Discuss this editorial
Comments will close after two days.
From the Los Angeles Times
| Advertisement |
|
|
The Latest | news as it happens
- Tuesday's poll: Who is the best pound-for-pound boxer of all time? - The Fabulous Forum 11/16/2009, 9:49 p.m.
- 'Twilight': Robert Pattinson says fans can believe the 'New Moon' hype! The movie rocks! - The Dish Rag 11/16/2009, 9:46 p.m.
- Kings rally past Panthers - L.A. Times - Sports 11/16/2009, 9:46 p.m.
- Football: Hemet coach is fired - Varsity Times Insider 11/16/2009, 9:45 p.m.
- VIDEO: Taylor Lautner on what the wolf pack adds to New Moon: abs and action! - The Dish Rag 11/16/2009, 9:44 p.m.
Save more than
They are trying to force their lifestyle on everyone rather we like it or not. That's true bigotry & their blatant hatred towards religious groups speaks volumes. It will never cease to amaze me how they compare their deviant sexual lifestyle to the color of my skin. I'm not religious, but if we don't put a stop to this what's going to happen to the already dwindling Black community? We already have drug addicts so introduce a stronger drug to our community, we are single parents so lets encourage homosexuality? That's the LGBT's response to forcing their lifestyle on us.
Naima @ 5:44 PM PST, Nov 20, 2008
The solution is civil unions for all and to leave matrimony to the churches. The states granting of a religious sacrament should be challenged as unconstitutional based on the Jefferson Doctine on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees a wall of separation between church and state.
Kent McCoy @ 5:41 PM PST, Nov 20, 2008
I'm all for civil unions. That's the way it is in Europe. You have a civil union and then, if you like, you can go to a church and get married. There are churches who have no problem with marrying gay couples. Those churches who don't want to marry them, that's okay too. Looks like a win-win to me.
Ray @ 5:21 PM PST, Nov 20, 2008
momforprop8 wrote: "I believe the role of the courts is to interpret the law. The law based on the constitution now states that marriage is between a man and woman. Seems simple and certainly not repressive in any way."... Where was your commitment to constitutional principle before Nov. 4th when the law said simply that two "persons", without further qualification, had the right to marry? Seemed simple and certainly not repressive in any way, no? That language was put there in 1895, not in 2008. What hypocrisy!
Tim @ 5:05 PM PST, Nov 20, 2008
The people speak, Barak Obama is elected president, the LA Times applauds. The people speak, a liberal prop is approved, the LA Times applauds. The people speak, prop 8 is approved, LA Times fumes about hateful voters who need more civic lessons. Somehow I think that were the roles reversed - a prop passed that approved gay marriage that faced reversal by a conservative court that the LA Times would be screeming that the people have spoken. Hypocrites.
Bob C @ 5:02 PM PST, Nov 20, 2008
Are you serious? Proposition 8 was reviewed and revised by the California Attorney General's Office before being placed on the ballot. What's next? Recall the California Supreme Court Judges when they rule that Proposition 8 is legal?
Jim Sindell @ 4:53 PM PST, Nov 20, 2008
The Kinsey Report, fron the 1950's was the first evualation of Human Sexuality known to be shared with the public, in the USA. On point, and one almost all of the men and women who are writing in seem to be missing is this: 80% of all humans are bi-sexual. Do the math.
Student @ 4:36 PM PST, Nov 20, 2008
Civil unions for all is the answer, leave marriage and baptism and confession and confirmation and mass and last rights, all religious sacraments to the church. If the churches have a problem with homosexuality, hammer it out there and fight it out among yourselves. Welcome to civil unions for all Americans in all fifty states and the recently passed amendments to the state constitutions regarding marriage do not apply! This issue is about civil rights, not about anyone's opinion about gay people's right to exist with liberty - the freedom to be oneself.
Kent McCoy @ 4:21 PM PST, Nov 20, 2008
To Nakhone, Who you CHOSE to have Sex with is NOT I repeat NOT something that you are born to or cannot change so it should not get you more rights than anyone else.It is NOT I repeat NOT Natural that you want to have sex with someone the same sex as yourself since you cannot reproduce without artifical means.So what youare asking for is more rights than every one else and that would be wrong and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Jesse T. @ 4:18 PM PST, Nov 20, 2008
The ban since it is a MANDATE by the People and an AMENDMENT to the Constitution which passed by a MAJORITY of the people should noty be even going to the Supreme court since they were the ones who stated that the PEOPLE were the ones who should decide the issue and the propasition was written so it would meet the standard set by the court.The people decided and the court should not be telling them an amendment to the Constitution is not Constitutional.
Jesse T. @ 4:14 PM PST, Nov 20, 2008
Next