Wednesday, April 23, 2014
PLACERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
99 CENTS

Same-sex marriages

EDITOR:

Someone just sent me an e-mail about the new same-sex marriage rules. It really hits the nail on the head.

Two men came up to the counter to get a marriage license. The clerk noted they sure looked a lot alike to which they responded that is because they are blood brothers. The clerk was disturbed and said the that same-sex marriages are for couples of the same-sex who love each other and want to be married. To this they responded well, we aren’t gay, we love each other and will live close to each other, but we want the financial advantage for this marriage. We will not be committing incest.

There were other examples of taking advantage of the new rules which have been fought for long and hard for the main reason: money. If married, two people can file a joint tax return and get various other benefits awarded currently only to married couples. It is still the old push for finding more and more ways to get money from the government. Unfortunately, the current administration is more and willing to buy your allegiance any way that they can.

RAY LABAHN
Placerville

Letters to the Editor

LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | 75 comments

  • JoeBJuly 18, 2013 - 10:27 am

    Really Reaching aren't you?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DarrinJuly 19, 2013 - 7:11 am

    Never in the history of humankind has a man married a woman for any reason, other than love. AND NEVER for convenience or to work the system. Those who are immoral will do what they like. Don't let them get to you.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • PhilJuly 26, 2013 - 5:09 am

    Hey Ray, do you understand that it is the Supreme Court that is making this all possible and not the "current administration" as you so lamely try to suggest?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65July 26, 2013 - 8:23 am

    Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to join this (fill in the blank) with this (fill in the blank) in the bonds of Holy matrimony. Define the limits of "the blank".

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • kggJuly 26, 2013 - 8:44 am

    ray wrote: "Unfortunately, the current administration is more and willing to buy your allegiance any way that they can." kgg wrote: are you of the opinion that president obama made same sex marriage legal in california? of course you believe the president caused this to happen! isn't he responsible for everything that has ever happened during his administration? perhaps he caused that tragic train crash in spain? good grief ray, read something besides right wing websites and the mt. dem once in a while.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 26, 2013 - 9:07 am

    Cookie, the way we're going, I would say (thing) with this (thing), therefore no limits to anything. And if the poor thing things don't agree to anything they would be discriminating.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DanielJuly 26, 2013 - 9:22 am

    Reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity): "a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial" It's in the family of logical fallacies, which means this is a bogus argument. Example: "Letting heterosexual couples marry is wrong because some opposite sex siblings might want to marry just for the legal and economic benefits." This (and Mr. Labahn's letter) could also double as a "slippery slope" fallacy, which is very popular with the anti-gay rights crowd. You know, "... next thing we'll have polygamists and people wanting to marry their pets!...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • cookie65July 26, 2013 - 10:00 am

    Daniel, on what basis do you deny the civil rights of family, polygamists and people wanting to marry their pets? Isn't that discrimination? I don't ask this question in jest, it is a sincere question that is now on the table. Boundaries, fences, and limitations serve a purpose. The purpose they serve is not a purpose of discrimination as so many would attempt to define them but they serve the same purpose as putting signals at a busy intersection or a speed limit on the freeway. They bring order to chaos. Incrementalism is not some phony hyperbole, it is a fact of our daily lives. Look around, many of the overreach of laws which have stripped freedom from the people didn't come about in one fell swoop; one little piece at a time. How long before the radical gay movement demands homosexuality taught to first graders in the public schools?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 26, 2013 - 10:11 am

    That's exactly it Cookie. One little piece @ a time. They just keep chipping away at the corner stones which can be subtle and other times not so subtle. They just don't get it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieJuly 26, 2013 - 10:51 am

    Marriage is first a legal contract. That rules out pets and minors (that don't have parental consent).

