http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448 With the recent Advocate story about GLBT of Victoria holding a gay pride celebration this Saturday blowing up the discussion forums, I thought I'd pass along this story from the Los Angeles Times. The Calif. Supreme Court ruled 4-3 today that same-sex couples should be permitted to get married and stating that state marriage laws are discriminatory. The ruling affects more than 100,000 same sex couples in the state, about a fourth of which have children, the article said. However, the article also states: "The state high court's 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both." So far, 27 states have passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Before today, only Massechusetts top court has ruled in favor of permitting gay marriages.   With the recent Advocate story about GLBT of Victoria holding a gay pride celebration this Saturday blowing up the discussion forums, I thought I'd pass along this story from the Los Angeles Times. The Calif. Supreme Court ruled 4-3 today that same-sex couples should be permitted to get married and stating that state marriage laws are discriminatory. The ruling affects more than 100,000 same sex couples in the state, about a fourth of which have children, the article said. However, the article also states: "The state high court's 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both." So far, 27 states have passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Before today, only Massechusetts top court has ruled in favor of permitting gay marriages.   en-us Thank you for this blog, Aprill.  That group that the article references is also calling on their supporters (through their website) to donate $10 million towards a massive anti-gay campaign, complete with radio and TV ads, direct mailings, and yard signs.  Back in April, they also launched another radio ad campaign in New Jersey urging residents to contact their legislators to support "traditional" marriage, featuring CHILDREN "questioning the implications of same-sex marriage" (their words). It's amazing what lengths some people will go to just to spew their message of hate.  I can't imagine spending my every waking hour, putting forth all my energy, into forcing a message like this onto everyone.  Karma's too much of a b*@%h to spend this lifetime doing something like that.  Live and let live. So, so sad.  http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49205 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49205 Thank you for this blog, Aprill.  That group that the article references is also calling on their supporters (through their website) to donate $10 million towards a massive anti-gay campaign, complete with radio and TV ads, direct mailings, and yard signs.  Back in April, they also launched another radio ad campaign in New Jersey urging residents to contact their legislators to support "traditional" marriage, featuring CHILDREN "questioning the implications of same-sex marriage" (their words). It's amazing what lengths some people will go to just to spew their message of hate.  I can't imagine spending my every waking hour, putting forth all my energy, into forcing a message like this onto everyone.  Karma's too much of a b*@%h to spend this lifetime doing something like that.  Live and let live. So, so sad.  Cali doesn't subscribe to following the rest of the world as I see it, when it comes to outdated archaic laws. I fully feel that adults should not be told whom they may love or choose as a companion, based on religious beliefs, which is what most of the laws dealing with same sex unions are based on. There is a reason that marriage ceremonies may be performed in a court of law or by a ships captain as opposed to only by an ordained minister. Damn shame in my book, that marriage can't be dissolved by a ships captain as well. The cruise line business would skyrocket! Marriage aside, the laws are so stacked in this country in favor of big corporations(insurance/benefits), that it's easy to see why they would lobby against a practice that would cut into their profits. I personally believe that siblings and adults/parents should be allowed to claim a legal union if they choose to live in the same place, simply for the economics involved and for sons and daughters to be able to cover an aging parent medically. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49209 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49209 Cali doesn't subscribe to following the rest of the world as I see it, when it comes to outdated archaic laws. I fully feel that adults should not be told whom they may love or choose as a companion, based on religious beliefs, which is what most of the laws dealing with same sex unions are based on. There is a reason that marriage ceremonies may be performed in a court of law or by a ships captain as opposed to only by an ordained minister. Damn shame in my book, that marriage can't be dissolved by a ships captain as well. The cruise line business would skyrocket! Marriage aside, the laws are so stacked in this country in favor of big corporations(insurance/benefits), that it's easy to see why they would lobby against a practice that would cut into their profits. I personally believe that siblings and adults/parents should be allowed to claim a legal union if they choose to live in the same place, simply for the economics involved and for sons and daughters to be able to cover an aging parent medically. Remember when being born American meant you had the right to the pursuit of happiness as long as you weren't hurting anyone else? It seems now that people that are unhappy with their lives like to go out of the way to make sure everyone else is unhappy and miserable as well, and some people just like to hate on other people. