digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at cnn.com

Gay marriages worth $684 million

cnn.com — The gay marriage ruling could give a big, sudden boost to California's sputtering economy, with thousands of same-sex couples from across the nation expected to converge on the state when the decision takes effect June 16. Hotels, restaurants, florists and other wedding services are reporting a flurry of business.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • MookiBlaylock, on 06/11/2008, -9/+27Not only were gay people being discriminated by not allowing them to marry, there was a lot of dollars that were being discriminated as well. :P
    • rpgmaker, on 06/12/2008, -30/+3I'm sure that the least California needs is more gay people :D
    • Armando57, on 06/12/2008, -21/+3This falls under the same logic that genocide in the retirement homes will help solve the upcoming crisis in Social Security.
      • frankingeneral, on 06/12/2008, -2/+14Thats not an accurate comparison, your an ass.

        This is fixing 2 negatives (discrimnation and California's economic woes) with 1 positive (legalizing gay marriage).

        Your comparison is fixing 1 negative with another, even worse, negative.
        • Maxjan, on 06/12/2008, -14/+0your *logic* includes your opinion of gay marriage being positive, while this may or may not be true it certainly doesn't allow you to compare his statement to yours.

          therefore you, sir are an ass.
        • frankingeneral, on 06/12/2008, -0/+11Gay marriage harms no one...killing old people harms them and their families...that's a big difference, regardless of one's opinion of gay marriage.
    • Phyraxus, on 06/12/2008, -1/+3The early bird gets the worm, if you will.
    • Larsonal777, on 06/12/2008, -9/+2first of all... if NO ONE is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex it is NOT discrimination.

      second of all... allowing gay couples to get "married" is an insult to the sacrament of marrage which has been going down hill in America for the last couple decades... allowing gay marrages now is like the final blow to everything that is sacred about a marrage.

      And finally... the reason the government gives tax breaks and incentives for couples to get married is because they provide children... which is one of the main reason for people TO get married. In fact I go so far as to say that couples who get married knowing that they do not WANT any children (ever) are in fact quite selfish.

      I don't care if you choose to be gay... or if you live together... heck i don't even care if the government allows you to have a civil union... but asking to be able to get "married" to some one of the same sex is asking for something that you don't have a right to. Just as I CAN'T have a baby because i am a man... I don't go around saying that women discriminate against me because they can have babies.
      • lydecker, on 06/12/2008, -0/+8And if NO ONE is allowed to marry someone of a different race, it's not discrimination.

        Second, to allow divorce and to allow annulments and to allow Britney spears and many others to get married after getting drunk in Vegas is an insult to the sacrament of marriage. And gay marriage is not the "final" blow. There is no sacrament to the name marriage, there is only sacrament to people's relationships.

        And finally, if the reason the government gives tax breaks and incentives for couples to get married so they provide children, then they should give tax breaks to couples who HAVE children only, and not to all married couples or infertile couples or couples past menopause.

        Marriage is something everyone needs the right to.
        • Larsonal777, on 06/12/2008, -5/+1I agree... to allow divorce at the first sign of trouble is and insult to the sacrament of marriage... and yes i agree that getting druck before you get married is also an insult. At my church it has been made clear to me if the priest thinks me or my fiance were drinking that the ceremony will NOT take place... and anyone in the wedding party that has been drinking will not be allowed to participate (as they are the witnesses).

          And annulment is agreeing that the marriage should never have taken place, such as one member is abusive or they were drunk when it happened so it in my mind is not an insult but a correcting of an insult.

          Your arguement that there are already bad things happening with marrage so we should allow this too is quite disturbing.

          Also if the government gave tax breaks only to people who HAD children... then people would HAVE children just to get the tax breaks... this way couples can get married while planning to have children... then when ready they can have them.

          The greatest love a couple can show to eachother is creating new life... this... this is what makes marriage sacred... and is why the term marriage should not apply to couples of the same sex.... and while couples may be deamed infertile that does not necissarily mean it is impossible for them to have children.
        • lydecker, on 06/12/2008, -0/+5No, my argument is that while some people, perhaps your individual church, sees them as bad things, it's not true for all, and definitely shouldn't be legislated as if it were true. Not everybody thinks that having a drink at the ceremony is an insult to the sacrament of their marriage. Not everyone finds their marriage to have less value if they decided to do it spontaneously in Vegas. And annulments may be considered an apology for having a marriage when you weren't ready, but still saying "just kidding!" to your marriage seems an insult when you clearly said vows that you were committed for life.

          My argument is that you cannot decide what is good or bad for everyone. Nobody can.

          "...then people would HAVE children just to get the tax breaks." Yes, you said that's what the government wanted, for people to provide children. So Win-Win!

          I disagree that the greatest love a couple can show to each other is creating new life. I disagree that people who are infertile or choose to adopt don't show as much love to each-other as people who create new life. I disagree that surrogate parents show the greatest love to people by creating new life. I disagree that parents who life separately but still create new life together are showing the greatest love a couple can show.
        • Larsonal777, on 06/13/2008, -3/+1First of all it is NOT just my church/churches in general that says you shouldn't be drinking (anyone in the wedding party that is anyone else there could have) because guess what you are going to sign legal documents... and guess what... legal documents aren't legal if you were found to be drinking/drunk when you signed them.