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.July 26, 2013 - 11:26 am

    I have never wanted to marry Mr. Fred. A relationship yes, but marry no.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 26, 2013 - 11:45 am

    You mentioned legal. Many went to the voting booths and legally voted on the issue but it was not honored. Chipity, chip, chip.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieJuly 26, 2013 - 11:51 am

    The courts ruled that prop 8 was unconstitutional. I'd rather honor the constitution than homophobia.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 26, 2013 - 12:02 pm

    I figured a thing like you would say screw the people. But when it comes to something that you want or believe in then you whine like a biatch if you don't get it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Harley RyanJuly 26, 2013 - 12:21 pm

    Dumbest argument ever. You lost already. Get over it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DanielJuly 26, 2013 - 12:22 pm

    The founders were explicitly opposed to democracies in which "the tyranny of the majority" could limit "others'" rights. Instead, they gave us a constitutional republic, "if we can keep it," as Franklin said. In regard to gay marriage opening the door to other people, like polygamists, pedophiles, etc. declaring their rights to marry, whether they do or not is irrelevant to the question of gay rights at hand. For example, disallowing interracial marriage because gays might then want their rights to marry would have been a completely invalid argument for the denial of mixed race couples' rights to marry. Gays (and mixed race couples) are either covered under equal protection in our constitution or they're not regardless of anyone's selective reading of their religious texts. There's no footnote in the constitution that says the majority has to like or accept the lifestyle or views of those who are different from "the norm." As another example, I find racist speech abominable but still support a fellow citizen's constitutional right to produce it. If you are morally opposed to gay marriage, save us all lots of trouble and simply RSVP "no" if/when you get a gay wedding invitation. Problem solved; you're welcome! "Incrementalism," in the context of this debate, is a fancy synonym for "slippery slope fallacy." Again, it is an invalid premise in the argument against gay marriage.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DanielJuly 26, 2013 - 12:32 pm

    Having said that, if you want to marry your dog, and you can prove it is a consenting adult and itcan sign the license and recite the vows, then I would support your right to marry him/her. Otherwise, as a society we not only have the right to legally protect dogs and other animals from sickos like you, but we are obligated to do so. Same goes for kids. As for polygamy, it was after all the traditional form of marriage in the OT, no? Read Solomon and David's writings if you don't believe me. [wink, wink]

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 26, 2013 - 12:57 pm

    Currently there are 35 states that prohibit same-sex marriage. It appears that the real "sickos" are the one who indulge in the homosexual lifestyle as it is proven that they have a highly increased risk of contracting and spreading various sexually transmitted diseases. And of course you think it's irrelevant regarding polygamist and pedophiles because it doesn't fit your need at this moment.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DanielJuly 26, 2013 - 1:27 pm

    If it were true that gays "have a highly increased risk of contracting and spreading various sexually transmitted diseases," for which you give no evidence, making gay marriage illegal has no impact on that. It doesn't change their "gayness." We are still left with the same number of gays whether they are permitted to marry or not. If that is sincerely your concern - vs. just being homophobic propaganda - you would be pro gay marriage since it would reduce risks of STDs in the same way it tends to tame heterosexuals. It worked on me! I already explained why polygamy and pedophilia are irrelevant to this debate. Please re-read for comprehension. Besides, is there a big/growing movement right now for polygamy or adult/child marriage rights?? Do you know something we don't know?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Pearly WhiteJuly 26, 2013 - 2:11 pm

    Daniel counts on logic overcoming bigotry resulting unexamined cultural conditioning and severely repressed sexual fantasy.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 26, 2013 - 2:37 pm

    There's lots of evidence that I'm sure you are already aware of. 1. www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/for-your-health.htm 2. factsaboutyouth.com/posts/health-risks-of-the-homosexual-lifestyly/ 3. cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/suppl_3/S79.fulland on and on with the websites. You said samesex marriage would reduce risks of STDs. Where is your evidence of that? Pearly and I are waiting. In your mind does their have to be a "big/growing movement for polygamy or adult/child marriage" to justify it? If there were a big movement would you be for it or would you just be concerned with your own closet? Why can't a man or woman be allowed to love and cherish and be in a committed relationship with more than just one mate?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DanielJuly 26, 2013 - 3:33 pm

