What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- manzplan, on 10/31/2008, -62/+417I love that sign.
Marriage is about love - that is ALL it is about
it existed BEFORE the Bible, and exists in cultures that dont "worship" the Bible, I am sick of the arguement that the Bible is against gay marriage.- mywhitenoise, on 10/31/2008, -14/+43There's a TON of Yes on 8 sign holders in front of the gas station near my house...why aren't they protesting more important things like war crimes, the war itself, GAS PRICES?
I want to make a sign that says "SAY NO TO INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE, VOTE YES ON PROP 8", or a picture of a black male stick figure holding a white female stick figure with a red anti circle around it and a tag line that says "Save Marriage!" to show their ignorant ways.- Nightzet467, on 10/31/2008, -6/+45unfortunately the same idiots voting yes on prop 8 will confuse that with you being racist, simpletons that they are
- darkcthulhu, on 11/01/2008, -1/+4They would just cheer you on and consider you one of their own.
- moor6998, on 11/01/2008, -5/+1Marriage is not about love! The only reason same sex marriage is being persued through legal venue is monitary. Why would someone need to state to validate their love? Please explain that.
BTW - Excellent comparison between sex and race. Yes they are exactly the same! X and Y chromosomes are meaningless. Those idiot redneck conservatives wouldn't know the difference. They would cheer for my racist sign! (SARCASM) - fredkreuger, on 11/01/2008, -1/+4@moor6998
You're missing his point. They say that they want to restore "Traditional" marriage. Well, traditionally, marrriage was only between a white man and woman. So, if they really wanted to restore "Traditional" marriage, that's what they should be supporting. - vproman, on 11/02/2008, -0/+2@moor6998 Are you saying that the genes that determine race are meaningless?
Anyways, the gay marriage/interracial marriage comparison is valid, because the argument of those that support the "one man, one woman" definition of marriage is that it is not discrimination, because everyone has the equal right to marry any person of the opposite sex they choose. By that same logic, banning interracial marriage would not be discrimination, because everyone has the equal right to marry any person of the same race? - adrunasinger, on 11/05/2008, -0/+1There are so many voices trying to articulate the problem with government telling
the People who they should or should not love and marry. I think the sign in the article is
important but clearly this issue needs to be communicated in such a way that
those who are afraid of what is different can understand that their fear need not
define their behavior. Bigotry is failing in the USA and we should celebrate that.
In this case there is still a ways to go. Keep speaking and listening for the
opportunities to establish common understanding.
Love will prevail- the desire to understand and appreciate our differences and
to shield our brothers and sisters from fear based and destructive attempts
to control the romance and creative realities of Human Love.
At the core here are psychological issues about sex. Some people barely
understand their own behavior let alone their neighbors. There is a lot of
fear and confusion here. Dialog will expose and more effectively address
these fears in ways that can be understood.
- Bartboy919, on 10/31/2008, -4/+18And another for your religious retards, in your own view, wouldn't you agree that God doesn't discriminate?
- Claverhouse, on 11/01/2008, -34/+5I dunno; I have absolutely no knowledge as to what He Wants, or what He Thinks good or bad. Looking at nature I'd guess that maybe He does Discriminate.
As for you atheist retards, why would it matter whether other people discriminate or not ? After all, a/ they have exactly as much right as you to have their own opinion; and b/ if there's no God or afterlife, there's no absolute code of ethics by which they are bound to live, let alone agree upon with some other temporary resident of life such as yourself. - newms32, on 11/01/2008, -5/+25^^
Because we live in a democracy, and when other people discriminate, policies are enacted that violate equality and human rights. Is that really so hard to figure out?
Sure, you have the right to be a bigot. That doesn't mean that being a bigot is right. - PabloMac, on 11/01/2008, -27/+6Despite your disrespectful name-calling and ignorance of the nature of God, I will reply respectfully and inform you that God does indeed discriminate between righteous and sinful behavior.
- ticketmack, on 11/01/2008, -23/+9Religious retard, here.
Of course God discriminates. Read the bible, it's all over the place. These guys get to be priests, these guys don't. These guys are promised Jerusalem, these guys aren't. These guys get to carry/look upon the ark of the covenant, these guys die if they try. And that's just the Old Testament!
Then you got everything Jesus taught, and who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell. It's all discrimination by the simplest definition.
If you believe in God, which religious retards like myself do, you have to accept that God has rules that you have to follow. If you don't follow them, He will discriminate against you. - millerftw, on 11/01/2008, -5/+26That's fine but can the people without imaginary friends be free of laws based on your morality.
- nowhereelse, on 11/01/2008, -3/+16Makes you wonder whether the discrimination came from God or the guys who decided which books should go in the Bible.
- humperdeath, on 11/01/2008, -16/+6Marriage is a religious ceremony anyway, and it has a specific meaning. 2 men cannot be married to each other no matter what the law states. We have specific law to separate church and state, so I suppose if prop 8 passes, it will not stand up, for this reason at least.
- ngmcs8203, on 11/01/2008, -2/+22humperdeath, so since I didn't get married in a religious setting and without any mention of "God" my marriage is not valid? My wife and I have a piece of paper that says it is a valid marriage, so why should my best friend and his partner not have the same right to get married without religion?
- ursername180, on 11/01/2008, -3/+8@Claverhouse
We don't need a bible to tell us what's right and what's wrong. It amazes me that you seem to think that Atheists have no soul and no moral values! I'm not going to wake up and kill someone just because god doesn't exist. *****. - Ishiguro, on 11/01/2008, -4/+4@ursername180
uh, atheists do believe they have no soul.
And in a non-angry non-sarcastic meaningful way, I ask, Why do we have a sense of right and wrong from an atheists point of view? - Doggalina, on 11/01/2008, -2/+5@Claverhouse
"As for you atheist retards, why would it matter whether other people discriminate or not ? After all, a/ they have exactly as much right as you to have their own opinion; and b/ if there's no God or afterlife, there's no absolute code of ethics by which they are bound to live, let alone agree upon with some other temporary resident of life such as yourself."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism - senatorpjt, on 11/01/2008, -1/+6So, the Bible is the source of moral authority? I guess that means I'm allowed to take Mexican slaves (Leviticus 25:44-46) and beat them as long as they survive for two days after the beating (Exodus 21:20-21). Also, I can rape my female slaves as long as they're not engaged. If they are engaged, I need to sacrifice a goat to the church. (Leviticus 19:20-22).
Of course, I can't rape my male slaves, because that would be wrong.
The US laws against slavery and rape are infringing on my right to practice Christianity, and are therefore unconstitutional, right? - JoJoDilio, on 11/01/2008, -1/+61. God absolutely discriminates. Read the Old testament.
2. @senatorpjt, I get that you're making a point, but if you wanted to use the Bible as a morality guide, you'd be better off reading passages in the new testament, specifically parts where Jesus is speaking.
3. Marriage is not always about love, and it's important that we all understand that. There are arranged marriages, and people who get married to work the system, shotgun weddings, etc. It's important that we understand that people get married for different reasons so that nobody starts telling us that there are requirements to get married. - Claverhouse, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1@newms32 'Because we live in a democracy, and when other people discriminate, policies are enacted that violate equality and human rights. Is that really so hard to figure out?'
This is indeed joyous on an article which specifically states that majority opinion viz: democracy, is explicitly to be disregarded in the interests of morality: "This issue is not one of 'majority' decision and should not lie in the hands of the voters."
But secondly, I really could not give a flying ***** about democracy, any more than about either morality, yours or the christians. It is an evil, vile system. Thirdly, where do human 'rights' come from in an atheist worldview ? Are they, kind-of... inherent ? Mandated by nature ? Forced by Science ? Granted from on high by the Atheist International ?
@ursername180 'It amazes me that you seem to think that Atheists have no soul and no moral values! I'm not going to wake up and kill someone just because god doesn't exist. *****.'
My point, dear heart, is that as an Atheist you CAN ! The truth shall set you free. Any morality is of your own making, and you are not bound, as are religious people, by another ethical code. You probably don't want to commit undetected murders, and that is nice; but since there is no penalty after life for anything you did or didn't do, it doesn't matter at all; and your private morality, like you, will vanish into nothingness. Total Non-Being.
The reason I despise modern atheists is that unlike, say Nietzsche or Heidegger, they are unable to face up to their freedom to act in any way they desire, and instead conform to little bogus secular moral systems constructed by society, or more accurately, the temporary ruling classes of society. And, at the same time, insist upon their moral systems being imposed on everyone else just as do the religious they condemn for the same thing.
- Claverhouse, on 11/01/2008, -34/+5I dunno; I have absolutely no knowledge as to what He Wants, or what He Thinks good or bad. Looking at nature I'd guess that maybe He does Discriminate.
- lolobama, on 11/01/2008, -43/+5I'm asexual and I love only myself. That's why I want to marry myself. It's hateful and unconstitotional not to give me that right, if marriage is only about love.
- DontGiveADamn, on 11/01/2008, -1/+22You already have that right. Now go consummate the marriage and please don't tell us the details.
- photonics, on 11/01/2008, -1/+19okay, you and yourself can now benefit from merging your one income with itself. congrats...now enjoy all the other legal privileges like being able to have power of attorney over yourself.
