Subscribe Now Mobile Site Place an Ad E-Edition Email Updates Obituaries Classifieds Find a Job Find a Car Real Estate Contact Us

Currently

57°

Clear

FREE ARCHIVE SEARCH

Opinion

CLASSIFIEDS

All Classifieds
Find a Home
Find a Car
Find a Job
Work Here
Find Merchandise
Today’s Print Ads

2 Weeks Free

Free Ad

Place an ad
in print and online, 24/7 for free, select the Clean Sweep option. Unable to submit Real Estate, Services, and Business Investements at this time.

Get a Subscription

Map the Valley

Restaurant Listing
School Listing
Open Houses
Garage Sales

Subscriber/
Reader Services

Subscribe Now
Contact Customer Service

Court ruling is an outrage

Editor: Judicial tyranny flashed through California as the state's highest court ruled that the State Constitution protects a fundamental right to marry. What an outrage! Does this mean that people can start marrying animals? How about inanimate objects? Marriage was first defined as a legal, economic and social union of a man and woman. Proposition 22 said it loud and clear: "Only marriage between a man and woman is recognized in California."

Homosexuals had better hold off on their Pride parade. Californians have many tricks up their sleeves. In other words, keep your perverted behavior in the closet, and stay away from my family.

James Kleinhammer

Hanford

(May 17, 2008)

Email this story

Print this story

POST A COMMENT

Hanfordsentinel.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed, particularly if they are posted after normal office hours.

We reserve the right to remove comments in total that violate our code of conduct. If you want to report a violation, please e-mail editor@HanfordSentinel.com

For more information please read our Terms of use, and Rules of the Road.

Please log in to post comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
	Forgot Your Password?

If you don't have an account you can create one for free by clicking the link below.
CREATE ACCOUNT

The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Hanford Sentinel

Scott Duffy wrote on May 17, 2008 7:46 AM:

" Don't worry James. The voters will overturn the court's ruling and ban all gay marriage. "

Wait a second wrote on May 17, 2008 10:48 AM:

" If all Californians decided that it was legal to kill pupies, would that be OK? NO. Just the same as if all Californians decide what a "marriage" should be between a man and a woman. It is still wrong. AMEN to the Courts. Hopefully all the nay sayers will look at the facts as to why the Court decided the way they did and realize that laws and rights are for all people, not just straight ones. "

Scott Tucker wrote on May 17, 2008 3:04 PM:

" Mr. Kleinhammer, do you always get upset when justice has been served? Also, your animal and object argument is just plain stupid. The issue at hand concerns consenting adults. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

This week's court decision is a step in the right direction to ensure that all human beings are guaranteed equal rights. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 17, 2008 3:11 PM:

" What ever happened to the 'will of the people?' "

Mag wrote on May 17, 2008 6:05 PM:

" People are people. Guess what? Gay people are just like you are. They eat, breathe, sleep, and whatever else. If they partner up with a same sex person, what is it of your business? They want to be loved and not judged, just like you do. They don't want to be ridiculed or criticized, just like you don't. Loosen up. The world is full of all kinds, and that's perfectly ok as long as no one hurts another. Ever think about that? One body on an autopsy table is just like another. No need to judge. "

Watchdog wrote on May 17, 2008 11:36 PM:

" Alejandro - a response to your question. The will of the people has been replaced by lobbyist nationals who sell their souls to a certain group and commit their resources to making the groups dream come true. Be damned other peoples rights, votes, issues or wishes. You put the right turncoat into a position of authority and this becomes possible. That is why we should examine those who profess to want to represent us all only to have a special interest in mind. As I said in an earlier blog thank goodness the Bill of Rights, Constitution, Declaration of Independance are already in place to protect us from enemies both foreign and domestic. It has always been said this country will destroy itself from within, I offer you that proof in this decision. "

Watchdog wrote on May 18, 2008 12:21 AM:

" Scott Tucker - sense when has your your abstract view of justice become the will of the people? It doesn't just concern consenting adults it like heterosexual marriages contains children who need to be thought of as well. What if Rosie and her life partner split up is that not going to cause issues for their children. In any relationship involving children a breakup or divorce is possible. Gay's are not exempt from promiscuity Gay men are perhaps the most promiscuous of the lot, this is a given in their own society. Multiple partners are not unheard of hence Gay Bars, Bath Houses where aids had it's most obscure beginning in San Francisco. Have you ever visited Palm Springs where the Gay Population revel in the sun during the day and go to Gay Bars at night? Gee I wonder who is watching the children then? But Scott, not having been a father, I don't expect you to get any of the correlation regarding others being effected by relationships. Now several human beings just lost their rights Scott. Aren't you proud of yourself and your Gay society? "

To Scott Tucker wrote on May 18, 2008 1:38 AM:

" And why should we all have to along with the minorities perversion. A man and a man or a woman and a woman were not made in GOD's eyes to be together. Sorry the parts just don't fit as GOD intended with Adam & Eve. If GOD had meant for two of the same sex to be together he would have made their bodies a better fit and they would be able to procreate without depending on a third party of the opposite sex. You can say what you want but it just is not natural. "

nativecalifornian wrote on May 18, 2008 6:56 AM:

" We should applaude any relationship in which people are willing to marry to show their committment to each other. How can someone abide as having a Christian ethic while demeaning a whole segment of our population that's been around since the beginning of time? God says hate is bad, not love, understanding, and support for fellow human beings. This terrorist attitude of "you better believe what I believe or else" scares me. There is nothing that says this behavior is a sin other than man's intrepretation of a document rewritten 300 years after Christ walked on earth. "

dose wrote on May 18, 2008 9:33 AM:

" It's very sad that the editor of this newspaper is such an intolerant homophobe. Can't Hanford get a man who has a bit more of a worldly view to run it's main source of news and information. I'll bet this guy still thinks that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. "

Scott Tucker wrote on May 18, 2008 9:43 AM:

" To "To Scott Tucker": You can play the god card all you want, but I must tell you that such an argument holds no water. Your god is your god, not the god of everyone. Your god makes rules for you, not for everyone. So, if you want to convince me, you will have to come up with something better than just "god and the bible say so". Also, you don't have to go along with "minorities pervesions", as you put it. You have the free will to just ignore it or accept it. No one is forcing you to personally engage in sexual practices that you do not agree with. I am sure your life will not be affected in any way whatsoever if your neighbors choose to engage in homosexual relations in their own bedroom.

