He says health care, food, water, clothing and a roof over our heads are all rights. They are not; they are products or goods which we all need and have the right to pursue, but we do not have a right to any of them. "A right is a natural or God-given permit received at birth, to act in one's own self-interest with total control over one's own life and property as long as others are not injured nor their property taken or damaged."

We all have freedom of speech and religion but we cannot demand that anyone build us a stage or a church. There is no right to food, water, health care, clothing and housing, because it creates a burden on others. We can't demand that our neighbors buy our groceries or clothes, so why do so many Americans think our neighbors should pay for us to go see a doctor?

Despite popular belief that every need or want should be paid for by others, there is no such right to health care, child care, a free college education or abortion, etc. What we do have are the same basic human rights – the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

• the dismemberment of innocent, defenseless human beings in foreign countries?
• the killing of innocent, defenseless human beings for medical research?
• propping up large corporations with failed business models?
• keeping someone in a house they gained possession of through taking out a loan they can’t repay?
  

• the people have a government, not the other way around?
• we as individuals retain most rights, and should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of our successes and deal with the consequences of our failures?
• we are a nation of laws, not elite cliques of entitled men?
• we are union of states with their own governments, powers, and rights?
• we have a Constitution that restricts what our federal government can do?
• the Constitution provides for checks and balances through separation of powers?
  

They said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all.

"The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world," said one official.

The official added that the United States was concerned about "violence and human rights abuses against gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual individuals" and was also "troubled by the criminalization of sexual orientation in many countries."

"In the words of the United States Supreme Court, the right to be free from criminalization on the basis of sexual orientation 'has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom'," the official said.

But 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality - and in several, homosexual acts can be punished by execution.

Imagine pizzas and pornographic magazines being delivered to your home by the dozens.

Your phone rings all night, and your e-mail inbox overflows with thousands of profane hate messages.

He and his family drew the line when the death threats started coming in over the Internet.

"They say I'm trying to take away their freedom of speech, but I'm not," he says. "I'm just trying to improve people's speech."

The argument to overturn Proposition 8 because it is a constitutional revision rather than an amendment is weak.

Marriage equality supporters should not play the numbers game.

A better strategy is to ask the courts to determine whether voters have the right to deprive any group of a civil right, or whether civil rights are beyond the reach of the ballot box.

It is difficult to imagine that the court would choose to make the state vulnerable to majority-sanctioned discrimination in the future.

Obese people have the right to two seats for the price of one on flights within Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Thursday.

The high court declined to hear an appeal by Canadian airlines of a decision by the Canadian Transportation Agency that people who are "functionally disabled by obesity" deserve to have two seats for one fare.

It also indicated that at least one of the court's seven members, Justice Carlos R. Moreno, may be leaning in favor of overturning the measure. Moreno, who joined the state high court's 4-3 ruling in May to strike down a state ban on same-sex marriage, was the only justice to support granting a stay of the proposition.

Dana Perlman, a Los Angeles lawyer who married his partner, Hugh Kinsellagh, in July, said watching the court has been "painful."

"I'm excited the court is taking the case," said Perlman, who along with his spouse is one of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who have married since June, when the California Supreme Court ruling took effect. But he said he is "pained . . . having to sit and wait for the men and women in black robes" to decide the fate of his marriage.

But Proposition 8 embeds that definition in the state Constitution, and it would defy reason for the court to hold that part of the Constitution is unconstitutional.

The California court rejected similar challenges to the death penalty and to Proposition 13, both of which, it ruled, were properly considered amendments, not revisions. And this year, the Oregon Court of Appeals rejected a suit on same-sex marriage much like the current lawsuits -- Oregon's Constitution has similar provisions on revision and equal protection. As a result, the legal challenge to Proposition 8 is generally seen as a long shot.

Yet that doesn't mean the suits are without merit.

Maybe schools need to strengthen their civics lessons so that future voters will understand that supreme courts specifically are charged with ruling on constitutional questions -- and it is a sacred and historic role of the courts to protect minority rights as enshrined in state and federal constitutions. Indeed, if courts merely existed to ratify the will of majorities, they would add little to our society.

As more lawsuits against Proposition 8 landed before the California Supreme Court, Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and the anti-gay-marriage campaign urged the court Monday to review the suits but allow the measure to remain in effect during that review.