- newms32, on 11/01/2008, -1/+11TOUCHE
Just kidding. Work on your debate skills - you can start by looking up the term "strawman." - humperdeath, on 11/01/2008, -1/+13Just divorce yourself too, and take yourself for all your money. At least one of you will be happy.
- Ajajadude, on 11/01/2008, -4/+36I drive by the "Yes on 8" people all the time (while avoiding the urge to give them the finger) and have to laugh at some of the signs they hold, primarily the one about religious freedom. If they think Prop 8 keeps the integrity of religious freedom intact, they're a little too ignorant of the fact that there are religions out there that support gay marriage. How is it religious freedom when their religion gets to dictate terms to other religions?
- Munkym, on 11/01/2008, -11/+16Just an honest question about the ramifications of 8 passing or not passing...
If a gay couple wants to get married by a particular pastor of a church, and the pastor/church refuses service to them, doesn't the gay couple has the right to sue them for discrimination? While its true that churches, like other private entities, have the right to refuse service to anyone, can't a food place get sued for refusing service to minorities for the sole reason that they are minority members, for example? Is there a difference between these two cases? After all, a minority member could go to another store, just like a gay couple could go to another church, but that doesn't negate the right for either of them to sue, does it? (under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stating its illegal to be discriminated against on account of race, color, creed, or nation of origin) - Munkym, on 11/01/2008, -8/+8Dugg down for asking a question? How about someone answers it?
- CCB0x45, on 11/01/2008, -3/+18Munkym, no they cant sue them, and its a dumb question because what if a jewish person wants a catholic to marry them, they reserve the right to not do it and they cant sue for discrimination, its not like anything has changed.
- 47f0, on 11/01/2008, -0/+24Churches enjoy unique immunity from constitutional standards. While technically, and this has nothing to do with Prop8, in this country you can sue almost any entity for almost anything, religious beliefs are considered in court, even to the extent of chronic child abuse. And, to be successful in a suit, actual damages must be demonstrable.
No person can demonstrate that they were damaged if some church chooses not to marry them as long as there is some other path to marriage.
In other words - the idea that teh gays are passing laws that will force the Pope to allow gay marriage in church are more Christian lies. Not gonna happen - and no one is asking for it to happen. - mattsx, on 11/01/2008, -16/+4@47f0
Thanks for your support for Prop 8. Your assertion that "no person can demonstrate that they were damaged is some church chooses not to marry them" also extends to the government. Can damage be proven? No, because gays already (and will continue to) enjoy all of the financial and legal benefits of a hetero couple. - 47f0, on 11/01/2008, -3/+21mattsx - "gays already (and will continue to) enjoy all of the financial and legal benefits of a hetero couple."
One, you fail at reading comprehension. Two, you utterly fail at American Civics 101.
The gay couple up the street does not have the same rights my wife and I have. They do not have the same protections, the same tax base, or the same consideration of employee benefits.
More disgusting Christians bearing more disgusting lies - which is apparently not a sin to a Christian if they're dealing with non-Christians. I don't think you're stupid - but I do think you are a hypocritical liar. - Ishiguro, on 11/01/2008, -1/+3@Munkym,
No because at least under federal law there is no protection for sexual preference. Some states have added it, but not at the federal level. I'm under the belief that government should stay out of marriage, and just about everything else. - kosan, on 11/01/2008, -0/+2@Munkym
To answer your question yes it can and has happened.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...
A gay couple wanted to get married in a pavilion owned by a Methodist church but the church said they can get married on the boardwalk or someplace other than the church property so the couple has sued. The church lost the first round and has appealed.
So it appears that currently the precedent being set is that if Prop 8 doesn't pass then anyone with a marriage license is open to lawsuit if they refuse service. Whether or not you think that's good is up to you.
- Munkym, on 11/01/2008, -11/+16Just an honest question about the ramifications of 8 passing or not passing...
- issachar, on 11/01/2008, -2/+25Marriage has existed throughout all cultures, but the idea that it's exclusively or even primarily about love is pretty particular to our culture.
- mem2, on 11/01/2008, -5/+4Id be interested to see references to any other cultures that promoted same sex marriages. As far as I am aware its a new idea.
- TheInfamousOne, on 11/01/2008, -2/+3mem2
There have been gay's for centuries. Even in the bible there are gays. Most wouldn't publicize it because it would result in their death.
- mattsx, on 11/01/2008, -26/+11Marriage isn't about love. Love is fleeting. Love is irrational. Not that it's bad, it's just that love itself doesn't always last. Marriage is meant to tie a bond - to be a commitment, 'til death do you part. Not just because of love, but because of the rearing of children. Children need a stable environment and marriage, ideally, provides some sort of stability. Whereas it takes a male and female to procreate, marriage is ideal. Of course that idea has been thrown out the window in our culture.
The fact stands that homosexual marriage has nothing to do with family and everything to do with the individual.
Despite my "conservative" views on this topic, I'm not a ditto-head or a blind republican. In fact, I voted for a third party. So call me a bigot and digg me down. Just remember, tolerance goes both ways.- Galaxylander, on 11/01/2008, -6/+26The gay men wouldn't be procreating married or not- and a lot of married people don't have kids- kids do NOT need a stable life style my dad died when I was 4 years old, I live with a single mom who's had cancer twice and now has kidney disease, my sister was kicked out at 14 because she was drinking and needed to be put out in the real world and both of us turned out fine and are responsible people- having an unstable life where not everything is given to you is probably the best thing that could happen because you need to learn how to deal with things.
Marriage is not about the family and never has been about the family, the definition of family has never been wife, husband and kids until people started taking the Bible for the truth, marriage was a way to support income and bind people together for taxes, it had nothing to do with the family.
The biased and twisted version of the 'family' that we have now was taken from the bible. Either gay men and women should get the right to marry and have the same rights that straight couples do or the married straight couples shouldn't have any more rights than the gay people do. I'm gay and if my boyfriend winds up in the hospital I want to be able to have visitation rights because he's my partner and I love him, and we're in a relationship- I should be considered a legal spouse/relative- imagine having to watch your wife die through the windows and never being able to touch her hand again...
Bet that makes you feel good, eh? - phunlee, on 11/01/2008, -3/+20Gay people can and actually DO keep happy, healthy families. They have even raised happy 'normal' heterosexual children. There is adoption and egg donors and probably some options I haven't heard about. It happens.
It's not that your views are "conservative" it's that every argument falls apart in crumbs. Mainly b/c even homosexuals are not all the exact same person cloned under one label. Sure, some are bad, but that can be said about every group labeled by our culture. Let's not start removing rights from people. That would be just another reason to keep our founding fathers perpetually rolling over.
Also, sometimes loves lasts throughout the entire marriage. That happens, too. - Galaxylander, on 11/01/2008, -5/+14Just another thing, don't mention 'Homosexual Unions.' That's like saying you can have this lollipop but you can't have *that* lollipop because you don't deserve the right to have that lollipop because of who you are. Religion didn't create marriage in the first place, so why do so many dumbasses think that?
- ticketmack, on 11/01/2008, -17/+5Dugg up.
You, sir, have it exactly right. I challenge anyone to find research that proves mattsx wrong. - mattsx, on 11/01/2008, -16/+4FYI. I didn't bring up God, Religion, or the Bible in my arguments. Those who oppose what I said did. Many people against prop 8 argue that the pro-prop 8 people can't make a logical argument without invoking religion. But when it's done, all of the sudden the argument is "Religion brought this upon us, yadda yadda."
I don't have anything against gay rights. All of those rights that were mentioned are already included in the statutes of CA law, and prop 8 doesn't abridge them. Again: Prop 8 will not remove rights from gay couples. They already enjoy the same governmental rights as hetero couples. Prop 8 will not change that. - mattsx, on 11/01/2008, -13/+6@ Galaxylander:
Are you promoting unattached reproduction? Are you saying that parents are irrelevant in the rearing of children? Are you saying that if you were raised in a more "traditional" family setting, you'd have turned out to be less of a person than you are now?
Families can be the greatest support system a person enjoys in their life. The goal of marriage is, in fact to create a new family unit. When children come into play, they are born a part of that "family." The role of parents is so important that the courts carefully deliberate before deciding how custody cases should be settled. Shared custody is often granted when both parents seem fit. Why do you think this is the common practice? How can you argue with any credibility that marriage has *nothing* to do with families?
Throughout history, the family has been the most basic unit in society. Birth and death records from the early centuries prove it, ancient writings illustrate it, the passing of kingdoms and birthrights and even NAMES proves it.
Please argue, once more for our entertainment, that marriage and family are mutually exclusive. - mattsx, on 11/01/2008, -15/+4@ ruddy:
The non-passage of Prop 8 will open the doors to eventually abridge the rights of churches and other belief-organizations to define marriage for themselves. Thanks for your support. - kineticarl, on 11/01/2008, -2/+8mattsx, I disagree. I am very close to 3 gay committed couples, and all three are dedicated to family. Two couples are working on having biological children and adopting, while one couple already has three kids and live an otherwise typical suburban life.
Marriage and family can very much be mutually exclusive. In the past decades, the phenomenon of cohabitation has risen as what could be an alternative to marriage. People are in committed relationships and having kids, and skipping the marriage step altogether. But still, obviously, some people want that stamp, especially those who are forbidden from it (the grass is greener...)
I will agree with you that two parents in a house lead to a much better environment for children. There's lots of research that shows that. Look at Galaxylander's example above. A single parent household isn't exactly ideal, even if he did "turn out okay". However research also shows that the sex of the parents doesn't matter much, just that two is better than one.
