Not for nothing, but marriage is a religious thing and they should be able to say "no gay people allowed." That being said, somewhere along the way, marriage got equated to rights and tax laws - which is bullshit.

As long as there equal tax laws for civil unions, then I don't give a fuck whether you're "married" or not.

As a straight person, I wouldn't expect to be able a LGBT group, and gay people shouldn't expect to join a straight group - like the majority of churches. It's not discrimination - it's individualism and most people practice it to some extent or another.

That's nice. Now can you list any reason why gay marriage would be detrimental to American society? Because quite frankly, I couldn't care less what the traditions are.

The debate about 'marriage' vs. 'civil union' is semantics, when it comes down to it. Laws allowing CIVIL marriage equality have nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage defined by your church or temple. It has to do with state marriage licenses, which are issued by the government, and all of the financial/legal protections they offer. It's far more than an equal tax structure at stake. There's no reason to deny that protection to gay couples. And there's no reason why gay couples should have one word and straights should have another on a federal or state document, because we're talking, again, about a legal concept, not a religious one.

Religious entities can legally grant or deny THEIR marriage rites to whomever they choose, and that won't change. Nobody is challenging that. Your religion does not have the right to influence secular law, however. There's no state religion in the USA>

I agree with you. Marriage is between a man and a woman as it has been for thousands of years even in societies where homosexuality was completely accepted (with the notable exception of the Roman Empire but we all know what happened to them). If civil unions offer the exact legal rights, then there should be no reason to shun it. In fact, I think it would be easier to push civil unions into national recognition than a state by state battle for recognition of same-sex marriage.

Marriage between a man and a woman is not some sacred institution not to be trifled with. People are forced into marriages, people are set up to marry when they are 13. Men marry many females. People make up their own rules as they go along, usually to the detriment of another human being. In this case the progress we are making is a GOOD thing. No one wants to marry children or box turtles. Two adults should be able to have the same marriage rights as any jerkoff redneck straight person.

Yes I believe marriage is a tradition that should not be screwed around with. Sisters can not marry their brothers, mothers can not marry their sons even if all involved are adults. If someone makes a case to marry their mother, how could YOU possibly argue against it without resorting to tradition?

To all the people claiming injustice for overturning the majority vote in CA: http://www.democracyweb.org/majority/principles.php

The majority should never be able to vote on the rights of the minority. Thank you for checks and balances.

Are you kidding? Seriously.

i think he's serious.

So the Judge's opinion is that the State must officially condone a homosexual union, even when a majority in the State voted against it? That's pretty gay.

Except that the judge's opinion was based in Constitutional law, which is how our country is governed. The people who voted for Prop 8 had opinions based in their own personal morality and religious beliefs, which is not the basis for law, unless you want to live in a theocracy. They have every right to their faith but they don't have the right to insist that their religious beliefs form the basis of secular law.

The judge isn't telling the state to "condone homosexual unions." He's telling the state that they cannot pass laws that specifically discriminate against citizens based on their sexual orientation, and that they must provide equal protection and rights. That's in our Constitution.

yes. its so gay that a judge wouldn't allow voters to take away a groups rights, but it's not gay at all to take away that right in the first place.

you sir, are pretty gay.

What advances in medicine, arts, sciences, business, technology have come from any of the socialist countries? When leaders from these countries get sick, they come to the US for treatment instead of using their socialized medicine.

I shouldn't have included that comment in my post, due to people focusing on that and not the real meat of the comment.

I am very pleased you were able to see an interesting argument. Its happening all over this country. Look at the so-called Fairness Doctrine. They are trying to take down conservative radio; however, what happens when they try to take down liberal/progressive stations? Where is the arguement going to come from since the liberals already allowed it to happen?

Think broadly... while one issue (Prop 8), may cause hurt feelings, if the trend continues in this fashion, we'll have more than hurt feelings to deal with.

also you seem to be conflating social democracies with socialism. surprise, you're wrong about yet another thing!

hahaha do you really think that science is better served by religion

seriously

do you really think that

that's like thinking the best writers in the world are illiterate

There's too many advances to list coming from socialist (or at least democratic-socialist) countries, but I'll just name one of them, 1G GSM mobile phone technology coming out of Scandinavia.

Actually the gov't regulation in Europe actually helped move stuff along because they were able to codify the GSM standard early on (early 80s) that helped ensure interoperability while the USA floundered around with competing mobile standards.

In the US, we still are working on those different standards which makes it annoying to switch from say Verizon to AT&T. Also it was only recently that our most advanced mobile phones themselves caught up and eclipsed the ones available from Scandinavia (Nokia) or Canada (RIM: Blackberry).

Anyway the moral of the story is sometimes gov't control can help actually spur development and leapfrog unregulated stuff esp in nascent industries that lack standards. Other times for instance like high-speed rail, more gov't can help make investment that really would be uneconomical for private companies to do, but will stand to benefit everyone in the much longer term.

And of course other times Gov't just royally screws up everything and you get a sort of industrial retardation, wasteful bureaucracy and mediocrity, like those shitty cars that came out of Soviet Russia. Or for instance.. the new US health care debacle, yep that's a flowchart of it.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/PhotoPopup.aspx?path=obamacare_chart_LG.jpg&docId=542520&caption=.

Question - If socialism is so dandy and utopian, why are you living in the United States?

I'm sorry, but one advancement in cellular technology does not really support the whole idea of becoming a socialist nation.

"Question - If socialism is so dandy and utopian, why are you living in the United States?"

Oh, I knew it was only a matter of time until someone asked this very question. I wasn't aware that living in the U.S. automatically precluded people from paying attention to petty little things such as facts and statistics. Seriously, that's such a cop out.

Anyone who thinks that advances in science, technology, the arts, etc. only come from the U.S. are straight up ignorant. Just because you're not aware of such advances does not mean they do not exist.

Finally, as rasputinsghost asked, do you really think that a nation in which so many believe that scientific thinking should be guided by religion will be at the forefront of scientific discovery and advancement in the future? Most (all?) other developed nations of the world moved beyond this way of thinking a long, long time ago.

You all are short sighted and in my opinion ignorant. And I am not referring to the Prop 8 decision. God bless, you are all entitled to your opinion on it... BUT, when the people speak (last I checked this country was still run by the PEOPLE), their will should be followed. I don't think you realize that MILLIONS of peoples votes were overturned by a member of the so-called persecuted group. Yes the judge is Gay. How is that fair?

What happens next time? What if we vote on something else, lets say for example, immigration reform - and the people of the state overwhelmingly vote one way. And a Latino judge, feeling more compassionate to his heritage than the laws of the United States, just overturns the voters will?

This is a very dangerous precedent. All I am saying is, if you are going to accept this instance of a judge overturning the voters will, you must accept ALL future incidents. Don't come crying when they are overturning YOUR will.

It's easy to applaud when a group silences ideas you are against, but what happens when its your voice they go after next.

Democrats/Liberals/Socialists were never known to have long term thinking.

"Democrats/Liberals/Socialists were never known to have long term thinking."

What? That's the opposite of reality. Conservatives are the penny-wise pound-foolish group in this country. Money now, people later (or never). Progressives try to make things better for the future.