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49210 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49210 Remember when being born American meant you had the right to the pursuit of happiness as long as you weren't hurting anyone else? It seems now that people that are unhappy with their lives like to go out of the way to make sure everyone else is unhappy and miserable as well, and some people just like to hate on other people. The matter of Gay Marriage or Gay Parades or Gay Events aside, what's starting to get to me is all this acrimony to people who don't believe or feel the way I feel. For the lack of better differentiation, we'll call them the "left" and the "right." The Right hates the Left because those Lefties condone kite flying [lest we inadvertently offend someone] which is clearly against the Word and the Word is what Righties live by. Of course not all the Righties interpret the Word the same way so there are your Index Righties, your Ring Righties, your Thumb Righties, your Pinkie Righties and then the ones who are WAAAAY out there, the One-Finger Wave Righties. Each of them interprets the Word in their own way which indeed often leads to one Rightie sect to hate one or more of the other groups but at least they ALL hate the Lefties who believe in.... well, pretty much nothing other than looking out for #1, not to be confused with the One-Finger Wave Righties. The one thing Lefties *do* believe in is letting everyone "do his own thing" and making sure no one gets offended by having it pointed out that they are different. This core belief is rooted in Lefties' wanting to be left alone to do whatever they want to do without having to answer to anyone so they believe it's only fair that they in turn bother no one else - except of course those narrow minded, discriminatory Righties. It also is quite convenient in preventing Lefties from having to take any definite stance on anything other than hating Righties - whom they often call "Haters." Go figure.... Soooo... how is it conceivable that the group that condones homosexuality - based on their belief structures - HATES the side that condemns homosexuality - based on *their* belief structures - and calls them "Haters." Are you people listening to yourselves? Or just prattling on to make a breeze? Oy... Ernie http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49223 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49223 The matter of Gay Marriage or Gay Parades or Gay Events aside, what's starting to get to me is all this acrimony to people who don't believe or feel the way I feel. For the lack of better differentiation, we'll call them the "left" and the "right." The Right hates the Left because those Lefties condone kite flying [lest we inadvertently offend someone] which is clearly against the Word and the Word is what Righties live by. Of course not all the Righties interpret the Word the same way so there are your Index Righties, your Ring Righties, your Thumb Righties, your Pinkie Righties and then the ones who are WAAAAY out there, the One-Finger Wave Righties. Each of them interprets the Word in their own way which indeed often leads to one Rightie sect to hate one or more of the other groups but at least they ALL hate the Lefties who believe in.... well, pretty much nothing other than looking out for #1, not to be confused with the One-Finger Wave Righties. The one thing Lefties *do* believe in is letting everyone "do his own thing" and making sure no one gets offended by having it pointed out that they are different. This core belief is rooted in Lefties' wanting to be left alone to do whatever they want to do without having to answer to anyone so they believe it's only fair that they in turn bother no one else - except of course those narrow minded, discriminatory Righties. It also is quite convenient in preventing Lefties from having to take any definite stance on anything other than hating Righties - whom they often call "Haters." Go figure.... Soooo... how is it conceivable that the group that condones homosexuality - based on their belief structures - HATES the side that condemns homosexuality - based on *their* belief structures - and calls them "Haters." Are you people listening to yourselves? Or just prattling on to make a breeze? Oy... Ernie I'll tell you what's wrong with this world......When a person who is NOT homosexual/gay, the first thing that enters their mind when they even see the word or see two people of the same sex hold hands is SEX.  PEOPLE!! It isn't about sex, it is all about LOVE. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49240 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49240 I'll tell you what's wrong with this world......When a person who is NOT homosexual/gay, the first thing that enters their mind when they even see the word or see two people of the same sex hold hands is SEX.  PEOPLE!! It isn't about sex, it is all about LOVE. Pilot, You wrote: "There is a reason that marriage ceremonies may be performed in a court of law or by a ships captain " Ship's Captains cannot perform marriages for the most part, that is a Myth. There are a few exceptions, 1) By Japanese law, a Japanese ship's captain can, but only if the couple hold valid Japanese passports. 2) Under Bermuda law, a captain can, but he has to hold a special "Marriage officer" license. 