Prop 8?

I'm deeply saddened. I have lost faith in CA

this country is a mesh of customs from across the entirety of the globe.


if i had the energy i would vote for gay amrriage to be allowed. seriously, its nobodies business but their own.

who are we to deny them pursuit of their happiness? hrmm, the constitution states it pretty clearly.

Why would anyone resist the idea of allowing gay marriage? Why would anyone think it's their business? Why would anyone think it was the goverments business?

Oh, wait, that's right...Religion. (insert 3 ominous descending minor chords)

For a long time it was "custom" for blacks to be property.
For many years it was "custom" to not allow women to vote.
At one time it was "custom" to marry within your own race.

Separation of church and state.

Ferostie wrote:

Separation of church and state.

It has nothing to do with the church, except that there is a tendency for religious Christians to be against gay marriage. I am an atheist and I'm against it too.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Ferostie wrote:

Separation of church and state.

It has nothing to do with the church, except that there is a tendency for religious Christians to be against gay marriage. I am an atheist and I'm against it too.

Why are you against it?

The question is whether the state should actually formally endorse gay marriages, by issuing licenses for them. We're under no obligation to endorse a practice which has been considered invalid in every country since the dawn of time.

Brandon9000 wrote:

The question is whether the state should actually formally endorse gay marriages, by issuing licenses for them. We're under no obligation to endorse a practice which has been considered invalid in every country since the dawn of time.

You're wrong, Brandon. You can't even define the issue.

Our government, whether it be our federal government or our state government, must serve ALL the people (not just the Christians and the heterosexuals) on an equal basis. Marriage, like freedom of speech, is a CIVIL right that the government cannot deny or disparage. That homosexuals have borne the brunt of discrimination from the "dawn of time" is not justification for continuing that discrimination. All people (including homosexuals) are entitled to equal protection under the law.

In California, however, a very small majority of the people voted to write DISCRIMINATION into their constitution. In substance and effect, it now says: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws, with the exception of a homosexual person who may be denied equal protection of the laws."

Everyone who voted for STATE-SPONSORED DISCRIMINATION of an entire class of people ought to be ashamed. What was unjustly done will eventually be remedied, but it is outrageous that an entire class of people must suffer in the meantime due to your hateful ignorance.

I think that evolution created gender, reproduction, and sexual attraction so that people of opposite genders could combine to have offspring, and that homosexuality is some sort of malfunction of the biological systems involved.

Debra Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

The question is whether the state should actually formally endorse gay marriages, by issuing licenses for them. We're under no obligation to endorse a practice which has been considered invalid in every country since the dawn of time.

You're wrong, Brandon. You can't even define the issue.

Our government, whether it be our federal government or our state government, must serve ALL the people (not just the Christians and the heterosexuals) on an equal basis. Marriage, like freedom of speech, is a CIVIL right that the government cannot deny or disparage. That homosexuals have borne the brunt of discrimination from the "dawn of time" is not justification for continuing that discrimination. All people (including homosexuals) are entitled to equal protection under the law.

In California, however, a very small majority of the people voted to write DISCRIMINATION into their constitution. In substance and effect, it now says: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws, with the exception of a homosexual person who may be denied equal protection of the laws."

Everyone who voted for STATE-SPONSORED DISCRIMINATION of an entire class of people ought to be ashamed. What was unjustly done will eventually be remedied, but it is outrageous that an entire class of people must suffer in the meantime due to your hateful ignorance.

Serving all people on an equal basis doesn't mean letting anyone do anything he wants. All people have the right at a certain age to marry someone of the opposite sex. What, for example, if very young minors wanted to be allowed to marry? In your world view, must we permit that too or else be discriminating against them? The mere fact that someone wishes to do something doesn't mean that the request has to be granted.