Oh, come on now--3 pages and nobody has seen the big difference? Gays and lesbians won't have shotgun weddings! It's all plus for them, no punishment. That's totally unfair!

Come on ppl its all about the MONEY, big companies do not want to pay for the benifits and the government does not want the SS or income tax break burden.

Rosie O'Donnell got married to her *fill in the blank* today on the steps of the San Francisco City Hall.

I am underwhelmed.

Love promise and whatever
 

To everyone a collective wow.

Here is something to consider...Naturally there was a time, actually for quite a long time in our history, that there was no such thing as "Marriage" for anyone.
I have heard it said and I don't know if this is true or not, despite it's plausibility, that “Marriage” arose from a time when it was not possible for a woman to own property or have any rights of their own. Women were basically a form of chattel.
If for any reason a women with a child was to find herself without her mate or “husband” she would find herself in a destitute position and she and her offspring would be at the mercy of the world.
Religious officials and I don’t know which flavor religion it was at the time figured, that if you could form an “until death do you part union” then a woman would be the responsibility of the male and would then they would not become a burden on ether the religious institution or the society in general. If say for instance the man needed to have a new woman cause he didn’t like the old one so much anymore.

Now I guess you can say that we have “evolved” a lot as a species since then. Or maybe you may think that we have not come that far at all and we have a long way to go. But in our current society given the all of the changes in science and law, is this not a regressive consideration that we would need to “defend” marriage? Rather maybe now is the time to provide equal protection to those who can prove that their relationships deserve to be acknowledged for their content. That their pledge of some form of undying intent to love honor and cherish care for until death is honorable pledge. That their personal commitment to each other is valid and that no one from outside of that commitment can put asunder that promise.

YaY, South!

Thanks for the voice of reason :)

Oh! Yes, and if marriage and reproduction are inextricably linked, how about sterile people, can they marry?

Right on Scarecrow!

South: you sure do got a purty mouth...... you know I guess I might make more sense if I didn't just kinda fly off at the mouth but sat back a bit and speculated.... eheheh

You know what really pisses me off?

I cannot abide the way the media deals with gay/lesbian couples when they report something.

An example is when Raymond Burr passed away. The news accounts stated that he left his estate to his lover of 35 years.....You don't see that when it is a hetro couple. The media helps propagate the stereotypical myths about gays and lesbians. That they are only into it for sex ! It really riles me that people only think of the sexual aspect of being gay. For goodness sake, there is nothing wrong with two people wanting to committ to eachother in any way they feel that is right for them.
I would like to know how a marriage between a gay couple will affect in any way a straight person's life and times.


If they don't stick there nose into it.........it won't! :)

Read these stories
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art.../4/152928.shtml

http://newsmax.com/archives/article.../9/170853.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/...10/223237.shtml

now you tell me that you liberals are compassionate! You say Bush won't win , so who will win Kerry (God help us all) first thing he will do is cut our military and God forbid another September 11. 3000 dead.
Mrdog, Bushs personal values are what the majority of America believes in.

Read this page to find out the facts about the jo gain in America!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...25/171833.shtml


And for the WMDS this war aint close to being over they could be found tomorrow!

Mrbri-
I have a difficult time equating the Bush administration’s opinion and your personal opinion about the need for the amendment to "defend" marriage.
You have not forwarded an opinion that stands to reason…
Give us some of your thoughts. We already know G.W’s
Hey to be honest I voted for Bush...oh yeah I am a registered Republican and none of that means anything to me when it comes time to address what is rational.
This in my opinion the whole things smacks of an election year ploy and is an irrational distractive attention-getting device.
If you want to flog the “liberals” fine. Please don’t do it here …Can you make a point that doesn’t transfigure your message?
Can you tell us why you feel that Marriage needs to be defended from this “homosexual/ liberal” threat?

Ok my opinion on the marriage issue is that it should be between a man and a woman, I also believe that is the way it was intended. I guess I did go off. I also belive that the SF mayor should be arrested and put away for awhile, he did break the law. But something has to be done whether its an amendment or not. Another thought I have on this issue is I belive this is going to lead to other issues that are going to be just as illegal as gay marriage. Such as people marrying animals, a child marrying a parent etc. So if a liberal wins the white house this november wouldnt they make these things legal to buy votes. Well you asked for my opinion and I gave it to you. So if that does not stand to reason well so be it , thats what I think.

D E M O C R A C Y - n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Americans live in a democracy. We vote, and the majority with the most votes prevails. (in general, please don't interject the last Presidential election into this...)

Overwhelmingly, the majority of people in the U.S. (and even California) have voiced that "marriage" should be the "union of one man and one woman". Wide margin. No hanging chads. So be it. Done. Democracy in action.

Also in America, there are the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. The individual is entitled to equal protection under the law.

Marriages are reserved for the union of one man and one woman. Civil unions are the union of two consenting adults.

Why not grant (through normal legislation) spousal privileges, tax benefits, and recognition to Civil unions and be done with this mess?

The mistake that the mayor of San Francisco made is promoting anarchy instead of social change. Showing gross disrespect for the law is not promoting his cause, no matter how noble and honorable his intentions are. Sorry, he ain't no Ghandi.

I'm getting weary of the tendency in this country for the tail to wag the dog in this country. If you want to affect change, persuade those around you, follow the legislative and judicial procedures, and create a majority. It's been done with women's suffrage, alcohol prohibition, and civil rights. With instant communication ,mass media, and lawyers in the thousands, this process can happen faster than it took in the past.

And another thing, I am getting weary of every issue in America becoming another reason to hate George Bush, or bash the liberal establishment. State your argument, and quit trying to demonize somebody.

*steps off of soapbox*

I'm seeing some serious conflicts between points four and five of that definition. What if the majority don't respect the individual or social equality?

I have an opinion on this but I am not going to state it.The Judge,
in the SF case,is an addmitted homosexual.In my opinion,he should have disqualified himself from this case. Irish
P.S.My $.02.Frankly,I personaly,don't see that politics has anything,to do,with this case,except for an excuse, for everyone,
to bash anything that goes against their beliefs!