    The links you provided indicate that being "in a long-term, mutually monogamous sexual relationship" do indeed reduce risks, as does the use of protection, just like hetero sex. So my argument is valid. What causes STD's, gay or straight, is promiscuity and lack of protection. You're still missing my broader point. None of this is relevant to the debate at hand. You have me repeating myself but legalizing gay marriage does not increase the gay population, and according to your own sources, the long-term monogamous nature of marriage reduces STD risks. And again, whether polygamists, pedophiles, bestiality nuts, etc. start demanding rights or not, or whether their movements are big or small, are irrelevant to the question of constitutional rights to marry for gays. Again, such logic constitutes fallacious reasoning: reduction ad absurdum, slippery slope, red herring, strawman, etc. I'm sure you're quite well-versed in all the rhetorical tricks and fallacies used by anti-gay movement. And Pearly's point supports mine, not yours. Reading comprehension is really a must if you're to engage in debates about complex matters.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJuly 26, 2013 - 3:48 pm

    So strange! Placerville used to have the largest fruit 989.305.5403 shed in the world.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJuly 26, 2013 - 3:57 pm

    Stupid iPhone inserted gibberish .

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampJuly 26, 2013 - 4:04 pm

    "fruit 989.305.5403 shed" should have read "fruit packing shed"

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 26, 2013 - 4:10 pm

    No no no... you are missing the point. You want the stats to show it the way you want it to be. How many long term married mutual samesex relationships do you know about? Those kind of stats are in their infancy. The real stats show that there are in fact much and many more STD's in the homosexualy community. I gave you some softer websites and you chose to read only the parts you wanted to. Duh...yeah Pearly was supporting you and I wanted Pearly to see who the bigot really was. Your bigotry against other fun loving groups besides yours is showing. You got yours so now screw and demean everybody else's wants huh? My point is simply that my vote and many others was disregarded and now the door is open to other groups that we've already spoke about and who are you to tell them NO to their lifestyle unless your the bigot?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 26, 2013 - 5:10 pm

    I wonder if gays, lesbians and transvestites were to stay monogamous and not have a test tube in hand, if they could sustain our population? China, take note...this could be a new and improved form of birth control. A few months back I watched an MMA transvestite fighter who was originally a man and is now a so called woman, fight a real woman. The real woman darn near kicked his buns. That event, and the fact that they allowed it, showed me what tolerance was all about. Men can beat up women on national TV so anything goes now and it's tolerated. Yikes!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Pearly WhiteJuly 26, 2013 - 5:40 pm

    Gays, lesbians and transvestites are a danger to the world population. If they are allowed equal protection under the law DB Smith and the rest of the heterosexual world will stop having sex and there will be no more babies.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DanielJuly 26, 2013 - 5:53 pm

    Nothing you wrote supports your contention that gays shouldn't get married. So what if unmarried gays have more STD's? It is true that male gays are more promiscuous but the females are very monogamous. Again, I repeat, if we let them marry, the world won't have more gays, and monogamous relationships do indeed reduce STD risks. And no, I don't mean to demean you. Sorry. You really are missing my broader point that your premises are irrelevant to your main argument. It's all irrelevant, including what it may or may not lead to. And again, I repeat, we don't live in a democracy where the majority gets its way all the time. The U.S. constitution protects all individual rights from "the tyranny of majority." You really wouldn't want it any other way, even when the rulings don't go your way. Your vote counted, and gays were no longer able to be married for awhile. Since then, the SCOTUS threw it back at the lower courts, while tying their hands on future cases brought by uninjured parties. That's what you and I are: uninjured parties, and I see no way for anybody to ever prove they were injured enough by gay marriage to warrant a SCOTUS review of the issue again. They knew what they were doing with that ruling. SCOTUS also ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional due to equal protection. You know where the anti-gay states' efforts are going right? You are on the wrong side of history amigo (amiga?)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 26, 2013 - 6:10 pm

    Thank you for finally fessing up to the STD epidemic thing. Just curious now that we've made it this far. Do you limit your tolerance of alternative lifestyles to just gays and lesbians or would you be fair and include all other lifestyles. I don't think there is any need to list them. Try not to sound like a bigot while remembering other individuals rights and please don't let the "Tranny of the Majority" sway your opinion. BTW... are you and Pearly an item?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 26, 2013 - 6:22 pm

    Daniel and Pearly, I think it's been a pretty good exchange and I have learned a bit from it. No matter what you think of me I do wish you both well in all you do. Now I'm going to have some dinner.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • kggJuly 26, 2013 - 6:46 pm