And on the history of marriage, it's always been an evolving phenomenon. It used not to be about love (however fleeting) like it is today, by and large. It was a partnership, but one that served a far more public purpose than just raising kids (caring for the elderly/sick, producing goods, farming, etc.). The marriage was more a business partnership than anything else, and kids were often produced for cheap labor.
So if marriage makes the simple step of including same-sex couples, it will only be one of many steps of the evolution of the institution throughout history. I fail to see why it's a big deal.
Signed, a straight married guy. - rotundo, on 11/01/2008, -1/+5So should we outlaw all marriages without children? Sounds good and fair to me.
- kufu91, on 11/01/2008, -1/+5@mattsx
"The non-passage of Prop 8 will open the doors to eventually abridge the rights of churches and other belief-organizations to define marriage for other unrelated people. Thanks for your support."
fixed that for you - FelixDeluxe, on 11/01/2008, -1/+2And I suppose you have some evidence of the success of these "nuclear families" you seem to be promoting?
Cos I know plenty of them that are really ***** environments for kids to live in. - EricAnderton, on 11/01/2008, -1/+3While I disagree with you, I am also a tolerant and "seeing" member of our society. I applaud your taking the time to not fan the flames while offering a counterpoint.
However, I fail to see how you can draw a straight line between the biological ability to procreate, and the ability to care for children and provide a stable environment. I don't see the relevance of a person's gender, or even their sexual preferences, have on a child's development in the same home. Children need love, affection, physical contact, guidance, protection, food, clothing, shelter - exactly what does that have to do with whether or not the parent providing all that likes to kiss boys or girls?
I'll also solicit, for your consideration, that every step our culture makes to be *inclusive* to homosexual behavior, the less likely they are to force themselves into heterosexual relationships that are doomed to failure. This translates to less divorce, less heartbreak, and an overall increase in the general well-being of society.
- Galaxylander, on 11/01/2008, -6/+26The gay men wouldn't be procreating married or not- and a lot of married people don't have kids- kids do NOT need a stable life style my dad died when I was 4 years old, I live with a single mom who's had cancer twice and now has kidney disease, my sister was kicked out at 14 because she was drinking and needed to be put out in the real world and both of us turned out fine and are responsible people- having an unstable life where not everything is given to you is probably the best thing that could happen because you need to learn how to deal with things.
- sinder311, on 11/01/2008, -31/+6Marriage is about the joining of a man and a woman as husband and wife. That is the first part. Then there is the production of children and the love that comes from working together to raise those children and be a productive family contributing to the community in which they live. Those are the important parts of marriage. The notion of romantic love on which our society currently bases the decision to marry is somewhat arbitrary and not essential to the basic requirements of marriage (although it is something that most of us look for).
To say that marriage is just about love and nothing more is a redefinition of marriage.- ENFP, on 11/01/2008, -2/+10Then why do our laws allow heterosexuals to marry for love alone?
- ngmcs8203, on 11/01/2008, -3/+11To expand on ENFP's point, so my neighbor who got married to her husband without any intention to procreate should not have been allowed to be married?
- sinder311, on 11/01/2008, -10/+5Our laws allow heterosexuals to marry for an arbitrary reason. They don't dictate why we should marry. They can however dictate what marriage is as defined by God. Just like they dictate many other inalienable rights as defined by God.
- Zanarkand, on 11/01/2008, -1/+9"They can however dictate what marriage is as defined by God. Just like they dictate many other inalienable rights as defined by God."
sinder311, this is exactly why when the US was founded we separated church from state. Once you mix politics and faith you get nasty results. - jakem1, on 11/01/2008, -1/+7@sinder311: Marriage has nothing to do with your god. It is purely a civil arrangement between two people and has been that way for the last couple of hundred years in the west. Churches are licensed to conduct marriages by the state but as you know you don't have to go to a church or be married by a priest.
People have many different ideas about what it means to be married and there's not much point in one group imposing their ideas on others. At the end of the day, the only aspect of marriage that matters in a practical sense is the legal rights and protections that it offers those involved regarding inheritance, property rights, etc. . If gay people are denied these rights and protections because they don't have the right to marry then there's something wrong with the law.
- edblaze, on 11/01/2008, -22/+4Yes and so has infaticide. Should we keep that too.
See one problem with allowing anyone to marry is that people are going to minipulate the system. Friends will be marrying friends and tax credits will be handed out like crazy.
Take this however you want, i hope it does offend all you digg weeners... I don't want my children growing up in a world where two men get married and it's common to see them sticking their tongues in eachothers mouths in public. (same for women)- Daodos, on 11/01/2008, -2/+7So people are going to fake being gay? Because don;t you have to consumate the marriage for it to be official? Don;t think thats gonna happen. But you are very ignorant to state its gonna be abused. I don;t see why it would be abused more then now. And I bet the Divorce rate would be a lot less because of the amount of comital relationships that will come from this.
- flip2trip, on 11/01/2008, -5/+1"And I bet the Divorce rate would be a lot less because of the amount of comital relationships that will come from this."
Nope, wrong:
The IMAPP report surveys the results of a study published by Gunnar Andersson, earlier this year entitled "Divorce-Risk Patterns In Same-Sex 'Marriages' In Norway And Sweden."
The IMAPP report notes that in Sweden, between 1995 and 2002, there were 1,526 gay partnerships contracted, compared to 280,000 for heterosexual couples. Five out of 1,000 new couples in Sweden are same-sex. Sixty-two percent of those are male same-sex unions.
The survey revealed a high rate of legal divorce among homosexual couples in Sweden. Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.
According to IMAPP: "Even among childless households, same-sex male partnerships experienced almost a 50% higher likelihood (1.49 times as likely) of divorce during the study period, while childless lesbian couples were three times as likely (200% higher likelihood) to break up as a married couple without children."
- robthom, on 11/01/2008, -3/+1And so spoke manzplan.
Wouldn't man+manzplan be more accurate? - Larsonal777, on 11/01/2008, -15/+3Wow... wow... the fact that your comment can be so retarded and people digg you up amazes me... oh wait no it doesn't...
Lets just ask all the people who had their marriages arranged throughout history. Hmmm... yeap... I totally see where love has been the first and only thing relating to the institution of marriage. Where in history does it have anything about GAY marriage? Nowhere... there's plenty of homosexuality... but thats always been one of those pleasurable because its forbidden things. What culture has said marriage is based on just the love between two individuals? None... they are always about what's best for the families... and about procreation.
"Marriage" is something that is NOT homosexual in nature and can never be. That doesn't mean the government should stop people from having civil unions.- kayala, on 11/01/2008, -3/+8Larsonal, I truly believe that you are a mentally retarded person. Did you honestly just say that marriages are not about love, and endorse arranged marriage?
- Larsonal777, on 11/01/2008, -5/+2No... I didn't... but hey it was just halloween so I can see where you got all that straw.
"Marriage is about love - that is ALL it is about
it existed BEFORE the Bible, and exists in cultures that dont "worship" the Bible, I am sick of the arguement that the Bible is against gay marriage."
first off people don't "worship" the bible... and if they do... they are most likely avoided by the rest of the christian world.
second YES of COURSE marriage existed before the bible! The second half of it wasn't written until after Jesus died. But to use that as an arguement that marriage is about just love and because gays love eachother they can marry eachother is completely unlogical. I love my siblings a lot... doesn't mean I'm married to them... I love my parents a lot doesn't mean I'm married to them... I love my friends a lot doesn't mean I'm married to them. Marriage is love in a different form... its not dressing up and walking down the aisle... its not the rings you wear... its not the big reception after... you aren't married until you try and procreate.
Marriage throughout history... ALL history yes even the history without the bible... has been about this... procreation. It was so important that people were arranged to get married. Many times you weren't allowed to get married if you couldn't prove that you had the means to take care of your wife AND your new family.
Marriage is all about Love and you shouldn't get married with out Love... but to say gays can be "married" is only a half truth... because they only have half the equipment... no matter how much they Love eachother. And using history to try and say gays should get "married"? Not a good idea... sure there may have been gays who loved eachother through out the ages... but nowhere in history do they ever refer to gay "marriages"
What is the difference between marriage and civil unions?procreation - ENFP, on 11/01/2008, -2/+5So then heterosexuals who don't intend to have children (or can't) should only be allowed civil unions?
- Larsonal777, on 11/01/2008, -3/+1Its my personal belief that we all have something to give society... either through single life and being active in the community or through the married life and raising kids... the thing is not all married couples are able to have kids... that doesn't stop them from adopting... that doesn't stop them from being active in the youth community. In short... its my belief heterosexuals who don't intend on ever having children shouldn't be allowed to get married... heterosexuals who do want kids should... so that leaves us with an imperfect system with no way to prove intent. This is NOT a good arguement to allow people who are obviously NOT intending on having kids to get "married".
Yes a lot of Americans today get married for the wrong reasons... they try and take advantage of the system. I only need to point at the divorce rate in this country to prove my point.
- randyzaia, on 11/01/2008, -21/+4I view homosexuality the way that it has been viewed by most people in this and other cultures for ages, which is that it's an odd sexual proclivity, similar to S&M or what have you, the details of which are better left out of public discourse. That said, it doesn't mean gay people deserve any less respect than anyone else.
