Now that marriage appears to be legal in California, at least today, what is your opinion on it? You may also want to consider the main difference between Cali and Massachusetts is that Mass only recognized citizens of their state. Cali will let anyone come in, get married, and go back home. It is speculated that this will cause hundreds of law suits in other states and potentially cost tax payers millions of $ in states other than Cali. It should also be noted that over 60% of the population of Cali voted down gay marriage, but their supreme court has overruled this proposition.
Shouldn't be allowed. I'm not really in the mood to debate the legal parts right now, maybe tomorrow, but just in theory this is another blow to traditional family values -- which in my opinion is damaging the progression of many adolescents in this country.
Not to mention it is way out of bounds for the judicial branch...but what else is new. Welcome aboard the USS Sinking Ship....Nobody is getting off. There's really nothing here to debate. The entire country, along with over 60% of california, knows it's illegal. No borders, men marrying men, a porn shop on every corner, unborn babies being butchered, half of our politicians are adulterers, BS preached from the pulpit, and damning our own economy for political gain. You have to admire the direction we are going.
Who cares about gay marriage? So two guys or girl want to spend the rest of their lives together, have the same tax advantages of other married couples, and be able to make medical decisions for their spouses... who cares? I am not gay, but I don't really care if two gay people want these rights that a lot of non-deserving straight people have (and take advantage of). Who are you to force "your" values, beliefs and judgments on anyone else. For the argument that it destroys the "Christian" definition of marriage... don't you think the escalating divorce rate, high number of extra-marital affairs, coupled with the amount of pregnancy out of wedlock and common law marriage (where it is allowed) does more to destroy the definition of marriage then two people with the same genitals loving each other and wanting the same rights as straight people. Hell, if you want to save the definition of marriage from the big bad butt pirates, would you be o.k. with gay civil unions that would give them the same rights as a straight "married" couple? (for the record they are privy to about 25% of the marriage rights when wed in Mass. or Hawaii). As for me, I really could care less. As long as they do their stuff behind closed doors and not in my face, I could care less what they call it. But for the record, if I had a vote, I would allow them the same rights as other married couples.
Considering the plethora of problems in California, this issue is a 2 of 10 on the worry scale. It will likely end up in another ballot measure and then back to the courts. In the mean time...........
Willing to sell your soul are we? How much will it cost California tax payers in legal fees....anyone studied that yet? KTeam, of course you're free to have your own opinion..and I respect that..but you're in the minority. The people of California, and dozens of other states, have already cast their opinion on the subject. Just because some piece of crap judges, and one scumbag politician, disagree with the will of the people doesn't mean they can ignore the law.
It's a constitutional issue. It's the court job to interpret the constitution. Although I don't necessarily agree with the ruling, it is a matter for the court to decide.
I dont necessarily agree with it, I believe the bible that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, the constitution is not the bible. I dont care what gay people do. But I dont believe in legislation through religion. The bible preaches free will, so making people do something you believe in is persecution something the bible preaches against as well.
I don't see the sin in a man caring deeply for another man. If the sin is the physical act that they perform, are they so much different than people who have extra-marital affairs, use birth control, or guys who routinely make a specific effort to reduce their risk for prostate cancer? I don't see anything wrong with love, regardless of the sex of those in love. Why not allow same sex couples the same secular benefits as a man and a woman? I suppose an argument could be made that they don't boost our population, but I don't think we are looking for a population boost. We wouldn't allow discrimination against skin color, why allow secular discrimination against one person's sins versus another's?
I have mixed feelings. Gay citizens should definitely have the constitutional rights of any other tax-paying citizen. Legal arrangements for things like inheritance, child support, medical decision-making, etc. between gay couples is just a matter of legal contracts that recognize a legal civil union. But marriage is a term that has been used for millennia to describe a union between a man and a woman. It has enormous significance in the matter of children and an equally enormous religious significance to many. I just don't agree with gay people usurping that term and causing religious grief and diminishing something of great significance to the 90% of us who are not gay. I say give them their legal civil unions and let them have commitment ceremonies if they choose. They cannot be denied their constitutional rights. But legal marriages and weddings are also significant social and religious institutions and they have the right not to be forced to change practices as old as human history.