Not natural, you say? You'd be surprised to learn that nature works in funny ways. "

Jackie K. wrote on May 18, 2008 9:45 AM:

" Dose, I'm confused by your comment. I'm the managing editor of The Sentinel, and last time I looked, I'm a woman. Just read my blog, The Pulse, and see where I stand. "Homophobe" couldn't be the farthest from the truth! "

Scott Tucker wrote on May 18, 2008 9:57 AM:

" Ah Doggy, all of this attention is flattering. I am really feelin' the love. I just wish you could channel that man-love to include everyone. The others might be getting jealous of our "special" relationship.

You are right, just like in any relationship between any two human beings, third parties, especially if they are adopted or biological children of the couple in question, can be affected. There is absolutely no difference here between third parties and homosexual couples and third parties and heterosexual couples. Heterosexual couples can be bad parents too, so I don't really see where you are going with your argument.

By the way, how would you know about homosexual promiscuity? Heterosexual people are promiscuous, too. Gee, I wonder who is watching the children of a heterosexual couple, when one of the parents decides to go out partying?

And please enlighten us: Exactly whose rights were lost by this decision?

Am I proud of myself? As a matter of fact I am. Not to toot my own horn, but I would say that standing up against predjudice and bigotry such as yours would make anyone proud. "

Scott Tucker wrote on May 18, 2008 10:02 AM:

" Dear nativecalifornian, nice comment. It is good to know that rational, level-headed people are out there.

And Mag, don't think I didn't notice your comment in the other thread! Thanks! Your comments are equally worthy of heroine status. "

Jackie K. wrote on May 18, 2008 10:04 AM:

" Amen, Scott. "

Loosing My Mind wrote on May 18, 2008 10:14 AM:

" There is an old adage "he who protesteth too much" that appears to fit in this case. On the surface, some people describe homosexuality as something contagious by saying things like: “In other words, keep your perverted behavior in the closet, and stay away from my family.” I think the person who penned that gem sounds like a person who is an alcoholic who makes sure they go nowhere near where liquor might be because the temptation to drink is too great – they are afraid they can’t stop themselves. Perhaps for some the temptation to engage in gay sex when around homosexuals is too great to resist. Public spewing of hate is very telling of inner desires. Why else would someone publicly concern themselves about what consenting ADULTS do –not children, animals, or toasters as some bloggers have inferred.
"

Loosing My Mind wrote on May 18, 2008 10:17 AM:

" Some bloggers, on this and the other blogs about gay marriage, describe themselves as knowledgeable about what “God wants” and "Christian Values" by framing an argument about what legally consenting ADULTS can/should legally be allowed to do in a religious construct. They conveniently do not discuss the rest of God's laws that they and their neighbors (including me) violate on a daily basis. They have no apparent concern for what life would be like in a theocracy. I would argue that our nation's framers did not want our nation to be a theocracy, hence the establishment clause in our Constitution. Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are shining examples of theocracies. "

Loosing My Mind wrote on May 18, 2008 10:18 AM:

" It is ironic that sixty years ago (in 1948), the California Supreme Court overturned the anti-miscegenation laws that banned interracial marriage. The citizens at the time were in agreement that people of different races were “created by God differently” in an apparent justification that segregation and legal separation of races was o.k. because God intended it that way. In Perez vs. Sharp, the California Supreme Court ruled against anti-miscegenation laws, stating that they were based on racial distinctions that were "by their very nature, odious to a free people." "

Loosing My Mind wrote on May 18, 2008 10:18 AM:

" Certainly any religion or church may prohibit gay marriage due to its conflict with the tenants of that particular faith. That is fair. Just like no one should be forced to follow another faith, no religion should have to change its tenants to accommodate others into it. On the other hand, the laws of our nation are not made that way. They are not drafted to satisfy the beliefs of the majority. They are drafted to protect the RIGHTS of all. Some of our laws originated in Abrahamic Law, but we do not sentence women to death for cheating on their husbands in this country (good thing too!). I wonder if anyone can possibly explain why homosexual ADULTS should be prohibited from the legal institution of marriage without using words like Bible, Church, God, Faith or Creation. Again, we are talking about law, not belief systems. That is an argument that is worth discussing in the public forum. Decay of morals discussions belong in Church. Please, someone make the argument, so that I can understand the legal justification of a position to ban homosexual adult marriage. "

dose wrote on May 18, 2008 10:46 AM:

" To Jackie K:

I apoligize when I read this article I was pretty mad and I misread and thought this was coming from the editor. You are right you have shown yourself to be anything but a homophobe and I generally agree with your positions. Once again sorry for the confusion.

However my message remains the same towards the person who wrote these vile words. "

Hmmmmm wrote on May 18, 2008 11:12 AM:

" Better yet why don't we just do away with marriages all together. Let's just make everyone equal. Since marriage is being abused and used for a lot of reasons it was not intended. Just give everyone Partnerships and keep the church and state out of it. Then everyone is happy! "

Jackie K. wrote on May 18, 2008 11:18 AM:

" Apology accepted, Dose! I figured as much! Just wanted to set the record straight. "

dose wrote on May 18, 2008 11:41 AM:

" No problem Jackie K., Thanks for correcting me. You seem like a decent person, and I woudln't want to be thought of as coming down on you for that. "

Mrs.D wrote on May 18, 2008 12:36 PM:

" RE:Kleinhammer, when you follow the other Conservative Lemmings out of California, please light the cross on your way out.