By all means allow civil unions between gay people, just don't tell me I'm a "bigot" because I don't want my first grader hearing about "gay marriage" in school.- robthom, on 11/01/2008, -7/+3Well put.
You would think any averagely intelligent person who isn't a far left or far right zealot would feel the same way. - RCourtney, on 11/01/2008, -0/+8I wish someone would get a prop on the ballot to just replace the word "Marriage" in each and every legal document in the state of California with the word "union" instead. That way the laws are fair and the faithful can keep their sacred word. There needs to be a distinct separation of church and state in this matter. Why do the religious get to usurp the law and claim superiority and above-equal-rights simply because of the word used in the laws?
- gianpo, on 11/01/2008, -3/+9To bad your argument falls apart right away considering its against the law to make a teacher teach about marriage straight or gay. Thats just another lie the bigots use to excuse there hate
- randyzaia, on 11/01/2008, -9/+3"To bad your argument falls apart right away considering its against the law to make a teacher teach about marriage straight or gay."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 ... - Yuusharo, on 11/01/2008, -2/+7There's no law in California that teaches kids about marriage. Zero. And as a parent, even if there were such a class, you have every right to pull your child from that class.
This isn't about schools or kids. Its about eliminating rights to millions of Californians and citizens across the US. If you have a problem with what the school is teaching your kid, bring it to the attention of the PTA. - randyzaia, on 11/01/2008, -7/+3"And as a parent, even if there were such a class, you have every right to pull your child from that class."
In fact, in states with gay marriage there's no parental notification rights regarding education about gay marriage, so you wouldn't even know about it until your child came home with "My Two Mommies".
- robthom, on 11/01/2008, -7/+3Well put.
- masamunecyrus, on 11/01/2008, -6/+3There are two ways to approach this problem:
One way is to allow gays to get married. This, while controversial, is acceptable for many people.
The other way is the way they keep trying to do it, making it law that gays can be married. By this I mean, even if gay marriage goes against church doctrine, the church will be forced to marry the gay couple under anti-discrimination laws. This is NOT the way to do it. If you're gay and want to get married, that's fine, but it's your own problem of nobody but a courthouse is going to marry you; churches should never have to marry people against their beliefs because the government decides that their beliefs are wrong.- darkcthulhu, on 11/01/2008, -1/+3I think you are missing the point.
- blix797, on 11/01/2008, -0/+2Priests can still refuse to wed gay couples, nimrod. They just get married elsewhere.
- weech, on 11/01/2008, -3/+7i support gay marriage if both girls are hot
- stix213, on 11/01/2008, -10/+3Since when has marriage been about love? Only recently have arranged marriages gone out of style for most of the world- were those about love? No, of course you are just ignorant of history, etc.
Marriage has always been about building a stable family structure to provide for the next generation. Love is not required for this and has never been what it is about.
Obviously there is a problem with providing for the next generation when you can't produce the next generation. Learn a little history before you just start mouthing all your feel good BS.
Do you really think even if prop 8 passes that that will have any affect on the love between two gay people? If its all about love, then wanting to have marriage when civil unions are basically the same this is pretty meaningless.- macweirdo42, on 11/01/2008, -1/+10So, according to you then, not only are gay marriages invalid, but all of the heterosexual, childless marriages out there are also invalid. I think we should codify that into law - you have to sign a written statement saying you intend to produce children with your marriage or it doesn't count.
- Larsonal777, on 11/01/2008, -2/+2macweirdo... most of the benifits the government tries to give to married couples is so they will and can procreate... there's no perfect system and many people will get married and find out they can't have kids... just because you can't prevent this doesn't mean you can't stop people who it is blatantly obvious can't procreate.
Second of all... the reason people are having a ***** fit is because "marriage" is not just about the love between two people... its about procreation as well (its both). Its about how strong a bond between two people who do procreate can become. Many people of many different beliefs and cultures hold the term "marriage" to this sacred standard.
So why, would gays go after THIS term when they could have a civil union? Is there an answer a good answer? Don't say its descrimination... it doesn't matter how much i want to be pregnate (i don't by the way) i will never be able to give birth... because i don't have the equipment.
- VanHuizen, on 11/01/2008, -1/+7The bible doesn't say anything on gay marriages itself but there are documented sources taking homosexual unions back to ancient Egypt. I think we need to review marriage itself by definition rather than twist it just to make others happy. That's the issue here.
- pitdog, on 11/01/2008, -12/+2So incest is also ok (two adults, no offspring), lets be really tolerant, not just tolerant for what's actually being promoted.
- kayala, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1Um, what?
We shouldn't care about incest. It's nobody's business. If the relationship is coerced, then there is a problem. If it is consensual, then we have no right to tell them they can't.
- kayala, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1Um, what?
- macweirdo42, on 11/01/2008, -1/+17It's funny - religious people bitch and moan about us atheists and the fact that we never shut up - and yet they turn around and try to force us to accept their definition of marriage. Listen, religious people, shut the ***** up and leave us alone, and maybe we'll consider easing up on the whole getting-in-your-face-about-atheism business. Seriously, I'd shut up tomorrow if I got some guarantee that religious people would leave me the ***** alone and quit trying to pass religion-based laws.
And to anyone saying marriage is a religious institution - if that is the case, then the state has no right to hand out marriage certificates, gay or straight. If we're going to accept the concept of state-recognized marriage, then we have to also accept a non-religious definition of marriage.- TheDigFest, on 11/06/2008, -0/+0Establishmentarianism. The belief Church and State should be one entity and governing body.
Disestablishmentarianism, "Wishing to split the state and church's togetherness *Which I believe we are all tryijng to get here, Stop mandating that a CHURCH tells the state how to act.
And, the world's biggest word, just for you Christians trying to stop us from splitting the Curch and State hiearchy
ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM
How's it feel to chew on that you bastards. Leave us alone and let us have the church stay over there.....and the State over here.
- TheDigFest, on 11/06/2008, -0/+0Establishmentarianism. The belief Church and State should be one entity and governing body.
- ImamNathan, on 11/01/2008, -26/+3Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. PERIOD, as nature intended and cultures all over the world naturally and instinctively accept to be how the human species propagate as normal, civilized families within a larger community.
Biblicaly, from the very beginning and of the creation of Adam, his God given mate was FEMALE, and the natural structure by design and MARRIAGE of these two beings, one man and one woman began the template of the very first FAMILY , consisting of a male Father, a female Mother and their children, who grew up and continued in like fashion by MARRIAGE and procreation as God and nature intended.
Therefore marriage did not exist before the bible, as the bible itself begins begins with man, Adam and Eve acknowledging the existence and will of God. and the natural structure of the family. So sorry, your argument is not based on truth.
I really don't care if you are sick of the bible upholding the TRUTH of marriage completing the purpose of one man and one woman in order to procreate and complete the cycle of life as is the will of God.
The bible is quite clear that unnatural desires to commit unnatural acts is not LOVE, it is lust and an abomination unto the Lord.
This does not mean you cannot love however, but love itself is not marriage, nor is marriage an act of love, it is the result of God's creation completing the cycle of life.
No one is preventing civil unions for unnatural relationships however. There are even ways to leave your savings to one another, share the monitary things of life.
But do not think for one moment your right to live with a member of the same sex gives you a right to make a mockery of God's design and the meaning of marriage as it pertains to it.
Find your own unnatural word to describe your unnatural "union". And don't forget, any "church" that "marry's a same sex couple is not a church of God. No one blasphemizing the word of God can bless a union made in his name. So in the eyes of the Lord, you can never be "married anyway.- macweirdo42, on 11/01/2008, -2/+9Here's some advice that I think might help you. God isn't a real person. He's made up. He's imaginary. He's make-believe. So you see, talking about God's laws and such is a bit daft.
And even if that weren't the case - this is America, I don't have to follow your ***** idiotic religion or its moronic definition of marriage. Oh, and I suppose you'll make some comment about my ever-lasting soul and how sad it is that I'll roast in hell forever. But I gotta say - if it's either that, or spend a goddamn eternity hanging around with people like you, I'll take the hellfires, thank you very much. - ursername180, on 11/01/2008, -2/+3Holy *****. I'm not reading that. But the fact that you think marriage is natural and part of human instinct is laughable.
- theseaman, on 11/01/2008, -1/+4ImamNathan,
Even if I did believe in anything that came from the Bible(as you clearly do), I don't think I would be so quick to push my perception of morality on others (afterall, our country was founded on the idea of separation of church and state) . If gay marriage were 100% legalized, do you think it would have any real effect on you? Would it really harm you in any way? Would it harm your children or this country? NO. But, you would turn around and deny human beings the same rights you have.
If you couldn't hide behind your "faith" in a book written hundreds of years ago (and has been translated over and over again) any argument you can come up with can be rebutted easily. - flip2trip, on 11/01/2008, -5/+2"Here's some advice that I think might help you. God isn't a real person. He's made up. He's imaginary. He's make-believe. So you see, talking about God's laws and such is a bit daft."
