Translate this page

Same-sex weddings underway in San Diego


Tuesday, July 2nd, 2013
Issue 27, Volume 17.


SAN DIEGO - Same-sex couples were married July 1 in the County Administration Center in San Diego today for the first time since the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, under which Proposition 8 was struck down as unconstitutional.

Couples lined up outside the building early today to be married with San Diego's scenic waterfront as a backdrop.

Stephanie Torres and Susan Hartman, together for 21 years, were the first to be married. They wore Hawaiian shirts and sandals.

Torres said they had a chance to be married in 2008 but balked, fearing their union would be undone by the courts.

"The roller coaster of life," Torres said. "We're here, we're happy and we're very happy with the Supreme Court decision and equal rights."

In November 2008, voters approved Proposition 8, which effectively banned same-sex marriages by defining marriage as a legal union between Advertisement
Advertisement for Christ the King  Lutheran Church
[ Christ the King Lutheran Church ]
and man and a woman.

A federal judge found the law unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court justices rejected an appeal by supporters of the initiative, leaving the lower court ruling to stand.

On Friday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals waived a 25-day waiting period for the ruling to take effect.

Val Wood of the county Assessor/Recorder/Clerk's office, said her office has been inundated by phone calls. She said that couples need an appointment to buy wedding licenses and arrange for a civil ceremony done by county employees.

On Wednesdays this summer, however, walk-ins will be accepted, and everyone who has their required papers in order before 5 p.m. that day will be married, according to Wood.

"It's going to be very popular this Wednesday, because there will be a lot of couples," Wood said, adding that all walk-ins need to have proper identification.


 

63 comments

Comment Profile ImageERIN
Comment #1 | Tuesday, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:37 am
I now pronounce you....Adam and Steve.
Comment Profile ImageFR86
Comment #2 | Tuesday, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:41 am
Hopefully this will be the last time we hear about this matter and the courts get involved with this issue............but I doubt it.

To those of you Prop 8 supporters, get on with your lives the way that our gay citizens can now do. Bluntly, as long as 2 consenting adults enter into a relationship no matter what it is and it doesn't effect anyone else-------Mind your own business.

Unfortunately there are self- righteous elements of our society that for some reason, be it religious, political or otherwise, find it necessary to meddle in other people's lives
Comment Profile ImageSB
Comment #3 | Tuesday, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:45 pm
Good! I've been married 30 years, and same-sex marriage does not "threaten" my marriage at all. I support it whole-heartedly and wish all the couples who can now marry much happiness. Marriage is a big enough challenge for those who bother to stick it out, without nosy people telling others whom they can or cannot marry.
Comment Profile ImageTonya
Comment #4 | Tuesday, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:25 pm
What?! No instant destruction of "traditional" marriage? Shocking! Look
Who's confused now... Congrats to all my LGBT friends on a
Victory and validation long over due.
Comment Profile ImageReality Checker
Comment #5 | Tuesday, Jul 2, 2013 at 2:56 pm
How does one "validate"'disgustingly perverted behavior? Eh?
Comment Profile ImageGRUNT
Comment #6 | Tuesday, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:22 pm
Just a question to FR86- why only "two" why not three or four?
Comment Profile ImageERIN
Comment #7 | Tuesday, Jul 2, 2013 at 4:35 pm
Next up....Legalized beastiality.
Comment Profile ImageFR86
Comment #8 | Tuesday, Jul 2, 2013 at 4:54 pm
Grunt, If you can stand being "married" to more that one individual be it man or women and you're all consenting adults .................more power to you.

If you can, it's still not my business or anyone else's.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageFR86
Comment #9 | Tuesday, Jul 2, 2013 at 4:57 pm
Besides if you consider the divorce rate heterosexual couples are doing just fine destroying "traditional" marriage
Comment Profile ImageBill
Comment #10 | Tuesday, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:50 pm
Alright the Attorneys have more to go after and make lots more money when things don't work out. I will be glad to take your money. Thanks
Comment Profile ImageFallbrookFan
Comment #11 | Tuesday, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:20 pm
FR86, Tonya, SB and the rest of the "progressive", "forward thinking", and "evolved" opinions out there. Now that marriage is no longer between just a a man and a woman, how do you handle poly morphs and intra family marriages and there other abbarant lifestyles that want to be married as well? Who are you to tell anyone and anything that they can't get married? You "big and progressive" thinkers have never bothered to look past the end of your own noses to see the problems other countries have been having now that their definition of marriage is whatever with whoever you want. It's always funny when political correctness bites itself in the a.... Just because it feels right to you and "is the right thing to do" in your opinion, doesn't make something wise or moral or just. May God Bless this country and turn us away from the direction that we're headed.
Comment Profile Imageand at the reception..
Comment #12 | Tuesday, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:40 pm
you all can have some Ben and Jerry. LOL
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #13 | Tuesday, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:26 pm
regarding #7: Animals can not give legal consent for sexual intercourse with human beings nor to entering into a civil marriage contract. Gay and lesbian people are not animals and I'm sorry that you view us as such.

