USA Today - California's Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

[Sticksboi05]

Because I see no need for it and it will further complicate matters,there is also my belief it diminishes the state of matrimony on a secular level.

I also have a sneaky suspicion it will cost me money judging from the Mass case.

I however am fine for civil unions for all as a gesture of goodwill and hope of world peace:pfft:

Really? Really?...You can do better than that.

[twa]

Really? Really?...You can do better than that.

I feel the need issue is sufficient in and of itself

Care to sway me?...or just whine

[Smoot Point Really]

Government shouldn't be "marrying" anyone...It's just lipstick on a pig...

Marriage is a sacrament of the Church. When a justice of the peace does it, it isn't a sacrament and thus it isn't technically a marriage. By definition, marriage is between a man and a woman, establishing a union for the purpose of procreation and the salvation of their souls...

Nobody can really change that.

[mbws]

Government shouldn't be "marrying" anyone...It's just lipstick on a pig...

Marriage is a sacrament of the Church. When a justice of the peace does it, it isn't a sacrament and thus it isn't technically a marriage. By definition, marriage is between a man and a woman, establishing a union for the purpose of procreation and the salvation of their souls...

Nobody can really change that.

So then anyone who is not a follower of your religion cannot get married?

[Smoot Point Really]

So then anyone who is not a follower of your religion cannot get married?

No... If you read and comprehend you will have your answer.

[Burgold]

I actually agree with what I think Smoot is saying on this issue (that'll force him to change his mind). I think marriage should be the province of religion. If you can find a rabbi, priest, iman, cleric, etc. who wants to join you and spirtually bless your union then that is wonderful. Government really has no business telling people who can love each other or who can be joined.

[ljs]

I think I'm one of the only gay people who has absolutely no desire to get married..

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I think I'm one of the only gay people who has absolutely no desire to get married..

Well, it would be nice if you had the option....even if you don't take advantage of it.

[renaissance]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xxpd3Ye0zA&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xxpd3Ye0zA&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[techboy]

If you'd been in California, you would have voted against this proposition?

I would have, but then I'd likely be spending my time trying to get a proposition on the ballot that would invalidate every proposition ever passed, then eliminate the proposition system entirely.

What a disaster for California.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Other than YOUR religious beliefs, can someone tell me why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry?

Edit: I expect to be waiting a long time for the answer.

There's one huge flaw with your approach here: you're assuming that people are capable of divorcing themselves from their religious roots.

[Madison Redskin]

I am still convinced that Prop 8, and other attempts to outlaw same-sex marriage are good for society. They put a spotlight on the issue and force us to think about it. In that sense, I think these laws are counterproductive from the standpoint of opponents of same-sex marriage. I think these laws are accelerating change, not inhibiting it.

[Smoot Point Really]

Well, it would be nice if you had the option....even if you don't take advantage of it.

Unless one cHanges the definition of marriage, it's impossible to have two people of the same sex get married. The defense of marriage act should've really been called the defense of English act.

[Larry]

Marriage is a sacrament of the Church. When a justice of the peace does it, it isn't a sacrament and thus it isn't technically a marriage. By definition, marriage is between a man and a woman, establishing a union for the purpose of procreation and the salvation of their souls...

Nobody can really change that.

Wow.

So, you mean that when my grandfather died, and my grandmother married her high school sweetheart, and lived with him for 10 years before she died, then that wasn't really a marriage, huh?

(Or should we just assume that your pulling the claim that marriage exists solely for the purpose of conceiving children, is simply another case of someone who supports discrimination pulling a fictional "definition" out of their Philly, and custom-tailoring said "definition" so that it fits their political agenda?)

[TheGreatBuzz]

Ding.

Incentivizing marriage via taxes is a ludicrous notion in the first place. If the difference between a couple getting married vs. not getting married is a freaking tax break, do we really want them to get married? Really? That seems healthy? That seems like a good recipe for success?

Exactly....why is the government giving an incentive to get married? To produce children and ensure the population keeps growing? Don't think we are in danger of having a problem there. Take the government out of it and it's all solved.

Pointing out that I don't think there are any tax breaks for getting married, exactly.

I think that for most folks, the only effect that marriage has on their taxes is that the two people are permitted to file jointly. In effect, their deductions can to to whichever partner is in the higher bracket.

There are some other effects, like the ability to transfer property between themselves without taxes.

Mostly, AFAIK, the tax effects of marriage is simply that the government treats the two people as a single couple, as opposed to two separate people.

Now I am no tax master but I know that I, and many people I know, started making out a lot better on taxes once we were married. Don't know exactly why that is, but it shouldn't happen that way.

I actually agree with what I think Smoot is saying on this issue (that'll force him to change his mind). I think marriage should be the province of religion. If you can find a rabbi, priest, iman, cleric, etc. who wants to join you and spirtually bless your union then that is wonderful. Government really has no business telling people who can love each other or who can be joined.

Again, same thing I've been saying. Easiest way to get rid of the problem is to take the government out of the equation. Then a marriage is just a ceramony between 2 people (or 3, or a person and their dog, etc.) where they declare there love in front of everyone and God (if you so believe). Isn't that what it should be anyways?

So then anyone who is not a follower of your religion cannot get married?

They can get married in whatever manner their religion or their own personal beliefs require. There will be no more certificates of "marriage" because the government wouldn't have any hand in it.

There. Problem fixed.

[Thiebear]

From Fark.com: Kagan gets to decide if she can get married.

[Thiebear]

there can be other thinngs fundamental to our existence and survival other than children right?

maybe marriage is an important social institution for other reasons too

So if 85% believe you have to be married to have children.

Have we discovered these other social reasons yet? Long list?

By the way: None of the gheys i know have been divorced twice as i have. Of the 3 of us, I'm the only one destroying the sanctity of marriage.

[renaissance]

I think I'm one of the only gay people who has absolutely no desire to get married..

One of my best friends who is gay has no interest in getting married. He is, however, in a long term committed relationship living w/ his boyfriend. Talk about living in sin!

[Dan_Hater]

I thought it was Adam and Eve....not Adam and Steve?

[Enter Apotheosis]

I thought it was Adam and Eve....not Adam and Steve?

The appearance of this comment usually signals that someone has just won gay marriage bingo.

[skinfan133]

You're talking about a "state" which can be performed at 4 in the morning in Las Vegas, on a pair of drunks who met in a bar, earlier that night, by an Elvis impersonator.

Larry, I'm on your side here, but I've always thought this argument was an extremely dumb one. You can find negative things about anything really. For example:

Let's say there are two local fire departments. One isn't very good, and another is excellent. Seeing the bad one, the city concludes the state of all fire departments is terrible and shuts down both.

Not the best metaphor but I hope my point comes across.

When fighting (or just arguing on behalf of) equal rights, one must build up and fortify their own argument, not commence in crumbling the foundation of both arguments. "If marriage is so broken, then we should do away with it and allow no one to get married."

[Larry]

Larry, I'm on your side here, but I've always thought this argument was an extremely dumb one. You can find negative things about anything really.

I'm responding to the claim that if what, 1%? of the population are allowed the same rights as everybody else, then the mere presence of this tiny minority will utterly destroy the pristine sanctity of this institution of perfection.

Personally, I think that argument is comparable to claiming that if blacks are allowed in the swimming pool, their mere presence will taint the water, destroying it for everybody else. I counter that argument by pointing out that people pee in the pool, right now.

[HoustonSkin]

The only issue with taking the government out of the question is what happens to all of the laws regarding whow gets what (property, kids, etc.) when there is a divorce? I suppose the easy answer the same way it happens today with non-married couples...

[Larry]

The only issue with taking the government out of the question is what happens to all of the laws regarding whow gets what (property, kids, etc.) when there is a divorce? I suppose the easy answer the same way it happens today with non-married couples...

I'm going to attempt to speak for all of the people using the phrase "take the government out of it", and I think that what all of them are proposing is:

1) Separate the "marriage license" and the "church wedding" into two separate entities.

(They already are, anyway. Lots of people get married by the government, right now, who can't get married in their own church, for one reason or another.)

2) The churches retain the rights to the word "marriage"

("Mawwiage if whot vrings uf togevver, today.")

3) The government "marriage license" gets a different name. ("Civil Union" is proposed.)

The churches get to set whatever rules they want, to decide who can and can't get married in their church. (They already do it now, anyway.)

The government will "civil union-ize" whoever fills out the proper form, and pays the fee.

[GhostofSparta]

I'm going to attempt to speak for all of the people using the phrase "take the government out of it", and I think that what all of them are proposing is:

1) Separate the "marriage license" and the "church wedding" into two separate entities.

(They already are, anyway. Lots of people get married by the government, right now, who can't get married in their own church, for one reason or another.)

2) The churches retain the rights to the word "marriage"

("Mawwiage if whot vrings uf togevver, today.")

3) The government "marriage license" gets a different name. ("Civil Union" is proposed.)

The churches get to set whatever rules they want, to decide who can and can't get married in their church. (They already do it now, anyway.)

The government will "civil union-ize" whoever fills out the proper form, and pays the fee.

You've summed up my opinion on the subject pretty well Larry. Can't add much more to it.