Can I ask you a question macwierdo? ( I want to see if you give me a different answer than the other atheists give me for this) On what do you base your belief that God isn't real? And please, don't tell me lack of evidence, because if you were truly interested there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to make a reasonable case for the existence of God, especially the God of the Bible. I just want to know what evidence you use to substantiate your assertion there is no God. - macweirdo42, on 11/01/2008, -2/+6What the hell are you talking about, circumstantial evidence? Anyway, to be perfectly honest - well, I'm not omniscient. I don't know for a fact that God doesn't exist. But it's my best guess based on the available evidence. Of course, I could be wrong. But I'd be a moron to say that God exists when I've never seen any evidence that he does. It's like those idiots who believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness monster. Oh sure, you can't prove that those things exist, but you gotta admit, regardless, people sound utterly stupid when they start babbling about being probed by aliens.
Which reminds me, actually, I think alien probing is actually more likely than the existence of God - at least we have some first-hand, eyewitness accounts of it. What do we got for God, outside of the Bible - and the Bible isn't reliable because we don't even know who the hell wrote it in the first place. - RiggerFinger, on 11/01/2008, -2/+4ImamNathan and flip2trip
Show me the proof that God exists. I'm agnostic not Atheist. I am not stupid enough to vehemently state something does or does not exist based on NO evidence. If you want to believe God exists based on the bible, then Dracula exists, then every great fictional book ever written is actually factual. Don't hold up a book that was written by over 40 different authors and constantly changed through time, as proof of the existence of GOD. Then the Egyptian God(s) were real. Oh, wait.. who's version of GOD is the real version of GOD, then?? Seeing as how many different versions of GOD exist for millions of millions of people across the planet, then who's version of GOD is true?? They can't all be true? Or, can they all be false? Do you really have the audacity to declare that you know the truth about GOD and everyone else on the planet who doesn't believe like you is wrong? Oh, that's right... you are dumb enough to declare that with no evidence to support it.
I'm glad your narrow view of the world allows you to find comfort in your small small minds. Unfortunately, that is not the reality of the world, so shut the ***** up. - darkcthulhu, on 11/01/2008, -2/+4You are a bigot. PERIOD.
- flip2trip, on 11/03/2008, -0/+1@macwierdo you said--"But I'd be a moron to say that God exists when I've never seen any evidence that he does."
That's because you've never looked. I'll offer you two good resources to get you started (that is if you are remotely interested--which you probably aren't) the first is "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. Lee is a journalist who started working on his book to prove that Jesus and his claims were merely a bunch of myths (he was an atheist). After doing his research, he became a Christian.
A good science based book for you would be "The Genesis Question" by Dr. Hugh Ross. Dr. Ross is a former atheist as well as being an Astrophysicist. He lays out the account from the scientific record of the beginnings of the universe and how they integrate with the record of the Bible.
This would be good for you too RiggerFinger, if you're interested. In addition RiggerFinger, your logic is flawed when you compare works of fiction with the Bible, the Bible was not written as a book of fiction or fairy tale. If you want to compare the Bible to other historical records, then that would be a logical comparison--what your doing is just being a turd.
I hope both of you check these out but I won't hold my breath.
- macweirdo42, on 11/01/2008, -2/+9Here's some advice that I think might help you. God isn't a real person. He's made up. He's imaginary. He's make-believe. So you see, talking about God's laws and such is a bit daft.
- luteslinger, on 11/01/2008, -1/+13I wish somebody would have voted for me not to marry my ex-wife. Where was the community input when I needed it?
- se1zure, on 11/01/2008, -2/+4The problem is people push for gay marriage when they should push for equal rights as a civil union.
- Vektuz, on 11/01/2008, -1/+5Except that gays already have the right to marry in California.
This is not a bill to promote gay marriage.
This is a bill to take it away.
- Vektuz, on 11/01/2008, -1/+5Except that gays already have the right to marry in California.
- noprtyaff, on 11/01/2008, -12/+2Evidently it is now a "civil right" to have the government sanction the union of two unnatural, sick and perverted generates and call it marriage even if it is against the will of WE THE PEOPLE.
Clearly the majority of Californians are hateful, bigoted and racist as determined by a few regressive judges.
And the juveniles at ObamaBot.com digg this one all the way to the top. Go figure.
Have a nice day.- macweirdo42, on 11/01/2008, -1/+8What's wrong with being an unnatural, sick and perverted DEGENERATES (*****, if you're going to be a moron, at least ***** proofread)? You make it sound like its a bad thing. Also, frankly, I think you can go ***** off. Why should one group of people have the right to tell another group how to live their lives? *****, I thought this was the United States - you know, where the rights of the individual come first. Wasn't that the idea? I mean ***** off - if you want to go live in a country where the government controls every facet of your life, move to Saudi Arabia, *****, don't try to force that ***** on us.
- AmericanB4Black, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Yeah, why should one group tell another they can't: marry whomever they want like your brother, sister or mother or father, or two women at once, or smoke in their own car, or smoke in their own home or place of business or bar, or keep their own money instead of being forced to give it to ingrates, or pay taxes to public schools when you don't have children, or be required to use a specific type of light bulb (that contain mercury), or be informed that their under-aged daughter is having an abortion, or voice their own (unfavorable/rude) opinion because someone might be OFFENDED (especially on college campuses), or be forced to provide health insurance for your employees, or own a particular type of gun, or own exotic animals, or how to house their chickens before slaughter, or wear fur?
Where in the HELL do these people get off thinking they can tell others how to live their lives?!
- autex, on 11/01/2008, -6/+2There everybody goes complaining and calling people and religious people bigots, racist blah,blah,blah when they don't agree with them. Not in the article but why do some people want to be married in a church if they hate their institution and their members so much? Why should they even care? I understand the legal issues when it comes to property, health, etc. but that should be whoever one designates no matter what the situation is. Marriage was to protect the women and her siblings from time invested in the union and not be left for a young hot thing. I know other people can find different reasons why marriage exist but this one I found which goes back over a couple thousand years makes the most sense to me. Men has always been tempted by the younger tempest. Divorce lawyers will love the influx.
- kd1s, on 11/01/2008, -1/+3It's only recently (The last 150 years or so) that marriage has been about love. Prior it had been about acquisition of chattel.
And people want to return to that. I'm aghast. - bigbangbuddha, on 11/01/2008, -0/+11. Form a new religion.
2. Make private union (regardless of sex) a foundational tenant of the religion.
3. Gather a few thousand members
4. Fight this on first amendment grounds.
Leave ethics out of it, that will always fail because the interpreters and defenders of "ethics" in this country are primarily Christian bent and will never change. Also, if its founded in the constitution it would be illegal to create "props" or voter rulings on it. The constitution is what makes us a republic over a pure democracy and defends our basic rights (even from the majority). - msheidi, on 11/01/2008, -2/+1marriage is about the propagation of humans and their protection under a solid partnership. Two men, or two women cannot make babies, so they should not be extended 'marriage rites' under the law.
However, I do believe something should be made available to them because many gay people are in love with each other, and deserve to have similar bonds. it is not up to me to decide, but that is how I feel. - AmericanB4Black, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Should brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons be able to marry if they REALLY love one another?
- mywhitenoise, on 10/31/2008, -14/+43There's a TON of Yes on 8 sign holders in front of the gas station near my house...why aren't they protesting more important things like war crimes, the war itself, GAS PRICES?
- Striker101, on 10/31/2008, -21/+113Get real here, get to the root of this problem, which is that this and so many other laws are creating "PERMISSION" of the state. That's what is wrong.
- arizonabay, on 11/01/2008, -17/+7Which is why polygamy should be allowed as well. Right? Where are the celebrity endorsements for that?
- PabloMac, on 11/01/2008, -13/+6That's next. Wait and watch.
- DankNugzPlz, on 11/01/2008, -5/+21Who's talking about polygamy? We're talking about gay marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man - arizonabay, on 11/01/2008, -4/+7How on earth is what I said a straw man argument?
I was responding to a comment that said that "the root of this problem is [the idea of] creating "PERMISSION" of the state." The legality of polygamy certainly falls under the umbrella of that argument. - wycheck89yo, on 11/01/2008, -3/+9that's a really good point. Why is polygamy illegal if marriage is a private matter?
@ Striker: State's rights is a very important concept that should be upheld. I disagree with prop 8, but I don't think the federal government should pass any laws about gay marriage or abortion or legalization of pot or any of that stuff. It should be up to each state. - gimpbully, on 11/01/2008, -4/+5@wycheck89yo this should specifically be a federal issue. This is a right protected by the federal constitution. This is, in fact, not within a state's right:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That's why every citizen is allowed to vote and get an equal education -- how is that not to extend into marriage? - offrdbandit, on 11/01/2008, -6/+4@ gimpbully
"That's why every citizen is allowed to vote and get an equal education -- how is that not to extend into marriage?"
Because you can get married, you just can't get married to anyone. Just like I can vote, but I cant vote anywhere I want. Just like I can go to a public school, but I can't go to school three towns over just for the hell of it.
Moreover, you are only citing part of the amendment:
"The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each state all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states..."
This amendment is a limitation upon the rights of the states. It prevents the states from usurping the Constitution. "What was previously forbidden only to Congress to do was, by the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, made equally forbidden to any state."
If marriage was an enumerated right, then yes this amendment would apply. Since it is not, it open to regulation at either the state or federal level. - gimpbully, on 11/01/2008, -4/+5you're grossly misinterpreting that language. The constitution is the ultimate rule here, it supersedes the states rights in only what it calls out. It specifically calls out that all right shall be applied equally. Marriage is a legally recognized status, it applies to all, not just a fraction that fall within a populations view of morality. The constitution is properly interpreted to include specific rights, this is why education fell within its scope.
