As a professional, I think I do a decent job delivering online news in a way that is as balanced and fair as possible (pardon the cliche slogan), even if in my engagement with our viewers, I do take the side as the dissenter to provoke a little more thought and response. Lately, a topic has come up that made me realize I had to step out of my professional role and step into a role as an individual.

California has been the focal point of the gay marriage debate for the last decade or so. Proponents and opponents have poured hundreds of millions of dollars to promote their viewpoint and influence your opinion -- and in 2008, your vote. As it turns out, Proposition 8 may have violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, though whether or not that's the case is still open for debate and will likely be settled in appellate court.

Both sides have made pretty strong arguments -- is gay marriage an equal right? Was this country founded on religious doctrine, and would gay marriage violate that? What does the constitution say? Will same-sex relationships seep into the curriculum of primary education? Do gay couples make good parents? Proponents of gay marriage have somewhat valid arguments, and opponents of gay marriage have somewhat valid worries, when it comes to these questions.

But one question stands out as being perhaps one of the most ridiculous and, quite frankly, offending questions proposed by those who oppose gay marriage: Would same-sex marriage lead to marriage with animals? With inanimate objects? With children?

This question has been posed not only by our viewers, but by my colleagues at FOX40 News -- in interviews with prominent figures on both sides of the gay marriage debate, and in casual watercooler conversation off-camera.

As a gay individual, I can say the comparison to a pedophile who wants to marry a child or a zoophile (that's actually the term) who wants to marry an animal, is not only offensive, it's degrading and it's hurtful. I can tell you this viewpoint is felt not only by myself, but by some of my close friends and by some of my colleagues at work who happen to identify as a gay or lesbian individual.

It's hurtful to think that our viewers -- who I know come from various walks of life, various backgrounds and have various colorful opinions -- would compare me to a pedophile or a person who commits acts of bestiality It's hurtful to think some of my colleagues would do the same (a very small handful -- don't get me wrong, everyone I work with is wonderful and I appreciate and respect the diversity in opinions and views).

It's an unfair comparison that casts gay and lesbian individuals in the same light as those who have sex with animals and with children. Simply put, it makes us feel as if we are less than human beings.

It's been said that teenagers and young adults who identify as gay or lesbian individuals are eight times more likely to commit suicide or otherwise harm themselves. When I read some of the hurtful and damaging comments that come in to our station by e-mail, Facebook, text message -- and even people who are bold enough to make a phone call to our newsroom -- I can understand why that statistic is so high.

I hope that those who have differing opinions on gay marriage understand that gay and lesbian individuals are not zoo animals, nor are they pedophiles. They are human beings who happen to have opposing viewpoints on a debatable issue. I'm not saying gay marriage is right, and I'm not saying gay marriage is wrong. It's not for me to say, and it's not something I've quite decided in my own mind. What I am saying is this: Stop comparing me to an animal and stop comparing me to a pedophile. Stop thinking that a gay person marrying another gay person yields gives validity to the argument that a pedophile could marry a child, or a person could marry an animal.

It's degrading, it's disrespectful and it's damaging. I know our viewers, and my colleagues, are smarter than that.

--
Matthew Keys: matthew.keys@fox40.com • Read more: Judge removes stay on Prop 8 ruling

Despite being asked by several of his colleagues to resign from his position after being busted for cocaine and marijuana possession, Riverbank City Council member Jesse James White says he's staying in office.

White, who was arrested May 14th after violating his probation when drugs were found in his home, told the city council Monday evening he couldn't consider resigning, despite pressure from other city council members and Riverbank Mayor Virginia Maldonado to resign.

"I know if I resign you'll replace me with another tax-and-spend puppet," White said at the meeting.

The city council can't forcibly remove White under the law. It doesn't look as if White, who is described by his lawyer as a "good guy" and defends his position by saying "we want young guys in government," will be stepping down anytime soon.

This could create massive problems down the road for White -- it's clear that the city council doesn't want him, and even more clear that the head of town doesn't want him. With that being said, it's hard to imagine any agenda White has would garner support, whether it's meant to help or hurt the citizens of Riverbank.

If White thinks anyone will find him honorable for sticking to his guns -- after a lessened DUI charge and getting busted with drugs -- he's probably mistaken. Sometimes, you serve your constituents better by stepping down when you screw up.

But then again, judging from his Facebook profile, I'd probably choose a career with the Riverbank city council over going back to selling flat irons at Pro Beauty too.

