Gay Marriage isn't really the agenda!

Update 3/15/05:
I found it interesting that "gays" called the action by the superior court judge who clearly over stepped his powers a step towards equality and also a "stance behind all American's civil rights". WHAT? Show me what civil right is being violated if the majority say we have already reserved the word "marriage" for heterosexual relationships...get your own damn word for your we-can't-advance-the-species-normally freak of nature relationships. I love how this article must also quote a black women who says "I know what discrimination is firsthand," said Pearson, 65, who is African American and grew up in the segregated South. "I'm so happy for them." Ah, but see she refers to "them"...they must be labeled as some group separate from all others? They want to be equal but separate! Just like the supposed "minorities" who want special treatment and equal treatment at the same time...you're either equal or your something else. Until all of those who seek special treatment stop seeking it the majority (as proven by passed ballet measures across the country) will see you as whining parasites whose lot in life is somehow my fault and requires more out of our system than the average "normal" citizen!

Posted 3/14/05:
Today's moronic decision by the California Superior Court puts the gay marriage topic front and center again. We have a law, and it's one the majority of Californians like and even voted to amend in 2000 to make it clear that marriage in the state was to be between one man and one women. Why is this court in a position to tell the people this law is not enforceable as opposed to just interpreting the law we put in place? Judges should be interpreting the law not making or changing it. Anyway, I'm sure someone out there will have a great reason why one guy should be able to override the majority of Californians!

Frankly, the origins of marriage are religious and I don't think the historic definitions can be interpreted to include unions of two individuals sharing the same reproductive organs...if they can then you can argue they include unions between any two (or more) organisms. So, why does the gay community, lobby or any such group feel the word marriage must include them? It's not for equal rights or treatment under the law! That's BS!...civil unions, domestic partnerships and the like cover them just fine. It's all about trying to appear normal, to have the exact same labels as a heterosexual couple. It's clear to me the agenda is to have no stigma, no difference from anybody else in the social order of things. Its ironic that this group who so desperately wants to be "equal" works for hard at standing out and at separation. On one hand they want their union to be the same as mine, but they don't want me in their bar. They want special laws saying you can't discriminate based on sexual preference and yet they don't recognize the more broad equal treatment and discrimination laws already in place cover them. They wanted laws for crimes committed against gays to have different or stiffer penalties that crimes committed against others. Even medical research is special for gays...the money spent on AIDS far exceeds other illnesses and disease that kill and affect of order of magnitude more people than AIDS.

I'm sorry, I live down the road from SF and most of the country or world for that matter doesn't really see what a good portion of the gay community is like. Before you decide that a) as a group to be gay is normal or that b) they are so "special" that our laws need to treat them differently from me...go see the gay pride parade in SF....then tell me what you think.