Prop 8?

You are terribly illiterate about this topic. Get educated.

Monogamy--one marriage at a time--is the primary vehicle through which the State regulates familial benefits and responsibilities. The State has a compelling interest in protecting the welfare and fiancial stability of your first spouse and any children of that first marriage before you may be allowed to marry again. Therefore, you must divorce your first spouse in accordance with the law before you may enter a second marriage with another person. Through a divorce action, the state court applies the law to determine matters of property division, child custody, and support.

With respect to incest, the State has a compelling interest in protecting children. Sexual abuse of a child is a crime. Fathers and mothers and other close relatives may not groom their familial children to be their sex partners. Being raised in a sexually predatory home would be harmful to children. The State must necessarily ban incestuous unions in order to protect children from becoming the helpless victims of incest.

Homosexual marriage in NY is illegal, as it has always been illegal, as it is in every other state and so far as I know every other country.

The state enacted a civil union law in 2005 that provides same-sex couples with some of the same rights and responsibilities under state law as marriage. Connecticut became the second state in the United States (following Vermont) to adopt civil unions, and the first to do so without judicial intervention

hawkeye10 wrote:

Homosexual marriage in NY is illegal, as it has always been illegal, as it is in every other state and so far as I know every other country.

Actually, gay marriage is legal in US - Connecticut and Mass. Spain, South Africa, Canada, Belgium, and Holland all allow same sex marriage.

Educate yourself before you make another ridiculous claim like that.

Quote:

The state enacted a civil union law in 2005 that provides same-sex couples with some of the same rights and responsibilities under state law as marriage. Connecticut became the second state in the United States (following Vermont) to adopt civil unions, and the first to do so without judicial intervention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Connecticut

prove wikipedia wrong....

I have said that the majority will OK civil union contracts between gays with most but not all of the provisions of marriage (heterosexual only as always)..

I am getting tired of idiots claiming that I don't know what I am talking about...

PALMER, J. The issue presented by this case is
whether the state statutory prohibition against same
sex marriage violates the constitution of Connecticut.
The plaintiffs, eight same sex couples, commenced this
action, claiming that the state statutory prohibition
against same sex marriage violates their rights to substantive
due process and equal protection under the
state constitution. The trial court rendered summary
judgment in favor of the defendant state and local officials
upon determining that, because this state’s statutes
afford same sex couples the right to enter into a
civil union, which affords them the same legal rights
as marriage, the plaintiffs had not established a constitutionally
cognizable harm. We conclude that, in light
of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by
gay men and lesbians,1 and because the institution of
marriage carries with it a status and significance that
the newly created classification of civil unions does not
embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual
couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable
harm. We also conclude that (1) our state
scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
(2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated
on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes
of the equal protection provisions of the United States
constitution, sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect
classification for purposes of the equal protection
provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, our
statutes discriminating against gay persons are subject
to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and (3)
the state has failed to provide sufficient justification
for excluding same sex couples from the institution of
marriage. In light of our determination that the state’s
disparate treatment of same sex couples is constitutionally
deficient under an intermediate level of scrutiny,
we do not reach the plaintiffs’ claims implicating a
stricter standard of review, namely, that sexual orientation
is a suspect classification, and that the state’s bar
against same sex marriage infringes on a fundamental
right in violation of due process and discriminates on
the basis of sex in violation of equal protection. In
accordance with our conclusion that the statutory
scheme impermissibly discriminates against gay persons
on account of their sexual orientation, we reverse
the trial court’s judgment and remand the case with
direction to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she disagreed with the ruling.

"The Supreme Court has spoken," she said. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision _ either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution _ will not meet with success."

State Sen. Michael Lawlor, chairman of the legislature's Judiciary Committee, said he expects the General Assembly will pass a gay marriage law next year codifying the Supreme Court ruling.

"It's important that both the legislature and the court weigh in," he said. "The court is saying that it's a constitutional requirement that marriage should be equally available to gays and straights and the legislature should weigh in saying whether or not it's constitutionally required, it's the right thing to do."

The court was sharply divided in the decision, with three justices issuing separate dissenting opinions.

all this energy aimed at people they hate.

ahh, the humanity! the humanity!

I bit harsh to call me an idiot because I don't have the latest info, but anyways....

I will be wrong if the majority does not overturn the courts.

There's nothing stopping me from having sex with a man aside from my belief that I shouldn't. It doesn't take a specific gender to get someone aroused. It takes a sexual stimulus.

My fiance would tell you that I most definitely am not gay. So would all of my friends.

WASHINGTON " Denying that he did anything wrong and stating emphatically that "I am not gay," Sen. Larry Craig asked the people of Idaho on Tuesday to forgive him for being arrested two months ago in a police sting in a men's room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

Debra shame on you going with the if you are not 100 percent in support of the so call gay right movement then you to must then be an in the closet self hating gay person.

So Debra your position that Copper Seth or anyone else must have this form of sexual disorder for daring to disagree with you is highly amusing but of little other benefit.

Homosexuality is a sinfull lifestyle.

When I die, I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that I will be spending eternity in heaven. Can you say the same?

There's nothing wrong, immoral, or sinful about homosexuality. Your oppression of your fellow human beings based on their sexual orientation is shameful

To me homosexuality is just a sexual disorder with no moral compound to it one way or another and my reasons for not supporting gay married rights have been express many times on this thread in details.