Read more: California Councilman Could Have His Authority Reduced

One of the things that irritates me the most, as a journalist and now as a commentator, is when a piece of information or a thought-provoking question gets misconstrued sometime between the point of transmission and the point of reception.

Friday morning, I posed a question to our FOX40 News Facebook page (by the way, that's a great resource for invoking dialogue), asking our fans to explain to me why the majority of conservatives (I used the phrase "by and large") criticized the federal government for responding to the recent oil spill crisis off the coast of Louisiana, while objecting to many pieces of environmental legislation in the past.

Unless, of course, the environmental policy is part of a market-based solution. In 2000, the Republican Party officially endorsed the idea that the economy and the environment must mutually benefit each other, suggesting the way to energy independence and a cleaner environment was to offer incentives to companies who opt for alternative sources of energy and greener methods of conducting business.

In other words, the Republican Party's policy for a better environment is to purchase the conscience of major corporations -- trade one green for another.

But, in their defense, not all Republicans have a conscience that can be bought. Senator John McCain, for example, recognizes the threat of global warming and proactively supports research to determine the causes and solutions of global warming. McCain also supported legislation that would have created a cabinet for the Environmental Protection Agency and supported legislation that would see an end to commercial whaling and the illegal trade of whale meat.

I suppose every party has their version of Joe Lieberman.

In any regard, after 30 or so comments, my question went unanswered. Instead, what I thought might happen, did happen -- people grew angry, called me "ignorant" and "biased" and suggested that, as a conservative voter, they adopted green habits in their everyday lives.

Good, I say. But why take offense to a question? Any person who is offended by an idea or a question clearly has something rattling within their own conscience.

My question never suggested conservatives didn't care about the environment, only that the majority of conservatives criticize environmental legislation while at the same are now criticizing the federal government's failure to act immediately following a potential environmental disaster.

And I still don't have an answer to that question. Maybe I'm just asking the wrong people.

Read more: Who screwed up -- BP or the Feds?

I wish I could say things have changed since publishing a blog entry on my noisy neighbors. They haven't.

But I've since learned that I'm not the only one with an apartment or community living horror story.

Some of our viewers had a very lively discussion with me on our FOX40.com Facebook page. The common theme? Annoying neighbors, lousy fixtures and appliances, and inept management. Man, I know how that goes.

Here's what some of our FOX40.com Facebook page fans had to say about their experiences:

Martha P: "We have the worst downstairs neighbors in the history of crappy neighbors, the apartments are on their third manager in the year 1/2 we've been here and we have 6 more months on our lease. You've just made my day with this report!!! I'm looking into civil code 1492 as we speak! Sorry for your bad neighbors but thank you again!!"

Thanks Martha! Feels good to know the article had an impact. Best of luck to you and I hope you get the results you deserve.

Ticia W.: "My neighbors are insanely loud. And it's always in the middle of the night. They SLAM the gates closed, they talk amongst themselves in the middle of the night right up against the building; but when they talk it sounds like they're yelling."

I know exactly how you feel, Ticia. How are people able to talk that loud in the middle of the night without thinking that there might be someone in the complex sleeping? I just don't get it.

Melissa P.: "I think you are right in your feelings. You are giving (peace and quiet) as per the agreement. That should be the same for you to receive. I am a mother, my kids get loud. That's why I don't live in an apt. They need to make family apts, and non-family apts, or family apts w/ older (respectful) kids."

In some apartment communities, they separate those who are single without kids from those who have children or are couples. Unfortunately for me, I'd be in the mix with college kids who like to party. Seems like a no-win situation.

Tyka B.: "I didn't hear anything on the video that did not sound like normal everyday noise of living. Maybe it would be different if the noise was at night. Are other people not supposed to speak or flush their toilets?"

One of our photographers would agree with you, Tyka. He thinks I complain too much too. But when you sign a piece of paper saying you'll respect your neighbors and deliver peace and quiet in exchange for living space, don't you think they should live up to their promise?

Denecia F.: "We just moved from a complex that has a BED BUG INFESTATION! I've never had this problem until we moved there. I have scars all over my body because of these pests."

Wow, that's rough. At least I can say I've never had a bug problem with where I've lived. But if you think bedbugs are bad, try living with 700 cockroaches…

Read more: Sacramento woman lives with 700 cockroaches

Someone told me recently, "People rarely have nice things to say about their first apartment or home." Man, no kidding…

First, let it be known that I'm a guy who likes my quiet. I moved to the South Natomas area of Sacramento from Vacaville a little over nine months ago -- with the thought in mind that I was moving from a suburb to a metropolitan city. And with that thought came the understanding that metropolitan areas have some environmental noise that's unavoidable -- landscapers, garbage trucks, emergency vehicles and the occasional loud car stereo from some inconsiderate person.