Brown, whose office defends state laws, said in papers filed with the court that the lawsuits against the anti-gay-marriage initiative raised issues of statewide importance that should be addressed by the state's highest court "to provide certainty and finality."

But Brown's office also said the court should refrain from granting a preliminary order to put the measure on hold pending a court ruling.

"We feel confident that the law is on our side, and the court will make a correct decision," said Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Proposition 8.

"We are not confident the attorney general will vigorously defend Proposition 8 in light of his strong opposition to the measure."

A wide array of groups and local governments have urged the state high court in six lawsuits -- two more were filed Monday -- to overturn the measure. The lawsuits contend that Proposition 8 illegally revised the state Constitution by altering fundamental constitutional principles.

The latest anti-Proposition 8 lawsuit was filed by the California Council on Churches, the Episcopal Bishop of California, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, the Progressive Jewish Alliance and the Unitarian Universalist Assn. of Congregations.

We have every justification to not contribute to the coffers of businesses that would undermine our basic human rights.

As a gay man, I am very uncomfortable with the boycott of El Coyote. Penalizing a small local business for the actions of one of its employees seems a huge misdirection of our collective energy.

Many in the gay community believed, perhaps naively, that shared minority status would create a sense of sympathy between the two groups, and that casting gay marriage as a benchmark in civil rights history would cement that bond.

This has been a wrenching loss for advocates of same-sex marriage, but it should provide an opportunity to forge allegiances. Black people need to hear how denying gays the right to marry devastates families and diminishes us all.

Gays need to know that they will find less "hate" and religious dogma among blacks than they imagine, but also a deep grief over the disintegration of the nuclear black family and fear that gay marriage will further erode it.

But the demonstrations also have raised questions about whether the in-your-face approach will alienate voters, who may be asked one day to approve gay marriage. Twice in the last eight years, voters have rejected it.

While they wait to see what the court does, gay rights activists say they are thinking of putting another gay marriage initiative before California voters -- perhaps as soon as 2010.

If that happens, they say, they want to ensure that the mistakes of the last campaign won't be repeated.

Some have criticized that campaign for failing to reach out enough to black and Latino voters, a majority of whom backed the proposition, according to exit polls.

Others have said that the campaign failed to engage people enough -- including some gay activists now organizing protests.

The key, he said, is that the protesters not irritate or alienate the people they are trying to persuade by appearing too out of the mainstream or by tying up traffic for hours.

Many of those organizing the protests this week say they are voicing a sense of outrage and disappointment that California voters approved a measure that took away the right, granted by the California Supreme Court last spring, of same-sex couples to marry.

Living in urban areas such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, in environments that are relatively tolerant of gay people, some of those activists say they experience little discrimination in their daily lives because of their sexual orientation.

Last week, Proposition 8 passed by a narrow five percent margin.

It eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry-and it effectively overturned the May 2008 California Supreme Court decision which found the ban on same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.

First, that revoking an existing right guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution is not an amendment but a revision.

Second, that such a move is not a fundamental right that could be subject to popular vote; rather, it is a deliberative process requiring-at a minimum-a Constitutional Convention or a two-thirds vote of the California State Legislature in addition to a popular vote.

First, Proposition 8's passage basically mandates that certain people have fewer rights than others.

It says that certain brothers, sisters, daughters, aunts, uncles, mothers, and fathers are second-class citizens-that though they have all the responsibilities of citizens,they have fewer rights.

That is wrong.

We've been through this type of emotional issue before with the 1967 Loving vs. Virginia ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding interracial marriage.

We needed the court to protect a minority's rights.

Some do not consider gays to be a minority deserving of protection.

In contrast, our state Supreme Court, in its carefully worded opinion, said this is indeed a group worthy of protection.

Lopez's sarcasm reaches its pitch when he states, "I always envy those who know precisely what Jesus would do." But teaching God's will is precisely what pastors are called to do. For those who do not attend church at all, it seems to come as a surprise that an evangelical pastor's teachings are based on the Bible.

After reading Lopez's column, I believe what we need is a proposition on a future state ballot that would amend the California Constitution to not allow Christians to get married.