Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Same-sex marriage ban banned

Our readers have filed over 800 comments about the federal judge's ruling striking down California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage and they come down firmly on both sides in a heated and not always civilized discussion.

There are those who quote the Bible in defense of the California law and those who attack it as an ancient tome with little relevance to today's world. There are many who wonder why a court has the power to overturn a vote of the people, answered by those who note that votes have defended such indefensible practices as slavery.

Several note that the judge, Vaughn R. Walker, is openly gay, as several news organizations have said, including the Los Angeles Times in an excellent profile.

As Robert Barnes and Sandhya Somashekhar write, "The decision set off joyous celebrations in California and elsewhere, outrage among conservative activists and a solemn determination among those opposed to same-sex marriage to appeal the decision to the nation's highest court."

We'll start with vwcat, who wrote, "I am so happy that the judged ruled this way. I am happy for the gay community and hope this will become the new normal. I think gays have every right to have the same happiness that I have in being married to the one you love. I am happy to see a blow in favor of civil rights and against hate"

But gorams1 said, "Sigh. Another left wing activist judge [first appointed by President Reagan] overturning the will of the people. This will be overturned in the US Supreme Court."

And jdonner2 wrote, "We used to be a country ruled by law. We have become a country ruled by unelected judges. Besides there is no discrimination bases on sex here. Any man can marry any woman and any woman can marry any man."

Lazarus2010 said, "I don't really care one way or the other about this issue, but what concerns me is that the will of the people can be overturned by one judge. Is this the way a democracy is supposed to work?"

To which ggwalt replied, "Don't know about the democracy part, but it IS the way our Constitution works... It's not about popularity. It's about equal protection under the law. If we based laws on popularity, women and African Americans wouldn't be voting. Slavery could have gone on for who knows how long. It would be rule by the mob on any number of emotional, moral, discriminatory issues. Besides which, there is an appeals process..."

But ajeffrey said, "I wish this debate was not in the context of the gay marriage debate because the issues go beyond that hot button issue and reason will not be able to prevail. The real issue is to what extent will our nation defend self-government. If the voters of California elected to legalize bigotry, do they have the constitutional right? The founders would say YES!... Once we as a nation lose the constitution as our guide and begin to look to our modern view of reason and maorality, we will lose our rights totally."

Observer001 wrote, "The fearful and bigoted will rant and rave about this decision. That's ok. Same sex marriage is inevitable. The ban on inter-racial marriage was rightly deemed abhorrent after literally centuries of "tradition" that was the foundation of the ban. So to will the ban on same-sex marriage eventually be abolished. Maybe not today, but in the very near future. Just ask your kids."

But Arno64 predicted that "Laws supporting gay unions as equal to traditional marriage will ultimately, completely destroy the family structure as we know it today within 20yrs."

But thelaw1 wrote, "I never knew why anybody is fussing over this. Gay marriage has nothing that can damage a heterosexual marriage. I never thought it would hurt much. With 2-3% of the population being gay, it seems like much ado about nothing... But clearly, we have yet another case of the people's will being thwarted. If it is constitutional to get it on the ballot, how can it now be unconstitutional?"

divajant said, "I can't imagine what it must be like to to feel that you should have been a sex other than the one you were born into, but GODs law should always be first and foremost in all that we do. And I will pray for all your souls, because you have just given the devil just what he's wanted all the time..."

flamingliberal wrote, "It's a very sad day for the reactionaries, the dinosaurs, the hate mongers, the narrow, the ignorant and the naive. It's particularly sad for those simple folk, good folk, but naive, who believe in the infallibility of a mythological book that was written in the Iron Age. There is no difference between the Xtian mythology and all the other mythologies, yet the Xtian mythology has the force of law with all its warts and limitations. Time to end the favoring of one mythology over another."

To which silencedogoodreturns replied, "Yep. God is just a homophobe. Right"

Garak wrote, "Gay marriage also means gay divorce. Now all the sleazy, bloodsucking divorce lawyers who ruin the lives of straight couples will have fresh meat in the form of gay couples. The court was right, marriage is Constitutional right. But with rights come dangers. The family law bar is out there, foaming at the mouth, waiting to pounce."

tescherm said, "As a heterosexual Californian with gay friends and family who are dear to me, I am so glad that the odious Proposition 8 was overturned. I hope this decision by Judge Walker prevails in the Supreme Court. I am so tired of righteous people who think they have the right to impose their rigid views on others and try to change them because they are "different"..."

