" Can someone call the Citizen and find out if the wicked witch of the west has been fired? "

" Once again Judy misses the whole issue. Yes Gay people do have children. The reasons they wish to marry is because of insurance. and also if they spend their lives together and one dies the other has no rights as in social security, the estate etc. I sometimes can not understand why this woman still has a job. I wonder what bones hang in her closet. Is she really as pure as she comes off. "

" I think the wicked witch is dead..... "

" i think it's time for the Citizen to take this article off the internet. "

" rd, please do not insults us atheists by claiming to be one. If you claim not to believe in a higher power that's fine, but true atheists are also Humanists who would NEVER express the bigoted crap that you spew-NEVER! You're arguments are pathetic and rest upon nothing but your own ignorance. For instance, the only reason "homo"-sexuality references "man" in it's prefix is simply because the field of Science did not extend into animal sexuality to that degree when the phrase was coined. "

" Ya know...I thought to myself that either she got fired or was on vacation. Hope it's the former. "

" Has judy been fired? This column has been here forever. "

" Rd, Please express your agrument against homosexuality since you won't be siting the bible. Just curious. "

" Thanks Owascoman, its all clear to me know!! "

" Well Judy, you're not exactly a Rhodes Scholar and since your clearly running away from something by reinventing yourself as uber-conservative like so many who came before you, it may not even matter to you that argument is shrill and devoid of any relative facts, but I'll try to storm the gate anyway. First of all, the primary purpose of marriage, WAY before the advent of Christianity, was to make family alliances and join territories, clans and/or properties. Since it only takes coitus to make a baby (sometimes even less than that) and since that can be achieved without a political union such as marriage, then gay marriage pretty much fulfills the primary purpose of marriage since it doesn't require baby-making. Marriage is a political union. Why do you think people can't get married in private? Also, you seem to forget that even if many Americans are Christians, our founding fathers created a SECULAR government that protects the rights of all individuals, including homosexuals, whether your provincial fears are aroused by this or not. In fact, protecting the minority from the fears and whims of the majority is EXACTLY the reason why we have a set of basic rights and why the constitution doesn't have any amendments or clauses set to limit the rights of others. Also, I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that gay marriage is going to cause a drastic drop in the U.S. birth rate like Japan. Do you actually really think that suddenly there will be a gay "boom" in America and heterosexuals and even those homosexuals who are adopting or having babies by other means will just stop having families? Do you really think that heterosexuals will just change their minds? Are you afraid that you will? I'm not going to, and I'm not afraid that I will. As far as God goes, that's all well and good if that's your belief, but you can't prove any religious thing you've said as fact. It's your right to believe as you want, not your right to impose it upon others. The day that you are no longer a columnist at The Citizen is the day I will actually pay money for the newspaper. Until then, I am embarrassed at how you are making Auburnians look like ignorant Bible-thumping hicks especially in a time where we are trying very hard to turn this image around and boost up our economy., "

" rd, Again, owascoman must teach you. So here we go. You are referring to HOMO as in MAN. homo- "the same," prefix commonly used to form modern words, from Gk. homos "one and the same," An example is homogenous. Or the word homogamous, having the same kind of flower The homo you are thinking of is a genus of primate mammals of the family Hominidae that includes modern humans (Homo sapiens) and several extinct related species (as Homo erectus). By the way, it is unusual for an athiest to be so anti gay. Most homophobes use the bible to justify their arguement. "

" Owascoman I will explain this so even you can understand. Homosexuality!! Homo=mankind ...Homosexuality is between species of mankind...animals can not practice Homosex because THEY ARE ANIMALS!!!!! And what is this costant reference to the bible???? I am a atheist!! "

" rd, Your ignorance is amazing. Do yourself a favor and google the word homosexuality and animals. There is a wealth of knowledge there about many different animals who practice homosexuality. PLEASE DO YOUR HOMEWORK NEXT TIME BIBLE BOY (or girl) "

" Silly rabitt you are so silly!!! Only homo sapiens can practice homosexuality!!! If animals do it then you are hanging out at the wrong zoo. "

" Just curious, Judy... If only folks that can have kids should be allowed to marry, are you suggesting that sterile folks should be barred from getting married as well? Regarding God... He doesn't exist. Do you want folks to live by the Easter Bunny's words too? "

" The editor must really love this message of hate. IT has been here for three weeks now. "

" To childofthekorn1318, I responded to you under Carole Estabrook's column here on this site. "

