Rich Republican donor to Prop. 8 dumps his wife of 43 years

If he wants to betray his vow of marriage that’s his deal. Million of people have not!

And yes half do get divorced, but they may marry again to be with their life long partner.

The deal is if the state makes it a law for gays to marry, then you are going to get alot of churches being sued for discrimation. So the problem is,”do we trumb on the beliefs of a majority for the minority?”.

The point is, these donors preach about the sanctity of marriage while they dissolve their own. It smacks of hypocrisy. If they want to oppose gay marriage, they shouldn’t use “protecting marriage” as their reason when they obviously have no interest in protecting their own.

A more logical explanation for their belief would be the one you just stated regarding church and discrimination.

Regardless, I believe the state should allow gays to marry. It’s worse to deny a minority of the population certain rights that the majority are entitled to. THAT’S true discrimination.

Churches shouldn’t have anything to fear. A legal marriage does not require a church. Hell, I’m getting married in Las Vegas. I have zero interest in marrying in a church, and that’s my right; a right that should be extended to gays/lesbians.

Michelle, I totally agree with you that churches should be immune from lawsuits based on their views of gay marriage. Churches should be doubly protected – on religious grounds and on grounds of freedom of speech and expression. In our nation, it is legal to be religious, pious, mystic, on one extreme all the way to racist, sexist, or homophobic on the other. Our Constitution protects individuals thoughts and beliefs no matter how distasteful or offensive they may be.

I am a Roman Catholic who attends mass weekly.

I look at gay marriage from a Biblical perspective.

Christ said NOTHING about it. Don’t tell me that is because homosexuality didn’t exist.

Of course, the “condition” was well known, among the religious with respect to the Old Testament account of Sodom and Gomorrah. God disapproved of the lustfulness of the men.

The passage from the book of Leviticus seems very vague. You would think that if God really hated it, he would he put in the “stone to death” clause.

The words from Jesus should be enough. Do not judge. God the Father loves all of His children equally. We are all His dear, cherished creations.

By listening to the testimonies of people who are homosexual, it should be clear to any compassionate person that God made some of us heterosexual and some homosexual. It seems to me that the greater sin is deception – for someone to be in an intimate relationship that is based on a lie.

Gay marriage should be right that is recognized nationally. (We don’t need a Constitutional amendment.) Churches should still be free to decide if their beliefs allow for gay marriage for their congregations.

There was a time, not too long ago, in our nation when it would not have been unusual to hear that interracial marriage was also an abomination. We as a nation got over that. We can get over gay marriage. What is taught in our schools is another matter – and should always be age-appropriate.

Thanks to almost all who posted here, you give me hope that we might be making some changes for the good in the near future.

So, because another married couple gets a divorce (not that I am excusing it), that justifies SS couples “marrying?” I will agree, it does not help the cause, but, does one action (divorce) make SSM (a concommitant action) all the more beneficial to society? Also, have we gotten to the point that we are celebrating divorce so as to strengthen SSM? In other words, can SSM stand on its own, or does it need help (apparently) from so many bad examples of OSM? If this is so, then the future of SSM doesn’t look so bright either.

First, any church should have the right to marry or not marry whom they choose. It is not the governments business to tell a church who they can marry.

2) I have been with my partner for over 12 years and plan to stay around for the rest of my life or his.

3) We took advantage of the opportunity last year to make our committment to each other public by getting married.

I did not choose to be what I am, so why should the state have anything to say about it or who I love.

Under the previous law and the current law because I was born different I am prohibited by the state from enjoying a right afforded to the vast majority. Please explain to me how that is constitutional.

I would not support suing churchs who do not want to have SSM. It would be a good condition to have in the marriage law if it is not there already and to have it applied regardless of Race, sex perferance etc that churchs cannot be sued for refusing to marry a couple.

The 18,000 that were married while the court ruling was in effect are still legal in the State of California and the several other states that allow SSM.

But how can that be right either? Now if someone else wants to publically declare thier committment they cannot.

Of course there is the option of moving to Canada or a few other countries.

43 years is a long time and it is tragic that they ended up apart after so many years. My parents where together over 50 years, we were not rich or powerful. They believed in working and struggling together to make a home. My sister and I certainly did not make it easy at times and they were not perfect either. But the key was that the love and committment to each other came 1st.

Perhaps, our focus on making money, acheiving a position with a great sounding name or acheiving a position of power are greater threats to marriage than anything else.

And by the way, maybe the gays are dogding at bullet.
Marriage is a pain in the ass:)

Michelle,

Central to your arguement in post # 10 is the decision in Brown v. the Board of education that Seperate is not equal.

Simply put: whats fair for one is fair for all.

Thats hard for some to swallow. I realize and respect that. But there are plenty of rules and laws that I disagree with but need to be respected.

I spent a considerble amount of my life in a place where one could not choose their faith. it was predominately Roman Catholic, those who even lisetened to the LDS missionaries were villified.

But, you were DEAD ON in #15. These guys (and gals) have no idea what their getting into.

At least you can go to bed at night knowing you tried to warn them!