Happy Whacko Day!

At a time. Next we are going for inter-species marriages and full conjugal rights attached, including the right of inheritance for Fluffy, Spot, Boots or perhaps all three.

The Left Coast leads the way where no man has gone before, nor should.

It's kind of hard to explain to someone who doesn't already see that there is a difference between uniting both sexes and bringing together two people of the same sex.

I know it is cliche to say, but I have gay friends and I do not wish them well. It doesn't phase me one bit when they kiss, hold hands, etc. But marriage is what it is, and what the court did was show itself to be out of touch with human history, and the damage will be significant.

http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/05/15/california_goes_f or_chuck_and_larry.thtml

Ken, you have gay friends and you don't wish them well? I don't get it. I have gay friends, too. And while I understand the majority of our population wanting to protect "marriage" as a man/woman thing, I don't understand not wanting them to have the benefits that come with marriage. I don't think they're freaks, and I don't think they've chosen their preference. Why can't marriage be seperated into two entities here? There's a religious marriage, and a union between 2 people. Get hitched legally thru your state, and then if you want a religious ceremony, have it. I just can't help but put myself in their situation, I guess that makes me a loon. (ducking for cover....)

This ruling simply affirms that separate but equal is not compatible with the Cailfornia Constitution. It's not about tradition or morality, but rather equal protection under the Constitution of the State.

Sorry Linda, I disagree. I totally believe it is indeed a choice. But that is a debate for another time I suppose. I think in time we will indeed see the folly of legitimization of same sex relationships.

I meant to write that I do not wish my friends ILL. Sorry about that. What would Freud say? Perhaps I "don't with them well" in the fact that I would have a hard time attend their "wedding".

Marriage licences are not a right. Licenses are issued for a specific purpose. But I suppose we were heading this way the moment we said it was okay for a same-sex pairing to adopt children or make them in a lab or a stranger.

Ha! I thought that sentence was fishy!

I guess I see it this way: I don't think most gays really care if you call it "marriage" or not, they just want the benefits that comes w/ a marriage. (At least the ones I know.) They're not trying to spit on religion or moral values, they just want what straight people want.

I can understand both sides of this arguement.

I guess I just don't feel like the world will come to an end if they're able to have some sort of union that allows them the benefits, that we married people have.

I believe history teaches us that once homosexuality is embraced as normal, society fails. America may never be the same. Yes I am an evangelical Christian and yes I do believe it is an abomination. If we as a country accept homosexuality as normal our society will be the worse for it.

Linda..There's a religious marriage, and a union between 2 people. Get hitched legally thru your state....

No, there is marriage.
To make it anything else except what it is, destroys what was, and creates something new.

If you need something to call the union, call it something else. But don't jerk around with what already is.

It's not about equal rights at all, all Americans have that.
Giving gays the "right" to marry is pointless, shall we also give them the "right" to have children in the natural fashion?
And if so.. how does that work for two guys?

Rights conferred presume the action of equal responsibility to match the rights.

You're right. What I should have said is that maybe we should have "marriage" and THEN have something else for them, ie. "union", that includes the legalities that come with marriage like survivorship, insurance, hospital visitation, etc. Like I said, I don't think most would be hung up on calling it "marriage".