Sharon_6441 wrote, "Let's keep the proper prespective on this matter and remember DIVORCE is the biggest killer of marriage, not the gay couple next door. If we truly want to save marriages, then outlaw divorce. And we know that'll go over as well as Prohibition did. (for some reason, we desperately need multiple spouses and booze in this country)."

georgedixon1 said, "By a homosexual Judge...what a surprise...... No worries, the Supreme Court will end this foolishness"

Miss_Fedelm wrote, "I've lived around gays all of my life, as have you, and they have never bothered or harassed me. And for this reason I don't really care what they do. If they want to get married, then so be it. I don't buy into the Republican ideal of using the nanny state to control the lives of other people or to force other people into following my religion."

mw-bkly said, "This was a predictable result since the defense's arguments about how gay marriage will destroy human civilization were completely specious AND there is a basic principle of democratic government that says that a majority cannot vote away the legitimate rights of a minority."

andrew23boyle wrote, "Conservatives often ask what business the government has in "redefining marriage". Maybe they have a point but they fail to ask the next logical question: what business does the government have in defining "marriage" in the first place? The government shouldn't "marry" anyone. It has no business regulating our private domestic arrangements one way or the other and there is no Constitutional justification for it doing so..."

We'll close with tinyjab40, who wrote, "Good. There needs to be a definitive ruling, and only the U.S. Supreme Court can do that. If the current court decides against gay marriage, that tells GLBT folks and centerists like me the result of electing conservative presidents who appoint ultra-conservative judges. We might finally know we have to work to change that. This is a civil rights issue. The turmoil around it won't end until these people have their civil rights."

All comments on this article are here.

By Doug Feaver  |  August 5, 2010; 9:05 AM ET
 | Tags: Judge Vaughn R. Walker. gay rights, same-sex marriage; California  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Rangel, Waters, ethics and Congress
Next: Afghanistan massacre and religious intolerance


Rhonda5: When Loving V Virginia in 1967 was decided to legalize interracial marriage, over 70% of the American public disagreed. Damn those activist judges! Let's vote them out!

Posted by: shadow_man | August 6, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

imaginemore: Sorry, but science proves you wrong :)

For those of you claiming homosexuality is a "lifestyle", that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www)
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."

Posted by: shadow_man | August 6, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

keepthefaith: You seem to confuse sex with sexual orientation. I also notice you could not refute any of the scientific links i posted that prove homosexuality is not a choice. Of course you can prove this to me by answering the following questions:

Are you male? (If not, reverse the questions to the other gender) If so, Are you sexually attracted to other men? Would you be able to enjoy sex with a man? Do you get sexual urges with a man? Do men turn you on sexually and emotionally? Could you be happy with a man sexually for the rest of your life?

I'm sure either i won't be hearing from you again, or you will dodge these questions. Lets take bets to which one it will be =)

Posted by: shadow_man | August 6, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Homosexuals by their very lifestyle choice are not normal and for them to force that on others in immoral. Not sure who chose to coin the term 'gay' to define this group but it is definitely a misnomer.

Do people have a right to live without harassment in America? Yes, they do. But they don't have a right to blatantly force their immoral choices on the hetersexuals in America and expect us to tell them they are normal........when they are not.

Posted by: imaginemore | August 6, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: SISSD1 | August 6, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Read the postings of shadow_man and it is obvious that the decision of his “lifestyle” was made long ago. Yet, he and others continually try to justify their decision by dismissing any notion of God setting the standard for morality.

Life is full of choices. A person may be prone to gambling. Whether or not they gamble is a choice that only they can make. With faith in God, they can exercise the discipline to not succumb to this or any other harmful desire.

So it is with the man or woman who contends they have homosexual tendencies. It still is their choice as to whether or not they practice homosexuality.

