there are many things i don't understand about the world and the way they view homosexuals. the state or massachusettes is legalising gay marriages because �The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal,� the four justices who ruled in favour of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion. The court decided that a bill that would allow for civil unions, but falls short of marriage would establish �an unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples.�

The state �has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples,� the court wrote.

�Barred access to the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions.�

i mean like duhz, it all makes sense right, why should gays be the ones who are marginalised all the time.

But Randy Thomasson, head of a lobby group in California, Campaign for California Families, has this to say to the conservative Worldnetdaily: �[T]he Massachusetts ruling "shows why some judges need to be recalled or impeached."

"When four arrogant jurists in black robes literally dream up homosexual 'marriage' and impose their subversive plan upon the people, it is cause for patriotic men, women and voters everywhere to rise up and take back their government," he said.

so then why should they be allowed to impose THEIR subversive plan to marginalise all homosexuals on us. look we are just humans, like you and many other people out there, the only thing is i love and can only love someone of the same sex. and what is the big fuss? look at the way singapore is handling the oral sex issues.

"Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast GRC) said that as the Government opens up, individuals and groups may try to raise particular issues. But he added: �Those who use this avenue must respect the space of others as well.�"

what i don't understand is how mr fong can expect respect in one direction (i.e from the oppressed to the oppressors) and say nothing about the other? if he refers to the act of sending the letters, that would mean that MPs should only have to address issues which they -want- to address. if he refers to homosexuality in general, well why then should homosexual space be any less respectable than heterosexual space? i haven't seen the goverment split any hairs about christian fundamentalists who want us "reformed" or "dead". or maybe heterosexuals simply take up more space cos they're all so fuglically fat while we're all so buff. smirk.

�However, I think the mere statistical presence of homosexuals among us does not make it the right thing to do and certainly does not imply fundamental shifts in societal norms.�

Just replace "homosexuals" with any other minority group and you could just about justify alnything you want. - taken from a friend's site

articles in full here and here