Prop 8?

You keep missing my point. I'm saying what if gay couples were given all the same rights as straight couples, then would it be okay? I realize they are not now, but what if they were...could we use something other than marriage?

Copper Seth wrote:

I wouldt care if the government quit recognizing marriages al together. I don't care about the governments validation of the relationship I have with my fiance. I take part in my relationship for the benefit of myself and my fiance and hopefully one day our children.

The civil institution of marriage is the primary means by which our civil government regulates individual rights and duties with respect to all family units that live within the state. Marriage may only be entered into or dissolved in accordance with civil law. The State has a compelling interest in enforcing your legal duties to your spouse and children to ensure that your future family does not become a burden to the State and the taxpayers.

Maybe someday you and your fiance will have children, but the ability to procreate is NOT a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license. Your marriage will be valid whether you have children or not. If you could care less about the civil institution of marriage, then why are you engaged to be married? More importantly, why do you think it's within your right to deprive an entire classes of persons of the same right that you reserve for yourself? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Instead of lecturing to me or other people on this board, perhaps you should work on the flaws in your own thought processes that embrace hypocrisy, prejudice, and bigotry. There is something seriously wrong with a person who favors and supports majoritarian oppression of individuals or minorities.

Hmm Debra you just prove my point the license is there for the benefit of families with children, even if not all families will contain children.

As a class it is many times more likely that heterosexual will have children inside the family units then gay couples will.

Therefore the right to claim that license and it benefits for gay couples on it face is a great deal less then straight couples.

if it violates the constitution, then there should be no arguing whatsoever, just take it to the supreme court. But MANY do not think it violates the constitution and you can argue all you want but there seems to no no clear evidence of such case. Isn't that why we voted instead of using judicial means to settle this case? If you can't accept this, there can be no discussion in the first place anyway

Most married heterosexual couples do end up with children born into and as a direct result of that relationship. Not all but most and currently 80 percent of children are born into that form of relationship in this country.

The state does not need to demand that all such couples have children to set up a system of licensing to cover this form of human relationship that does indeed end up producing the majority of children.

Given that not one gay couple in the history of the human race had produce one child inside their relatiosnhip I see zero point or justice in granting them the same license or the same transfer of benefits and wealth we do to married straight couples.

The two form of relationships are not the same can not be the same and therefore can and should not be treated the same.

The public as a whole have no stake in promoting long term gay relatiosnhips and therefore should not be involve one way or another.

This whole gay married idea on the face of it is PC silliness taken to the n degree.

What is even more amusing is that the similar equal protection clause in the US Constitution had never been found to apply to such matters as slavery or the equal rights for women, but somehow the California court had found the California clause applying to gay unions!

A mandatory provision of the Idaho probate code that gives preference to men over women when persons of the same entitlement class apply for appointment as administrator of a decedent's estate is based solely on a discrimination prohibited by and therefore violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment....

To give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and whatever may be [404 U.S. 71, 77] said as to the positive values of avoiding intrafamily controversy, the choice in this context may not lawfully be mandated solely on the basis of sex.

The word marriage, was brought about as a religious deal and I think it should be kept that way. I need no government acceptance of my marriage. Even if the government completely abandoned recognition of marriages, I would become married to my fiance through my church. I don't need a law to tell me I can get married. We're skipping the question of whether heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships are equal and just jumping to the conclusion that they are, and therefore the government must recognize them as so. If you wish to do so, fine. I realize that you take offense at my stance as you believe it wrong. I have not favored "oppression" of individuals. My argument is based upon the merit of the relationships, not the individuals. I never stated that homosexuals should be oppressed or prevented from freely participating in their relationships, or even prevented from being recognized by the government. My argument is simple, to force people to accept two items that are not identical as identical is not fair.

I respect that you know the law, but the constitution is not always interpreted the same way. Many do not see prop 8 being passed as unconstitutional.

The word marriage, was brought about as a religious deal and I think it should be kept that way.