regarding #6 and #11: The slippery slope was established when the first state issued its first marriage license to a man and a woman. After that anything is theoretically possible, right? If you were truly concerned about where this might lead, you would have been trying to get the government out of the marriage business. But clearly you're not concerned because you (presumably straight) wish to enjoy all the legal rights and benefits of a state issued marriage license while denying them to people like myself.

regarding #5: As opposed to validating yours? I know I don't think about the "behavior", "disgustingly perverted" or not, of my straight neighbors. It never ceases to amaze me the obsessive interest that some people have about other people's lives.
Comment Profile ImageERIN
Comment #14 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 7:50 am
Now I can have my rubber love doll covered under my HMO. No more out of pocket expenses for patches.
Comment Profile ImageSam
Comment #15 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 8:16 am
Blah, blah, blah! Why can't people keep their noses out of other people's business. As I said earlier, this isn't as much a moral issue as it is financial. Gays and lesbians should have the same rights as straight people.
FR86, I agree with you. And, BonsallGayGuy, I'm straight and stand behind you 100%!
Comment Profile ImageBowl Time
Comment #16 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 8:32 am
To: BonsallGayGuy

You seem like a real smart guy. I mean no disrespect to you. I personally love all human beings. But ask yourself this please. Would you be in this world if it was not for a woman? I think not. Now, with that said. What anyone wants to do with their own life is up to them. It still does not make it right.
Comment Profile ImageFR86
Comment #17 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 9:35 am
To Fallbrookfan,

If you could stop your emotional tyraid and think about what I and the other "progressive" thinkers as you call them are saying it comes down to this......

No one has the right to dictate to anyone else how or what they can or can't do in a consenting adult relationship. If you want to marry a statue, a currency or a donkey that's your choice and it's between you and your god if you worship one. Further, what you chose to do in that consenting adult relationship be it a marriage, civil union or other term is no one's business.

Frankly, I personally don't approve of lots of what I see in society, I hate tattoos especially on women, gang bangers that can't wear their pants without their rear-ends hanging out, purple and green luminous hair and nose rings on otherwise beautiful young people...............but I don't have any business telling anyone how they should look and live their lives...............why, because it doesn't effect me.

If you and your self-righteous cohorts start to require me to conform to your standards whatever they are and get in my face you are actually violating what this great country is about.

So move on and mind your own business.

FR86
Comment Profile ImageFallbrookFan
Comment #18 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:11 am
FR86 You and your self righteous cohorts have no problem telling us Christians what we should accept as normal and legal. Get off your hypocritical high horse and stop shoving gay marriage down our throats. We have a right to freely practice our religion without the PC police forcing us to accept gay marrige which the voters of CA overwhelmingly voted against. Did you forget that??? So you and the morality police and Brown and Harris know better than the rest of the voters of CA what our morals should be??? It's okay to force your morals on us???? Now that gay marriage is open to whatever you want it to mean, why then can't two adult siblings marry? Why are you so staunch on age of consent then??? Why must it be two consenting adults??? You can't legally stop the slippery slope that you and like minded politically correct hypocrites have greased.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageFallbrookFan
Comment #19 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:18 am
Haha "So move on and mind your own business" yes Mom!!!!! This fight isn't over and I love how you liberals and politically correct bigots love to silence opposing views. You love your free speech, but love to try and shut others up who dont agree with you. Not gonna happen. This Fallbrookian will not be shut up by a hypocritical liberal who wants to shove their morals down my throat.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageFallbrookFan
Comment #20 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:29 am
BonsallGayguy: Marriage goes back to tribes and whether they were early Jews or animists or whatever, marriage was given religious significance and defined as being between a man and a woman. So marriage was clearly defined well before the gay movement wanted to change the meaning for their own selfish reasons. It is you and the gay movement with your selfish motives that have created this slippery slope. There is absolutely no doubt that the gay marriage movement has created this slippery slope. I totally agree that a committed gay couple should have the legal rights of a married heterosexual man and woman. Wouldn't a civil union doinG that be good enough???? So, why did you pursue changing the meaning of the term marriage??? Seems to me it was partially spite of religious institutions? How much longer before you sue to force Christian pastors and churches to perform gay marriages to thumb your noses at us yet again???
Comment Profile Image@Erin
Comment #21 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:34 am
Yeee haaa you nailed it! I agree with you. Also, in general, I DO wonder, if now it can be between same sex, why DO we stop there? Perhaps the Mormons have something and we should just continue to marry as many people as we like, oh but no, wait, LGBT can do whatever but no one else!
Comment Profile ImageFR86
Comment #22 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:35 am
Like I said you have the right to your opinion.........I fought for it.