As for your argument of voting in a different location, I'm not sure what you're trying to state here. If you can't vote in the location you're assigned, you can vote absentee... but that has no bearing on the present subject.. - offrdbandit, on 11/01/2008, -3/+2Do you have a right to drive your car, or are driver's licenses unconstitutional?
The states have the leeway to define their "legal statuses" in the means of their choosing, except those protected by the Constitution. If there were a right to marriage, the states would be obliged to protect that right. Since there is no right to marriage, the states are at liberty to regulate its exercise.
"As for your argument of voting in a different location, I'm not sure what you're trying to state here."
My point is, even explicit rights are subject to regulation by state law. Privileges (with no explicit protection) certainly fall within the scope of state regulation. - gimpbully, on 11/01/2008, -2/+3"If there were a right to marriage, the states would be obliged to protect that right. Since there is no right to marriage, the states are at liberty to regulate its exercise"
You're confusing a state right with a federal right that hasn't been tried in federal court. There are parts of the constitution that haven't been called into question yet in court. This is one of them. That does not make it a state controlled matter.
Your argument that this is a state right would cleanly be invalidated by a federal level ruling.
Lets play by your claimed rules. If this fails to pass in CA, would you support another state recognizing the legality of a constitutionally sanctioned marriage under our federal constitution? - beanphoner, on 11/01/2008, -1/+3What are we fearing will happen if polygamy becomes legal? I can see some weird problems w/ tax filing, but that's about it. I'm not a big fan of polygamy, but I don't feel I have a right to limit the marriage decisions of others.
- offrdbandit, on 11/01/2008, -1/+2@ gimpbully
"You're confusing a state right with a federal right that hasn't been tried in federal court. There are parts of the constitution that haven't been called into question yet in court. This is one of them. That does not make it a state controlled matter."
There is no such right to marriage. It does not exist. That is my point.
"Your argument that this is a state right would cleanly be invalidated by a federal level ruling."
My argument is that there is no clear and objective way to regulate "marriage" by the government. Obviously limits to what who we agree can get married (incest, polygamy, etc) have historically been seen as serving a purpose, but that purpose is futile (the purpose was to reign in "deviant" sexual behavior).
Currently, legal marriage is defined in sexual terms, because there is not any logical way to define and regulate it otherwise. My point is this: I think the government has the power to define marriage however it likes (since there are no laws or amendments guaranteeing a right to marriage), BUT because defining marriage independently of religion is not possible, I think the government shouldn't define marriage at all - rather it should simply say "two people can form a legal union" and if that union is called a marriage is not within the scope of the state legal argument. - gimpbully, on 11/01/2008, -0/+1and my argument, clearly, is that the consitution states that no matter the law you construct on marriage, it must apply equally. I'm very unclear on how it could possibly be interpreted otherwise. Whenever there has been a question of unequal application of law and rights at the federal level, they have been roundly rejected by our highest court. That's it.
- Reaper2806, on 11/01/2008, -1/+4For the ignorant Englishman here, what IS Proposition 8?
- pbol01, on 11/01/2008, -0/+8A hemorrhoid cream?
- beanphoner, on 11/01/2008, -0/+10gay marriage ban vote in california.
- fiatjustitia, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2@Reaper2806
Once upon a time, a group of Americans, namely several thousand citizens of the State of California, through a sense of righteous indignation that burned so hot it could melt titanium, decided that it would be best to initiate an act that would rip away a basic human right for a group of people they claim is unnatural and unclean by way of standards established by a book written so long ago that a simple "pics or it didn't happen" usually refutes its contents. So numerous were they that they managed to get their legislation onto the Consolidated General Election to be voted on.
If it passes, they will sit, fat and happy, within their suburban homes, that the will of their God has been carried out. They'll inhale another big mac, just in time to make it to church.
All the while countless people, many of whom I know, will weep uncontrollably to know that they won't be allowed to marry the person they love, or be considered equal in the eyes of the law as compared to straight people.
That about sums it up.
No on hate. No on 8.
- beanphoner, on 11/01/2008, -2/+7You nailed it. You don't need permission from the state to get "saved by jesus christ", or permission to have a baby... Marriage is a personal and/or religious decision. What right does the government have to control that?
- gimpbully, on 11/01/2008, -1/+8marriage, as being discussed here, is a legal status granting several rights and tax breaks. It is neither religious or personal at the legal level.
- beanphoner, on 11/02/2008, -1/+1tax laws aren't what make a marriage...
- SisyphusFragmnt, on 11/07/2008, -0/+1You're right bean, LOVE and COMMITMENT are what make a marriage, NOT one dick and one vagina. How is gay marriage hurting anyone? It's not.
- X2forLife, on 11/14/2008, -0/+0Try having a kid with one dick and one butthole
- arizonabay, on 11/01/2008, -17/+7Which is why polygamy should be allowed as well. Right? Where are the celebrity endorsements for that?
- rhythm7a, on 10/31/2008, -40/+313People who are against gay marriage should have to prove that it provides a direct threat to their personal well being which, of course, they can't.. Gay marriage affects absolutely no one but the couple involved. If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, don't. You don't get to make that decision for anybody else. You don't belong in other people's bedrooms, and neither does the government.
- fleurus, on 10/31/2008, -4/+49Really good response- I totally agree. Why doesn't the law instead just focus on other people who do violate the freedom of others by committing crimes such as theft, assault, murder...
- MadRat779, on 10/31/2008, -57/+16you don't get it do you? it directly affects those that are not gay. if prop 8 isn't passed then a gay couple could go to your church and tell your pastor to marry them, and if he doesn't they could sue for discrimination, then the church would lose its tax exempt status. and in public schools they would have to teach gay marriage and you couldn't have the opportunity to opt your kid out of it. when i was in school they didn't even talk about traditional marriage. and if it is the so called 'rights' you think they would get, guess what, they already have them, they got the same rights as traditional marriage couples in 2003, do your own research rather than just say what other people say.
here comes the bury brigade in 3.... 2...- jfdolier, on 10/31/2008, -3/+45"in public schools they would have to teach gay marriage"
That's my favorite argument. That without Prop 8, they're going to start teaching Gay Marriage 101 to 4th Graders. - spamly, on 10/31/2008, -1/+59I'll humor you.
In my particular church, the pastor can refuse to marry a couple. You are expected to have similar values as the church. If the pastor doesn't think your values are similar or compliment the church's... Well, you see where this is going. My point, I'm not sure if you're able to *force* a church to marry you.
Also, schools don't "teach" marriage- gay or otherwise. They may address the issue, as they should, because it is an issue that people encounter in society. - EarlofSlander, on 10/31/2008, -3/+42They will teach gay marriage? Are you retarded? You even say that that you never heard talk of traditional marriage so why would gay marriage be different. You are not able to force a church to do anything. A church can discriminate against anyone or any idea it chooses. Church is separate from the state remember. Hence they are not subject to discrimination laws. By your reasoning a Jewish couple could sue the Catholic Church for not wanting to perform a Jewish ceremony. Ohh my god your right we should ban Jewish marriage to before they catch on.
- spamly, on 10/31/2008, -1/+25Actually that whole breaking the glass thing at the end of the ceremony looks pretty fun... Just saying.
- Nightzet467, on 10/31/2008, -4/+29I can tell you right now (being a student, and, apparently, much more intelligent than you) they don't TEACH marriage, gay or homosexual. (stated above) What do you think they do anyway? It's not as if they've got "Smoking Marijuana 101."
- NachoBusiness, on 10/31/2008, -4/+39It's legal for people over the age of 18 to marry, it's also legal for them to buy cigarettes. By your logic, my 3rd grader should be starting her "How to Smoke Marlboros" class any day now. Right?
Of course, no gay marriage opponents can ever actually reply to a logical argument... all they can do is vote against gay marriage, then avoid any situation where they'd actually have to defend their opinion. - Terasiel, on 11/01/2008, -2/+24Anyone else notice the problem with the center-focus of his argument? That churches are somehow the legal venue from which to be married? It's entirely possible to open a church and preach to the masses and not be able to legally marry a couple.
The law is about the marriage aspect that is bound in the law; a church does not have to marry someone or anyone for that matter. - Claverhouse, on 11/01/2008, -20/+4"That's my favorite argument. That without Prop 8, they're going to start teaching Gay Marriage 101 to 4th Graders."
'Children as young as five should be taught to understand the pleasures of gay sex, according to leaders of a taxpayer-funded education project.
Heads of the project have set themselves a goal of 'creating primary classrooms where queer sexualities are affirmed and celebrated'. '
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056415/Te ... - sancho320, on 11/01/2008, -8/+4@Terasiel Finally a comment that makes logical sense, all the others are just emotional responses to whether gay marriage is "ok" or not. The fact is that marriage in this country allows those who partake certain liberties, many of which are tax related. It is absolutely the right of "the people" to decide whether or not gay marriage should be legal from a taxpayer's point of view. I could care less whether gay people marry each other, but don't say that it's the inalienable rights of the few are being trampled upon by the many, because the "many" have a stake too.
- TMTurtle, on 11/01/2008, -0/+8That link is why you note the source:
Daily Mail is worse than Drudge. - wycheck89yo, on 11/01/2008, -10/+0@spamly: Then there should be legislation protecting those churches.