" TO Forrest, You are confusing me. You are saying conflicting things here. 1. who cares what two people do with their private lives? I AGREE WITH YOU THERE. 2. It is nobodys business. I AGREE WITH YOU THERE. Now this is where I am getting confused... 3. Do I agree with it? No I am a man who enjoys a womens company and sharing private moments with a woman. OK...BECAUSE YOU ARE HETERO AND ENJOY WOMEN DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU CAN'T APPROVE OF IT FOR THOSE WHO ARE HOMO? 4. Don't force somthing I don't believe in on me. THIS ONE IS VERY CONFUSING. WHAT IS BEING FORCED ON YOU? IF IT IS GAY MARRIAGE AND YOU ARE STRAIGHT WHAT IS BEING FORCED ON YOU? I am not trying to tear you apart here but do you see the inconsistancies here? " Bottom line is simple. (1) who cares what two peple do with their private life. (2) It's nobodys business. (3) Do I agree with it ? No I am a man who enjoys a womens company and sharing private moments with a women. (4) Don't force somthing I don't believe in on me. " "

" Kit-Kat, that was forced servitude, which according to the New testament and Old testament is wrong. Plane and simple, forced servitude is WRONG. Now the slavery I discussed earlier which was servitude in exchange for money and land to live on in order to repay a debt or just to survive was acceptable. Saying that people used the bible to support slavery is just like saying that Muslim extremists use the Koran to support terrorist acts. Doesn't meen that Islam is evil does it? "

" Bottom line is simple. (1) who cares what two peple do with their private life. (2) It's nobodys business. (3) Do I agree with it ? No I am a man who enjoys a womens company and sharing private moments with a women. (4) Don't force somthing I don't believe in on me. "

" IM reading some of RD's other postings and my God what an intolerant hateful idiot he is.... Guess that would make him a good candidate for his own column in this rag of a newspaper. "

" Hey RD did you have to look up intrinsically??? You obviously are not very intelligent or concious of your world around you with a misguided opinion like that. Homosexuality has been around since there has been life on earth, every species participates in homosexual acts. Humans are the only ones that "think" its abnormal, and unfortunatley most of those are the typical uptight AMERICAN citizen! Europeans LAUGH at the US all the time with our uptight hypocritical issues with either gays, or more generally the human body.... The whole Janet Jackson thing showed that, Europeans couldnt see what the big deal was, however some Americans were up in arms over it all. Silly Americans... Get a Grip before you prove how truly foolish you are! "

" rd, The American Psychological Assoc. in 1973 stated that homosexuality is not a disease or psychological abnormality. Are you smarter than the APA? I bet you could not argue against gay equal (not special)rights with out bringing the bible or god into the conversation. THIS IS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE! I don't want to get married in a church. I want to get married by a justice of the peace. Why on earth do you care what I do. I don't care if you marry your refrigerator! "

" Shame on you owascoman for comparing the hard fought civil rights struggle for equal treatment under the law. What you are promoting is preferential treatment because of sexual orientation. Everyone now has the right to marriage but you want to change the definition to accommodate intrinsically abnormal behaviour. "

" rd, Are you aware that the opponents of inter racial marriage used your very same argument you do. "Brother could marry brother,sister can marry sister.....one man three wifes.. etc." But you forgot to add as the opponents then did, that you could marry your dog or a horse or a pig....yes, that argument was used too! Oh rd...you just think you are soooo darn smart! "