Thank you. "

Josh wrote on May 18, 2008 1:12 PM:

" It never ceases to amaze me that when gay marriage is brought into the discussion, those who are against it, use the people will want to marry animals next. This argument is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, it is also offensive. If people don't do things exactly the way as your "god" says they should in the bible they are wrong? I thought as people who belive in "god" you were supposed to love your neighbor as yourself! Scott is right the people in California will probably overturn this ruling, but does that make it right? "

Josh wrote on May 18, 2008 2:28 PM:

" In response to Alejandro, the will of the people should be upheld, unless that will is discriminating against a portion of society. If the people voted to ban interracial marriage, or to once again segregate our schools and then those votes were overturned, would you have a problem with that? Probably not because that would discriminate against people who were born a certain way and have no choice but to be who they are. They have the same rights as everyone else in this society. We have no right to tell them what they can and can't do. The Bill of Rights guarantees every person unalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and if they find a person who makes them happy and they want to show the level of their commitment, then who are we to tell them no? "

Watchdog wrote on May 18, 2008 5:11 PM:

" It never ceases to amaze me that Gay people want the Heterosexual Community to allow them all the rights they have and acknowledge their sexual proclivity and accept it.

But while at the same time they want to engage in name calling when some of us bring God into it. All of a sudden they have no respect for our comments and call us "Bible Thumpers" or some other quaint name. You can't expect to receive respect when you are not giving it in return. Respect us for our beliefs and then we might reciprocate.

Just because you are Gay and an Atheist don't blame us for your selections, beliefs, and other shortcomings. Diversity is what this is all suppose to be about is it not?

For all you Atheist out there, you better hope your right and we are the one's that are wrong. Since you don't pray, perhaps you better think twice about shouting out aspirsions regarding our beliefs. Since you are worshiping an act of Disbelief in God. Man has been wrong before you know? "

So what wrote on May 18, 2008 6:29 PM:

" The judges are always making laws. I think we need to worry about prop. 187, the illegal aliens are messing up our state more than the immoral and unnatural homosexuals. They are not stealing our social security numbers and what not. As far as the homos go, as long as they don't push that life style on my family, and they stay out of the public parks, then let them have their perverted sex in their own house. "

Oh My wrote on May 18, 2008 7:01 PM:

" I see alot of bitterness and name calling here. Funny Jackie isn't stepping in and shutting this down as she has with other topics in the past. Oh that's right, free speech and all that silly stuff is only allowed when she agrees with the majority. You go girl.... "

Jackie K. wrote on May 18, 2008 8:57 PM:

" (Sigh) You guys are making me work seven days a week, aren't you? I'm not shutting this down for these reasons. Mr. Kleinhammer submitted his letter for publication, thereby putting his name, and his opinions, out there for all to see. Threads are shut down when the name-calling becomes personal for no reason. This is not the case here. All posters are putting forth good arguments. I enjoy seeing the different opinions and letting the discussion go where it will. And I don't know if it's because it's been so darned hot lately, but those folks leaving comments on various threads this weekend have been unusually articulate and insightful. Kudos! (That's it, I'm signing off for now...) "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 18, 2008 9:06 PM:

" I have some more questions about the new marriage situation in California.

Starting with the
CA. FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 300-310

...Talks about marriage being "consummated" to be valid (i.e. grounds for annulment and so on).

Under traditional normal marriage, i.e., man-woman, consummation between a man and a woman can only mean one thing. These are biological, secular, nonreligious facts so no atheists can complain and cry ‘foul.'

However, I need some bright blogger, like, say, Scott Tucker, to tell me exactly how two men or, more importantly, two women, can ‘consummate' their marriage? What is the clear new definition here? How does the law determine proof?

Or, it that ‘none of my business' too?

This affects me as I actually live in California so I and everyone else who pays CA. taxes will have to pay for the legal legislative hours incurred in establishing a definition of marriage. Also, for printing the rewritten law and mandatory education for state employees. And, what about the divorce and property laws that contain the word ‘man' and ‘woman' or are gender-specific? Out they must go too.

This is so politically correct, folks!
"

Watchdog wrote on May 18, 2008 10:03 PM:

" Jackie;
Quit pretending you have a life, you set at home with your laptop on your lap and surf all weekend anyway. Sheesh, don't try and give us a guilt complex.

Otherwise you might take a nice warm soak in some bubble bath and read a fictional Murder Case or somethng like that.

It's too late to go get a pedicure and SB is serving yesterday' brew, so just set back relax and join us in shootin the bull. "

Watchdog wrote on May 18, 2008 10:44 PM:

" I think you can now with certain gratification report to your editor that these blogs deffinately inspire discussion within the community. We are soon approaching many all time highs on comments and opinon. "

Dandre wrote on May 19, 2008 9:07 AM:

" For the women who want to use the Bible as a standard:
Married women- you do realize that you are the 'property' of your husband and if he should die you are committed to marrying his brother.....
for starters.
Single women -when you are ready to get married, we are going to have to test you to make sure you are a virgin. Failing this test is a 'capital offense....for starters.
If needed I can use the Bible to justify:
human sacrifice
slavery
eating shrimp is a crime
polygamy, etc., etc.
OK! Everybody that wants to use the Bible as the standard for THEIR lives, RAISE YOUR HANDS….where’d everybody go!
"

PodQueen wrote on May 19, 2008 9:25 AM:

" The stunning thing about many Kings County residents is how incredibly naive, unworldly, uneducated, and unwilling they are to change.

One of my favorite gay marriage right arguments is, "As a straight person, legalizing gay marriage defeats the sanctity of my own." This is as asinine as the notion that people will want to marry animals next.