You may believe in the “right” of same-sex marriage. More important is what is right in the eyes of God.

God is the same “yesterday, today, and forever.” God is merciful, just, and forgiving. Yet, if we believe in God, we recognize and make an effort to follow his high moral standards. These are standards not negated by liberal-minded judges.

Posted by: keepthefaith | August 6, 2010 12:44 AM | Report abuse

This goes to show why CA is in such a mess both fiscally. These individuals believe the lines drawn and be can changed to what ever direction they feel is right... Time to vote all of our state legislators and judges out of office! If these individuals aren't willing to uphold what the majority of voters want then time to say bye-bye....I help provide a paycheck to this judge...Obviously, he doesn't give a rip!@

Posted by: Rhonda5 | August 5, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

This goes to show why CA is in such a mess both fiscally. These individuals believe the lines drawn and be can changed to what ever direction they feel is right... Time to vote all of our state legislators and judges out of office! If these individuals aren't willing to uphold what the majority of voters want then time to say bye-bye....I help provide a paycheck to this judge...Obviously, he doesn't give a rip!@

Posted by: Rhonda5 | August 5, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Once again, your local activist judge will circumvent the will of the people, and again the gay community wins by persistence and money. What happened to the one man one vote and make it count? do we not count any more? are judges now the people who will make the decisions for us? SAY IT ISN"T SO

Posted by: jhartnack | August 5, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Once again, your local activist judge will circumvent the will of the people, and again the gay community wins by persistence and money. I thought that in this country if you put an issue to a referendum, we the people get to decide by majority, apparently your vote does not count.

Posted by: jhartnack | August 5, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

To the those people who comment that a gay judge should be disqualified from ruling on this issue, would it not be equally valid that a straight married judge should do the same?

Posted by: trephain | August 5, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Manka Bros. Studios has clarified its company-wide Gay Marriage Policy...

Posted by: jill_kennedy | August 5, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court will not decide whether gays have the right to marry. The Court will decide if the state of California had sufficient grounds to violate the equal protect guarantees in the Constitution. The Court will not decide that the judge needed to recues himself, unless there was some sort of overt misconduct on his part. To say a gay judge could not hear a gay case, is the same as saying an African-American judge cannot hear a racial bias case, or a Jewish judge cannot hear a case where the defendant is Jewish. The facts of the case will determine its outcome. This judge found that the arguments presented to uphold Proposition 8 were not sufficient to deny the equal protection rights guaranteed in the US Constitution. This judge made every effort to make sure that there were no procedural issues that could cloud this case. This case will be eventually resolved by weighing the facts, both for and against, denying a class of people equal protection. Arguments must be made that prove, with facts and a legal basis, that same-sex marriage does harm to society. This case hinges on the same legal argument that would apply if the State of California had passed an amendment that required Muslims to ride on separate buses. The State, since they enacted the prohibition, must prove (within the context of legal, provable facts) that same-sex marriage does harm to society and therefore must be prohibited, for the good of society.

Posted by: The_Rat | August 5, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

An Openly Gay Judge should have recused himself. We don't anything mudding up this issue.

Posted by: mradzilowski | August 5, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

The only legal reason for the government to be involved in marriage is based in property rights. In the government’s eyes, it is nothing more than a contract between two people that allows for the ownership and transfer of property.

Personal beliefs about the normalcy or moral foundation of the life-style of same-sex couples aside, the court can only rule on legal grounds. Is there a compelling legal reason to codify the exclusion of same-sex couples from a process that the government has instituted? This court has said “no”. Our legal system is based on the presentation of facts, and the arguments presented in favor of a prohibition against same sex marriage did not hold water. Can a state violate the constitution’s guarantees, even if the majority of people think it should? I think we would all agree that the answer is again, “no”. What must be proven is whether such a prohibition is in the best interest of the state, and the only way to do this is with facts, not conjecture. Without quoting the bible or an interpretation of God’s law, is there a legal basis that explains how a same-sex marriage harms heterosexual marriage or is a detriment to society? Since the availability of marriage to couples who cannot have children is not limited, then the procreation argument does not hold. Studies show that children raised in same-sex households do not suffer any unnecessary harm, thus the benefit to children argument does not hold. This then, brings us back to the question of harm to society or traditional marriage. Does same-sex marriage make heterosexual marriage any less important? If so, what facts (provable in a court of law) support that position? Does same-sex marriage do harm to our society, in a legal sense?
These questions need to be answered and supported by facts. As they say, “it's not what you know; it’s what you can prove”.