" Before broadcasting her uninformed opinions in a newspaper, Ms. Ducayne ought to first enroll in a journalistic writing course. Opinions are always better taken when not written in the writing style of elementary school children. But that's not my point. The New York State Constitution asserts, "No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, creed, or religion, be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state." The Assembly's recent passing of legislation aimed at legalizing same-sex marriages is simply honoring the call for uncompromised civil rights outlined in the state constitution. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Democratic Party attempting to subtly advance a homosexual agenda. The Democratic Party is not in the business of matching up men with men and women with women as Ms. Ducayne ignorantly purports. Incidentally, it should be pointed out that the Democratic Party is in control of the state Assembly and not, as Ms. Ducayne mistakenly writes, the state Assembly in control of the Democrats. This country was founded on an important principle, namely the separation of church and state, a separation that seems to be under threat of constant erosion. It is true that the shapers of America were informed by certain Christian principles. However, the genius of our national Constitution is that is has allowed for an ongoing addition to and reformulation of those initial laws in a constant effort to form Madison's "more perfect union" while concomitantly maintaining the principles of liberty and justice for all upon which this nation was founded. Ours is a nation with immense diversity, and the drive to recognize same-sex marriages is merely an attempt to bring yet another facet of our multifaceted population under the umbrella of equity. Walk down any city street and one will encounter the myriad variations of the United States citizen. Our motley population ought not to have second-class citizens. Ms. Ducayne writes, "one of the primary reasons for a marriage is the procreation of children," thus undermining the marriages of men and women who choose not to have children or cannot. The institution of marriage occupies two very different spheres, the religious and the civil. Ideas about procreation, sexuality, and God's natural order are religious issues and should remain so. The rights and benefits afforded under the law to married couples are civil matters and it is these that proponents of same-sex marriage seek. This is not a drive to subvert one's religious beliefs. Ms. Ducayne and people who share her thoughts on this subject need to realize that their religious institutions are not at stake here. The Assembly's action to legalize same-sex marriage is not a decree forcing the Church (or any other religious body) to follow suit. The Church and religious institutions like it are free to teach what they will about morality and the natural order of things. Yet, religious law and civil law have enjoyed an honored separation in this country. The legalization of same-sex marriages simply provides one more buttress for this separation. Ms. Ducayne's concern about a population shortage following the legalization of same-sex marriages is nearly laughable. As every minimally educated person knows, a nation's population tends to stabilize as the country industrializes and the workforce becomes more educated. The populations of Japan and Europe are some of the most highly educated on earth just as the Japanese and European economies are two of the strongest and most industrialized. Although the major press has yet to report that the governments of Japan and the entire European continent are "begging married couples to have children," as Ms. Ducayne contends, it is certainly not same-sex marriage that is causing any population decline as same-sex marriages are only performed in three European nations and not at all in Japan. I will be so bold as to say that if one were to ask anyone living in Belgium, the Netherlands, or Spain about the fertility of married couples in the face of legalized same-sex marriage, he would learn that married couples are "reproducing themselves" just as before. In response to Ms. Ducayne's reference to Will Durant's statement, "no great civilization can be conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within," I would argue that it is not same-sex marriage that will ultimately lead to the demise of this nation, but rather bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance, qualities Ms. Ducayne appears to have spent a great deal of time perfecting. "

" Tolerance is wonderful.....lets do away with all marriage restrictions. Brother could marry brother,sister can marry sister.....one man three wifes.. etc. Anyone who disagrees is a bigot hatefilled intolerant Commie pinko progressive Liberal!!! "

" The Citizen should dismiss the Christian Taliban (Judy Ducayne) once and for all, and give owascoman his own column. "

" Owascoman your entries are longer than Judy's column. Even though your content is much better, try to be concise. "

" Hey Kit Kat leave your cafeteria catholic BS to your fairy tales. tell me you DO everything the bible says, get real! I guarantee you had sex before marriage, didn't sacrafice a lamb on the sabbath, never eat shellfish. Marriage was nothing more than a property transfer! You can find something in the bible to hold against anyone so don't throw stones. a 2000 year old book of fairy tales should NOT be how we govern since we have a government to impose the laws..not fear like you so wonderfully subscribe to. Regression equals FAILURE. Congrats to NY for moving forward and giving all its citizens equal rights. IF you don't like gay marriage then don't get one! Its that simple! "

" childofthekorn, Apparently you missed the section in the Bible where GOD PUNISHED those who kept Israelites as slaves. Have you never heard of the locust, dead babies, and the plague? I would recommend you re-read it, and try not to skip the parts you don’t agree with, after all it’s GOD your messing with. "

" I will make my comment real simple and direct so even the uneducated can get it. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES GOD TELL YOU THAT IT IS O.K. TO MARRY THE SAME SEX! Or How about in the Torah, Koran, etc… God condemns this behavior. Yet our government has decided to play God, and make their own laws regardless of how it affects the people. We have a HIGHER ATHORITY I hope they understand that. I feel pity on all people who chose to follow false gods, for the One True God will punish them for all eternally. "

" I am ashamed to share the same planet with you, Judy, and people like you. Marriage is about love, two souls wanting to make a life together, so simple. This country is movong sooooo backwards b/c of people like you. Stop preaching hate!! "

" Lets see, mb attacks all the people that lives in the South as red necks and yet he or she believes that they are tolerant!! I suggest that you go to the Cayuga County Fair and watch the riding lawnmower races to discover where the true rednecks live. "

