Wow... Prop 8 just got overturned.

[Rocksurfer]

So why can't gays deal with leaving marriage to a man and a women? Do you realize the true reason they want the words marriage and not civil union? It is all about the money, money that they would be entitled to in the bonds of marrage. I'm just fine with gays having a joint union that does not involve the advantages that are given to a man and a woman that can procreate which gives them the advantages of doing so. Personally I don't believe that people are predestined in our sexual orientation, it is a choice made consciously.

Yes California's courts are very liberal, but the U.S. Supreme Court is conservative and we will see what they say about our states choice to ban it just as other states had to give it the green light. Isn't it funny nobody has told states that voted and made it legal are being drug into court on the same stand? Kinda makes you think about what AZ. is going through too.

[Brandon]

Can't say for sure but I read they already have all the money rights. Once again many men and women can NOT have babies so your theory doesn't stand..

I don't really know what a civil union is though, maybe that is what I have? My marriage had no religious involvement, the person doing the talking worked for the city I am pretty sure.  Nah, I do have a marriage license..

[*FFC*]

Can't say for sure but I read they already have all the money rights. Once again many men and women can NOT have babies so your theory doesn't stand..

I don't really know what a civil union is though, maybe that is what I have? My marriage had no religious involvement, the person doing the talking worked for the city I am pretty sure.  Nah, I do have a marriage license..

Maybe the key to this whole deal is to change the title to a "civil union license" instead of marriage license. That'd make everyone happy lol. 

[Jan84HJ60]

The problem is that 30 years of voting in liberal politicians has led to the entire judicial system of California to be liberal.   Liberal Judges believe in legislating from the bench.  Get used to it. 

The judge is a conservative republican.

[Jan84HJ60]

... so the people can no longer decide what it is they believe is right and wrong?

They never could. We are not a democracy, remember?
If the will of the majority was law, women and blacks still would not vote, most national parks would not exist, the US would not have entered WW2, mixed marriages would still be banned...

[1972TLC]

So why can't gays deal with leaving marriage to a man and a women? Do you realize the true reason they want the words marriage and not civil union? It is all about the money, money that they would be entitled to in the bonds of marrage. I'm just fine with gays having a joint union that does not involve the advantages that are given to a man and a woman that can procreate which gives them the advantages of doing so. Personally I don't believe that people are predestined in our sexual orientation, it is a choice made consciously.

Yes California's courts are very liberal, but the U.S. Supreme Court is conservative and we will see what they say about our states choice to ban it just as other states had to give it the green light. Isn't it funny nobody has told states that voted and made it legal are being drug into court on the same stand? Kinda makes you think about what AZ. is going through too.

You've got to be kidding me. Your arguement is based on the idea of childbearing and financial benefits and sustainability. Two women who literally love each other to death and want for no one else in their life...they are not entitled to the financial benefits of a legal marriage document?...even if they adopt a child that was given to the adoption agency by a straight, unfit parent? Seriously? What does it matter if the two women did not physically create the child? They still have one and would need the finanacial spiffs that any other straight married couple with children would need. There IS no difference. None.

As someone else brought up already, how does a straight married couple that CHOOSE not to have children (my aunt and uncle for example) differ from two women or two men who physically cannot create a child between the two of them? Answer: It doesn't. Many straight married couples also cannot have children for various medical reasons. I say if straight married couples cannot or will not have children, then they do not deserve the financial boosts of a legal marriage document either...based off of your logic in arguement.

Just sayin

[blackdiamond]

Does god have a sex?

A "lower case" god can be just about anything, here's some definitions:

an image of a deity; an idol

any deified person or object

A discussion about God as a supreme being is way outside the scope of this discussion.

[kneedownnate]

x1000


i cant stand how people make everything about religion.

Exactly!  Religion and marriage have absolutely nothing to do with each other, but religious people have tried to make it seem as if they do, much like they do with so many things.  

I think the main point is the voters took the time to vote on something and one person decided the entire state was wrong.  THAT is wrong to me.  What's the point of allowing us to vote if our vote means nothing?

[Steve_925]

i guess since im not religious i should have a civil union and not a marriage

[Hammerhead]

I think the main point is the voters took the time to vote on something and one person decided the entire state was wrong.  THAT is wrong to me.  What's the point of allowing us to vote if our vote means nothing?