3) Some other ships captains can, BUT NOT by virtue of being the captain, but because they have other qualifications that entitle them to, being a Judge, Ordained minister, etc... Other than that, No... Ship's captains CANNOT marry someone, the rest is myth perpetrated by too much TV. Rainbowrunner, I would have to agree with you. many people think the words gay, lesbian, and homosexual. and automatically they define them by sex. rather than relationship. Reverse the situation... Just because a man is HETEROsexual, does that mean he wants to hump every girl he... WAIT that doesn't quite work does it? OK so MOST hetero men don't automatically want to have sex with every girl they meet. OK so SOME hetero men don't want to....Arrggghhh... You get my point!!! So far as gay marriage goes... I have to ask myself this question:If two men got married, or two women got married, how does that ruin or take away from my Marriage to my wife? ANSWER: It Doesn't http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49248 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49248 Pilot, You wrote: "There is a reason that marriage ceremonies may be performed in a court of law or by a ships captain " Ship's Captains cannot perform marriages for the most part, that is a Myth. There are a few exceptions, 1) By Japanese law, a Japanese ship's captain can, but only if the couple hold valid Japanese passports. 2) Under Bermuda law, a captain can, but he has to hold a special "Marriage officer" license. 3) Some other ships captains can, BUT NOT by virtue of being the captain, but because they have other qualifications that entitle them to, being a Judge, Ordained minister, etc... Other than that, No... Ship's captains CANNOT marry someone, the rest is myth perpetrated by too much TV. Rainbowrunner, I would have to agree with you. many people think the words gay, lesbian, and homosexual. and automatically they define them by sex. rather than relationship. Reverse the situation... Just because a man is HETEROsexual, does that mean he wants to hump every girl he... WAIT that doesn't quite work does it? OK so MOST hetero men don't automatically want to have sex with every girl they meet. OK so SOME hetero men don't want to....Arrggghhh... You get my point!!! So far as gay marriage goes... I have to ask myself this question:If two men got married, or two women got married, how does that ruin or take away from my Marriage to my wife? ANSWER: It Doesn't Aprill, thanks for having the guts to write this blog!  I am strictly hetero, but believe that the government shouldn't legislate LOVE!  That's wrong.  I am also a Christian and believe that homosexual acts are a sin....HOWEVER, I also believe that God is a forgiving Deity and just because someone is gay doesn't mean they will be condemned to the fiery pits of hades....   Love the sinner hate the sin and all that.  I'm glad that California Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriages.... Yes, the Anita Bryant's of the new age will be out in force, but you know, the world is changing.  It wasn't too many decades ago that it was illegal --- ILLEGAL for an African American to marry a white person.  There were pastors, deacons, elders of different religions stating how immoral it was.... Look around today.... there are many, many interracial couples and we accept it!  The time will come when the world will accept same-sex marriages as well.  It will NOT destroy the sanctity of heterosexual marriages or take away from it.  Who is it hurting?  No one!  OK, I'm stepping down from my soapbox now. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49259 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49259 Aprill, thanks for having the guts to write this blog!  I am strictly hetero, but believe that the government shouldn't legislate LOVE!  That's wrong.  I am also a Christian and believe that homosexual acts are a sin....HOWEVER, I also believe that God is a forgiving Deity and just because someone is gay doesn't mean they will be condemned to the fiery pits of hades....   Love the sinner hate the sin and all that.  I'm glad that California Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriages.... Yes, the Anita Bryant's of the new age will be out in force, but you know, the world is changing.  It wasn't too many decades ago that it was illegal --- ILLEGAL for an African American to marry a white person.  There were pastors, deacons, elders of different religions stating how immoral it was.... Look around today.... there are many, many interracial couples and we accept it!  The time will come when the world will accept same-sex marriages as well.  It will NOT destroy the sanctity of heterosexual marriages or take away from it.  Who is it hurting?  No one!  OK, I'm stepping down from my soapbox now. THANKYOU APRILL FOR POSTING THIS BLOG-FROM THE GLBTVictoria http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49277 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49277 THANKYOU APRILL FOR POSTING THIS BLOG-FROM THE GLBTVictoria "As California goes,so goes the rest of the nation"   http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49301 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49301 "As California goes,so goes the rest of the nation"   I am glad to know that I am raising my daughter in a world where she can marry/co-habitate with anyone she wants -- as long as it's not another girl. That just boggles my mind. She can marry a man on trial for a quadruple murder, but she cannot marry a woman. Sigh. I will be glad when this sort of thing no longer makes for breaking news headlines or mile-long blogs, because that will mean we've finally reached the point where we're all just living our lives and letting others live theirs. That's what I hope for. That's the world I want my daughter to live and raise her children in. Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming. But it's a nice dream, isn't it? http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49309 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49309 I am glad to know that I am raising my daughter in a world where she can marry/co-habitate with anyone she wants -- as long as it's not another girl. That just boggles my mind. She can marry a man on trial for a quadruple murder, but she cannot marry a woman. Sigh. I will be glad when this sort of thing no longer makes for breaking news headlines or mile-long blogs, because that will mean we've finally reached the point where we're all just living our lives and letting others live theirs. That's what I hope for. That's the world I want my daughter to live and raise her children in. Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming. But it's a nice dream, isn't it? California voted in 2000 to uphold the definition of marriage to a one man and one woman with 61% of its electorate supporting this definition. Now a court comes along and votes 4-3 to undo what the voters placed on the books. If two men or two women are allowed legally to marry, then government should not be in the business of  denying two siblings or one man and two women from marrying. Opening up the definition of marriage in America is quite problematic. How can you tell the two men it's okay for them to "marry" since they love each other, when a brother and a sister might love each other as well? What about the polygamist who has two wives, and they all love one another? It's discrimanatory if the definition of marriage is changed to allow homosexuals to marry to now say that what the pollies practicies are wrong. This is happening in the German courts rights now, as Germany, which allows gay marriage, has a case pending with a German brother and sister who love each other, have four kids, and want to marry legally. http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=49526 I do not agree with homosexual marriage, as I believe homosexual sex is unnatural and unhealthy. But as Ernie said, just because I disagree with some on the issue doesn't mean I hate anyone. Disagreement doesn't equal hate.  I would rather discuss this issue all day long with a calm homosexual than I would with a worked-up fundamentalist who agrees with me or a worked-up homosexual who doesn't agree with me. When you argue with emotions, logic often goes out the window.   http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49323 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49323 California voted in 2000 to uphold the definition of marriage to a one man and one woman with 61% of its electorate supporting this definition. Now a court comes along and votes 4-3 to undo what the voters placed on the books. If two men or two women are allowed legally to marry, then government should not be in the business of  denying two siblings or one man and two women from marrying. Opening up the definition of marriage in America is quite problematic. How can you tell the two men it's okay for them to "marry" since they love each other, when a brother and a sister might love each other as well? What about the polygamist who has two wives, and they all love one another? It's discrimanatory if the definition of marriage is changed to allow homosexuals to marry to now say that what the pollies practicies are wrong. This is happening in the German courts rights now, as Germany, which allows gay marriage, has a case pending with a German brother and sister who love each other, have four kids, and want to marry legally. http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=49526 I do not agree with homosexual marriage, as I believe homosexual sex is unnatural and unhealthy. But as Ernie said, just because I disagree with some on the issue doesn't mean I hate anyone. Disagreement doesn't equal hate.  I would rather discuss this issue all day long with a calm homosexual than I would with a worked-up fundamentalist who agrees with me or a worked-up homosexual who doesn't agree with me. When you argue with emotions, logic often goes out the window.   Some good points Mary Ann. Just for discussion purposes, a court could probably solve the problem of polygamists who want to get married by defining marriage as between two people, regardless of gender. As for the incestuous couples who wish to get married, one I would think that it would be such a miniscule sect of the population, it could probably be handled on a case by case basis and and two, courts could probably also cite the high risk of birth defects that occur when close relatives reproduce. A good article to read on laws prohibiting incest is by law professor Joanna Grossman, who explores the topic in depth, including origins of the laws and how this issue may actually end up in a high court. The article was written in 2002 but I think it's still pretty relevant. Just throwing some things out there for discussion. And thanks everyone for keeping it civil. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49326 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49326 Some good points Mary Ann. Just for discussion purposes, a court could probably solve the problem of polygamists who want to get married by defining marriage as between two people, regardless of gender. As for the incestuous couples who wish to get married, one I would think that it would be such a miniscule sect of the population, it could probably be handled on a case by case basis and and two, courts could probably also cite the high risk of birth defects that occur when close relatives reproduce. A good article to read on laws prohibiting incest is by law professor Joanna Grossman, who explores the topic in depth, including origins of the laws and how this issue may actually end up in a high court. The article was written in 2002 but I think it's still pretty relevant. Just throwing some things out there for discussion. And thanks everyone for keeping it civil. Hello Aprill, Great point about changing the definition of marriage to marriage bewteen two people, but I think if the definition is going to be changed to favor homosexuals for gender, then one could argue that it's discrimanatory to draw the line based upon gender alone and could include number of people. Based upon loving each other and being a family, the polygamist would have a good shot at a legal challenge too, but so far, cultural taboos have not allowed this, IMO. Even if there are a miniscule number of incestous couples that want to marry,  should that matter in a court of law? If the court determines they have a right to marry, even if they are in the minority, they should be able to marry, not?  (sorry- Lavaca County grammar creeps in) BTW, I'm not arguing for sibling marriagae. I just see a similarity in arguments. Thanks for the discussion and the link. I'll check it out. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49339 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49339 Hello Aprill, Great point about changing the definition of marriage to marriage bewteen two people, but I think if the definition is going to be changed to favor homosexuals for gender, then one could argue that it's discrimanatory to draw the line based upon gender alone and could include number of people. Based upon loving each other and being a family, the polygamist would have a good shot at a legal challenge too, but so far, cultural taboos have not allowed this, IMO. Even if there are a miniscule number of incestous couples that want to marry,  should that matter in a court of law? If the court determines they have a right to marry, even if they are in the minority, they should be able to marry, not?  (sorry- Lavaca County grammar creeps in) BTW, I'm not arguing for sibling marriagae. I just see a similarity in arguments. Thanks for the discussion and the link. I'll check it out. I'm glad to see the California courts reverse the laws against same sex marriage.  Perhaps sometime in the next century Texas will follow suit.............Nah, THAT won't happen.  I have to laugh at people who claim that same sex marriages will devalue traditional marriages.  Let's see, about half of all traditional marriages end in divorce and THAT doesn't devalue marriage?  If Jim and Joe or Ellen and Portia marry, does that affect my marriage of 35 years?  Uhhhh, that would be no.  Perhaps if enough committed gay couples do get married and stay married, the percentage of marriages ending in divorce will decline.  Wouldn't THAT be a good thing? http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49342 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49342 I'm glad to see the California courts reverse the laws against same sex marriage.  Perhaps sometime in the next century Texas will follow suit.............Nah, THAT won't happen.  I have to laugh at people who claim that same sex marriages will devalue traditional marriages.  Let's see, about half of all traditional marriages end in divorce and THAT doesn't devalue marriage?  If Jim and Joe or Ellen and Portia marry, does that affect my marriage of 35 years?  Uhhhh, that would be no.  Perhaps if enough committed gay couples do get married and stay married, the percentage of marriages ending in divorce will decline.  Wouldn't THAT be a good thing? Why is it that people have a spaz  about Same Sex,Gay, and any thing that has to do with the subject. There is "Gas Prices", "Food $ going UP", "People Stealing From Disabled People", "Weather Horrors". The list is ENDLESS! I guess maybe I might be wrong but, those things worry me more than two people of the same sex. Unless and only if they are in public and really getting "affection ~ overboard". Then again I have seen that in NON~Same Sex. Oh! And what happened to the "The Truth will set you free?". Don't most people who are open enough to show themselves trying to do just that. Being honest with the feelings that they have inside? That they want to express? That is not hurting anyone. Well I guess I am just a straw in the hay stack. ~ Laterz http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49410 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49410 Why is it that people have a spaz  about Same Sex,Gay, and any thing that has to do with the subject. There is "Gas Prices", "Food $ going UP", "People Stealing From Disabled People", "Weather Horrors". The list is ENDLESS! I guess maybe I might be wrong but, those things worry me more than two people of the same sex. Unless and only if they are in public and really getting "affection ~ overboard". Then again I have seen that in NON~Same Sex. Oh! And what happened to the "The Truth will set you free?". Don't most people who are open enough to show themselves trying to do just that. Being honest with the feelings that they have inside? That they want to express? That is not hurting anyone. Well I guess I am just a straw in the hay stack. ~ Laterz April, We are planning a BALD PRIDE CELEBARTION at Alamo Beach next weekend. We bald folks (both men and women) are sick and tired of being thought less of, and being discriminated against by the majority of this society. We demand respect (and attention) despite our faults and short comings. We have the right in this society to expect rights beyond our appearance and behavior. We are only as old as we look (or was that feel?)