" Tom, you have demonstrated your true lack of tolerance by your bigoted, hate speach attacking all Christians. You try to prove your postion by attributing thoughts and motives that have no basis in fact to a group of people created in your mind. Your hate filled speach toward Christians is a reminder of the Nazis villification of the Jews, You should be ashamed of yourself! "

" In this day and age I can't believe that someone can be so back woods red neck and not be from the south. I can't believe that this is being printed in the newspaper this sounds like some crap I would see on one of those evangelistic channels on tv. There are plenty of children in this world that are put up for adoption or put in juvenile homes because there parents don't have the "moral compass" to show them how to love there own children, that are being adopted by gay couples everyday. We don't need to procreate we need to love the human beings already on this planet before we create anymore. "

" Owascoman, you're missing the point that Judy and rd don't just want to deny gays the right to marry. They want to deny them all rights. The good Christian folk would like nothing better than to go back to the good old days when homosexuality was a crime. Then they can lock up all the gays and God will smile on them. This is why we have separation of Church and State. To prevent religious extremists from legislating their particular "faith". To them, their god is the real God. Anyone that disagrees must be punished by them. Apparently they don't have enough faith that God will take care of it. Just one more example of religious terrorism. "

" I know it was a matter of time before some bigot reared his ugly head....way to go rd! "

" Way to go Judy....you are making them howl till they drop! Accusing those who voice opposition to the sodomist as hate speach, demonstrates a pathetic response to your argument. "

" I also live in Masschusetts and the sky has not fallen in and God has not struck anyone down with a bolt of lightning because of gay marriage. The question of who you marry is not the business of politicians. "

" hate hate hate sad thing is judy seems to think hate in the name of God is ok,, another sad thing is that we have to register to comment on her filth.. too much negativity citizen? Well oust judy and get someone who doesnt inject hate into everything. and by the way judy, tow of my dearest friends are gay pagans, although i just see them as friends, and Id rather spend time with them then give you the time of day. soemday your gonna be a lonely old woman....having chased everyone away with your hate... "

" To childofthekorn1318, Regardless of who is right, you or me, you must admit that up until slavery was abolished in this country, the bible was used to perpetuate the practice. If not for the bible, slavery may have ended before 1865. "

" I am not even going to touch Judy's article, but to OWASCOMAN who said "Did you know that the bible, old and new testiments approves slavery?" Slavery as written in those books was not the race selected forced slavery as we know it today. It was in fact slavery where if a man or woman had little money and no where to live, could offer their services in exchange for land to live on, they were not forced into it. They would work for their "owner" for several seasons, most times ending that servitude with the portion of land becoming their property. Please research your statements before posting them. "

" Judy, you sound like Ann Coulter light. I'm sure to you that is a compliment, but trust me, it's not. You are nothing more than a bully with a forum in which to vent your views of hatred and intolerence, and I blame not only you, but the Citizen. "

" The Citizen should be pealized for printing Judy Ducayne's hatemonger articles. She is an evil woman who will surely rot in Hell for her Holier than thou attitudes. "

" When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, they are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences. One of these is the fact that in most states, they cannot make medical decisions for their partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from them for decades, who are often hostile to them, and can and frequently do, totally ignore their wishes regarding the treatment of their partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude them from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair? Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny them the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair? If their partners are arrested, they can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. In court cases, a partner's testimony can be simply ruled irrelevant as heresay by a hostile judge, having no more weight in law than the testimony of a complete stranger. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied on the whim of a hostile family and the cooperation of a homophobic judge, unrestrained by any law or precedent. Conjugal visits, a well-established right of heterosexual married couples in some settings, are simply not available to gay couples. Is this fair? These are far from being just theoretical issues; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you numerous horror stories of friends and acquaintences who have been victimized in such ways. One couple uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Why, as a supposedly advanced society, should we continue to tolerate this kind of injustice? These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper. "

" Wow, this woman is pathetic. I live in MA where gay marriage is legal and let me tell you about how it has affected my life. Wait, it hasn't? We just closed the book on this here, and absolutely nothing, not one shred of negativity has come out of gay couples getting married. Let me tell you some good things that have. A gay couple can visit their dying partner in the hospital, they can inherit property, they can offer their children protection with more benefits, they can live a decent life where they won't feel shunned. I am proud my state shot down that hateful amendment, we are years ahead of our time and NY wants to do the same thing because the essense of this argument is the state wants to do what is right for ALL its citizens. Judy your article is garbage, and your points pathetic. This will not unravel america, hate mongers like yourself are the true problem in this country. Don't you dare quote the bible because you represent the worst of humanity, where brave legislature want what is best for their citizens. I think you oppose it because the closet door will get thrust open a few more inches for you because the real people who fear this are the ones with deep down fears of who they are. "