Perhaps if we ALL looked inward, attempted to mature and became truly self-confident, we wouldn't be so consumed with how others are conducting their adult lives. "

Mag wrote on May 19, 2008 11:35 AM:

" Watchdoggy, I can't take your drivel seriously until you learn the proper usage of the term "sit." You "set" something on a table. You "sit" in a chair. And never attack our Queen Jackie, as she may be the worldliest resident we have here.
Alejandro, you must find something else to do than bicker about the technicalities of consummating a marriage. Not everyone follows a god, a bible, a strict mode of being, but when two people care about each other, that is gold. And with the jillions of dollars our legislature wastes every day and every year, a few more changes to the books isn't going to be too big of a burden. Everything is on cd or online now and lawyers just pay every year to get the new ones instead of fumbling with pocket parts for the books like they used to. Silly me, I thought teachers had no free time. "

Loosing My Mind wrote on May 19, 2008 11:51 AM:

" Alejandro - You've got to be kidding! Your point is that w shouldn't change a blatantly discriminatory law because of the cost to print it? The civil codes you described only refer to consummation of marriage as it relates to minors. Basically, section 302(a) permits sexual relations of minors only if they have gotten their parents legal permission to marry. It does not indicate the requisite for consummation for a marriage to be valid (however that is defined). Even if your presumption was right, which it is not, the definition of consummation is: the ultimate goal or end. And what exactly is the ultimate goal or end of sexual interaction/intercourse? Either pleasure (the basest definition) or procreation (the purest definition). If that is so, by your definition, shouldn't couples that can't conceive (are sterile, infertile, or past menopause) be prohibited from marriage (or to remain married if so afflicted within marriage)? Your argument doesn't hold water. The inability for anyone to argue why legally (again read my posted challenge above) homosexuals should not be allowed to marry shows just how much this issue is motivated by fear, hate, and ignorance veiled in a cloak of "decency." "

Josh wrote on May 19, 2008 12:44 PM:

" The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. THis was stated by John Adams in the Treaty of Tripoli. The country we live in today is a country of laws not men. Everyone wants to say that homosexuality is against god's law. That may be true, but in this country we are not bound by the laws of god. I grew up in a christian home and believed in god, but as I have gotten older and wiser, I have a very hard time believing in a god that judges people. The god I learned about in my life was loving and forgiving no matter who you were. Now everyday I see people on T.V. and other media proclaiming to be religious, but then they judge anyone who is different or does not believe what they believe. That is very troubling. I may be wrong, when I die I may meet a god. If there is I'm not worried, I am living a good life, accepting all people, not just those who act and think like me. "

In answer to PODQUEEN wrote on May 19, 2008 2:01 PM:

" 1.Naïve: marked by unaffected simplicity, deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment

2.Unworldly: not of this world

3.Uneducated: not having an education beyond the average
4.Unwilling to change: not willing to change

My answer:
1.Naïve, me? I think not! Lived way too many years and seen and done way too many things before I came to know Jesus to ever be considered naïve.
2.Unworldy, me? Proud to be.
3.Uneducated? Wrong again.
4.Unwilling to change? Where God’s word is concerned, You bet!

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. Romans 12:2

It is so sad that unless we are all willing to tolerate every abhorrent behavior under the sun, WE are labeled as naïve, uneducated, etc., but if WE attempt to label them, again, we are the bad guys.

Whether or not you believe in God, He believes in us and we will ALL stand judgment for our actions and deeds. Got Jesus? I do "

Michelle wrote on May 19, 2008 3:22 PM:

" Wow, I am appalled that anyone would want to write such hateful things to a newspaper. First off who are you to say it is wrong? Obviously you got your beliefs from a bible, but incase you forgot it is also wrong to judge. Judging is exactly what you are doing in this case. Secondly even if you do feel it is SO wrong, what gives you the right to say so? Are you the maker of man? Are we going to rub gay off on you? Are you the person WE face? I didn't think so.
I feel so unfortunate for anyone in this town who is different, all people seem to do here is judge, and on what basis? Our poor kids are being taught HATRED by none other than their parents, Way to go!! Then our kids take this hatred to school and condemn others because you told them certain behaviors were wrong, then guess what, you have kids killing themselves and others. And this is all for what?? When you meet your maker what will you want him to know about you and your family, the hatred you feel towards gays? "

Anne V. wrote on May 19, 2008 9:13 PM:

" We all have the right to our religion! Please feel free to move to another country where you will be told by that government who you can believe in, or not believe in. Everyone should have the same rights. Marry who you want, or don't marry, it is entirely up to you. Please don't vote to overturn this decision.
Jackie, I personally don't appreciate your sarcasm, nor your attempt at humor. I am offended that you would equate gay people with your dog, or some other inanimate object. Please feel free to put you dog in bed with you, they need affection too.
I hope that no one in your families ever tell you they are gay, or lesbian, or whatever. Then you wont have to go through the heartache of what you watch them endure.
Everyone please show some respect to your fellow humans!!! "

Anne V wrote on May 19, 2008 9:23 PM:

" I must apologize to Jackie. I did not read your article before I fired off a response, just the headlines. I know better than that, and I apologize. I have a gay family member, and was elated to hear the supreme court's ruling. I am just tired of the anti-gay community talking all their nonsense.
I still did not appreciate the animal reference. "

c. wrote on May 19, 2008 10:25 PM:

" I respect everyones opinion on this issue, but what baffles me is how some who claim to be christian can say such mean and hateful things. We should never forget simple commandments:
Don't judge and Love your neighbor....i have never saw in the bible where is says...love your neighbor..unless they are gay or don't judge...unless they are gay. It is not our place to judge, God will make his judgement in due time and it's his judgment that is important not ours, so instead of bashing people because "the bible says it is wrong" why not remember a few other things in the bible and respect them as gods children and leave them alone. "

Michelle wrote on May 20, 2008 8:11 AM:

" Anne, I appreciate your comment about Jackie's blog. I thought the comment was distasteful, and as sarcastic as they come.
What gets me throughout this paper is why is there no "opinion" from the other side? It's all so negative, and why isn't the sentinel more about getting lots of opinions out there instead of some bigots! "

Jackie K. wrote on May 20, 2008 9:21 AM:

" Anne and Michelle, I think you both jumped to the wroooong conclusion! Michelle, the reason I mentioned inanimate objects in my blog is because THAT'S the argument that's been bandied about against gay marriage. I am a HUGE supporter of gay marriage, and in fact have several same-sex friends who are in committed relationships. I, too, am frustrated and angered by the hate being spewed by nonsupporters. As for "getting the other side," note, if you will, that my blog and the story comment sections are FILLED with folks who are in favor of gay marriage. Getting local people to "come out" in print might be a bit harder, especially here in Hanford, but we would love to talk to couples who are excited about this new ruling. "