! Some of us can't even get dates with fashion models because this society is bigoted and hateful. We can't help that we were born this way (or got that way in a hurry)! I know, I know, some open minded younger folks have chosen to join our side of their own free will. This is only because they are wonderful people and have chosen to join us, if even for just a short time. There has never been an event like this in the Crossroads area, and we encourage all bald people to attend. Those  are bald curious (thinking about shaving one's head) or just thin on top are encouraged to come out in support. All headgear (caps, hats, coonskins, and especially toupees) are expressedly forbidden (please come out of the closet!). Transportation, beverages, entertainment, and worship will be provide to all female admirers of the bald man. Attendees encouraged to bring along sunscreen, unbrellas, bug repellant and rogaine. Can we count on the Advocates support with a front page story? http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49422 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49422 April, We are planning a BALD PRIDE CELEBARTION at Alamo Beach next weekend. We bald folks (both men and women) are sick and tired of being thought less of, and being discriminated against by the majority of this society. We demand respect (and attention) despite our faults and short comings. We have the right in this society to expect rights beyond our appearance and behavior. We are only as old as we look (or was that feel?)! Some of us can't even get dates with fashion models because this society is bigoted and hateful. We can't help that we were born this way (or got that way in a hurry)! I know, I know, some open minded younger folks have chosen to join our side of their own free will. This is only because they are wonderful people and have chosen to join us, if even for just a short time. There has never been an event like this in the Crossroads area, and we encourage all bald people to attend. Those  are bald curious (thinking about shaving one's head) or just thin on top are encouraged to come out in support. All headgear (caps, hats, coonskins, and especially toupees) are expressedly forbidden (please come out of the closet!). Transportation, beverages, entertainment, and worship will be provide to all female admirers of the bald man. Attendees encouraged to bring along sunscreen, unbrellas, bug repellant and rogaine. Can we count on the Advocates support with a front page story? "a court could probably solve the problem of polygamists who want to get married by defining marriage as between two people, regardless of gender." Aprill, a huge majority of voters in California thought they had already decided the matter regarding homosexual marriage in California. CALIFORNIA! This is a state where a couple that has been married for five years celebrates their Golden Anniversary. And if you're counting on courts to settle a matter, let me introduce you to Ms. Roe and Mr. Wade.   http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49527 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49527 "a court could probably solve the problem of polygamists who want to get married by defining marriage as between two people, regardless of gender." Aprill, a huge majority of voters in California thought they had already decided the matter regarding homosexual marriage in California. CALIFORNIA! This is a state where a couple that has been married for five years celebrates their Golden Anniversary. And if you're counting on courts to settle a matter, let me introduce you to Ms. Roe and Mr. Wade.   Bighorn, I don't decide what goes on the front page, I just write the stories. And I'd be glad to write of your event, although be prepared for some backlash from the Crossroads Wig Society. Riverboat, I see your point. Just trying to get some discussion going on the topic because there are passionate people on both sides of this issue that wish to be heard.  http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49554 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49554 Bighorn, I don't decide what goes on the front page, I just write the stories. And I'd be glad to write of your event, although be prepared for some backlash from the Crossroads Wig Society. Riverboat, I see your point. Just trying to get some discussion going on the topic because there are passionate people on both sides of this issue that wish to be heard.  Great post!  I've always said that if two people are lucky enough to fall in love, who cares about gender? http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49606 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49606 Great post!  I've always said that if two people are lucky enough to fall in love, who cares about gender? The divorce rate in California is lower than Texas.  Texas also has a rate twice as high as Massachusetts.  The "Bible Belt" has a higher divorce rate than the Northeast.  Be careful when casting dispersions. I will be at the bald event. http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49804 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/AprillBrandon/7448/#c_49804 The divorce rate in California is lower than Texas.  Texas also has a rate twice as high as Massachusetts.  The "Bible Belt" has a higher divorce rate than the Northeast.  Be careful when casting dispersions. I will be at the bald event.