I think the court to legalize same sex marriages is wrong.
I have no problem for same sex people living together and
enjoy a happy union with all the rights and responsibilities
that are accord to traditional marriage. What I am objecting to is that this same sex union should be accommodated under the umbrella of the traditional “marriage” institution.

Since time immemorial, the institution called marriage is created to accommodate the union of a man and a woman, its whole purpose is to protect and raising of children. It has social, religious and legal ramifications. Many people are very attached to this concept. Suddenly now, a few minority of people want to abuse this institution and insist on using it to include the case of same sex union, with the violent objection of many people. This will create disharmony and even violence between the people who want to preserve the traditional meaning of marriage and the people who insist on using marriage to include same sex union. To accommodate for the same sex union, we can create a new legal frame-work to take care of these unions and give it all the rights and responsibilities accord to that of traditional marriage. I just can not understand why a society can not solve this problem by creating a new legal entity, such as civil union, so to avoid conflicts. Are laws not created to create harmony among its citizens rather than just created to irritate others. Just a thought.

Why is the term marriage exclusive? In what way does same-sex marriage affect your life?

What is your problem with keeping the term marriage exclusive to the traditional family? All this is about the word, marrige. And the attempt to change its meaning. Mark Antony commented marriage was a machine to create children, but he was a idiot of course its about tax deductions, inheritance, travel and other prievleges reserved for traditional families.

funny how sentimental people are.

If same sex peolple want to live together and have all the rights and prviledges, that is ok with me. But if they insist in using the term MARIAGE to describe their union, that is the part that I am object to. Because the term MARIAGE is really very special to many people who do not want to change its meaning. Why create this disharmony in society among people if this problem can be solved by creating a new term such as civil union having all the rights and responsibilities as MARIAGE. This is my case.

manfromv:

If same sex peolple want to live together and have all the rights and prviledges, that is ok with me. But if they insist in using the term MARIAGE to describe their union, that is the part that I am object to. Because the term MARIAGE is really very special to many people who do not want to change its meaning. Why create this disharmony in society among people if this problem can be solved by creating a new term such as civil union having all the rights and responsibilities as MARIAGE. This is my case.

It is called equality, if you choose to define marraige with your narrow christion beliefs that is your choice, but do not let your beleifs effect the lives of others. The Constitution says all men (and women) are created equal. The Courts have repeatedly confirmed seperate but equal is not really equal.

Please tell me why creating a new legal entity (Civil Union) to accommodate these new types of relationships (same sex union) having the same rights and previledges, not acceptable to you? Why insist on using MARIAGE which has existed for thousands of years and with the strong objections of a major segment of the population? Are you looking for a fight? We have so many civil conflicts in society already, why do you want to create more? Why do you think using Civil Union to describe this new type of relationships means people are not equal?

To me, this is the best way to accommodate this new type of relationships without social strife and hard feelings among people who have different beliefs.

You make repeated reference to "violence" and "fights" in your postings on this topic. I know that you have very strong feelings in this vein. You say that you don't care what I do with my partner in my own house, and I appreciate you granting me that much respect, but you need to tie down that 'violence' sh*t. It will get you into trouble: when you verbalize it, it's called "harassment"; when you act on it, it's "assault". Same sex unions are not new, and neither are the crimes committed against us.

What if we just call all marriages between 2 people in the US "civil unions", for convenience, and you call your 'one man one woman' life-long relationships something else? Maybe "Traditional Marriage" would suit your sensibilities and allow you to believe that the relationship you have in that union is materially or fundamentally different enough from "civil union" to justify a "legal difference"?

Come on. You know you won't go for that and neither will I. Please don't pretend that this is a difference of opinions over "language" or "vocabulary". Biology aside, there is no difference between the relationship you would call "civil union" and the one one I would call "marriage". (And just to cut you off there... if a man and a woman are married and have no children, they are still legally married in this country. Procreation is neither necessary nor sufficient to define this relationship. Legally.)

Several people have answered your question already in this thread and you still cannot see their answers as worthy of notice. I am sure that NOTHING that anyone says on this topic is going to change your understanding of the issue or your outlook. But I will try to spell it out for you from my (gay) point of view:

I don't think it is "same-sex marriages" you have a problem with, it is 'same-sex wedding ceremonies'.

Your "traditional marriage" is based on religious and legal principles stretching back thousands of years (which have changed over time). That "traditional marriages" have existed in all major religious faiths (Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, etc) does not mean that these relationships/social contracts are equal to each other or are interchangeable in any religious sense. Even among the Christian sects in this Country, there are different responsibilities and 'oaths' offered between the couples of various "faiths". None of those religious differences matter to the laws of the US. The reverse is true, however: the laws in the US do govern what rights and responsibilities are actually conveyed by the State in a religious 'marriage ceremony'. This is a question of US law, not religious traditions.

In the US, we have a 'tradition' of honoring Christian beliefs (and other religious views), but that does not enable Christian dogma or belief to rule the process or progress of running this Country. The many various Christian flocks in this Country are just more minorities who's rights must be protected under the Constitution.

Can you honestly tell me that you want us 'same-sex types' to have "civil unions" and not "marriages" because your 'legal sensibilities' have been offended? Or, despite your most civil intentions, are you really being motivated by a threat to your 'religious sensibilities'?
(God knows when you are lying.)

See you in court.

Hello again 'manfromv'

Just want to follow up with you after I have done more reading on the legal arguments handed out of the CA supreme court.

I have to admit, your suggestion of a different term to apply to same-sex unions which will guarantee all of the rights and privileges of a traditional marriage still sounds like "separate but equal" to me. Apparently, though, legally, it would make sense for a different term to be written into law and that would end this social battle. No need for anyone to mess with anymore constitutions.

There are more pressing issues in our country for us to focus our minds and our time.

In the spirit of compromise on this issue, and the hope for more unity on other issues, I will "shake your hand" on this one and write to my Congress people to encourage that they take up this compromise in their legislation. "Marriage Union" for us same-sex folk is fine with me.

Sorry for reacting to you before from the depths of my emotions on this issue and not with my rational mind.

Thanks for your patience, your tolerance, and your continued solidarity.

Peace.

First, a civil union is not equal to marriage in the eyes of the law. There are benefits/rights that do not apply to the partner, only the husband or wife: visitation rights, terminal life decisions, child custody, etc.

Second, the argument that the semantic definition of marriage must be preserved is total bs. It's exclusionary and it's wrong. It is merely your opinion that marriage is defined this way. You wish to defend your personal belief of what marriage should be, which is exactly what you're arguing against.

And, why do you care? Honestly, it's nothing but slefish, intentional bias. What is so precious about safeguarding this notion of marriage, especially when it has a 50 percent failure rate?

People need to grow the fuck up and get over it.