Originally posted by 44soulslayer
As it stands, apply for a license to marry.

Simply applying for a license does not give someone a right. What must a person do to GAIN the right to marry?

I think gay people should be allowed to marry. When I am dating, I always tell my girlfriends I am gay so they will try extra hard to convert me.

This truly is a step back. We as a nation came out yesterday in massive numbers to vote. I thought that the majority being youths we would be able to change the protestant views and be able to look at this issue from a more modern standpoint. Unfortunately it failed and not in California those of the same sex who love each other are only allowed to get civil unions.

-Ign0RanT

I wouldn't really worry about it, caballero. The Kalifornia government has already proven with the previous same sex marriage vote that was overturned they will not listen to the population that is supposed to control and direct them. Welcome to the Socialist ideal that Obama is going to bring to the entire United States.

I'm sad to hear this and completely baffled by the whole issue.

First of all, I don't beleive govt. has the right to say who should or shouldn't marry anyway. It was only a few decades ago in some places that they legalized interacial marraiges, remember. Marraige is a spiritual practice, so I think that government should step back and let the union be between the 2 people involved and whatever church denomination they follow. But of course they see it as a tax-cow.

Likewise who applies for insurance, gets hospital visitations, or has children--that shouldn't be the government's right to decide, but the individual's.

Then I have to ask, with heterosexual marraige on the decline and better than 50% divorce rate.... who do we really have to protect it from?

No one is denying same-sex couples the right to have a relationship. You just can't make a legal binding relationship contract between same sex partners. Tell me, what is the benefit to the state of a contractual relationship between two men or two women? It's clear what the benefit of man/woman unions are.

I don't live in CA, but I would have voted for prop 8 if I did.

Gay activists talk about it with the rhetoric of "rights," but what they are really demanding is the right to redefine a fundamental cultural institution.

Name for me a time in western civilization when gay marriage was the norm, or even legal. The Romans didn't practice it, except for a few megalomaniac emperors like Nero and Caligula. The Greeks never practiced gay marriage, even though some greek states (athens at the time of aristotle) were tolerant of paedophilia. But not gay marriage.

But 10,000 years and hundreds of varied cultures were "wrong" if you listen to the radical gay left. It is 3% who are "intelligent and right," and the other 97% majority who are "hopelessly bigoted and ignorant."

Demanding the "right" to radically redefine a major institution is like me, demanding the right redefine what a birth certificate means---say, demanding a legal birth certificate for my imaginary friend. You might say that a birth certificate doesn't apply to imaginary people--it's only for actual humans. But if you did you'd be oppressing me with your societal norms. you bigot, you.

Or me, as a protestant, suing the catholics because they haven't made me pope. Never mind that the papacy doesn't apply to me, and I don't live the lifestyle (catholicism) required to be pope---I want it now! So you'd better redefine what it means to be a pope, or catholic, so I can bee one too! It's my right to be pope, equal on every level with that old nazi dude in rome! Ouch--Your oppressing me, you bigot!!!!!

See, it's all about what I want, not about what society wants!!! Society exists to serve me and my friends. Not some religious concept of a mythical "collective good."

Not yet. Its in the lead but there are over 3000000 mail in ballots etc left ot count.

Originally posted by dbates
Tell me, what is the benefit to the state of a contractual relationship between two men or two women?

I'm not sure there is a benefit to the state. Is that a requirement of marriage?

It's clear what the benefit of man/woman unions are.

I'm not so clear on it. Would you expand on that? Thanks.

The people of California have spoken and right or wrong the decision should be respected.

Democracy at its finest.

Originally posted by jam321
The people of California have spoken and right or wrong the decision should be respected.

If the state of California voted that black people should be slaves, it would also be unconstitutional. A state cannot make a law that goes against the Constitution. A simple majority cannot vote to deny people their Constitutional rights.

Not constitutionally.

If the majority of people voted to ban guns, it would also be unconstitutional. That's not Democracy. That's majority rule.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Where do you get that right? Where is this right specified? Where is the restriction (of the opposite sex) specified?

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

That sucks about Prop 8 but I'm more upset about
Prop 5 not passing.