Sure enough, when I moved, I experienced all of that and more -- loud car stereos nearly every night, a child living above me who enjoys stomping on the floor at 10pm and throwing what sounds like extremely heavy boccie balls onto the ground, college kids who yell and shout at midnight during the weekdays -- this definitely is not a place of serenity.

When I moved, I signed -- as part of my lease -- an understanding of the quiet ordinance within the community. No loud car stereos, no excessive noise, no audible parties. To quote from the lease:

"The conduct of Lessee and such others for whom Lessee is responsible shall not, in any manner, disturb the quiet enjoyment of other lessees, their children, invitees, or visitors, in or near where the Unit is located, including the pool area, recreation and other common areas."

You tell me -- does it seem like my neighbors adhere to the promise they signed in their leases?

You might be asking yourself, "why not complain to management, or call security?" I've done both. Yet nearly a month later (check the video for the date in an atomic clock on the wall), nothing has been done. And security has told me "there's not enough noise for us to do anything."

But there is something I can do -- I can terminate my lease, under California Civil Codes 1492 and 1941.1, which states that a tenant of an apartment community is entitled to peace and quiet free from the disturbances of other people. That process is already starting to take place, and I've already discovered a much nicer, much quieter apartment community (this time in North Natomas) that I look forward to moving to soon.

Throughout the process though, I started to question whether or not I was being extremely sensitive as to the noise that I hear on a daily basis. This is Sacramento, after all. It's a metropolitan community where total peace and quiet is probably unavoidable. But then a much larger part of me questions whether I should have to experience discomfort because of the excessive noise of two neighboring units.

In the end, I think my complaints are justified. I wish the apartment complex -- and the apartment's security -- held other tenants to the same promise signed in their lease regarding noise that I hold myself accountable to.

(By the way, for legal reasons and out of respect for the company I work for, I'm unable to publish the name of the complex that is driving me crazy, but if you look around the internet, you might just be able to find a review or two written about said complex -- in a completely balanced way -- published by yours truly, along with plenty of high-resolution photos)

Read more: What makes an apartment inhabitable under California law?

Shortly after Election Day in 2008, I received a phone call into our newsroom from a woman asking why we were carrying a speech by newly-elected President Barack Obama. She called to ask me why, as a FOX affiliate, we were carrying a speech by a liberal Democrat who -- somehow she was able to make this judgment within just a few short days -- would doom our country with radical idealism.

She sounded very educated to me. I don't remember what I said in response to her question, but I do remember how she ended the phone conversation: She told me she honestly felt within her heart that President Obama was the anti-Christ.

Woah. That's when I knew some of our viewers were a little off.

And some of them still are. Take, for example, the tea partiers, who seem to herald FOX News and local FOX affiliates -- whether they're owned by FOX's parent company News Corporation or not…we are not, by the way -- as the "voice of truth" in this country. It troubles me to think my colleagues and the station I work for are being aligned by reputation with citizens of our country who choose to protest against higher taxes by displaying signs such as this:

Good comparison. Hitler, after all, was a man who led the invasion of twenty-one European countries and ordered the building of six concentration camps in Poland where the systemic execution of nearly six million people of Jewish faith and three million Russian prisoners of war (including over one million children) took place.

Obama, on the other hand, helped pass health care reform and broke a few promises along the way.

It bothers me to think that the honor of nearly nine million people who were casualties of an evil regime is currently being desecrated by right-wing extremists who feel the need to compare our President to a mass murderer. The only reason they're doing it is for shock value. And if that's the only reason, anyone who holds a sign comparing our President to Adölf Hitler should be ashamed of themselves.

But we do live in America, where speech like that -- which, in my mind, is similar to that of the kind of demonstrations held by the Reverend Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church -- is fully protected under our Constitutional right to speak and express ourselves freely. With that in mind, I think Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts had the best retort when faced by someone calling our President a Nazi politician:

"You stand there with a picture of the President, defaced to look like Hitler, and compare the effort to increase health care to the Nazis, my answer to you is, as I said before, it is a tribute to the First Amendment that this kind of bio-contemptable nonsense is so freely propagated…I am gonna revert to my ethnic heritage and answer your question with a question: On what planet do you spend most of your time?"

Photo courtesy Anne-Lyne Bancalin, appears under a Creative Commons license