What is Digg?380 Comments
- HyperZiper, on 11/12/2008, -19/+213It's sad we are actually celebrating such a basic liberty.
- Cabose, on 11/12/2008, -20/+142Wow, I never heard one word about this and I live in Massachusetts. This is awesome. Congratulations, gay couples in Connecticut you are now seen as equals.
- Dinsdale77, on 11/12/2008, -7/+75Oh man, the sanctity of marriage is falling apart! Straight couples will spontaneously divorce in the state of Connecticut!
- mikbunn, on 11/12/2008, -6/+70If we can get freedom from unwarranted search and seizure and freedom of assembly back, we can really party.
- inactive, on 11/12/2008, -2/+54oh no!
people will start marrying their sisters! and their pets! and their pets' sisters! - mywhitenoise, on 11/12/2008, -1/+52What's next, whites marrying the coloreds!?
- PatrickDW, on 11/12/2008, -6/+50 I still feel it isn't for the state to decide who can and cannot get married. I believe it is only between the participants, their church and their God ... period! But if the state is going to pick and choose who it will dole out benefits to and who will be left without - expect this debate to continue.
- inactive, on 11/12/2008, -9/+52equal protection under the law!!
- Br3ach, on 11/12/2008, -5/+47I'm still celebrating the fact we elected a President that can speak basic English, so yeah we have a long hard road ahead.
- ViSioN, on 11/13/2008, -9/+46Neither can many straight couples....ass.
- trollick, on 11/12/2008, -8/+43I'm confused... Does it mean I'll be forced to divorce my wife and marry a dude?
- geekvicious, on 11/13/2008, -7/+40So should we have a fertility check to get a marriage license?
- joshua5, on 11/12/2008, -12/+43Only 48 states to go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_leg ... - diggThis77, on 11/12/2008, -4/+34It's about time gay couples can start being as miserable as straight couples!
- MrChunks, on 11/12/2008, -3/+31For a country that technologically advanced as the USA is, you're sure socially backwards although this sounds promising. Congrats to Connecticut! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, California!
And Blighty - why the ***** won't you call "civil partnerships" what it is - marriage? - Unrealevil, on 11/13/2008, -3/+27Keep talking, because it's people like you that make everyone else realize how ignorant you have to be to oppose gay marriage.
- shalb, on 11/12/2008, -16/+39This is how California should be and it was until Prop 8.
- Kordras, on 11/13/2008, -3/+26Obviously. That's not the sole reason for marriage though.
- ThreeE, on 11/13/2008, -2/+25Simple solution to all of this -- the government doesn't recognize any marriages. They only recognize civil unions. All existing "marriages" become civil unions and any two citizens can get one. This only makes sense as "marriage" is a religiously loaded term. Then, any religion can "marry." You then have a civil union and a, say, Catholic marriage, or a Mormon marriage, or a Scientology marriage, or a Zeus marriage...
- mywhitenoise, on 11/12/2008, -4/+26You don't choose to be gay, dumbass.
Like anyone says "Hey, how about I go on living a life where my family hates me, and everyone ridicules me for my sexual preference? That sounds like a great idea, I was getting tired of this straight thing" You're an idiot. - 7m7uf, on 11/12/2008, -5/+27Lost One, Won One. We need to get CA back on track, then the rest of the U.S.
- Lucas123, on 11/12/2008, -6/+28For how long? Judges clear the way, voters rescind. It's the courts taking action on gay marriage that has been prompting states to amend their constitutions regarding the definition of marriage. In Massachusetts, the legislators refused to allow a marriage amendment to the state constitution to go to the ballot.
- omnithought, on 11/12/2008, -2/+23Well, at least some people are waking up and realizing that love is love, regardless of the packaging.
- Suricou, on 11/13/2008, -0/+21The real fear of those opposing gay marriage is that this will 'weaken' or 'dilute' traditional marriage. In other words, it won't be special now that the scum can get in - it's as if an exclusive club suddenly opened it's membership to everyone. Without an entry requirement, what is the point of membership?
These are *identical* to arguments made in opposition to interracial marriage - back then it was often said that if blacks could marry white, the reputation of marriage would be so sullied that good white people would refuse to take part in it. - inactive, on 11/12/2008, -9/+29The question is will California be next? If not, then who because it will happen other states.
- mywhitenoise, on 11/13/2008, -1/+21I'm sure you know how to build a nuke with your middle school degree.
- linagee, on 11/13/2008, -1/+21If only they could put up a type of barbed wire around the state that protects it from religious interest groups with large amounts of money and evil agendas.
- ragingflamerboy, on 11/13/2008, -4/+23God also made Adam wanna pork Steve.
and Eve wanna eat Meliss's carpet. - zip000, on 11/13/2008, -1/+20I hope that you can't procreate either.
- mandarin, on 11/12/2008, -2/+21good, you can start with your own.
- doremon313, on 11/12/2008, -1/+20it will soon be as ridiculous as fight for interracial marriage
- Coven, on 11/13/2008, -1/+20lajaw, homosexual couples have many avenues for children as well. For females, there is adoption, artificial insemination, finding a "donor" father. For males there is surrogacy (with a donated egg) and adoption as well.