Michelle wrote on May 20, 2008 10:44 AM:

" Jackie, I did read the entire article, the beginning just sounded like you were mocking the situation and to me it didn't sound like it was a quote of argument from the non supoporters, that's all I was trying to point out. Did not mean to offend anyone at all.
So you said the paper would love to hear from supporters of it, but would it ever be in print? Who decides what gets to be in print? The unfortunate thing about this town is there are tons of gay people but they are afraid to come out because of the repercussions of doing so. I think it is so unfortunate. So why not have someone who is homosexual talk about their side in print? "

Jackie K. wrote on May 20, 2008 10:49 AM:

" Yes, Michelle, we absolutely would publish an interview with a gay couple! And I agree, it would be a good way to put a face on this issue. "

Michelle wrote on May 20, 2008 12:50 PM:

" So how would one go about talking about this issue with the paper? I personally have been married to a woman for 3 years and yet no one knows she is married to a woman because of her profession. It's a tough life to lead especially in the valley. Anyway I commend you for putting your beliefs out there "

Jackie K. wrote on May 20, 2008 12:53 PM:

" Michelle, that's the problem. I somehow don't think a couple would want to go "on record" because of their relationship. "

Angie wrote on May 20, 2008 4:47 PM:

" Sorry folks, but gay and lesbian relationships are a sin. God doesn't hate the gay person He hates the sin. These are signs of the end of days and people would know this if they actually READ the Bible. I don't care how many times it's been translated, it's the life giving Word of God. I feel sorry for all the people who think this is ok, because you are blinded by this "if-it-makes-you-happy-then-it's-ok" attitude. It's really sad. "

Anne V wrote on May 20, 2008 5:20 PM:

" Jackie I don't know if it would help, but I am more than willing to speak to you about my mother who is in a commited relationship with a woman. I know I took your story a little wrong, and I apologize. I just want the world to let people be who they are with out religous bigotry. My Mothers go to church every Sunday, and are very commited to God and his teachings. Let me know if you would like to talk! "

Jackie K. wrote on May 20, 2008 5:54 PM:

" Anne V -- you bet! Folks, stay tuned! "

HATER wrote on May 20, 2008 8:14 PM:

" I hope you eat your words and choke on them. There has never been a civil rights movement that has failed in this country, and this is not going away. It's too big and too rich for your narrow minded ways. You may have had enough to buy George Bush, but the people have taken over now and there tired of your backwoods craziness. If you don't like it, MOVE TO TEXAS ! "

Dandre wrote on May 21, 2008 12:39 PM:

" Its not ME that CONDEMNS other HUMAN BEINGS its my god that HATES!
The Theocratic ignorance contained in that sentence is stark. For those that know what god thinks, I know theologians who would cringe at the judgemental tone of these posts.
Angie, you refer to the translations, go read this, your faith is strong enough to handle information isn’t it?

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/version7.htm
"

Michelle wrote on May 21, 2008 4:57 PM:

" So today I read a small article in the sentinel from someone who is pro gay! That is awesome and I am really excited their opinion was put out there!
Also thanks for the email Jackie! :) "

notabigot wrote on May 21, 2008 7:48 PM:

" IF you don't like same sex marriage, don't marry people of the same sex and let others do as they CHOOSE!
By the way Herr Kleinhammer, most child molesters are straight. "

Watchdog wrote on May 22, 2008 12:19 AM:

" To Jackie you might want to get a signed release from both Michelle's mother and her life partner before you go interviewing her daughter on these issues.

Mom may not be so crazy about having her personal life dredged through the columns of the Hanford Sentinel. Just because Michelle say's it's o.k. is it really?

Look at your own blog and how Dandre and Jeff attacked Fred for opening up and sharing his personal life? You have to take some sort of Editorial Responsibility when those exchanges occur.

You should permit both sides to communicate their feelings or just don't allow the personal attacks at all. Which is the basis for your blogging rules. "

Jackie K. wrote on May 22, 2008 9:04 AM:

" Watchdog, why would we need a "signed release" from Michelle's partner and mother? If Michelle's mother is anything like me, she will be thrilled to see her daughter happy. "

Duane Andre wrote on May 22, 2008 10:22 AM:

" To 'Seeing Eye Dog', watchdog is not quite accurate.....
You run around these boards throwing out smear tactics like crazy, you have a whole list of cute little ways of trying to tear down things you evendently don't possess the 'knowledge' to understand. When someone tries to 'expose' you to the knowledge, you 'react' by making YOUR 'fantasy' more dillusional to try to 'discredit' the 'knowledge'.
If someone doesn't accept YOUR 'bigotted' god then 'they' must all be athiests, if they don't think like you then they are all 'perverted'
Just like the kid who asks the question' If God is ALL-POWERFUL can He create a rock so big that He can't lift it?' The premise may be 'clever' but in a real discussion it is both IMMATURE and IRRELEVENT.
When I post something, my FULL intention is to make you 'think', if that is too painful for you, I send my codolences! "

Watchdog wrote on May 22, 2008 1:45 PM:

" Jackie K
If you want to hang the Hanford Sentinel out to dry be my guessed it is your future your playing with, sorry I insulted you with some guidance.

Michelle cannot speak for her mother and her mothers partner and I'm sure the courts would see it the same way.

I was just suggesting you might want to cover the Sentinel's butt, but if you don't care, I don't either. Print away, it's your right until the California Supreme Court overturns it. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 22, 2008 2:51 PM:

" Watchdog, you are spot on as usual.

Confidentiality is one of the most valued and protected rights in CA. and the United States.

When Jackie makes the personal value judgement: "If Michelle's mother is anything like me," well, that won't matter if the mother is publicly embarrassed when names are named. And in court, that is no excuse at all for divulging personal secrets in a public newspaper without the individual's own consent. Daughter's don't give consent for their mother.

Thanks for looking out for others. You are a responsible individual. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 22, 2008 2:51 PM:

" Watchdog, you got me thinking . . .