- 47f0, on 11/01/2008, -2/+13MadRat779 - "here comes the bury brigade in 3.... 2."
Awwww - say something stupid, get buried, and whine knowing it's going to happen. What a freakin' martyr.
Do you have any other hysterical fundamentalist talking points?
According to you whack-jobs, the gays want to:
- Teach "gay" in the schools.
- Force the Pope to allow gay marriage in church.
- Destroy all known human civilization.
Bull, bull, and more bull. Nobody gives a bloody rip what you do in your silly little god club. That's the deal government made with religion in this country. But the flip side of the deal is that your silly little god club doesn't get to impose itself on non-members.
And that's where you guys fail to understand that this country is great for the religious precisely because no religion is honored in our constitution. - LinuxLars, on 11/01/2008, -1/+10You are totally missing the point.
Even here in Texas, there are numerous churches that will perform a "commitment ceremony", which is fairly indistinguishable from a traditional "marriage". This isn't about religion or church, it's about law.
The issue - the only issue - is that gay couples deserve to have the same legal protections that straight couples take for granted. Rights of survivorship, the right to visit your loved one in a hospital, and so many more. Over 1,000 total (do a web search).
I have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that makes any sense. If you believe allowing gay marriage will harm your marriage, you need to seek marriage counseling, now.
Personally, I believe it's the right thing to do. Our Constitution declares that we are all equal, and I believe we should be. Including marriage.
- jfdolier, on 10/31/2008, -3/+45"in public schools they would have to teach gay marriage"
- Shaggy3, on 11/01/2008, -2/+50History will look upon these arguments just as it looks upon slavery and women's rights.
- firelion, on 11/01/2008, -9/+1how the hell can you compare slavery and gay marriage two totally different unrelated things.
- ikoul, on 11/01/2008, -0/+10Because they're both matters of freedom and civil liberties?
- PxCxG, on 11/01/2008, -20/+4False -- obviously it affects children the couple might have, and there are externalities that affect the entire culture, e.g. it changes society's conception of what a family is.
- Vektuz, on 11/01/2008, -3/+17Affects? There are plenty of gay couples with children and there is no corellation between that and any NEGATIVE effects. Any more than straight couples really.
- ticketmack, on 11/01/2008, -17/+3I know what a family is. My wife and I have one. My Mom and Dad have one. Their Mom's and Dad's had one, and so on back to my great-great-great-great grandfather, a black slave, and his white wife who had one - and beyond, as far as there are records.
Don't talk to me about bigotry. I know what a family is, and it's not this. Giving it the same name under the law can't change the fact that's it's just not the same thing! - MWeather, on 11/01/2008, -2/+14You don't need a marriage to have a family, marriage is not a requirement to raise children, and gays can already raise children legally.
- KATHYxx, on 11/01/2008, -3/+9My parents divorced when I was barely old enough to remember. I think it's the best decision they could have done for my well being. Keeping up this false, unnecessary idea of a "family" is not important and is probably poisonous to the situations in many families. . You don't need two opposite sex parents, you need happy, supportive people. One worked fine for me. And i'm positive a child would be happy with twice that, if they truly love each other.
Do you plan on banning single parents from raising their children then? Do you want to ban infertile couples from marrying? Do you like the idea of orphanages swelling up with no one to adopt them? - InfiniteNothing, on 11/01/2008, -2/+9Yes, this will affect culture just like allowing interracial marriages changed society. Things change sometimes.
While some children may be effected the harm is not inherent to the process so your argument basically boils down to banning window cleaner because someone might use it for harm. - ticketmack, on 11/01/2008, -12/+3@ MWeather & KATHYxx
I've seen and been closely related to just about every kind of family. They can all be healthy, functional, loving environments, but the "ideal" is the Traditional Family (Mom and Dad, who are married and in love, lovingly raising their kids). Just as the "ideal" body has all it's parts in-tact and functioning properly, the ideal family has all those parts working together towards a common purpose.
Of course a person can still live a healthy, functional, happy life while being somewhat physically impaired, but the ideal (no impairments) is always preferable. In the same way, any family can be a happy one, regardless of how it's put together, but the ideal family is always preferable, and—I believe—should be aspired to above any others.
With that in mind, why would you make any family arrangement, other than the ideal, one to aspire to as much as the ideal? - KATHYxx, on 11/01/2008, -2/+7ticketmack: I think you are assuming that only a mother-father household is the only "ideal"
You can have a gay household and it also fits that "ideal." "Ideal" is happy, supportive and functioning.. homosexuality doesn't add or subtract from that.
I use "Ideal" in quotes because we don't live in a pretty fantasy world where everything can be perfect. The shortcomings of a family come from how they treat eachother.. gender doesn't enter into it. Forget the "Ideal," strive for building a better world than what is here. that is more important. Any family is better than none at all, even if it doesn't fit your narrow definition of ideal - MWeather, on 11/01/2008, -2/+6"They can all be healthy, functional, loving environments, but the "ideal" is the Traditional Family (Mom and Dad, who are married and in love, lovingly raising their kids)."
Other than the sex of the parents, how does a gay family differ from your ideal? And how exactly does that negatively affect the family?
Furthermore, why should other forms of non-ideal marriage be legal, but not homosexual marriage? - flip2trip, on 11/01/2008, -2/+1"...why should other forms of non-ideal marriage be legal..."
Could you explain what other forms of non-ideal marriage there are that are legal? - Dipsomaniac, on 11/01/2008, -2/+4@ticketmack: Okay, I won't talk to you about bigotry.
I don't have to. It's obvious you've already mastered it.
- Trooper77, on 11/01/2008, -26/+5Gay marriage(marriage is a religious issue, a Christian institution) will be forced to be taught in public schools. What if I don't want my 5 year old to learn about that? http://www.xanga.com/SensibleMom/weblogpreview
- Vektuz, on 11/01/2008, -3/+15This is an outright lie being used to put fear into parents. Don't fall for it! That is not how the law works. That's not how ANY law works. If a proposition fails to pass (No on Prop 8), nothing changes!
Read prop 8 yourself! And understand that when a prop fails (ie, if everyone votes no), then the law is not changed and things stay as they are now.
In other words, If prop 8 fails (ie, voted no) nothing changes, because a failed proposition does nothing and changes no law.
So basically, if prop 8 fails, you will RETAIN the right to opt-out your child from any discussion related to sex ed, homosexuality, etc, just like you already do, under already existing california laws. This includes the health ed mentioned in that exact page you link to. This is something you'd know about if you actually bothered to check instead of swallowing the lies being used to control you.
The other lies are that it will force churches to have gay marriages if prop 8 fails. That is not true. If prop 8 fails, nothing changes. Churches will retain the right to marry whoever they want to and refuse marriage to whoever they want to.
Next time someone tries to shovel you a lie like that, try to think critically for a change. Do you REALLY believe that when a prop is defeated it changes the law? - wycheck89yo, on 11/01/2008, -16/+5Sorry, but I agree with this. So does Obama. So does Biden. I know everybody is all hung up on equality and everything, but seriously, every single one of my gay friends rejects Christianity. Why would a gay person want to be bound together in the eyes of God? That's what marriage is. Domestic partnership provides all the same legal benefits to a married couple. That's why "traditional marriage" is always brought up.
Maybe instead of trying to make gay marriage an issue, we should think about tweaking the definition or what domestic partner means and make sure they all of the rights that a married couple has. Again, that's what Obama and Biden say.
Obama and Biden are not for gay marriage or redefining the definition of traditional marriage. I just wanted to say that one more time so everybody gets it. - MWeather, on 11/01/2008, -14/+1They'll learn about it either way. The law says you must discuss the legal and financial aspects of marriage. So by banning it, you ensure the law gets taught. Were it not banned, then homosexuality wouldn't need to be mentioned since it isn't related to the legal or financial aspects of marriage.
- InfiniteNothing, on 11/01/2008, -2/+10Prop 8 has nothing to do with schools. Quit lying about "the kids" to server your own interests.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIL7PUl24hE&feature ... - Trooper77, on 11/01/2008, -12/+1@InfiniteNothing
Wow..a youtube link? Great source -.- - cheviot, on 11/01/2008, -0/+3Says the man that links to Drudge
- Vektuz, on 11/01/2008, -3/+15This is an outright lie being used to put fear into parents. Don't fall for it! That is not how the law works. That's not how ANY law works. If a proposition fails to pass (No on Prop 8), nothing changes!
- ruddy, on 11/01/2008, -21/+6
- erasedgod, on 11/01/2008, -1/+17Yeah, this way the child's parents will be married... how horrible.
- sinder311, on 11/01/2008, -9/+1And anyone who believes that gay marriage is wrong. Those people are suddenly bigots if they continue to uphold their beliefs. The ruling that changed the definition of marriage has the potential to put labels on the "non-believers".
- Vektuz, on 11/01/2008, -1/+11They can believe what they want. Its when they try to put something in the constitution to take away people's rights that they have stepped over the line.
- sinder311, on 11/01/2008, -5/+1We can believe what we want but we will be called bigots incessantly.
- kayala, on 11/01/2008, -0/+5Then, sinder, perhaps you should try one of the following:
a) Put on your big girl panties and deal with it. The state is not required to tell people that they can't disagree with your backwards and outdated beliefs. Be tough; you hold stupid and unpopular opinions and they're not protected from criticism.
b) Consider changing your mind to accommodate beliefs that don't so alienate innocent people and cause others to look upon you as an ***** with beliefs from the Stone Age. - rootsm3, on 11/01/2008, -0/+6Adopting abandoned children, what monsters.