    Pearly wrote: "Gays, lesbians and transvestites are a danger to the world population. If they are allowed equal protection under the law DB Smith and the rest of the heterosexual world will stop having sex and there will be no more babies." kgg wrote: thanks pearly for the most amusing statement i have read today. it is hard to imagine anyone saying something this ridiculous. do you have a day pass from your mental institution?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Pearly WhiteJuly 26, 2013 - 6:54 pm

    DB Smith: You are a gentleman! No, Daniel and I are not an “item”; we’ve never met. As for other lifestyles, I’m not sure what you have in mind. But ethically I believe choices between consenting adults that do no harm to themselves or to others are not anyone else’s business. And that applies equally to heterosexuals. For the record, I’ve never been in a relationship of which you would disapprove. I say this so that you know that I’m not trying to justify my behavior in this distinctly heterosexual world.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Pearly WhiteJuly 26, 2013 - 6:55 pm

    kgg: My day pass is about to expire!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • TerryJuly 27, 2013 - 10:03 am

    The SCOTUS ruling did more than rule that uninjured parties have no standing to challenge the lower court ruling. It also set precedent that the people do not have the right to defend an initiative if the Gov. and AG decide not to defend it. Everyone lost with this decision including the gays.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • kggJuly 27, 2013 - 10:13 am

    terry wrote: "Everyone lost with this decision including the gays." kgg wrote: the governor and the lt. governor rightly felt it was an unjust law and chose not to defend it. the supreme court rightly ruled that a plaintiff who is morally opposed to something and not affected by it has no legal standing. and "the gays" did not lose - they won the right to marry the person of their choice - the same right heterosexuals enjoy.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 27, 2013 - 10:48 am

    Kgg. Terry was correct in her statement. We all lose because it does goes beyond the morality line. How about the increased health care costs that are passed on to everyone else with regard to that type of lifestyle? It affects everyone. They already try to reduce health care costs through anti-smoking, anti-obesity, anti- big soda drinks, pro-abortion, etc... Out of many examples...does the scenario of a 13 year old girl that wants to marry a 50 year old man be excused because it stays within your realm of morality and do you think you would be affected by that?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • kggJuly 27, 2013 - 11:01 am

    db smith wrote: "How about the increased health care costs that are passed on to everyone else with regard to that type of lifestyle?" kgg wrote: it is not true, but even if it was true that gay folks have more medical issues than heterosexuals, it is not a valid reason for depriving them the right to marry. my daughter has fibromyalgia; should that preclude her from marriage? my husband has gout and kidney disease; should that have precluded him from marriage? my son in law has multiple sclerosis; should that have precluded him from marriage?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieJuly 27, 2013 - 10:58 am

    DB -- see Daniel July 26, 2013 - 5:53 pm. Nothing has changed since then.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 27, 2013 - 11:04 am

    Were those self induced due to a lifestyle

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 27, 2013 - 11:04 am

    Were those self induced due to a lifestyle...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 27, 2013 - 11:07 am

    Waiting on the scenario question.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • kggJuly 27, 2013 - 11:09 am

    db wrote: "Were those self induced due to a lifestyle…" kgg wrote: are you saying that people with health problems that can be attributed to lifestyle such as some types of cancer and heart disease should be denied a marriage license?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DanielJuly 27, 2013 - 11:10 am

    Oh jeez! You learned nothing from our exchange did you, even though you said you did. Again, I repeat, legalizing gay marriage will neither increase nor decrease the gay population size. So, the disease risks you think this population presents will remain unchanged since the number of gays remains the same under any scenario. The very links you yourself provided state that monogamous long-term relationships (i.e. those created by marriage) go a long way towards reducing STD risks. And, once again, I repeat, pedophiles wanting to marry kids are entirely and completely irrelevant to the debate at hand about gays. Again, it's a slippery slope fallacy and is therefore invalid as a justification for withholding individuals' rights to pursue happiness. Remember that the SCOTUS also ruled against DOMA on the grounds of equal protection. Just to humor you though, a 13 year old girl (or a dog, or a horse, or your goldfish, etc.) is never ever going to be deemed by the law as a consenting adult, regardless of anyone's moral or religious views. In this country, all law has one thing in common: to protect individuals' rights and/or safety from the harm of others. This defective line of reasoning is irrelevant on so many levels. I really wish you and your like-minded counterparts would get off of it. We will never be able to even start to have any sort of intelligent discussion until all parties reach at least some basic level of reasonableness.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 27, 2013 - 11:20 am