As for you being a Christian, really?
Comment Profile Image@ FallbrookFan
Comment #23 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:36 am
Hear, hear, couldn't have said it better myself!
Comment Profile ImageFR86
Comment #24 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:44 am
By the way I'm not a liberal either and what I am isn't your business is it.
Comment Profile ImageFallbrookFan
Comment #25 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:21 pm
FR86. Thank you for your service to our country. Yes I am a Christian and I will fight for my rights and my voice to be heard. It rankles me when people put being politically correct above religious rights. @Erin if you see my first comments above, I bring up polymorphs. They have these male and female groups that want to get married to each other. So, if 3 guys and 2 girls want to be a polymorph marital group, then why can we stop them now???? Marriage doesn't mean anything anymore and everything goes.
Comment Profile ImageFR86
Comment #26 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:32 pm
TO F-Fan & Erin

How do another person's choices in same sex marriages or whatever you want to call them effect you to make you feel you have the right to intrude in their lives?

FR86
Comment Profile ImageSam
Comment #27 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:37 pm
What a bunch of garbage those right wing homophobes are spewing. No one's shoving anything down your throat. they just want to live their lives the way THEY want to, not the way YOU want them to. Why does it bother you so much that gays can marry? Is it really hurting you? Does it directly affect they way you live your life?
Yes, you have the right to live your life any way you see fit. Just as anyone else does. It's time to get off your high horse and stop sticking your nose into everyone else's business, just because they don't live their lives down to your standard.
Comment Profile ImageFallbrookFan
Comment #28 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 4:05 pm
FR86 What gives you the right to force us to recognize same sex marriages as law when the Bible views homosexuality as sin? Why must we be ultimately sued for not performing same sex marriages? Why do over 50% of the voters in the state of CA vote for a law and then have it not enforced or defended by the State of CA. The bottom line is that Prop 8 should be law and it isn't because of an activist court that overstepped its bounds. Those are the questions you ought to be answering FR86.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageFallbrookFan
Comment #29 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 4:08 pm
As for Sam, its you politically correct robots who don't see the ramifications of something that just feels right and how it affects others. Why did prop 8 pass and why isn't it law? Sam, why can't homosexuals have civil unions that have all of the legal rights of a marriage? Why must they corrupt a term that is thousands of years old? Why must Christian churches be forced to recognize sinful marriages? Sam, get off your high horse and stop forcing us to accept sin that the Bible clearly identifies. How long before we are going to be forced to perform gay marriages because they are legal and we would be denying some gay couple of their civil rights? How long before all churches will be trolled (as we already have been) by homosexual couples wanting to sue us because we are denying them of their "civil rights" by not marrying them against The Word? Think for yourself and think ahead Sam.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageFallbrookFan
Comment #30 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 4:19 pm
We have already had an OB/GYN in Oceanside be sued and lost because they wouldn't artificially inseminate a lesbian couple. He referred the couple to another Dr. who did inseminate them and they have a healthy child. How were their "civil rights" violated and how were they emotionally distressed? Just wait until the gay marriage lobby starts suing churches to bring us down, because we won't hold gay marriage ceremonies. Just wait it will happen. The gay rights movement in general would love to bring all churches down, because we don't accept their lifestyle. We love them like anyone else, but we don't accept their lifestyle and that isn't good enough for them!
Comment Profile ImageFR86
Comment #31 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 4:30 pm
When the secular court system starts to make decisions based on religious beliefs we are definitely on the wrong road..........to IRAN.

The people of the state voted on an initiative that was unconstitutional, the courts called it that and the supreme court did not reverse the decision. That same court and constitution allow you to have your beliefs and protects you as well as ALL members of society