" THere goes St. Judy again. It is my understanding, according to my Catholic upbringing, that God loves all his children, no matter what they are, do or become. If two people, who love each other, want to get married, they should have the right to do so. If having children is the ONLY reason to get married, there is a flaw there as well. How many "straight" couples, marry, have children, and then abuse them or even kill their offspring? Let people live their lives as they see fit. It is not up to us to judge or criticize them. I think thou protests too much! "

" Judy, views like yours are exactly what is wrong with this country. "

" Judy, you said "There is a natural order of things built into all of creation. Creation, of which mankind is a part, works well when it acts according to its own nature." Well, speaking of nature, are you aware that humans are not the only inhabitants of the planet who engage in homosexual activity? Zoologists have discovered that homosexual and bisexual activity regularly occurs among members of the animal kingdom. For example, same-sex beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, orangutans, penguins and ostriches engage in sexual activity, while simultaneously ignoring members of the opposite sex of their respective species (National Geographic, July 23, 2004). Where's your moral outrage there? Oh, right, it's the gay marriage issue. Well, my marriage is secure, and my wife and I are not threatened by gay marriage, civil unions or whatever you anal-retentive Wingers want to call it. If a loving, homosexual couple want to share their vows before God and family, their marriage doesn't cheapen or invalidate mine in any way. So, enough with these wedge issues like gay marriage and flag burning! Let's have a national debate about some REAL threats to the American way of life, like border security, the disaster in Iraq, the corruption of government at all levels, especially within the Bush administration. "

" Some people will argue that procreation is a necessary aspect of sex, so that experiencing sexual pleasure in any way that isn't open to the possibility of procreation is a sin. This once widespread belief is now primarily taught only by the Roman Catholic Church and is rejected by most Protestants. The Bible never says that sex must always be used for procreation. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that sex is for other purposes as well; it forms a bond between people (1 Cor. 6:16) and is a marital responsibility (1 Cor. 7:3-5). Procreation is only one part of the reason for sex, and many couples have sex on a regular basis without ever conceiving (sometimes by choice; other times not). According to official Roman Catholic teachings, sex is sinful whenever it is not "open to procreation." But the RCC applies this very inconsistently. Couples are allowed to have sex even when they know they are infertile, and fertile couples can deliberately plan their sexual encounters at times they know they will not conceive (known as "natural family planning"), as long as they don't use condoms or other so-called "artificial" means of birth control. Why should sex by an infertile couple be considered "open to procreation" when sex with a spermicide isn't? Is Natural Family Planning considered acceptable only because it is less reliable? (If condoms were less reliable, would they be acceptable?) Is there really anything "open to procreation" about a couple who know they are infertile because of physical deformities, age, medical conditions, previous surgery, or any other reason? I know many wonderful Christians who are Catholic, but with all due respect, I believe this position is inconsistent and without Scriptural foundation. After all, it derives primarily from the teachings of St. Augustine and is never mentioned in the Bible. But if you're going to use this argument anyway, you'd have to condemn sterile heterosexual relationships just as strongly. - by Justin. "

" Judy, Judy, Judy! How did you feel about the supreme court in 1967 allowing blacks and whites to marry? Did you know that the bible condmems that? Did you know that the bible, old and new testiments approves slavery? Did you know that the old testiment calls for the death of those who do not observe the Sabbath? IS THIS THE BIBLE THAT YOU ARE USING TO MAKE YOUR APPEAL FOR BANNING GAY MARRIAGE? "

" pure drivel! If the primary purpose of marriage is to produce children, does that mean that two people (man and woman) who are above child-bearing age can't get married. What about someone who is, for wahtever reason, infertile. Can that person never marry? What about people who choose not to have children? Are they not really married? The fact is that the legal institution of marriage conveys certain rights, and as the law stands now, those rights are denied to homosexuals. The fight for gay marriage is a fight for human rights, a fight for equal rights. The Constitution guarantees Americans equal rights under the law. To discriminate against gays in this way is unconstitutional! "