When will you people go away? - Dipsomaniac, on 11/01/2008, -0/+7Sinder, if your marriage is so fragile that Adam & Steve's marriage affects it, you should be looking to yourself for the problem instead of trying to blame someone else.
Any belief that gay marriage is wrong is founded on bigotry, not reason. I have asked, over and over, for someone to give me a reason to oppose gay marriage that isn't founded in their religion but rather on reason, and so far nobody's managed to come up with even a single one.
Hell, I was against gay marriage at first. Then I found out it wasn't going to be compulsory. - al3efroman, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1@sinder311 if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
- maz2331, on 11/01/2008, -19/+3It offends many of us who believe in the traditional definition. It does so greatly.
- Vektuz, on 11/01/2008, -2/+15Why? It doesn't stop you from getting married, and bringing all the tradition with it, and it certainly shouldn't lessen the love and the honesty of your vows.
- 47f0, on 11/01/2008, -2/+13What a pity for you that you have no constitutional right not to be offended.
Personally, I find the idea of hijacking the government to climb into the private lives of consenting adults to be pretty damned offensive and anti-American. - TraumaPony, on 11/01/2008, -0/+7Cry more, maz2331.
- Dipsomaniac, on 11/01/2008, -0/+6Tough *****.
Seriously. - avrygoodfrnd, on 11/01/2008, -0/+4I bet racists are offended by the outcome of the civil war.
- ticketmack, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1Traditional Marriage and Family has been around a hell of a lot longer than American racism, than Al Gore or his Internet, than America itself, than any country you've ever heard of, than any person you've ever heard of. From a simple historical standpoint, that is why changing the definition is so offensive.
If that didn't ensure the failure of this post, now on to some religion you're guaranteed to digg down:
Not that anybody on here believes in Adam and Eve, or the Bible for that matter, but the first thing God did after he created man, was give him a wife. As a religious person, that says something to me how important marriage is in God's eyes, and what form it should take.
- Vektuz, on 11/01/2008, -2/+15Why? It doesn't stop you from getting married, and bringing all the tradition with it, and it certainly shouldn't lessen the love and the honesty of your vows.
- jdmCrush, on 11/01/2008, -0/+11...that's how it's done already.
You go to the town hall to get married legally. you have a big fancy wedding and say "i do" for religious/ceremonial purposes - riyehn, on 11/01/2008, -0/+13The ballot question shouldn't be on supporting a proposition. It should be a list of all the people in California who want to get married, and you should have to put a big black mark in the "no" bubble for each couple if you want to deny them their marriage.
- stix213, on 11/01/2008, -14/+3The parents of the first grade students that were forced to go on the mandatory field trip to the teacher's lesbian wedding, those parents that were banned from opting their children out of this field trip just recently in San Francisco would completely disagree.
I wouldn't say that "Gay marriage affects absolutely no one but the couple involved" when these mandatory field trips for 6 year olds are school policy.- rotundo, on 11/01/2008, -2/+6I think that's a totally separate issue and should be treated as such. The vast majority of gay marriages, probably every one save the one you mention, have no mandatory attendance and you obviously know that.
- Vektuz, on 11/01/2008, -0/+7That's funny. If you had actually researched the case you are talking about you would have known that
* The kids were not forced at all. In fact, under california law, parents have the right to opt their children out of any field trip for any reason.
* Two kids WERE opted out by their parents, and there was no problem with that
* The parents complaining were the ones who paid no attention to the opt-out ability, or what or where their kids were going, and then got surprised after the fact. Sorry, its not the state's job to keep you informed about where your kids are going. - stix213, on 11/02/2008, -2/+1Ohhh yeah the California schools are really doing a great job with this subject Vektuz.
I wonder if there was a masturbation field trip for 1st graders, if you would think it was totally fine cause parents had a chance to opt out ahead of time but didn't. Or how about a sex demonstration field trip?
Now please explain how this one is perfectly fine for me, cause I clearly didn't understand before how a gay wedding was an appropriate field trip for 6 year olds until now. Keep in mind Vektuz, this one is California kindergartners being brain washed, instead of those totally mature 1st graders on the field trip.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445865,00.html - Vektuz, on 11/02/2008, -0/+2lol foxnews - zero credibility
- julielynn1009, on 11/01/2008, -0/+6TA DA!!! You got it!! For those who are crying foul and calling this separate but equal, it isn't. Legally calling all unions civil unions is not the same as separating one group from another. My only problem with this (and has been) is that there are a ton of federal rights granted to "married" couples. Unless they amend the word marriage at the federal level to read civil unions, many couples will still be prevented from accessing these federal rights. I think your comments states that but I wanted to make it clear.
Allowing churches to perform 'marriages' does nothing to the legality of such unions and I think fleurus is stating that the word 'marriage' would be equated with 'ceremony' in the future and the words 'civil unions' would apply to all legally accepted unions - this would prevent polygamy/human to animal/adult to child 'unions'. - n0gnuz, on 11/01/2008, -8/+4I don't personally feel threatened by gay marriage -- better that, in my opinion, than the gay culture of promiscuity and AIDS -- but it's wrong to say that gay marriage affects no one. Gay marriage is a radical culture change and affects all of society.
- Vektuz, on 11/01/2008, -0/+6Except that its already legal in California and has been for a while. The world has not ended and everyone's still ok. This proposition is a bill to REMOVE that right, not grant it.
- ticketmack, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1This proposition is supposed to enforce a decision WE THE PEOPLE already made. There were 4 judges who effectively overturned the peoples vote on this a couple years ago, and this proposition is simply there to put this decision back into the hands of the people... not the court system.
"Except that its already legal in California and has been for a while. ...This proposition is a bill to REMOVE that right..."
You have a very short memory.
- Caprica7, on 11/01/2008, -4/+0marriage is not about the bedroom. if the gov't shouldn't be involved, then civic unions and marriages shouldn't be allowed? you seem to indicate that if not gov't, then a valid marriage is based on religion. Let's let the religions decide then.
- ratexla, on 11/01/2008, -0/+4I don't think they are used to thinking in terms of proving things... or to thinking. %P
- Mastro67, on 11/01/2008, -2/+2I believe that gay couples deserve the same benefits as a straight couple, but marriage is a religion institution. Most religions define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
If the government changed how churches operate it would be against our constitution. Separation of church and state, anyone?
Marriage is a civil union for straight people anyways.- TraumaPony, on 11/02/2008, -0/+1Most, but not all.
- ourbigboat, on 11/05/2008, -2/+1I was gay! I remember my gay friend Sam that died at 24 along with many of my other friends. Sam left his parents with no grand children to hold Why? Gay people taught us it was okay at age 14 to live by sensaul desire. Gay people taught us both first using porno and getting us high and then they would make thier move on us. After years it seems so natural and ok. I have seen so many die from aids and children not born that should have been. People are ignorant that agree with these gay “confusions”！When you think about it,these people are saying they wish their lovers had never been born! They want to teach childen the way we were to have a same sex partener and end our family line and future generations. No children for our nation or their parents to hold and enjoy. Its amazing that we forget how many died from this life style or those who have never lived beacause of it. I am glad to see people stand up for marriage to = man & women. Gay people have blinded so many people with thier smooth words they hate me its not fair. I now have 2 boys and 1 on the way. I am so happy for my loving wife.
- X2forLife, on 11/14/2008, -1/+0it's not that it is threatening it is just gross
- Cadicus, on 10/31/2008, -16/+268They really need to separate marriage and civil unions. Make civil unions the only thing recognizable by the government and make marriages an exclusively religious notion. The government would not make decisions on marriages, and we can stop arguing about it in legislature.
- alaroche, on 10/31/2008, -6/+38Wow, I've been saying this for years! If only we could get some sort of legislation going on that. Rumor has it this legislation is directly tied to the LDS church. Somehow, we recognize their right to have their own planet when they die, but they can't allow homosexuals to get married. Weird
- barfooz, on 10/31/2008, -16/+10Completely agree. As long as the "they" you're referring to is the states, not the Feds. This is, like abortion should be, a state-level decision.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Amendment X, US Constitution- drlha, on 11/01/2008, -2/+21The problem with making it a state level decision is that marriage affects people on the federal level. For example: If you're married you get different deductions on your federal taxes. Also if you're married to a foriegner, you can get them a Green Card, which is handled by a federal agency. Like it or not, Federal government recognizes marriage and treats you differently based on whether you're married or not.
- barfooz, on 11/01/2008, -0/+6That's a good point. I think the Feds should have to accept any civil union established by any state for those purposes. I wonder how those things work with civil unions currently?
- Munkym, on 11/01/2008, -0/+3*coughFAFSAcough*
I hate the Federal Government sometimes. - BlatheringIdiot, on 11/01/2008, -0/+8Sorry- Constitution has been suspended until further notice.
- mythicflux, on 11/01/2008, -4/+3<
- drlha, on 11/01/2008, -2/+21The problem with making it a state level decision is that marriage affects people on the federal level. For example: If you're married you get different deductions on your federal taxes. Also if you're married to a foriegner, you can get them a Green Card, which is handled by a federal agency. Like it or not, Federal government recognizes marriage and treats you differently based on whether you're married or not.