You and the bible may call it a sin but the constitution and the courts don't.
Comment Profile ImageFallbrookFan
Comment #32 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 4:38 pm
FR86. No it was not unconstitutional. Check your facts and reread the ruling. The court overstepped its bounds by even commenting on it. Reread Scalia's opinion. Secular courts need to consider infringement on religious beliefs....Prop 8 was not unconstitutional. The court never said it was!!!! A woefully uninformed citizenry is what the politically correct folks count on to get laws like prop 8 overturned. Good job in proving my point FR86.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageFallbrookFan
Comment #33 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 4:43 pm
"The rulings leave in place laws banning same-sex marriage around the nation, and the court declined to say whether there was a constitutional right to such unions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gay-marriage.html?_r=0
Comment Profile ImageCarla
Comment #34 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 7:45 pm
The Holy Trinity of right wing theocrats.......misogyny, religious bigotry and homophobia. No wonder people are leaving churches that preach this hatred!
Comment Profile ImageSB
Comment #35 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 7:46 pm
FallbrookFan, no one is preventing you from following your religion. Just don't expect to force others to follow it with you. Freedom is not just for you. No one's religious rights trump others' civil rights.
Comment Profile ImageSeriously??
Comment #36 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 8:41 pm
Really SB?? Try telling that to the Muslims.
Comment Profile ImageFallbrookFan
Comment #37 | Wednesday, Jul 3, 2013 at 9:15 pm
Carla: I guess you've been drinking since what you posted made absolutely no sense. SB: the Bible says that homosexuality is sin. Plain and simple. We don't celebrate sin. Now that gay marriage is legal, we are being told to accept homosexuality as moral and legal. Since it is legal, how much longer before we will be asked to hold gay weddings in our churches against The Word and the wishes of Pastors and congregations?? To do otherwise would violate their civil rights?? This slippery slope is telling Christians that we must accept homosexuality or else. So SB if the gay marriage lobby's motivations were so pure, why weren't they happy with civil unions which carry the same legal weight without subverting the institution of marriage? Their efforts are clear, to destroy the institution of marriage and then religious institutions are next.
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #38 | Thursday, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:06 am
regarding #32. Yes it was unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit Court found it unconstitutional based on due process and equal protection clauses of the US Constitution. This finding was never reversed/overruled by the SCOTUS. This lower court determination still stands. Prop 8 was and is unconstitutional until overturned.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #39 | Thursday, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:25 am
regarding #30. First of all the physician was located in Vista, CA not Oceanside.

The CA Supreme Court ruled that the Unruh Civil Rights Act (a CA State law) prohibited a business from discriminating against a lesbian couple. In the State of California it is illegal for a business that offers services to the general public to discriminate based on race, ethnic background, religion, political belief or affiliation, sexual orientation, etc., etc., etc.. The clinic in question offered in vitro fertilization services and advertised to the general public and yes, lesbians are members of the general public. You can not offer services to the general public and then cite your religious beliefs as a legal basis to withhold those services contrary to civil law. It would have been just as illegal for that doctor to refuse in vitro fertilization to an African-American, or to a Jewish person, or to a member of the LDS Church etc. while citing religious justification/beliefs for so doing. It would have been just as illegal if a gay or lesbian physician were to refuse services to Mormons or Roman Catholics etc, under that same law.

Additionally the physician in question once finding out that the couple was gay, also decided to void the prescription of his patient's fertility drug without so much as contacting his patient first. This left her in mid-course of treatment without access to medication.

Please stop playing the role of religious martyr. No one is persecuting you. You are perfectly free to hold whatever religious views you wish, proselytize the willing to your heart's content. However you do not have a right to expect that our civil secular government should withhold a governmentally issued license (marriage license) to gay or lesbian couples because of your or your church's religious dictates. Your church is perfectly free to marry or not whomever they please based upon whatever religious theology they wish to establish. You and your church do not however have the right to dictate to me and my spouse whether we can or can not marry (or try to forcibly divorce us against our will as was done by the Yes on 8 campaign....we were one of the tens of thousands of same sex couples that received marriage licenses back in 2008) predicated on religious beliefs that we do not share. The United States is not a theocracy. I think it is about time that you recognize this.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #40 | Thursday, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:41 am
regarding #20. Again, various religions are perfectly free to define marriage as between couples of the opposite sex. But when government got involved and started handing out very real rights, privileges, benefits and protections to the holders of this state issued license then I and my spouse have every right to expect that license as well.

BTW-as to your remark "marriage was given religious significance and defined as being between a man and a woman." I couldn't care less what your religion teaches. If I were interested in living my life according to your religious dictates, I'd join your church. End of discussion.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #41 | Thursday, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:56 am
regarding #15. Sam, I think most reasonable and fair minded Americans are not threatened by people like me being able to live out our lives with the same rights as everyone else. I wish to thank you and every other straight person who has publically spoken out in support. We really do appreciate it! Again with profound gratitude, thank you!
Comment Profile Image@Sam
Comment #42 | Thursday, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:14 pm
and the like. Just because one doesn't agree with same sex marriage in no way makes them a homophobe. It disgusts me that, when someone doesn't agree with the masses or a liberal point of view, they are labeled as some sort of prejudiced. Little closed minded, if you ask me (even if you don't ask me, I really don't care) to label someone as something they are not because they disagree. I don't agree with same sex marriage. I find it interesting, that, yet AGAIN, the people voted and those who didn't like the vote ran to the court crying and got it overturned. I always said, those that do not vote can't complain. Well, seeing as how the people's vote doesn't count, I am considering NOT voting. Then again, to become complacent is not the way. Had certain people not become complacent, perhaps the outcome of 1600 Pennsylvania would be different.
Comment Profile ImageFallbrookFan
Comment #43 | Thursday, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:43 pm
I guess another way of putting this is The Word says that homosexuality is sin. We are to love homosexuals like anyone else, but we aren't going to accept their lifestyle as moral or change the meaning of marriage because less than 2% of the population wants to make a statement. On the other hand you've got less than 50% of the voters in CA who want gay marriag telling Christians that we must accept as legal and moral something we view as sin. It is not thE Christians going out and telling homosexuals that you must accept us and our Christian lifestyle, it's the gay marriage lobby going out and telling Christians that we must accept their lifestyle and their marriage as moral and legal with all of the rights afforded marriage. Remember that the majority of voters are against gay marriage in the state.
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #44 | Thursday, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:01 pm
regarding #43-Clearly you haven't been following public opinion polls. Every major poll surveying the opinions of Californians over the last 2 years show that a decisive majority of this state's residents now support marriage equality. Additionally, last November the voters of Maryland, Maine and Washington State all approved referenda legalizing same sex marriage and the voters of Minnesota voted down a state constitutional amendment that would have banned same sex marriage in that state. Public opinion has shifted dramatically here in California and across the country since 2008 when Proposition 8 was narrowly approved.

