Prop 8?

Copper Seth it does not matter to gay right supporters that gay relationships can not be the same as heterosexaul relationships for reasones that no human power can change.

They wish the courts and the society as a whole to just pretend otherwise.

Frankly I would not care one way or another except for the fact to honor their wish is to unfairly enrich this group at the expense of everyone else.

Debra - you have proven yourself to be a very intelligent woman and I greatly appreciate you answering my questions. I have to say, you have a compelling argument but there are a few things I still don't understand.

1 - Separation of church and state is NOT found in the 1st amendment, but you've said multiple things about it being there. As I understood it, it was from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to some church and people commonly misunderstood it as being part of the constitution. Can you clarify this for me?

2 - I understand prop 8 isn't about NY but you are using the assumption that Loving v. Virginia as your basis for same-sex being a "fundamental right." This NY Supreme Court ruling explains, in legal terms why your assumption is not nessecarily correct, how is that not relevant? The point is that this case (Loving v. Virginia) is not a valid argument because the reason marriage was deemed a "fundamental right" is because marriage is needed for the survival of the species. Same sex marriage can not and never will, without scientific aids, produce a child. Therefore, the use of this case would be invalid in defending same sex marriage. I mention this case because it is an unbiased, legal argument against same sex marriage. To say that it is a NY case and, therefore, doesn't apply in CA would be a rejection at the surface level. The arguments in this case should apply in CA as well. I don't know why the CA courts didn't see it this way. Maybe, the attorney's didn't argue this point in court. However, it is a valid argument.

Let start with the SS trust fund where both partners benefits are calculated on the top wage earner due to the theory that one of the two is likely to be out of the work force for a time raising children. The trust fund is a zero sum game more for a gay person mean less for everyone else.

Health care and other benefits offer to gay "married" partners by businesses will of course raised their botton line costs and therefore cost the shareholds and the customers of the business in question.

The tax breaks build into our tax codes for married couple will mean that the rest of us will have to pay more one way or another so gay couples can pay less to the government at all levels.

And on and on it go.

My fiancee and I are getting married next year, yes, in a straight marriage. Our joint taxes will be lower than what we paid separately, most likely. Are we 'harming' you by getting married? Hell no. That's a purely ridiculous argument.

Cycloptichorn

Information age and younger people indeed sorry but I was on computers networks when they were running at a 300 baud rate.

Met my wife over the CIS network in 1985 as a matter of fact.

Older people are far more likely to be information consumers then younger people and far more likely to able to apply commonsense to an issue no matter what the talking heads on the cable channels or the internet BLOGs are saying.

And the likely reason you lost by a lesser margin this time around is that the presidential election draw less inform voters out to vote not more inform voters and you still lost.

Debra. I READ THAT. It still says NOTHING about it "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" being IN our constitution.

And although I don't think I've read it yet on this board, I'm REALLY tired of gay people comparing their plight to that of African Americans who were brought to this country as slaves, were unable to vote or have any political power, denied education, and called property by many is disrespectful. No one is denying homosexual people the right to vote, get an education, etc. It is sickening that they would be so bold as to claim they're on the same plateau

If a gay person would exercise his or her right to married someone of the opposite sex then he or she would be cover under the idea that we wish to support relationships that could have children and I would have no problem with it.

The only problem is a moral one in that I would hope that he or she share the information that he or she is gay before marrying.

Well Cycloptichorn I know for a fact that the SS information is true as it had apply to members of my own family. I had however no obligation to do your research for you so go to google or yahoo and take your lazy fingers and hit enter at the search window. Key words suggestion: society security program married couple calculation top wage earner

When you are at google you might also like to find that a surviving spouse or just someone that had been married to a partner for 10 years or more can received benefits from SS at the age of 55 if they are no longer in the work force on the wage record of the dead husband or wife or even a divorce husband and wife as long as it been a 10 years married.

I also know this is a fact as a former co-worker of mine is enjoying a thousand dollars a month after her ex-husband pass away and she let the work force at the age of 59.

Let see try the following key words: society security program married couple survivor benefits.

You: The sky in China is actually green, not blue.

Me: Preposterous, I never heard such a thing! Do you have proof?

You: It's not my job to provide proof! Look it up yourself! Use keywords China Green Sky Air Blue blah blah blah...