This is supposed to be America and Nate is dead right here.  So many politicians and judges have stepped out of their bounds.  Politicians are supposed to represent their constituants, not an agenda, and judges are supposed to uphold the Constitution, not change it...  PERIOD!!!

[will.the.thrill]

This is supposed to be America and Nate is dead right here.  So many politicians and judges have stepped out of their bounds.  Politicians are supposed to represent their constituants, not an agenda, and judges are supposed to uphold the Constitution, not change it...  PERIOD!!!

I still don't get why people are so vehemently opposed to two homos being married when the economy is in the ter and American jobs are being outsourced to children in China. It's fine to be intolerant of homosexuality (it's your right under the constitution!) but it's wrong to force that intolerance on EVERYONE living in CA, be them gay, straight, or a she-male.

@kneedownnate, 51% of voters in California supported Prop. 8, which is not the ENTIRE state, 100% of voters aren't even the ENTIRE state. About 13 million people voted on it (about 6.5 million for), out of a total of approximately 27 million people in CA that are over 18 (2009 census), which comes out to 24% of the state's population OLD ENOUGH TO VOTE felt Prop 8 should pass, the rest voted against it or didn't care enough to vote..  

And according to Judge Vaughn Walker, Prop 8 violates the constitution which means he did just as he was appointed to do, and upheld the constitution.

Just the facts, ma'am..

Here are my sources (EDIT: updated with more recent numbers):
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/california/

[monk #1164]

why did I even vote? It must not have counted. I guess the Mob doesn't rule...

[blackdiamond]

i guess since im not religious i should have a civil union and not a marriage

Marriage predates organized religion but its origin is documented in the Bible, at least in the Christian belief system.  I looked up marriage on dictionary.com and found the definitions intersting:

a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.

I guess one could go old school and say that any happy marriage is a gay marriage.

[kneedownnate]

Marriage predates organized religion but its origin is documented in the Bible, at least in the Christian belief system. 

You just proved exactly why the religion argument is flawed!  Remember, to those of us who aren't religious, the bible is little more than a book(books) written by people to share stories.  Things written in the bible only seem to hold relevance to those who're religious, and are by no means factual.  If historical records prove something to be fact, yet the bible has their own twist and claims them to be different and originated later, that doesn't mean the latter cancels out the former.  Reality is what it is, period.

[Rocksurfer]

Even before marraige became a religious institution can anyone give us an example of a man being allowed to marry another man or a woman married to a woman that pre-dates this?...... anyone?

I don't believe that it is a religious institution but I do believe that it is between a man and a woman, period. Also there may be individual companies that have entitled same sex couples to their benefits it is not reconized at the national level or even the states. The funny thing is Obama is just now discussing this very issue of giving same sex couples the benefits of a married couple.


Just because a man and a woman cannot procreate due to a medical issue is no reason they should be excluded from the tax benefits of marraige. Plus if a gay couple does adopt a child they do get the tax benefits of that deduction. What they don't get is being able to file taxes as a married couple, but can file as the head of the household.

[Stocker]

As much as I disagree with the practice, some men pair up with men and some women pair up with women. Apparently it's nothing new, but it's much more out in the open than it was in years past.

Sometimes I think the issue of homosexual marriage is not so much about their right to be married as it is about forcing society to recognize them and to accept their lifestyles.

[monk #1164]

if this is a democracy and millions vote a decision into law...how can 1 man overturn that ruling? thats not democracy thats dictatorship...

[ajordan1975]

Gay people should have the right to be just as miserable as straight married people.

[brainlessfool]

Gay people should have the right to be just as miserable as straight married people.

I am!

[blackdiamond]

You just proved exactly why the religion argument is flawed!  Remember, to those of us who aren't religious, the bible is little more than a book(books) written by people to share stories.  Things written in the bible only seem to hold relevance to those who're religious, and are by no means factual.  If historical records prove something to be fact, yet the bible has their own twist and claims them to be different and originated later, that doesn't mean the latter cancels out the former.  Reality is what it is, period.

I'm guessing you've never studied the amount of history that's been proven factual that's found in the Bible.  Different discussion, but there is a lot of things in the Bible that have been identified in digs and other things found where the only written documentation is in the Bible.