regarding comment #37 where you opine that civil unions carry the same legal rights as a marriage license, I'm sorry, but you're just flat out wrong. Civil unions are issued by a few states and by a very few municipalities. They are not recognized by the federal government nor by the vast majority of states in this country. In most instances they are not even portable across state lines. Spousal hospital visitation rights, estate tax exemptions, immigration rights for a non citizen spouse, child custody, federally regulated health coverage for a spouse, social security survivors benefits, Medicare spousal benefits, rights to not incriminate a spouse under the 5th amendment to the US Constitution, taking family leave to take care of a spouse during an illness, receiving wages or workers' compensation or retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse, spousal bereavement leave, etc, etc., etc., are just a few of the very many legal rights, protections and benefits that civil unions do not provide.

In fact, the lead plaintiff in the federal lawsuit against DOMA, Ms. Windsor, was handed a tax bill of more than $360,000 when her spouse died because the IRS (the federal government) didn't recognize marriage licenses issued to two people of the same gender. If Ms Windsor had only a civil union she would have been entirely out of luck fighting this.
Comment Profile ImageFallbrookFan
Comment #45 | Thursday, Jul 4, 2013 at 10:12 pm
@sam I couldn't agree more with what you said, but I will always vote and voice my viewpoint even if an activist court trying to write law (when they should be enforcing it) disenfranchises me.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageFallbrookFan
Comment #46 | Thursday, Jul 4, 2013 at 10:31 pm
BobsallGayguy: wow! You got me!! The physician is on the Vista/ Oceanside boarder by Tri City Hospital. Hope that technicality made you feel good!

#38. Of course you leave out some important facts. Read my ny times link above. Scotus didn't rule on the constitutionality of same sex marriages and they shouldn't have it was a states rights issue. Any state but California that has a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman has had the law stand. The judge who originally ruled on the case was a closeted homosexual who openly campaigned for the case(against judicial practice) so that he could legitimize his gay relationship with his verdict. After his divisive ruling, he came out of the closet and resigned before he was pressured to resign. The 9th circuit has always been the home of judicial activism and whatever a gay lower court judge ruled in favor of was never going to be overturned. This was impartial home cooking from the start. No objective application of the law and the only sought to push forward their own agendas. This was not an objective application of the law and you know it!!! It was pure unadulterated judicial activism for gay marriage!!!!
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageFallbrookFan
Comment #47 | Thursday, Jul 4, 2013 at 10:55 pm
#39 nice ad hominem on the Unruh Act. The only problem is that no black or Jew ever had their civil rights violated by that physician. Except for the lesbian couple who went out trolling and found what they were looking for (a Conservative Christian Ob/gyn to set up and sue), the physician has had a pristine record of serving the public. Why don't you trot down there and try to force them to perform an abortion while you are at it? One or both of the lesbian couple was an illegal alien and when that fact was brought up, law enforcement didn't deport them as they should have. What happened was a clear violation of the doctor's right to practice their religion. The couple was referred to another doctor without the same religious convictions and they had a healthy baby!!! What injury occurred other than litigious lesbians got a free payday at the hands of religious freedom? I suspect the Unruh act is what you and other homosexuals will be using to force churches to perform gay marriages against our convictions? You make me sick with how you portray this as an innocuous little ruling and how innocent it is. What the gay movement sought and won ( for now) the prostitution of the term marriage. Next up on your agenda is abolishing religious institutions.
Comment Profile ImageFallbrookFan
Comment #48 | Thursday, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:09 pm
Bonsallgayguy: #20: I assume the Unruh Act is what you're going to use to make sure your civil rights aren't "violated" while our religious freedoms mean nothing when you force us to perform gay marriages so you can thumb your nose at religious institutions? Why couldn't civil unions with the same legal benefits of marriage not sufficed??the message is clear: you first sought to destroy the institution of marriage and next on your agenda are religious institutions who don't accept you or your lifestyle. End of discussion.