    kgg. Totally opposite of the way you took it. All of those conditions were not self induced by a lifestyle.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • kggJuly 27, 2013 - 11:53 am

    db wrote: "All of those conditions were not self induced by a lifestyle." kgg wrote: smoking causes lung cancer, a diet of burgers and fries and soda pop causes high cholesterol, high blood pressure, diabeties and heart disease. race car drivers have more car accidents. folks in law enforcement have a dangeous lifestyle.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 27, 2013 - 11:26 am

    Oh geez, I did learn something and that is you have no defense regarding opening the door to other lifestyles other than your's even when you don't agree with THEM. Selfish, discrimination and bigotry. Have at it but you should always watch out what you wish for because you never know what else is lurking in the closet. Now I'm not going to spend the rest of this Saturday discussing your love life. Good day...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • observerJuly 27, 2013 - 11:39 am

    Logic has failed DB so he has gone off to pout.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • observerJuly 27, 2013 - 11:43 am

    It was not so long ago that the same sorts of ideas seen here were drummed up as arguments against inter-racial relationships/marriages. (Would you want your daughter to marry one of them?)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DanielJuly 27, 2013 - 11:44 am

    And he ends with an ad hominem, yet another favorite fallacy of homophobic anti-gay extremists, and a sure sign they know they've lost. Predictable, because only a homophobe would use gay as an insult to heterosexuals, as if an innate sexual identity could ever be an insult. Here's a last thought I just stumbled on...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DanielJuly 27, 2013 - 11:47 am

    Oops. Here's a last thought I just stumbled on...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • observerJuly 27, 2013 - 11:49 am

    Religions have always stressed that compassion is not only central to religious life, it is the key to enlightenment and it the true test of spirituality. But there have always have been those who'd rather put easier goals, like doctrine conformity, in place.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • kggJuly 27, 2013 - 12:00 pm

    it is very encouraging to me that in a community such as ours - heavily conservative - that on this page at least - folks with common sense regarding gay rights far outnumber those who continue to treat homosexuals as second class citizens.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJuly 27, 2013 - 12:00 pm

    Daniel, thanks for the link. Desmond Tutu is a truly beautiful human being.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • $64 QuestionJuly 27, 2013 - 1:09 pm

    Tell us what Ted Haggard, evangelical preacher & anti-gay-marriage advocate, and George Rekers, anti-gay activist and co-founder of the conservative Family Research Council, have in common.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • TerryJuly 27, 2013 - 1:39 pm

    KGG, you missed my point entirely. The issue I raised is much bigger than gay marriage. The Gov. refused to defend a law passed by 8 million voters. The right to defend that law should then revert to the people. The people were denied that right. So in the future you can expect a law that you support to be discarded by a governor you do not support without the right of judicial appeal. As I said we all lost something far more important in this decision than the right of gay marriage. It would have been much better had SCOTUS actually ruled on the law.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DanielJuly 27, 2013 - 2:50 pm

    kgg, you might be surprised, as I was, to learn that this district is hardly as far right as it is perceived to be. I looked at the election results over that past few elections, and was pretty shocked. In 2012, Obama got about 40% of the vote, and in 2008, he got 44%. The liberal opponent to our tea party rep, McClintock, got 49.7% in 2008, nearly beating him. In 2012, the dem opponent got 39% against Tom, who actually lost two counties. In 2010, the moonbat lib Jerry Brown got 39% of this district, and Boxer got 33%. In 2012, Feinstein got 41%. EDC results more or less reflected the whole district. These are not trivial numbers. What they show is that, despite the myth, this area is a center right district. I'm concerned that our far right tea party rep, and the only local paper we have, are acting as if though we were in the deep deep south where districts are deep deep red, and liberal voters are truly hard to find. The reason this perception exists is that the far right activists in this district - the tea party that is - are a very loud, and yes, quite large, well organized and well-funded minority, but a minority nonetheless. People in the center and independents (like me) are rarely vocal or activist, so they easily get drowned out by the zealots creating a false perception that they rule the day, a conclusion that is simply unsupported by the election results. That's why comment boards here at the MD are largely dominated by very far right extremists who don't relent in regurgitating propaganda they get from far right sources, including conspiracy theories. The MD editorial staff appeases them and does not fairly represent the actual composition of the community it serves. In an adjacent traditionally right leaning district, Lufgren, an extreme conservative, surprisingly lost the last election. This could happen here, especially with the projected growth which will come from urban areas that tend to be more moderate. Also, with changing national and state demographics, we'll see more non-white groups moving up here, who unfortunately are being abandoned by the GOP as it gets dragged further and further from the center by its extremists.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 27, 2013 - 4:49 pm

    Daniel, You're wrong again. The comments here are not dominated by anyone. There's usually a fine mix of opinions and personalities. It's entirely yours or anybody elses choice to participate and I suspect it's not much different than any other newspaper. The choice is yours.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DanielJuly 27, 2013 - 11:55 pm

    This will make your head explode. Your worst nightmare: gays, blacks, latinos, and combinations thereof, all hell bent on pulling the GOP into the twenty-first century by the ear kicking and screaming. And they strike me as true libertarians, not the fake tea party ones who are very selectively libertarian only about liberties that are selfishly convenient for them, and very much the opposite of libertarian regarding the liberties of "others." And [dramatic gasp] they're willing to cross the aisle!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Dazed and ConfusedJuly 28, 2013 - 8:03 am

    The phrase "that's gay" has been changed forever regarding a negative connotation. One can not use it to describe something that is inherently wrong. Example "dude wear underwear when you're spotting me on the bench press, that's gay". It should now be understood that the phrase "that's gay" doesn't mean negatively regarding the sexual preference between two men or women. Because today in our society that form of sex is lauded to the heights of the purist form of sex. The preferred form of sex today. I would dare say to the level of our Native Americans who are the only true pure race that belongs in North America. Every other race are interlopers clouding the waters. I say that the term "that's gay" should either have the context of something positive. For instance "mommy I got an A in health class". "Good for you Jimmy, that's gay!" Or we agree to redefine the term to a new negative definitive like sex between two brothers and a stray dog. Because dude that's gay. UNLESS?...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • huh?July 28, 2013 - 8:33 am

    D & C ......... sex between two brothers and a stray dog ............ what's your point?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • dazedJuly 28, 2013 - 5:20 pm

    Hah! HUH? You just made my point

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DarrinJuly 29, 2013 - 11:25 am

    Pearly White -Gays, lesbians and transvestites are a danger to the world population. How is that? We are almost at the tipping point of what the planet can sustain. The World Population is at 7 Billion+. The folks you mention are HELPING reduce the population and often they adopt children that were unwanted, accidents, etc. You therefore do not have to support an orphan till they are 18.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DarrinJuly 29, 2013 - 11:29 am

    The King of the Ignorant writes again: How long before the radical gay movement demands homosexuality taught to first graders in the public schools?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 30, 2013 - 3:52 pm

    Danny is a happy go lucky kind of guy. Danny has known Geraldo for along but he also happens to be bi-sexual. After awhile of courting they begin to discuss marriage. Geraldo tells Danny that he loves him too and wants to marry him but confesses that he has also been seeing a girl by the name of Shaniqua whom he also loves and wants to marry. Geraldo arranges a meeting where they all meet and Shaniqua and Danny hit it off. They all three decide, well what the heck, we should just all get married and have babies and even adopt kids. They were all in love, hard working, taxpaying citizens who didn't infringe on anyone else and planned on raising a large family while contributing to society. Should anyone tell them no?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 30, 2013 - 4:36 pm

    No takers? OK, my point is just throw out all definitions, restrictions and or any parameters of the term marriage. Why waste all that time and money on campaigning, voting, marriage tax filings, court litigations, public opinion, heartache, etc... If all that money and effort (a lot of both) were spent on feeding the needy then we would be much better off. Endomundo