[kneedownnate]

Sometimes I think the issue of homosexual marriage is not so much about their right to be married as it is about forcing society to recognize them and to accept their lifestyles.

Exactly.  I see it as no more than when women push to get admitted into gentlemans clubs or mens gyms.  It's a matter of pushing their boundaries.  Not saying there's no merit to it, but as has been said, if they're allowed the same benefits and exemptions, it seems to be little more than that.

edit: nevermind the rest

[germ]

I think the real problem here is not the moral or religious issues, which as I read the above comments, I can see both sides of the argument. I certainly have my personal opinions based on my religious and moral beliefs, but that is not what really bothers me so much about this law being overturned.

The real issue as I see it is that the homosexual community is attempting to legitimize their personal beliefs/practices and force general acceptance of them on people who have no interest in their activities, and often abhor what they are doing. Many heterosexuals find the idea of engaging in homosexual activity unnatural and plain "wrong". Why should heterosexuals be forced from a legal standpoint to accept an idea they so adamantly disagree with? Why should heterosexuals be legislated into accepting a lifestyle they find wrong?

One could make the argument that we could legalize necrophilia (sex with dead bodies), on the same principal. It really doesn't hurt the corpse at all, and the only other person involved isn't being hurt by it...right? It would be equally abhorrent to those of us who prefer sexual activity with other living people to allow this to happen. Basically, because we as a general species understand that it is just plain wrong to engage in that behavior, although there are some who do.

I'm not going to engage in the argument of whether homosexuality is right or wrong, because that is a personal moral belief that we all must make for ourselves, and everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. The problem that I see is that once homosexuality is legitimized through the courts, then that opens the door for them to start preaching their ideas to our children in the schools, and have equal "airtime" in the discussion of human sexuality. They will want to start having ads in magazines, and TV shows demonstrating their beliefs without concern for who is seeing them. Wouldn't that be a violation of my rights? As I understand it, they already have essentially the same "benefits" as married couples do in terms of taxes, retirement and other issues. They seem to be going after the word "marriage", as it implies a legitimate and accepted institution, and they want to be a part of that.

I choose to not engage in certain behaviors because I find them wrong on whatever level. I also choose not to interact with those who engage in those activities, because it would irritate me. If the homosexual community were able to legitimize their beliefs/practices through legislation and the courts, then I am being forced to be exposed to their lifestyle. It's like the old saying goes, I don't care if someone is gay, just don't force it on me.

[Stocker]

Extremely well written! Your thoughts are much like mine, but you are so much better at putting them to words than I am.
Thank you!!  

[IronClad]

I don't care if someone is gay, just don't force it on me.

If only the same was practiced for religion. Pretty much a two way street there.

[blackdiamond]

It seems that any evolutionist that is pro-gay is a hypocrite as the entire point of evolution is procreation and advancing ones species.  I know why Christian's are, in general, against homosexual activities, but it sure seems that there is a strong case for it being unnatural from both religious and evolutionary perspectives.

[Toymin8r]

It seems that any evolutionist that is pro-gay is a hypocrite as the entire point of evolution is procreation and advancing ones species.  I know why Christian's are, in general, against homosexual activities, but it sure seems that there is a strong case for it being unnatural from both religious and evolutionary perspectives.

What about when aliens were creating different species of humans for this planet?  Did they slip up and create some gay ones?   

[abnormaltoy]

My take on the issue of gay marriage is...it's a States Rights issue. Marriage is a civil contract and the individual states have the right to control civil contracts.

The Feds do not have authority over hetero marriage, why do they presume authority over gay marriage?


Besides...gays can legally marry in all 57 states.

[abnormaltoy]

It seems that any evolutionist that is pro-gay is a hypocrite as the entire point of evolution is procreation and advancing ones species.  I know why Christian's are, in general, against homosexual activities, but it sure seems that there is a strong case for it being unnatural from both religious and evolutionary perspectives.

Good point.

[Toymin8r]

Besides...gays can legally marry in all 57 states.

[IronClad]

It seems that any evolutionist that is pro-gay is a hypocrite as the entire point of evolution is procreation and advancing ones species.  I know why Christian's are, in general, against homosexual activities, but it sure seems that there is a strong case for it being unnatural from both religious and evolutionary perspectives.

I believe in God and evolution.. Wheres your theory now?