Let there be no ambiguity, it has been the gay movement that has been drama queening around for the last 20 years claiming victim hood and martyrdom. The religious movement has merely asked that you not force your lifestyles on us. We welcome you in our pews, we just don't ask you push what we know as sin on us as being legal, moral and natural. The first step of your agenda, the prostitution of the term marriage, has temporarily been accomplished. The next step is via the Unruh act to start to destroy religious institutions by forcing us to perform gay marriages. Nice try at trying to deflect your motives on Christians. You have been caught red handed. End of discussion.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageFallbrookFan
Comment #49 | Thursday, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:31 pm
Bonsallgayguy: are you in favor of polymorphic weddings? What about age of consent, are you for abolishing those laws? What about sibling marriages? Who are you Ro tell those loving couples that they shouldn't be married? You are purposely creating a slippery slope. How do you wish to handle those issues? I await your reply.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageFallbrookFan
Comment #50 | Friday, Jul 5, 2013 at 10:13 am
Regarding 44. Nice ad hominem about other states. You know as well as I do that polling data can be manipulated through various means to achieve the results desired. If you are so confident in gay marriage being popular, why hasn't the gay movement put it on the ballot? Why not put an affirmative ballot measure supporting gay marriage? The answer is that you know the last time gay marriage was on the ballot you clearly lost. The gay movement clearly doesn't have confidence in the polls you cite and they clearly don't have confidence that it was pass. End of story.

Regarding 37. Open your mind up and think about what I said. Why wasn't a civil union created or pushed for by the gay lobby that had the legal equivalent to marriage? The gay lobby wanted to attack the institution of marriage itself. If they really wanted to have a legal equivalent without attacking the institution, they would have pushed for that. You would have had my vote and I think you would have easily won. Instead, you want to be divisive and attack an institution that has existed for thousands of years so that you can thumb your nose at religious institutions that don't accept your lifestyle. End of story.
Comment Profile ImageBonsallGayGuy
Comment #51 | Friday, Jul 5, 2013 at 3:04 pm
regarding comment#46 - I never claimed that the SCOTUS ruled on the constitutionality of same sex marriage nor did I assert that this ruling invalidated the law of any US state other than California. What I said was, and repeat here once again, is that the 9th Circuit Court found Proposition 8 unconstitutional as having violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution. These were also among the same findings that the US District Court earlier reached under Judge Vaughn Walker. This lower court finding of unconstitutionality is the basis as to why Proposition 8 has been overturned. In the absence of an opinion to the contrary by the SCOTUS, the lower court's opinion as to the validity of Prop 8 and its reasoning behind it continues to stand. Prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional and consequently has now been voided.

And speaking of Judge Vaughn Walker, you stated that he "openly campaigned for the case(against judicial practice) so that he could legitimize his gay relationship with his verdict". Can you please explain specifically what you are referring to? When and how did Judge Walker ever campaign for (openly or otherwise) this case? How has Judge Walker "legitimized his relationship with his verdict"?

I'm sorry you think that a gay judge can't render an unbiased decision and imply that he should have recused himself from ruling on this case. But why is it that a gay jurist must be expected to recuse himself in this matter? Female judges do not recuse themselves from hearing cases involving women's rights? African-American judges are not expected to recuse themselves from matters dealing with the civil rights concerns of the black community. Did Sandra Day O'Connor or Ruth Bader Ginsberg ever recuse themselves in cases involving gender discrimination or equal pay for equal work? Never. Did Thurgood Marshall ever recuse himself from racial discrimination cases that came before the Supreme Court? No. How about Clarence Thomas? Ditto! Why this double standard when it comes to a gay jurist?



Regarding comment #47- You stated that "no black or Jew ever had their civil rights violated by that physician." So your point is that if a business complies with non-discrimination laws most of the time they then should be allowed to engage in illegal discrimination at other times? What an interesting legal theory that is. Try arguing that before a court of law and see how far you get. What nonsense!

Also if you have any evidence to suggest that the couple was out "trolling" with the express desire to somehow set this business up for a fraudulent lawsuit, you might wish to present it, otherwise it's just a baseless allegation. That also goes for your assertion that either Ms Benitez or Ms. Clark are or were at that time illegal immigrants. Those reports were proven untrue. Since you claim to be a Christian you certainly must have heard about the 10 Commandments. I would strongly suggest you reacquaint yourself with the part about bearing false witness.