RE: Confidentiality

This is exactly why I and others here refuse to participate in the trendy ‘Blogs' section. It is the guided opinion of only a few Sentinel employees (complete with annoying repetitive head shots of the blogger) - plus one U.S. patriot currently in service - which sets the political and social tone for those who choose to reply. The blogs then are ‘guided' by the author and the editor to a much greater degree than in our regular forums. Confidentiality is much looser in the new ‘blogs.' (I can provide examples.)

These original forums, where we respond to a newspaper-published topic, are a great community service. It makes us better, more informed citizens.

The new blogs section - well, not so much. "

Jackie K. wrote on May 22, 2008 3:15 PM:

" Watchdog et al, I think you've gotten a little mixed up here. MICHELLE's interview is with her and her partner. No mom involved. It's ANNE V. who said her mother has a partner. Of course, if we were going to interview Anne V., we would include the mother! After all, it's the latter's story! Get your facts straight before you start mouthing off, please. "

Jackie K. wrote on May 22, 2008 3:24 PM:

" Alejandro, just to clarify: The confidentiality of the blog section is not much looser, as you state. Yes, to leave comments on the blog, you must include an e-mail address. But this is a spam blocker; some users use fake addresses. It's just a tool to require that extra step that a spambot can't take. But... when folks do include their correct e-mail addy, it's easier for me to respond to them personally - as I have done on several occasions. But I maintain the author's anonymity on our Web site. I know the real identities of a lot of commenters and bloggers - including Blue Falcon - but choose to call them only by their monikers. So... your anonymity is guaranteed here, and also at the right on Sentinel blogs. P.S. If I had your e-mail address, I could have saved everyone from having to read this explanation. P.P.S. The Sentinel Blogs are designed to be entertaining as well as thought-provoking. I decided to start them after several commenters were upset when stories "dropped out of the queue" on Hot Topics. This way, they live, in perpetuity, and are more accessible. Again, if I had your e-mail address.... well, you know the rest. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 22, 2008 4:59 PM:

"
Right.

And using Jackie's logic and standards, if she also had Anne V and Michelle's E-mail addresses, we all could have been spared the more numerous touchy-feely exchanges the three of them had right above us.

That would have fit very well into Jackie's own blog but as editor, well, she does get the last word. She has the right to say what she wants when she wants. I respect that.

And what I meant about confidentiality is this: There have been several people who printed their first and last names that, when searched for, leads to employment info, home addresses and telephone numbers. I have checked online and was shocked how much personal information is given up.

So if the blogs are exactly the same, why is there so much more familiarity and direct Sentinel employee-reader exchanges? Different comfort level? Familiarity with those friendly photos? Blogs are different than these regular news-item forums and Jackie has the right to make them that way.

Its win-win for all of us. Mostly. "

Jackie K. wrote on May 22, 2008 5:07 PM:

" Yup, you hit the nail on the head, Alejandro. The blogs are a different animal. We wanted them to be a conversation between our staff and our online users. As you noted, it's hard to do that within this forum. Also, we wanted to show that yes, believe or not, we're human too! Sorry about the mugshots. I hate mine. Oh well. "

Watchdog wrote on May 22, 2008 10:11 PM:

" Jackie,
In otherwords sports fans the words that are offensive are already in the system to be removed. But bring up a subject to near to Jackie's heart and it will be censored.
Furthermore, if my comments were too offensive how come you allowed Jeff and Dandre's through and not my rebuttal. All you had to do was send me an email you have the address and tell me to clean it up and resubmit it. That option was not given so that tells me you must have agreed with their statements about me. What they did folks was call me drunk when I was a little late taking my insulin and I commented just prior to taking it. When you are on insulin and a lot of the other medications I take, you cannot use alcohol. The sugar in Alcohol is slower reacting if you drink and fall asleep you can go into what is called a diabetic coma. I might be a little lose in the head but I am not stupid. So the remarks angered me because they jumped to a conclusion and I responded. "

Watchdog wrote on May 22, 2008 10:19 PM:

" To Dandre' you were right the Watchdog is Fred and I openly admitted it in my last blog. I hope you and your little click on here have a wonderful time putting others down without provocation or the proof of your assumptions. Dandre' from a diabetic come do you know where you go? To meet your maker if you think I am going to risk that for a simple buzz you are sadly mistaken my friend. Sorry about the pot shots but my blogs were being censored and that was all I could bet through a little snipet here and there. If I have offended anyone in anyway it was not intentional so now like Douglas McCarthur the soldier will fade away. "

Watchdog wrote on May 22, 2008 10:21 PM:

" To Jackie,
P.S. Tell Cathy to cancel the subscritption, thanks "

denial wrote on May 22, 2008 11:19 PM:

" One incorrect court decision and everyone is ready to re-write the Bible and most of history. Homosexuality has always been viewed as at least a little odd if not a vile sin. Looking at nature, a driving force of nature is the instinct to reproduce. Since homosexuals are not able to reproduce nature is clearly sending some kind of message that it is not natural and those that truly follow their "gayness" would not reproduce and not pass on their genes. Homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness until the psychologists caved under all the political correctness pressure. There are also some studies that show a genetic link on the mother's side. If being homosexual is related to genetics then gay people have a good excuse for failing to follow normal sexual relationships. If it is a mental condition then they again have an excuse. Most gays don't like either and want to believe it is normal and that there is nothing wrong with them, but you can't tell me if you had two male dogs always getting it on that you would not consider that wierd. "

Simonizr wrote on May 23, 2008 12:28 AM:

" If ignorance is bliss then James Kleinhammer
is one happy lil man. Check this out James, there is more to this world then little old Hanford. You can rant and rave about the homosexuals all you want. Heck, you probibly did the same when women and blacks got to vote. Gays are people just like you and me.
And your quote, "Does this mean that people can start marrying animals? How about inanimate objects? " Thats just plane ignorant and idiotic. Maybe you should marry a visit out of Hanford and see the "Real World" and all its splendor. "

Dandre wrote on May 23, 2008 10:01 AM:

