California Senate OKs 'gay' marriage


California Senate OKs ‘gay’ marriage
Vote substitutes ‘two persons’ for ‘man and wife’ in state law

Whether you heard our radio ads or read about us in a publication, this is the place to fully and permanently protect marriage for one man and one woman.
Please join others in putting your money where your values are.
Help qualify for the California ballot. Time is short, but together, we can do it! – Assemblyman Larry Bowler

Help save marriage in California!!!


Well, changing the “one man, one woman” to “two people” would cut down on people wanting to marry thier dogs…so this could be a good thing…:smiley:


Hey, who changed the title of the thread!!

Its supposed to be


Now people will think i am am pro-abomination!!



California Senate Votes to Impose Same-Sex “Marriage” on State

Bill was project of homosexual activist state Assemblyman

By Hilary White

SACRAMENTO, September 10, 2007 ( - The Democrat-controlled Senate of California has approved a bill imposing homosexual “marriage” on the state. The Senate voted 22-15 to substitute the term “two persons” for “man and wife” in state references to marriage.

Bill AB43 was the project of state Assemblyman Mark Leno of San Francisco, a homosexual activist. It was opposed by every Republican member of the Senate and supported by all but three Democrats.

WorldNet Daily quoted California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger saying last year that the definition of marriage “could be changed.” The governor pointed to the loosening of the definition of marriage through state recognition of registered “domestic partners”, with the same rights and duties as married couples, as providing precedent.


Don’t worry, I don’t think anyone has ever gotten that impression of you.


Silvername, just PM the mods and have them flip the “:thumbs up” icon to a “thumbs down” icon. Problem solved.


Not if they don’t specify that the “two people” must also be two adults.


Yep, that is very, very true. :eek:


The rules for thread titles are a little different in the news board than in other places on this forum. Thread titles must be the same as the title of the news article they are linking to. Presumably the moderators did you a favor and changed it to be in line with that rule. :slight_smile:

Pray for California.


And that will be the next abomination–adults claiming they can marry children. Don’t think it can’t happen. Then polygamy with human-animal “marriages” soon to follow, God help us all!


By “polygamy with human-animal marriages” do you mean a marriage between one man, a dog and a cat with two rabbits are “polygamous”?:slight_smile:


Argh … as if!


I doubt this domino effect will happen.


People who said that legal contraception would lead to legal abortion were laughed at too.


Yeah, and when abortion was made legal in 1973, it was never going to lead to “partial-birth” infanticide, either, was it?


But, as others have pointed out, once license is given for one kind of aberration others follow on its heels. What reason will there be in law to object to polygamy or adult/child marriages or animal/human marriages? None.

If government can define marriage and government is decided by majority vote, and if the majority gets talked into these things by activists, they will be allowed.

Or worse, the courts will make law, as they already have in the case of Roe vs Wade (and other such decisions) that swept away the laws passed by the majority.

Morality has been tossed out the window by our government in such matters, so there is no barrier preventing them except popular opinion, which, contrary to what Lincoln thought, can be wrong enough to pass bad laws or to let bad court decisions stand unchallenged.


I have no problem with polygamy. GASP

Legal consent is the reason I do not fear bestiality and pedophilia. Until a dog and or child can legally enter into a contract, it won’t happen.


I think there was a story a while ago where a lady married a dolphin. Goes to show that crazy people could marry crazy things.


I expect it was about as legally binding a contract as that of the woman who married the Berlin Wall.


Is the objection to “marrying a dog” because they used the word “marry”? I have a difficult time getting my mind around the outrageous things people do and say at times…as if just because point “B” takes place, poiint “C” will follow on it’s heels.

If gay marriage is allowed to take place, men will want women to give birth to watermelons! So we can’t allow gay marriage and we should outlaw the growing of watermelons…a slippery slope indeed!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit