Heard it through the radio waves. hmm, kinda catchy.

[Argonath]

Anyway, I heard last night, before I went to bed, over the radio, that California has legalized gay marriage. yippe! As most of you know, I've been pro-gay rights since I got here. Now that my states got it, I have almost lost interest. Almost. I couldn't hear much of it, as it was 4:30 A.M., but, if anyone knows more about it, please send a link!

[FKLBRLS]

Well, this is new. Perhaps now they will legalize man-animal marriage and man-boy marriage, since it would be a "violation of civil rights" not to.

[Bumblebee]

It has not been legalized. The lesgislature past it, but the governor has to sign it to legalize. This is the first time the legislature in any state did such a thing, especially when California voted against gay marriage. The vote was 69 to 31%. If Swarzeneggar signs it, I don't think he will survive when he runs for governor again.

[Bumblebee]

I'm correcting myself. Masachusetts legislature did the same thing, but I really believe that if Swarzenegger signs it, he's history.

[teens4bush]

www.foxnews.com reports that he will veto it.

[Bumblebee]

www.foxnews.com reports that he will veto it.
Thanks for the link.
I'm correcting myself again. I read in your link that in Massachusetts, it was passed through the courts. I learn a lot from this site, that's why I love it.

[Argonath]

Ummm. . . .gee, this is embarasing, but. . . . what does it mean if Shwarzenegar veto's it? Does that mean that he agrees or disagrees? I'm not perticulary good with political lingo.

[Wadi66]

Ummm. . . .gee, this is embarasing, but. . . . what does it mean if Shwarzenegar veto's it? Does that mean that he agrees or disagrees? I'm not perticulary good with political lingo.A veto means he doesn't agree. The legislature can over ride his veto and make it law anyway but over riding a governor or president's veto is extremely difficult as it takes a 2/3 vote.

[Oi_Ve]

A veto means he doesn't agree. The legislature can over ride his veto and make it law anyway but over riding a governor or president's veto is extremely difficult as it takes a 2/3 vote.

Not to mention that it pisses off the public. people often identify themselves closer the executive rather than the legislative (in other words people often identify more with a president/governor than with a congress or senate). This is usually because they feel like they have a greater control over the executive than the legislative since the executive is elected by and represents everyone.
If the kindergarden cop veto's it, you can more or less expect it to stay dead. if they push it too hard, the legislators will lose their jobs and piss off arnold which means complications in the future

[All American Kid]

Well licensing IS a state duty. Just as the state can set the standard for drivers license they can for a marriage license (IMO). What troubles me about this is that in the state constitution in CA marriage is defined as one man and one woman. Ooops did the legislative branch EVER consider their own constitution when voting on this manner? Furthermore the amendment was passed by majority vote of the public. Do they now also believe that we are no longer governed by the people as well?

I hope that the people of CA make those involved pay dearly (vote them out) if not who is to say that they will pass a law allowing free access to search and seize anything in your house for any reason after all the fourth amendment just a constitutional amendment. --AAK

[Wadi66]

States don't have the authority to license unless the people grant the State an expansion of powers. Just a little detail that needs to be recognized. I realize you stated the Amendment was passed by the majority of people. I just wanted to mention that as it isn't something most people think about.

What some people could argue is that CA's Constitution is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, citing the 14th Amendment. But the 14th Amendment actually establishes 2 citizenships. There is a citizenship for naturalized citizens and another for those born here. Naturalized citizens are citizens of the U.S. and then citizens of the State in which they reside. Those who are born here are State citizens and the citizens of the U.S.

[Argonath]

ah, anyway, I meant by this thread to ask you what your opinion on the matter is. Obviously many will not like it, but few, like me, will be fine with it. I don't know what will happen with it, but tell me what your thoughts on the matter are, in general.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

I take it by supporting gay marriage that you won't have an issue when someone wants to marry his sister/aunt/mother/cousin, or when someone wants to marry/have sex with a dog/cat/rat/pig, or when some 40 male wants to marry/have sex with a 10 year old boy?

Because the entire arguement for gay marriage can and will be used by all of the above, and seeing as how the precident has been set, there will effectively be nothing to stop it.

Now, that is a slippery slope.

[FightinDaMan]

No, actually it can't. My argument is that the government cannot deny the tax benefits which go along with a government-issued marriage license to somebody because of something like sexual orientation. Animals and 10 year olds are not able/allowed to be parties to a legal contract, which is what a marriage license is. As for incest and bestiality, if I don't have to watch or hear about it, I don't really see why it's my business.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

I'm not talking about the tax benefits, I'm talking about the 'right' to marry whom you wish. Once you allow gay marriages, it's a matter of time before people want to marry parents/sisters/aunts/uncles/fathers/brothers/cousins/children/animals.

What then will you do when you deny them the right to do so, and they throw the whole gay marriage thing back in your face?

That's the point.

[Argonath]

I take it by supporting gay marriage that you won't have an issue when someone wants to marry his sister/aunt/mother/cousin, or when someone wants to marry/have sex with a dog/cat/rat/pig, or when some 40 male wants to marry/have sex with a 10 year old boy?

Because the entire arguement for gay marriage can and will be used by all of the above, and seeing as how the precident has been set, there will effectively be nothing to stop it.

Now, that is a slippery slope.

Your acting like gayness is a fetish. it's not, it's a feeling people get. you can't fall in love with a cat, in the physical sense, but, if you can, well. . . ewww. Anyway, incest is something that I might consider okay, but it would take a lot of convincing, because they are both people, and they have a right to express their love, but they're family, ya know? Michael Jackson marrying some ten year old is unlikly. Anyone who marries a ten year old with an adult is just stupid, because they kid has no idea what the hell will happen. remember, the kid is ten, and thinks that marriage is farts and sunshine. little does he know of the lurking horrors of bills and sex. eww, i can't think about it. anyway, homosexuality is an actual feeling people get, but wanting to do a pig or cat is just a perverted fetish.

[Argonath]

I'm not talking about the tax benefits, I'm talking about the 'right' to marry whom you wish. Once you allow gay marriages, it's a matter of time before people want to marry parents/sisters/aunts/uncles/fathers/brothers/cousins/children/animals.

I already answered this in the last one, but just want to make it clear that I think that this is rediculous.

[jackhabit]

I take it by supporting gay marriage that you won't have an issue when someone wants to marry his sister/aunt/mother/cousin, or when someone wants to marry/have sex with a dog/cat/rat/pig, or when some 40 male wants to marry/have sex with a 10 year old boy?

Because the entire arguement for gay marriage can and will be used by all of the above, and seeing as how the precident has been set, there will effectively be nothing to stop it.

Now, that is a slippery slope.

why is it that everytime the topic of gay marriage comes up, somebody undoubtedly compares it to beastiality, incest, or pedophilia? looks like a few too many have been reading rick santorum's book on family "values" again. and i live in PA so i've earned the right to trash that bible-thumping douchebag all i want.

interspecies sexual contact is odd and illegal, so is incest, and pedopiles seek physical realtionships with children - NOT other adults. can someone PLEASE tell me what ANY of these things have to do with two same sex ADULTS hooking up and getting freaky? i'll help you out: THEY DON'T. it is a lame attempt to lump gays in with TRUE sickos in order to demonize them.

and don't give me that lame-ass "IT'S NOT NATURAL... IT'S ABNORMAL... MARRIAGE HAS ALWAYS BEEN DEFINED AS BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN... THE SOLE PURPOSE OF SEX IS FOR PROCREATION" bullshit. that's your religion talking. despite what some think, we're not ALL christians in the country so your pro-jesus reasoning for enacting legislation does not jibe. put the bible down for a sec and stop massaging jesus' feet, because i want a LEGAL reason for the justification of a gay marriage ban.

i think the real reason is that so-called "understanding" conservative straight folks, while they may appear to be sympathetic on the surface, really have their stomachs turned at the thought of gays being seen as equal to them on that level. how does two men/women getting hitched do ANYTHING to undermine/undo the bond you have with your significant other of the opposite sex? are you that insecure in your union? is your committment to your opposite sex spouse that paper thin that it can be undone by brad and evan tying the knot halfway across the country? explain this please, and give jesus a much needed breather.

[LovetoSki]

This is really one of those issues I could give two shits about. Whether or not gays are allowed to marry or not has absolutely no impact on my life whatsoever.

[alwaysRight]

I'm in Ohio and we "the people" voted against it. And I'm glad it passed. If you want to be gay behind your closed doors, fine. Law states that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.

Jackhabit-I'm sorry, but you are way off. Me, for example, being against unions between two homosexuals being recognised by the state does not mean I am insecure in my union. You're completely wrong. People who oppose gay marriage are not that way because their "commitment is paper thin.." Come on.

Law has always been the same for hundreds of years. Man and woman. Why should we let 1 percent of the population change that?

[LovetoSki]

Law has always been the same for hundreds of years. Man and woman. Why should we let 1 percent of the population change that?


And how would that 1% ofthe population getting "married" affect your life at all? It wont. Like I said, i dont care either way, if 1000 gay couples get married in my state tomorrow, nothing at all would change for the rest of us.

[alwaysRight]

Give me a little while and by the end of today I will tell you how allowing gay marriage would effect you.

[Topiary Lady]

The Governator is NOT going to sign that. Kooky as California is, we have already voted against this ridiculousness.

We've got a lot of serious issues on the ballot tuesday. Unfortunatly, it already looks like we're going to loose on prop 73 which would require Parental Consent before a CHILD has an abortion, and also a loss on prop 75 which would have stopped the THEFT of union dues being used as political donations. Rats.

[Oi_Ve]

There are two aspects of marriage; legal and religous.

You can have a marriage without a religious ceremony. That's why atheists can be married

You can have a wedding without signing any legal documents (well, I'll put it this way, its legal, whether your church chooses to do it their opinion)

The legal aspect of it involves getting a marriage license so that your union is respected by the government and you become entitled to assorted benefits by companies and the government itself. Go down to an attorney's office and ask to see their binder of marriage benefits; its 5 inches thick.
Gays, who cannot be marriaged in the legal sense (get a license), cannot get these benefits.
They aren't asking for churches to recognize their marriage, for anyone to accpet them, or to force churches to wed them. They want the benefits that are entitled to straights.
Animals, children, and the dead CANNOT sign legal documents. That door cannot be opened, period. That arguement is old and has been aswered.

We should either let them be wed in the legal sense, or we can give them a document of a different name which holds the same legal status as a marriage license.

And before you say 'well next we'll have polygomy', remember that that opens up completely different arguements and is NOT relevant to gay marriage.

[LovetoSki]

With regardas to polygamy, could someone tell me what the big deal is with that either? As long as they are consenting adults, why not? I can see there being restrictions as far as health benefits and what not. Bt as far as a moral issue, if they choose to live that way, who is the government to say they cant. In biblical times, wasnt it common for men to have many wives?