Posted by: The_Rat | August 5, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Do any of you that are ranting about the will of the people being overturned by a judge understand that this is exactly why we have judges? You can pass all the laws you want, but if they are deemed unconstitutional, that's that. That's what democracy is all about: protecting the few from the tyranny of the majority. Suck on that.

Posted by: cao091402 | August 5, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

No, cbk1, neither should we redefine citizen.

Posted by: ralphodavis | August 5, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Since Civil Unions can be structured to have the same rights as marriage, this has nothing to do with Civil rights. If a Man and Woman wanted to be called a Lesbian, should we change the definition of Lesbian?

Posted by: cbk1 | August 5, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

It amazes me that a judge can over rule the people, that a homosexual judge doesn't recuse himself.

The left who stick up for judges are wrong, they didn't end slavery, the people and soldiers did - not judges. That's a false argument.

Posted by: fisherman955 | August 5, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.

"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "

Posted by: shadow_man | August 5, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.

America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

Posted by: shadow_man | August 5, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

For those of you claiming homosexuality is a "lifestyle", that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ,2933,155990,00.html

Posted by: shadow_man | August 5, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.

(Change *** to www)

Posted by: shadow_man | August 5, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

Posted by: shadow_man | August 5, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

The USA exited the long-standing western cultural tradition officially in 1789. A new tradition was born then: secular humanism. So it's taking 200 years to work out all the details, but this decision doesn't really come as a surprise. It has some logic to it given the trajectory of the past 200 years.

At this point it would make more sense for the government to entirely exit "marriage" as it was always understood in the western tradition. Certainly marriage today between a man and a woman is not what it once was (hard to contract, *very* hard to terminate). Easy divorce was not part of the western tradition (even pre-Christian).

What exists now is a loose property and tax contract mislabeled as "marriage". To avoid confusion, call all of these contracts, whatever the gender of the parties, "civil or domestic contracts" and leave "marriage" to religious institutions which want to perpetuate the notion which existed pre-1789.

Then we'll see which arrangement works better for society in the long run.

Posted by: Matthew_DC | August 5, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

One of the Supreme Court Justices, Scalia I think, said his job was "to call balls and strikes," meaning to act neutrally and interpret the law as it was written.

In the Gay Marriage controversy, there is more at stake than merely wanting or not wanting gays to have the opportunity to marry. There is the issue of the court following the law.

Marriage laws have traditionally been state laws. Feds have nothing to do with it, and states have decided whether or not you can marry your 2nd cousin, how old both parties must be to marry, whether or not parental consent is required for young persons to marry, etc...

States, theoretically, could allow gay and/or straight marriage in any combination. A state could decide that only gay marriages are valid, for example.

Therefore, the states do, and should, have ultimate authority on this topic.

Personally, I favor allowing gays to marry, but I dislike this court ruling because it goes against the law. Just as in a ballgame, we cannot call the plate with bias for one team, we must "call balls and strikes" as they are.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | August 5, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

As a Justice of the Peace in Connecticut who has performed over 300 same sex ceremonies, it is my delight to be part of legally honoring the commitment my couples make to each other!

This is wonderful and the entire U.S. should rejoice that enlightenment is happening.

I know we are at a tipping point... it will be soon (IMO) that this DOMA law will be toast...there is NO constitutional reason for it.

It is religious zealots pushing against marriage equality...and religion has NO place in our constitution to limit our freedoms.

In CT a couple can get married in ONE DAY, no witnesses, no blood tests, no residency requirements.

It actually take about 90 minutes and that includes the time it takes for a lot of photos!!

I love officiating at these weddings- the couples are so full of joy!

Mary Pugh
mary at

Posted by: marypugh12 | August 5, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

I continue to be astonished, and appalled, at the pure cowardice of the non-fundamentalist Christian community.