" Fred, the ‘click’ I’m in is called ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ and WE have been trying to get you and the other enemies of civil rights running around here to join!
Ask yourself this question.
When you see the old video of Black Civil Rights protests and police are using fire hoses and dogs to attack the protestors, who do you identify with? The protestors, the police or in your case the ‘dogs’?
The problems with our society HAS NEVER come from the segment of society seeking freedom.
The problems HAVE ALWAYS come from the side using the dogs. The part of our society that, keeps its ‘boot’ of oppression on the ‘neck’ of the ‘oppressed’, these people FORCED the formulation of the Black Panthers as a matter of SURVIVAL. The ‘oppressors’ are the CANCER not the Black Panthers.
I used the Black Panther comparison on purpose, how did you react to your vision of the Black Panthers, intimidated? What about their cousins the Grey Panthers, still intimidated? "

Dandre wrote on May 23, 2008 10:04 AM:

" Our Country was BUILT by the oppressed and the ‘oppressors’ need BLIND allegiance in order to spread and perpetuate the propaganda necessary to survival of the republican ‘operation chaos’ party. Which is where most ‘so-called’ conservatives landed.
Fred,I have trying to get you to stop trying to put a whole segment of society DOWN but when you are presented with information you lash out and don’t expect return fire?
Fred, From the first time that I posted here about the Mei Lei massacre story, something , sorry, I know alittle about, within a few posts I was called Benedict Arnold and I think it was by you in one of your other personas, come to think of it. You can’t find anywhere that I called you a name like that.
Reaction without thought causes fights, thoughtful reaction prevents them.
I have been trying to get you to think.
"

Dandre wrote on May 23, 2008 10:05 AM:

" and, Fred, why don’t you try just being Fred a human being like the rest of us. You need to understand, I look at issues from the perspective of my family, my grandkids and from the things in your post I would not trust you around my grandkids.
I have shown a couple to the older ones some of the most hateful posts here, as examples of exactly what this Country and God are NOT about, and just like I sniffed you out, watchpup, I am pretty good at sniffin’ out the truth and if you get me started I can become the Liberal rush!
Make peace with yourself, Fred, and worry about what needs to be worried about, your health.
You wingnuts, and I mean that lovingly, don’t realize that all the ‘chase the demon’ tension and stress you put on yourselves tends to ruin your health, Liberals live longer….’
"

Dandre wrote on May 23, 2008 10:07 AM:

" And Denial, the court made the right decision but I suspect, for the wrong reasons. "

TonyL wrote on May 23, 2008 12:09 PM:

" ALEJANDRO: MY APOLOGIES GO TO YOU ‘CAUSE IN RE-READING MY POSTING YESTERDAY, NOT ONLY DID I NOTICE SOME TYPOS, BUT I SORT OF SINGLED YOU OUT AND CAME DOWM SOMEWHAT HARSHLY. I GUESS YOUR STATEMENTS ARE SO WELL WRITTEN IN CONTENT AND THOUGHT THAT MADE ME THINK OF YOUR POSTINGS ON THE SUBJECT WHEN I RESPONDED.

IE: I READ YOUR SUBSEQUENT POSTINGS AND FOUND THEN ARTICULATE AND TO THE POINT ALTHOUGH I DO NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF THEM, AND/OR I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO RESEARCH THE ISSUE THOROUGHLY AS YOU.

TO THE OTHER WRITERS HERE, I AM MORE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT OUR CONGRESS AND OUR GOVERNMENT ARE DOING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS MORESO THAN WHAT A FEW .INDIVIDUALS ARE DOING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. EXCEPTION BEING, THAT THEY ARE NOT FABRICATING SOME SORT OF NUCLEAR SUIT CASE DEVICE.
"

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 23, 2008 4:00 PM:

" Duane, I read your post over in the blog section that was well written with a gentle yet deliberate tone as you described your life experience.

You were with the Del-Tones? Cool!

Besides being the same age, I volunteered for the Army three months before Tet, we share some of the same life experiences, except our politics.

We are so far apart on this issue. But this is America, so I can respect the man and yet hate the politics.

That said, I don't believe you could be the ‘Liberal Rush (Limbaugh)' as in "if you get me started I can become the Liberal rush" because the liberal point of view cannot be sustained with facts alone. It will crash and burn because liberals cannot make their point without touchy-feely emotionalism and air of superiority that most Americans find revolting.

Example: Scott Tucker has always had a veil of moral superiority in his postings yet is smart and usually well-written. You, Duane, shoot from the hip and wear your heart on your sleeve; we see the real Duane with every use of all capitals and catchy phrases.

I salute you service to our country. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 23, 2008 4:12 PM:

" Back on topic:

The author said this:
"Proposition 22 said it loud and clear: "Only marriage between a man and woman is recognized in California."

Millions of voters decided Prop. 22;
One and only one judge's vote decided to nullify this mandate of the people.

The gay community now expects all citizens of California to give up their opinion of the homosexual lifestyle.

And as California leads, so follows the rest of the Country, right?

Anyone see this actually happening? "

Dandre wrote on May 23, 2008 4:56 PM:

" Alejandro, Nobody is telling you to give up your opinion but why should your opinion affect 'how' another 'citizen' lives their life.
I have been having these same discussions for forty years and your description of Liberalism is a distortion that has been propagated by the desperate rightwing minority, if you get to make up your definitions, then I get to make up mine.
I am headed out of town for the weekend but I 'll be back. "

Dandre wrote on May 23, 2008 4:58 PM:

" One more thing' you said it was a lifestyle,prove it. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on May 23, 2008 6:33 PM:

" Hi again; Dandre,
Well you didn't expect to discredit me and then have me remain silent did you. If I wasnt calling the kettle black why did you feel the explination need be so lengthy in your defense? No the click I am talking about is you and your liberal sect. You see We the People outnumber you on most of the issues you choose to support, don't believe it stay tuned in November. Watch all this fanfare and party come to an end when all those who engage in Homosexual Marriages between now and then be disappointed to find out they are no more recognized than those credentials you carry as a liberal Democrat in your rear pocket. You certainly are old enough to know better than lie your way through life. Oh by the way the reason I didn't admit to being Fred/Watchdog is because like Alejandro said there is a certain bit of confidentiality that we should all be entitled to. I'll be back later to continue this, something has come up and I must leave right now. "