Regarding #48- Again, I support your rights to religious practice and that includes marrying whoever you want in your churches, temples, mosques etc. More importantly the Constitution guarantees you these rights. The rest of your posting consist of nothing more than conspiratorial and paranoid ravings.



Regarding #49- It is no more my responsibility to defend your strawman argument about plural marriage (or completely unrelated topics like age of consent laws) than it is for an interracial couple to have to do so to obtain their marriage license.



Regarding #50- You ask "If you are so confident in gay marriage being popular, why hasn't the gay movement put it on the ballot? Why not put an affirmative ballot measure supporting gay marriage?". AGAIN FOR THE SECOND TIME, it was most recently placed on the ballot in 4 states and marriage equality won in all 4 of those states.

You also ask "why wasn't a civil union created or pushed for by the gay lobby that had the legal equivalent to marriage?" In response I might suggest that you go ask the very people who have been vehemently opposed to allowing the creation of civil unions over the last 20 years. Sorry but the marriage equality horse is already now well out of the barn......and it's not going back in. Separate but equal schools, drinking fountains and buses were eliminated in this country 50 plus years ago. There is frankly no reason why gay and lesbian people should accept segregated state licensing either. Why should a separate but parallel set of laws be established just to appease the bigoted pretensions of certain people who don't want gay and lesbian couples sullying up something that they believe is their private, exclusive domain? We are talking about a state issued public license here. This is not apartheid South Africa with two sets of laws, one for blacks and another for whites, this is not Saudi Arabia where there are two separate bodies of laws regulating the legal rights of men and another for women. This is the United States of America were one body of civil law should apply equally to all and a component of that civil law is civil marriage. I'm sorry that you don't want gay and lesbian people to fully share equally in the benefits, rights, protections and privileges of state licensure. What possible rational reason is there for lesbians and gay men and our families to continue to be treated as second class citizens by the government? To continue to deny same sex couples a state issued marriage license has no basis in rationality than denying us any other governmentally issued license. If you (or anyone else who thinks likewise) believe civil unions are so great, why don't you go out and get one to replace your own marriage license?
Comment Profile ImagePreston
Comment #52 | Saturday, Jul 6, 2013 at 10:22 am
Mankind, especially Americans have a lot more to be concerned with than who should be allowed to get married and sadly they ignore those issues. Grow up, and get educated because we have important things to fix.
@ Reality Checker,
How does one "validate"'utter stupidity in an educated society ? Eh?
Comment Profile Imagedumbstruck
Comment #53 | Saturday, Jul 6, 2013 at 11:28 am
BonsallGayGuy...kudos to you and yours! FallbrookFan is obviously mentally impaired, just ignore him. I support you and everyone who wants to commit to marriage, gay, straight, or whatever your sexual orientation. It doesn't affect me of anyone else, so I don't understand why some so called "good christian" people care so much about it to be so adamantly opposed to it. I suppose it is due to the bible telling them it's "wrong". I thought "he" was supposed to love everyone? Anyhow, keep being you and don't listen to those "special" people out there that just don't get it- they never will! FYI...I am a happily married straight woman married to a straight man. We are raising our (also straight) son to love everyone and we will love him no matter what kind of life he chooses! Here's to everyone living together happily! :)
Comment Profile Imagefallbrook heart
Comment #54 | Saturday, Jul 6, 2013 at 2:30 pm
What a joke. I am 29 years old and in no way support this erosion of our culture. Seems like all of us are here today because of a man-woman relationship. These people have no morals, and yes this is slowly destroying our country. Think the next generation is going to be raised thinking this is ok. Hey really its happening rifht now, crazy liberals are putting forth a bill that says little gay boys can go into a girls bathroom or locker room if they think they are a girl. Sick! What about my rights? My daughters have to deal with this? We need to stand up to these perverted bullies.
Comment Profile Imageno time for haters
Comment #55 | Saturday, Jul 6, 2013 at 4:35 pm
fallbrook heart is another bully who is just upset because his rights to bully other people have just been taken away. Awww, too bad, so sad! Most people our age are in support. I guess you'll just have to find someone else to pick on. I do feel real bad for your kids being raised by someone like you.
Comment Profile ImageLee
Comment #56 | Saturday, Jul 6, 2013 at 8:31 pm
@ #52 Preston

I could not agree with you more! If the concept of marriage is not an important thing, then I would like to hear what is.