- ctconnors, on 11/13/2008, -0/+19Homosexuals are holocaust survivors. That's where the pink triangle comes from. They were forced to wear it in the same manner as Jews were forced to wear the Star of David.
- Niallgriff, on 11/13/2008, -5/+23No, but you'll get flamed for stupidity.
- zeblith, on 11/13/2008, -0/+18I agree with you - religious marriage should be left up to religious people and their institutions.
HOWEVER, since the government has its own definition and recognition of marriage (Note that I can get married as an atheist or agnostic, with no church involved whatsoever, because I'm going for the government/civil marriage, not religious marriage), if the government is going to give certain rights/privileges/benefits/protections to certain pairings, it shouldn't be drawing the line at biological sex. In the eyes of the government, I should be able to protect the person I want to spend the rest of my life with (And note that heterosexual couples don't even need that, they can marry any passing person they want, a purely temporary arrangement) just as well as any other person can, regardless of sex.
People used your same argument to deny interracial marriage. Again, I wouldn't give two ***** if a church didn't want to perform an interracial marriage, but they'd better be able to get all the protections and benefits at the government level.
And this isn't a state issue as much as people might like to say it is; it is a federal issue. Marriage is a component of our federal tax laws, so it is there that we need a definition.
If we had an equal rights amendment (Basically doing the same thing for sex that other amendments have done for race/ethnicity, make it a non-issue in eligibilities) we wouldn't even be having this debate. - fuse13, on 11/13/2008, -5/+23so?
- inactive, on 11/12/2008, -2/+19On November 4 Connecticut voters rejected a proposal to call for a Constitutional Convention so they could amend the Constitution to allow for direct ballot initiatives, which was a step towards eventually banning gay marriage.
- scallon, on 11/12/2008, -3/+20I thought about being mean, but then i saw the Palin2012 user name and realized you aren't stupid or ignorant, simply delusional. Might i suggest seeing a doctor?
- Coven, on 11/13/2008, -0/+16The election is over, *****. Emphasizing his middle name isn't going to scare off any votes.
- fuse13, on 11/13/2008, -4/+20If you really knew a lot of ordinary gay people you might realise they just want to live life. You also might realise that most of them are not obviously gay. I have been in situations where someone has spouted off some homophobia not realising one or more of the people present are actually gay. It would be nice and neat if we were all the same - but chance, nature or god decided that these people would be wired to love differently to you or I. I know some very loving couples, both gay and lesbian. I see no reason to treat them any differently than straight people.
Why do you have the right to tell other people how to live their lives? - asskicker32, on 11/12/2008, -5/+21Great news! There should be no discrimination anywhere, right? Isnt that like, basic human decency?
Lets see the religious right boycott Connecticut now. - Rothbardosaurus, on 11/13/2008, -3/+18With Proposition 8, I hope more people have come to understand just how unfair Democracy is. Individual liberty should be our goal, not using the proxy of government to force people to conform to certain lifestyles. This includes gay marriage, the ownership of firearms, the choice to start a home business, and the use of recreational drugs. These are optional, non-violent, lifestyle choices, and none should be encroached upon by government.
- lydecker, on 11/13/2008, -0/+15That argument worked the same during pre-interracial marriage. Both blacks and whites could marry someone of the same race. But why should blacks and whites have different rights? Why do only one group gets rights to marry whites?
Why do only women have the rights to marry men? Is that equal? Or do different genders have different rights? - Coven, on 11/13/2008, -1/+16The 'precious minority voters' didn't pump millions of dollars into ad campaigns in support of Prop 8.
- tamman2000, on 11/13/2008, -0/+14California has gay marriage for now...
Prop 8 may not be valid, there is a court case pending. The basic story as I understand it is that to revise the constitution requires legislative action (and a supermajority) before a ballot prop, but to add to the constitution only requires the ballot prop. Prop 8 was the ballot prop, there was no supermajority legislative action taken. Now the CA supreme court has to decide if prop 8 is an addition or a revision.
They didn't decide the case before the election because they don't want supreme court action pending when they hold the election and there was no guarantee that they could resolve the issue in time...
I am fairly optimistic that despite Prop 8 CA will keep gay marriage. - inactive, on 11/13/2008, -1/+15lajaw, what the hell do you care if gays can get married or not? How does the happiness of a gay couple hurt you? I mean actually cause you harm, not in the sense that it might make you upset because your bigotry will be rejected as the steaming pile of ***** that it is.
- chrisduser, on 11/13/2008, -0/+14I'm an African-American and I disapprove of the preceding reply and the 70% of Californian Blacks that forget about the 60s and the years of inequality that it followed. Thankfully, there is a Constitution that protects the minority from the majority on matters of inalienable rights. May justice prevail over those who try to change the law to suit their bigotry.
- orion2013, on 11/13/2008, -1/+14So true. In the future this issue will seem as ancient as the dinosaurs.
- RoflCoptah, on 11/13/2008, -0/+13how would gay marriage degenerate society? to me, equal rights is progressive
- mikelieman, on 11/13/2008, -1/+14It is in New York. Marriage is *defined* as a Civil Contract, and per the NYS-UCC, Contracts are constructed without reference to Gender.
QED, *****. -
Show 51 - 100 of 390 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is