them to show their fealty to the conforming power issuing them."
Utter nonsense.
Those certificates will give a plethera of rights that didn't exist prior. Are you not aware of the rights marriage brings. Aside from basic inheritance rights and the rights to make decisions for the other, there are over 1000 federal rights and benefits that come with that certificate.
Nobody, gay or straight would have those rights or benefits without the certificate being sanctioned by the state. It is that simple. Religions do not confer benefits or recognition. Simply choosing to live with someone will not give a anyone those rights and recognition.
Only government can do that. Thus the idea that they are no more or less married now with a state sanctioned certificate is utter nonsense.
There is nothing 'magic' about it. It is simply the reality of the matter.
Everyone here knows that.
It is time to cease and desist..
You can call ihomosexual unions what you like but MARRIAGE is - by definition - between a man and a woman. I'm anti-war, pro-national health care, anti-racist, pro-environmentalist and "progressive" by any reckoning but I also believe that the State and the Law have an obligation to protect the institution of marriage. These sorts of issues only serve to alienate otherwise progressive voters. (and I'Ii thank you not to label my point of view "homophobic". There is no fear - phobia - involved. i'm perfectly at least with homosexuality. But it is not "marriage". Am I entitled to that view without the politically correct casting me as a homophobe?)
How refreshing to see that good ole homophobia is a live and well, even here on Common Dreams. Some of these responses show that even the "progressive" community has some work to do in examining heterosexual privilege. Now it is time that we begin to challenge that fairytale called the Bible, which has been responsible for so much death and destruction. Come on now, a virgin giving birth? Do people really buy that stuff? (truth is once Mary used that line, all of the other unmarried pregnant girls cursed her because she ruined it for them).
To Hermes7: Of course your point of view is homophobic. All racists claim not to be racist, all anti-semites claim not to be anti-semitic, all homophobes claim not to be homophobic. "Homophobia" means prejudice or bigotry or discimination toward gay and lesbian people. Don't play word-games.
Our love is precisely the same as the love of heterosexuals, and just as deserving of respect and recogition. There is nothing further to be said of that matter.
But it is, as nelson observed, very interesting to realize how homophobic and heterosexist so-called "progressives" can be. It is also very troubling. Either you believe in universal equality or you do not. If the struggle for universal human rights is important, then every victory for same-sex marriage, whether in Norway or California, is important and should be celebrated. To me it is so strange and disappointing that anyone would criticize Common Dreams for valuing lesbians and gay men and our struggle.
It seems that the term "marriage" is a stumbling block for many to get past. Since the term itself is religiously derived, my daughter had a good idea that is that marriage ought not to be sanctioned at all by the state and that civil unions be required for all of those legal benefits that now go with "marriage."
It would seem to solve a lot of the issues that some people object to. On the other hand, it would require that religions get off the backs of taxpayers entirely in this area and that their own religious ceremonies wouldn't be sanctioned in any way by the government, no certificates, no registration, no inheritance, no nothing. If you want that, go have a civil union as well. And civil unions would be available for all consenting adults.
Seems imminently sensible. I wonder why I haven't heard anyone else bringing this idea up? Any comments?
"You can call ihomosexual unions what you like but MARRIAGE is - by definition - between a man and a woman."
Not anymore.
BTW: Norway just became the 7th nation in the world to upgrade their civil partnerships into full fledged marriage. Good for them.
Video: Same-Sex Marriages: Orange County, California USA
From behind the Orange Curtain, same-sex couples anxiously awaited their
turn to marry at the Old Orange County Courthouse in Santa Ana, California.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV8-CQRHDmk
For married couples to have financial benefits while unmarried couples and singles do not - with the definition that only marriage be "one man and one woman" -hardly seems fair to unmarried couples and single people. Now I understand that "life is not fair," but for the government to give tax benefits to one demographic - married heterosexual couples - while denying them to single and unmarried couples seems unjust.
How about if the Government denies the financial benefits of married couples? That would be more fair than to deny gay couples marriage. It would be more fair also for an adult the right to marry a teenage person or have more than one spouse. Interesting how the anti gay marriage people conveniently ignore the financial benefits of a marriage when stating their argument.
Even if the argument is made that a gay man can always marry a lesbian strictly for the financial benefits would not be fair to those people who want to marry because each loves one another.
As heterosexual couples have, so will homosexual couples. Do not feel bad though heterosexuals, you can still marry - anywhere and everywhere you want also. Homosexual people do not even have this luxury. Heterosexual people are still the superior group to homsexuals throughout the world and are the supposed "correct" and "natural" people in the eyes of the Judeo-Christian God. So, heterosexuals, stop complaining that gay people can be married in California. Instead, show a little gratitude that heterosexuals are more accepted than homosexuals - even to your God supposedly.
I will close with another message to heterosexuals:
If you are against gay marriage, do not marry someone of the same biological sex. Gay marriage is an option only for those who want to.
"Seems imminently sensible. I wonder why I haven't heard anyone else bringing this idea up? Any comments?"
4thefuture.... I don't know why you haven't heard that position before either. It is the Libertarian view and has been for some time.
Unless and until there is a strong movement by heterosexuals in this country to move toward civil unions, we in the gay community aren't going to settle for them.
Not only are we talking about a discrepancy in rights between the two institutions, but there is also a discrepancy in the way the two are viewed. Marriage is seen as something approved of by God. Civil Unions are seen as something less. You know, it's the old 'whites can use a fountain that is designated for whites only, and blacks can use a water hose' type analogy.
We intend to drink from the fountain, so to speak.
Message for those who want healing.
Not only will your Creator and Sustainer forgive you of making a mockery of the institution(marriage) He created but Jesus will heal your sexuality and supernaturally turn your desires towards the opposite sex if you repent. He loves you but He hates all forms of sin. You must believe that He is and that He will reward those who diligently seek Him. Call on the name of the Lord while He can be found!
God Bless
Certainly gives marriage a new meaning, but I wonder why this crap starts up every time during a major election. Just what we need now, another wedge issue. This does not seem to be accidental and, of course, we all must be politically correct in this regard, or we're labeled "homophobes." I'm for civil unions, but not for gay marriage. Anyone should be able to enter into any contract they want, as long as both parties agree to the terms. Let's call gay marriage what it is: an attempt by the gay community to promote an agenda, and make their sexual practices more acceptable. For maximum effect, they push the issue especially hard during a national election. What effect will this have on an already divided electorate? There are many more important issues to focus on.
Like I said previously, the Christians obvioulsly lost and therefore should just accept the fact that gay people can marry in California.
Oh and uhhh...holmie2 If I could, I would urinate and defectate in the mouth of Yahweh for daring to create something he despises. Sleep on that thought - along with the reality that gay people can legally marry in California which obviously you find troubling.
Yahweh - I beseech you to curse your followers and defend those who are persecuted by them in your pathetic name by those who know no better. Amen