Let's hear it, Preston!
Comment Profile ImagePreston
Comment #57 | Sunday, Jul 7, 2013 at 7:58 am
Are you the same Lee that said:
1. "My dear fellow Fallbrookers, THIS is what happens when our riveting politicians approve and ram a bunch of casinos down a single-lane road PRIOR to first expanding the necessary infrastructure"
2. "Law Enforcement, excellent and thank you!!! Keep up the great work! You should have sobriety checkpoints EVERY day, and CA's driving alcohol level should be 0.0%, NOT 0.08%."
3. "Stupid is as stupid does." regarding the Quebec fire?
4. "Law enforcement, thank you for busting this "garbage!" Keep up the great work!" regarding cock fighting?
5. "Freedom of speech and the pen is mightier than the sword."
I could quote you for days but in short, We the People have failed to properly manage and ultimately our country will fail if we don't get that figured out and fighting over who can get married will do nothing to save us.
Comment Profile ImageFallbrookFan
Comment #58 | Sunday, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:38 am
Dumbstruck, no time for haters: it's so sad when people like you come to a conversation and you can't bring anything other than name calling. Have some original thought or bring something intelligent to the conversation maybe? Just because somebody doesn't share the same opinion as you, doesn't mean they are brain damaged or bullies. It is people like you who resort to forcing your minority opinion on others and try to bully them with name calling and your false arrogance make me feel sad for you. Grow up!
Comment Profile Imagepro civil rights
Comment #59 | Monday, Jul 8, 2013 at 11:43 am
When someone tries to deny other citizens their civil rights it is correct to publically call it what it is, and that is bigotry. Short and simple, FallbrookFan is a bigot.
Comment Profile ImageBook of Revelations
Comment #60 | Monday, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:46 pm
God is still God, nothing has changed or can change that fact. He still sees us and knows our hearts, He still loves us though we, all of us, are sinners. Soon He will come again to judge the living and the dead, no one can stop that from happening, unbelief won't stop it from happening, nothing can. I wait in joyful hope for His coming because I know, even though I'm a sinner, that I am saved because of the sacrifice of His son on the cross at Calvary. I hate no one, but I believe the Word of God. I can judge no one because I know that my hands are unclean as well. I have friends who are a gay couple, they go to church every Sunday (a Baptist church) I will leave judgement to the great judge and do my best to treat others as I want to be treated. God bless you all. Lets try to be kind.
Comment Profile ImagePreston
Comment #61 | Monday, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:32 pm
@ Comment # 60
From when I was a young child I remember wondering if there was a God, why there was no end to space and all those things beyond comprehension. At some point I realized we all have conscience and mine has always given me good guidance. It was about that same time I decided to leave all the organized religion stuff those that pray on the fear of others. It is nice to have something to believe in but that is all it is, an unsubstantiated belief. As long as they don't knock on my door and try to shove their belief down my throat.
Comment Profile ImageBook of Revelations
Comment #62 | Monday, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:33 pm
@Preston: I could never force my belief on you or on anyone, and you could never force your lack of belief on me. I am a person of faith. I believe in my heart that there is a God. I have felt His presence in my life too many times to ever deny Him. His love and His mercy are infinite. To an unbeliever faith appears unsubstantiated but to the believer it is something that you just know in your heart. It is a belief in things unseen. I have no doubt in my mind that God is out there and that His son Jesus Christ is the savior of the world. My hope for you is that you seek Him and find Him some day, for the sake of your immortal soul. The people who come to your door are not Christians and they are on a wrong path. They belong to a cult. I pray for them and for you. Take care my friend.
Comment Profile Image4 real?
Comment #63 | Tuesday, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:09 pm
Gays going to a baptist church. Funny! Not really. Kinda sad actually. Kinda like blacks going to a KKK rally. Religion IS the problem. In the US, Christian ones especially.

Article Comments are contributed by our readers, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Fallbrook Village News staff. The name listed as the author for comments cannot be verified; Comment authors are not guaranteed to be who they claim they are.

 

Add your Comment


Name

Images, Formatting, or HTML is not allowed : plain text only. You may post up to 5 website addresses within your comment.




Disclaimer

The Fallbrook Village News has tightened its' policy regarding comments.
While we invite you to contribute your opinions and thoughts, we request that you refrain from using vulgar or obscene words and post only comments that directly pertain to the specific topic of the story or article.
Comments that are derogatory in nature have a high likelihood for editing or non-approval if they carry the possibility of being libelous.
The comment system is not intended as a forum for individuals or groups to air personal grievances against other individuals or groups.
Please, no advertising or trolling.
In posting a comment for consideration, users understand that their posts may be edited as necessary to meet system parameters, or the post may not be approved at all. By submitting a comment, you agree to all the rules and guidelines described here.
Most comments are approved or disregarded within one business day.

RSS FeedFacebookTwitter



Advertisement for Stellar Solar





Subscribe




Most Commented


Reach Local Customers



The Fallbrook Village News The Fallbrook Village News
760-723-7319 - 1588 S. Mission Rd. Suite 200, Fallbrook CA 92028
All contents copyright ©2014
About Us
Earthquake Information
Business Listings
Contact Us
Letter to the Editor
Report a website error
Sitemap
Online Digital Edition
RSS Feeds
Login