Denial wrote on May 23, 2008 6:56 PM:

" Deny this, our Federal Court of Appeals is the most overturned court in the country. They could flip a coin and get better case decisions. They base their decisons on politics and not on the law. This State Court decision was based on the same politics, not on the law which means "wrong decision". There is no law that states gays have a right to marriage. This right was created only in the minds of judges who are too political to truly analyze a case based on the facts and the laws of this country and the Constitution. The right to have same sex marriage can be created, but it should be done by the legislature and the people, not liberal or special interest judges. One other comment, inter-racial marriage is not same sex marriage. True racial minorities are a legally defined protected class. They can not change how they look or what race they were born into. According to gay leaders they have freely chosen their sexual orientation and are not immediately recognized as being gay. They openly volunteer their sexual orientation and are not a protected class. "

giddyupdgo wrote on May 23, 2008 7:16 PM:

" I just have to say something about this hoopla on gays getting married.... Whats wrong with it ??? There are a lot of our very own senators, judges, police,maybe a few Presidents that never came out.. Think about it.. No, I am not gay and do not plan on changing my life style, but I do believe that all people should be able to marry whom ever they choose. I am sure that bills will be made against one having more than one partner, and not be able to marry a child under the age of 18 years old... It is none of anyones business as to what the other guy does... Just keep your nose out of their business. Let them marry, let them pay just like all of us, they have the right to share a household and file taxes just like anyone else. Same goes for life insurances, and any other thing that "straight" people have to pay.. If this bill is passed, think of the monies that will be generated by them getting married... I say let them marry and be happy just as us , it is not our business anyway.... Wake up "

ALEJANDRO wrote on May 23, 2008 8:30 PM:

" To Duane Andre,

I was being accurate and I thought sensitive in using the word 'lifestyle' when I said:

"The gay community now expects all citizens of California to give up their opinion of the homosexual lifestyle."

I really meant to say, and I hereby correct my statement to read:

"The gay community now expects all citizens of California to change their opinion of homosexual sexual behaviors and homosexual social behaviors."

That is what really is happening when the traditional concept of marriage is usurped by homosexual activists in the homosexual community. The decision of only one judge effectively changes the social fabric in California. Marriage to most people means (or used to mean) normal/traditional/religion-sanctioned: love, normal sex, normal procreation, established families, a traditional way of life established over hundreds if not thousands of years.

I just pointed out the fact that no matter how many laws are passed, that biology cannot be changed, religious precepts modified, nor people be forced to accept what is not natural.

So, Duane, does that fit better into your agenda here, or do I have to ‘prove' what everyone else can plainly see? "

Tony_L wrote on May 24, 2008 11:27 AM:

" I am fairly liberal when it comes to certain issues, like abortion and homosexuality, but I am realistic .
Homosexuality is normal in the sense that a certain very small percentage of most animal species practice it. As I define ‘normal’ as “”what most people do most of the time” it doesn’t fall under ‘normal behavior.’

However, I stand up for those who practice homosexuality as it is their freedom and right. But, I have read that they are dismayed now because “their public affection is frowned upon by most.”

Well , it is still within their right to hold hands and kiss in public, and I am within in my right to disapprove of it and feel ‘ad nauseam.’
If they want full acceptance,…then move to San Francisco!

As far as Churches becoming involved in political issues, then let the Churches start paying property taxes and income taxes. That would be help our budget deficit. "

CV wrote on May 24, 2008 12:31 PM:

" Once again the activist judges in California have overruled the will of the people. Just as they did with Prop 187. And we all see the people will eventually win. The voters previously voted against gay marriage. They will again. The decision should be stayed until November. I agree with Scott Duffy. The voters will overwhelmingly overturn the court ruling. Marriage defined as one man-one woman will be added to the California constitution and the California Supreme Court's ruling will be a mute point. "

Replace The JUDGES wrote on May 25, 2008 10:12 AM:

" Lets get some new judges. "

Watchdog wrote on May 26, 2008 8:59 AM:

" Duane, Duane, Duane, Duane, Duane, Duane,
please if you don't do anything listen to our friend Alejandro and quit putting so much out there. You just announced in your blog below you won't be home all weekend, brother that is an open invitation for whatever you left behind to not be here when you return. That's like riding around town with a bumper sticker that says my son/daughter attends blank and blank school and they are A students. It's like announcing kidnap my kid he or she is smart. Oh by the way this is the school you can take them from, it's right here on my bumper for everyone to see. Don't do it, not you not anyone else it is an open invitation which contains too much information. Just passing along a little information I got from a Scuthern California Homeland Security agent. Also don't except packages/brief cases boxes anything from a stranger or someone you don't know. Because if you do you may have just become part of the next terrorist attack in our community. It's called survival Dandre' just listen for a change? o.k. "

Dandre wrote on May 26, 2008 12:15 PM:

" can you say, Smile your on candid camera?
But definitely the conservative crazies of the world cannot be trusted! "

Watchdog wrote on May 27, 2008 2:40 AM:

" Duane,
O.K. when you come home and your cameras are gone to don't come crying to me. Thieves are better at security than we ever will be. "

HOT TOPICS

MORE LOCAL NEWS

Lemoore:

Selma:

Kingsburg:

PHOTO GALLERIES

More Photos

Sentinel Photos (134) Albums

: Hanford Luminaria; Friday, November, 20 2009; (6) Photos

: Hanford High vs Dinuba Waterpolo Final; Wednesday, November, 18 2009; (13) Photos

: Fire on Hawk Street; Wednesday, November, 18 2009; (11) Photos

Reader Submitted (7) Albums

: Vintage Hanford; Monday, December, 15 2008; (1) Photos

: Vacation Photos; Thursday, November, 20 2008; (37) Photos

: Events; Thursday, November, 20 2008; (38) Photos

EMAIL UPDATES

Sign up today to get all your local headlines delivered to your home or work e-mail address, so you don't miss the latest in breaking and local news.

E-Mail:
Daily News Updates
Breaking News Alerts