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJuly 30, 2013 - 6:52 pm

    "Russia's anti-gay laws to be enforced during Winter Olympics" - HERE

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 31, 2013 - 4:17 pm

    AB1266 org.credoaction.com/.../tell-gov-brown-support-transgender-youth-and-s...‎Cached While your son/daughter or grandson/daughter is in that school locker room or restroom do you think there may be the potential for abuse from the kid that doesn't know who he/she is? Who's rights are actually being infringed upon? Step right up and choose who you want to be this week, just go visit your school counselor and get your pass to the locker room/restroom of your choice and while you're at it you can get your free condoms and morning after pill. Sadly this is where we are.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 31, 2013 - 5:20 pm

    Evelyn, I'm waiting for another web-site from you regarding the Russian stance on transgender youth in school.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJuly 31, 2013 - 5:49 pm

    DB: It's interesting what we find when we're not looking. (Which is what happened with the above link.) If you find anything interesting, please post!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 31, 2013 - 6:04 pm

    Evelyn, per a previous post of yours I thought you may have had some further interest in what the Russians thought. My mistake I guess.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJuly 31, 2013 - 6:25 pm

    Nope. Not that what the Russians think is uninteresting or unimportant. It's only that it's not an area I've ever been motivated to explore.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 31, 2013 - 6:51 pm

    Thank you Evelyn, I have a much better understanding of you now.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynJuly 31, 2013 - 7:06 pm

    DB - re your 5:20pm: I've just now done a search on RUSSIA TRANSGENDER EDUCATION. THIS came up. Don't know if it's what you're looking for. Since you raised the subject, what are your own thoughts?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • DB SmithJuly 31, 2013 - 7:19 pm

    Evelyn, I'm surprised. They appear to be so...organized.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
.

News

Herard over the back fence: Try fishing at Wakamatsu

By Bob Billingsley | From Page: B1

 
Downtown group coordinates painting, awnings

By Wendy Schultz | From Page: A1

 
More mountain lion sightings reported

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: A1, 8 Comments

Supervisor Nutting trial begins

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1, 77 Comments | Gallery

 
Sanford murder case to jury

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1 | Gallery

 
Gearing tax questions to correct office saves time

By Treasurer-Tax Collector | From Page: A3

.

Opinion

My turn: More than a buzzword

By Special to the Democrat | From Page: A4, 31 Comments

 
Building restored

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

 
Outstanding dog

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

.

Letters

National Day of Prayer

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 3 Comments

 
‘Parents, be afraid’ letter

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 27 Comments

Ukranian situation

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 5 Comments

 
Misquote

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 10 Comments

Altshuler framing

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 9 Comments

 
.

Sports

Pitching the ‘Root’ cause of Trojans’ victory

By Mike Bush | From Page: A6 | Gallery

 
Pedal power at the forefront next month

By Jerry Heinzer | From Page: A6 | Gallery

Outside with Charlie: Transitioning

By Charlie Ferris | From Page: A6

 
Sports Scene: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7

Roundup: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7

 
.

Prospecting

4-H’ers star at showcase

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: B1 | Gallery

 
At a glance: Look for fireballs

By Mimi Escabar | From Page: B2, 1 Comment

Authors to share their stories

By Pat Lakey | From Page: B2, 2 Comments

 
Church to host human trafficking conference

By Pollock Pines | From Page: B3

Grow For It! Flower of Easter

By Barbara Schuchart | From Page: B5

 
.

Essentials

Crime Log: April 1-3

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A2

 
Weather stats 4-22-14

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2

Building permits 4/7-11/2014

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2

 
.

Obituaries

Bobby Lloyd Bridges

By Contributor | From Page: A2

 
Harry Frank Harper

By Contributor | From Page: A2, 6 Comments

Marion “Wayne” Griswold

By Contributor | From Page: A2

 
.

Real Estate

.

Comics

Rubes

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
New York Times Crossword

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Flying McCoys

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Speed Bump

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Tundra

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Horoscope, Thursday, April 24, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Horoscope, Wednesday, April 23, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Working It Out

By Contributor | From Page: A8

TV Listings

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Shoe

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Sudoku

By Contributor | From Page: A8