This entire disastrous argument should properly be viewed as purely a matter of Religious Freedom.

Hello? The religious far-right are the only ones opposed. Many Christian sects are NOT opposed to gay marriage (not to mention many other religions); but are too cowardly to speak up; and say:

"WAIT A MINUTE! What's going on here is pure Religious Assault and Battery. The fundamentalists are attempting to legislate their personal beliefs into law. This is America. YOU CAN'T DO THAT HERE."

This is obvious to all. But not mentioned in all the noise.

I just don't get it.

Posted by: woodyag | August 5, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

This is just more liberal judicial interference with the state's citizenry decision on the subject. If we are to be ruled by a small percentage over the desires of the large majority we are not a democracy at all. Obama's trying to do the same thing nationally. Such a sad time in our glorious history.....

Posted by: GordonShumway | August 5, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

This issue is now headed to the U.S. Supreme court which is the right place for it right now. However, the high courts ruling will not put an end to the underling controversy of the legality of same-sex marriage. The ruling the high court must decide is whether the people of any state have the right to ban such marriages and also does a single federal judge have the right to declare that the people's choice is unconstitutional even when the state Supreme Court supports it. Complicating the issue in this case is that the ruling judge in California is himself a gay man - there is good justification to say that the judge in this case could not help but be somewhat biased in his ruling. I really believe that judge Vaughn R. Walker should have recused himself in this case.

Nevertheless if Walker's ruling is upheld, a flurry of activity will no doubt ensue challenging any and all laws nationwide that does not support gay marriage. This could be playing out for years to come.

I personally believe it is mush more likely that the U.S. Supreme court will overturn Walker’s ruling on the grounds that it smacks too much of legislating from the bench and that the people of each state must decide for themselves whether or not they will allow gay marriages to be sanctified by state law. In this case, we are likely to see Proposition 8-like laws propagated all over the country. Of course, every one of them will be subject to review by the state Supreme Court in each case. This route will also take years to play out.

So, which ever way the Supreme Court rules, this issue is a long way from being decided.
John W. McAlister
Ethical Universe

Posted by: johnmcalister43 | August 5, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

The issue with Marriage for Homosexuals is Money. There are a lot of spousal survivor benefits like Social Security, Insurance, Investments, IRA's and others financially that have been granted by Congress to help Widows and Orphans.
I suppose it can be argued that Homosexuals should qualify for the financial benefits the same as a Man and Wife of conventional marriage.
If Homosexuals are recognized as Spouses, a lot of laws, that benefited survivors of Orphans and Widows will be up for consideration.
Like most issues, the taxpayer better recognize, the issue of Homosexual marriage is Money. It has nothing to do with being recognized in the eyes of our society.
As a taxpayer, I see no benefit of Homosexual marriage in the eyes of our society.
I suppose, two guys, could get married, combine their Social Security checks, and the one who has the highest check would get the others Social Security check when he dies.
Two guys could get homosexually married on paper, live in different cities and still recieve Medical benefits from one who has benefits.
Does this open a Financial Can of worms.
Don't Ask, Don't tell is a good law. It has worked and should not be altered for the sake of money. If the Homosexuals want to get married, just do it and don't tell anyone.
But, here again, you will not hear about the financial ramifications of recognizing two people of the same sex getting married.
Seems the pro-homosexual marriage bunch fail to mention that

Posted by: Mike123456789 | August 5, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

This judge's ruling seems kind of queer to me.

Posted by: gallen17 | August 5, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I just can't imagine a man having sex with another man. It is repulsive. Boys at school do indulge in homosexuality. But men ,with hairs in thighs and bad body odor,marry each other, unlike temporary homosexuality of boys at hostel,is something disgusting.No wonder American population is depleting because of gay and lesbian marriages, single mothers.A Muslim family has 8 to 10 children; immigrants from India,Africa and Latin America do not have family planning and they produce children. Soon Americans will find themselves a minority community in their own country because of same sex marriage.Yankees will have to quit America and the power will be in the hands of Moslems.The proposed mosque in Ground Zero is an indicator.

Posted by: yeshu2004 | August 5, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company