Frankly it is not possible for gays to Marry without first re-defining the word marriage. Marriage by definition is a union between a man and a woman.

The ruling by the California Supreme court is not the last word on this debate. In fact thre is likely to be an initiave on the California ballot in November amending its constitution to outlaw gay marriage just as Texas and numerous other states have. The California can't overturn an amendment to the constitution.

Becuase of this turn of events, in California, there is also a serious initiave to ban gay marriage in the US constitution too!

Most americans are against "gay marriage" but not against "civil unions" I think the difference here is not tradition or disrespect for the rights of gays but rather the definition of the word marriage. A civil union does everything for a gay couple that the law does in recognising a marriage but it dosent mess with the meaning of the word "marriage".

Call me an old fud if you will but I just don't see anything that makes a person "gay" except for the thoughts in his/her head. I don't buy that gays were born that way or that they have no choice they just decided that they would be "gay". I don't think that confers any special rights that need extra protection. Being gay is like being a smoker there is nothing wrong with it but many people don't like it and are offended by it. It is also a choice the person makes.

My problem with the California decision will begin when a gay couple "married" in California or Massechusetts comes to Texas and wants us to legally recognise their union as a marriage in violation of our state constitution. Of course the plan is to challenge such state constitutional amendments inder the US Constitution.......I hope by then we will have amended the US Constitution to prohibit "gay" marriage.

Why would anybody "choose" to be queer?

Let me ask you a question...

How does it offend you for gay people to marry?

I can explain how it offends them when you say what you say though.

"Well I don't think we should be keeping them as slaves anymore, obviously we should just let them go about their business, but I really get offended at the thought of them going to our schools."

"Well I don't think we should keep them from having the same rights as married couples anymore, obviously we should just let them go about their business, but I really get offended at the thought of them joining our club (marriage)."

I'm pretty sure you'll find something in the constitution about seperate but equal not being equal even if it might have sounded really nice at the time. After all, we stopped making them pick our cotton, the least they could do is stay out of our schools.

Obviously I don't mean to say that denying gay people the right to marry is akin to the travesty that slavery was, but the point is you want to make them "almost" equal to you, but not quite and we (sadly) have a very recent memory in our history of another group we did this too.

Full disclosure - I'm a married, straight, white, male who isn't offended by them joining my club.

Anse:

Why would anybody "choose" to be queer?

Why would anybody "choose" to smoke?

"I don't buy that gays were born that way or that they have no choice they just decided that they would be 'gay'."

That's okay, hoss -- nobody's trying to sell it. You don't have to like gays any more than you have to like negroes or jews. Just don't be too hurt if civilization carries on without you, 'k?

Let me ask you a question...

How does it offend you for gay people to marry?

Let me answer.

Marriage is a union between a Man and a Woman it is designed to provide a family in which children can be created and raised.

A gay union (which I don't mind as long as they don't call it marriage) is a union of 2 people dedicated to a purely adult lifestyle.

Like I said in my original post I'm not opposed to allowing gay's to have unions just opposed to allowing them to call it marriage. Of course gays should not be adopting children or otherwise corrupting them with their lifestyle choices.

lattelibertarian:

"I don't buy that gays were born that way or that they have no choice they just decided that they would be 'gay'."

That's okay, hoss -- nobody's trying to sell it. You don't have to like gays any more than you have to like negroes or jews. Just don't be too hurt if civilization carries on without you, 'k?

I don't dislike gays but I don't approve of the lifestyle they have. I don't care if the state recognises their unions but they should not co-opt the word marriage to describe their unions and they should not be allowed to expose their lifestyle to children.

It is kind of the same way with smokers they have a right to smoke but they shouldn't be suprised when people are offended by their choice to do it.

No... god forbid all the thousands of children whose straight parents abandon them get a roof under their head. I'm sure they'd take a gay household over where they are now in a heartbeat.

And yes, I saw that you said that a civil union is ok. But again, how does it specifically offend you to change the legal definition of marriage?

"I don't dislike gays but I don't approve of the lifestyle they have. I don't care if the state recognises their unions but they should not co-opt the word marriage to describe their unions and they should not be allowed to expose their lifestyle to children."

Think of the dictionaries! Won't someone think of the dictionaries? Personally, I don't approve of lacrosse, fake tans or homophobia disguised as lexigraphical conservationism. Fortunately, the laws of a free society don't really give a crap what offends either of our delicate little sensibilities.

If you don't like to see gays 'exposing their lifestyle to children', I'd suggest you move to Iran. Their culture and legal system will be more to your liking.

Marriage is NOT a union between a man and a woman, as far as secular courts are concerned, at least in Mass. and Ca. Marriage is two people making a public contract to henceforth be one economic unit. Churches may define marriage as they choose, and may choose to or not to marry anyone based on whatever criteria suits their religious purpose. But for purposes of the state, everyone has to get a marriage license, and afterward has certain rights and obligations conferred by the state in the matter of the new economic unit.

I think all that should be necessary is that the two parties be legally able to participate in a contract. Period.

I haven't seen very much discussion in this debate about just what this will do to our culture, which is family based. Merely claiming that it'll be just great doesn't cut it; experience in Scandinavia indicates that gay marriage does nothing for normal marriages or habits. As to the effects on children, etc, long term, we just don't know.. I'm all for the scientific method and experiments, but it would have to be a "controlled" experiment over a couple of generations to really learn anything (positive). Also, I have a serious question: when various people later on demand to "marry" their pets, exactly what kind of argument could anyone use against that, or would that be OK as well? disigny

See, this is exactly my problem with the republican party as it is now.

Look at Rudy Giulliani. He is a republican from a liberal city. He believes that gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortions are ok. He's my kind of Republican. The fact that there are almost NONE like him is the reason that every election I have to vote Democrat (I actually don't much like them either).

I don't understand how republicans can give ANY consideration to the legislation of Christian morality. The U.S. is a land based on freedom of religion. Just because the bible belt has a lot of voters doesn't mean everyone should have to live by their moral standards.

Let them live by their standards and the rest of the world move on. Let your church govern your life if you like their rules better, just leave the rest of the world out of it.

When your pet can explain to me why it wants to marry you, I'll consider that it consented. Until then, no go.

If however it can explain it to me and answer my questions, go ahead.

"I haven't seen very much discussion in this debate about just what this will do to our culture, which is family based."

Good point - will the number of families that this ruling creates (now that gays are allowed to, y'know, get married and start families) outweigh the number of families that are destroyed because, dammit, I just don't want to raise children in a world where guys get to kiss each other? We need to see some statistics on this.

Re: your "serious question": you couldn't be more right. If only our laws made some distinction between consenting adults and house pets when it comes to the ratification of legal contracts.

janna1g:

Marriage is NOT a union between a man and a woman, as far as secular courts are concerned, at least in Mass. and Ca. Marriage is two people making a public contract to henceforth be one economic unit. Churches may define marriage as they choose, and may choose to or not to marry anyone based on whatever criteria suits their religious purpose. But for purposes of the state, everyone has to get a marriage license, and afterward has certain rights and obligations conferred by the state in the matter of the new economic unit.

I think all that should be necessary is that the two parties be legally able to participate in a contract. Period.

Well at least in Texas we define a marriage as a union between a Man and a Woman (just as the word has been defined since it's inception.) This is part of the Texas Constitution with over 75% of Texans voting to add this Amendment. We also passed a law forbiding homosexuals to adopt children recognising that homosexual lifestyles are legal but definately beneificial for the rearing of children.

I consider our state to be one of the fairer states in the Union however we won't our society to be degraded by losing our standards.