          Second of all i did not say spontaneity was bad or an insult to marraige but it does raise the risk of getting divoreced in a few years/months and if that happens then you have insulted marraige because you were in love with the spontaneity and not your spose.

          And as far as annulments go the reason i didn't include them with divorce is because it is much harder to get one... it usually comes with really bad circumstances such as an abusive spouse. I know many churches are different but for mine if you get divorced legally the church still believes you married unless you get it annulled... which agrees... this marraige should never have taken place... which yes hurts marraige but it also agrees on this fact instead of divorce which allows for people to use marraige like a dating game.

          Way to THINK you pulled my arguement apart when you didn't even understand it....way to pull just a piece of my comment out with out the context. having to resort to tactics as such to me says wonders about your stance. the government wants HEALTHY couples to raise children... they want to give tax breaks to couples who should be having children... but if they gave them to ONLY the people who had children... people would have kids... not because they want kids... but because they want the tax breaks... that would create some problems.

          I would argue that healthy couples who choose to adopt share the same love that a couple who give birth as they are bringing that life into the world... also...being a surrogate you may have given birth but you don't finish the task of "bringing the life into the world" same goes for seperated couples... unless they are still both fully cooperating on bringing that "life into the world" then no they havent fully shared in that love. You may say that homosexual couples could adopt... but I would say that is not a healthy environment for a kid to grow up in as the child would be missing either a mother or father figure... Yes there are single mothers/fathers out there and i applaud them for doing there best under the circumstances... but they did not PLAN to be a single parent and any one of them would tell you that it is NOT easy and that they wish their child had a mother/father figure... That is why single people will find it harder to adopt.
        • lydecker, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Legal documents aren't legal if you are drunk to the point that you are unable to consent, just like you can be drunk to the point that you are unable to consent to sex, and it is rape. I don't believe legal documents are void if there is any alcohol percentage at all as you claim. Can you cite that?

          Spontaneity is SOO an insult to people's marriages, who plan weddings for 6 months in advance a plan extravagant ceremonies with huge numbers of friends and families... That's a marriage to many people. Spontaneous two people and a few witnesses is an insult to that.

          I'm not so sure on Catholic annulments, but I thought legal ones were quite easy to get quickly... like Britney the day after. I feel annulments are saying that we don't respect marriage... that we let two people get married without knowing the couple, and now they want the marriage undone, which we could have known if we looked at the couple.

          "the government wants HEALTHY couples to raise children... they want to give tax breaks to couples who should be having children..."

          So, by this logic, they shouldn't give tax breaks to couples with unhealthy genetic defects, or infertile couples who can't raise children, and shouldn't give tax breaks to single parents who have children because a single parent is not a healthy couple?

          "But if they gave them to ONLY the people who had children... people would have kids... not because they want kids... but because they want the tax breaks..."

          And somehow, two random friends can get married and clearly have no intention of having kids, and get married because they want the tax breaks... It's completely easier for people to exploit tax breaks by being legally married than by having kids! People will get married not because they want to be married but because of the tax breaks! This creates less problems for you than providing benefits to support kids to people with kids?

          I think I'm reading this from your statement about adoption and surrogacy, but you do agree that the greatest love a couple can show eachother is not "creating new life?" Because you said adopting couples can share the same love as couples who do "create new life?"

          "You may say that homosexual couples could adopt... but I would say that is not a healthy environment for a kid to grow up in."

          Well you would have to prove that. But as you said, single people find it harder to adopt, and likely gay parents would too. But two parents are better than one.
      • saikyan, on 06/12/2008, -2/+2Oh please. Tax breaks and the sanctity of marriage. Did you convince yourself of that, or did Fox News tell you so?

        This is not about tax breaks or sanctity of marriage. This is about CHANGE. People are afraid of change. The idea of two men or two women being married is strange, different, and "socially unacceptable". THAT is the real problem that those who oppose it don't want to admit.
    • JettaMan, on 06/12/2008, -2/+1What a BS propaganda piece. How gullible do these gay advocacy groups think we are?
  • IceSabre, on 06/12/2008, -10/+43Wedding planners dream! Two brides!
  • barroni, on 06/12/2008, -8/+30Some people just don't understand the value of the pink dollar
    Till it starts rolling in
    • ZenMojo, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1The Democrats know. Not that we do anything about it. (It took a Republican court to overturn that *****, even though Democrats tried in the legislature.)
    • pitlord, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1$684M is chump change in the California economy. I bet the annual State toilet paper budget costs more than this.
      o.O
      You know, we could save a ton of money just by shooting everyone on welfare, disability and social security, but to a civilized society, the idea is just as disgusting as gay marriage.
  • mimigins, on 06/12/2008, -6/+16Sadly I'm sure a lot of them are rushing to get married simply because this ruling could get overturned in November..
    Oh well, until then, colorful weddings are go!
  • nastronomical, on 06/12/2008, -49/+11Thank god in November the will of the people shall crush this disgusting belief that homosexuals should wed.
    • ventralnet, on 06/12/2008, -4/+23hail hitler
    • pintomp3, on 06/12/2008, -2/+27still waiting for the ban on slavery to be repealed too?
    • luchid, on 06/12/2008, -2/+17Do you also believe people who eat shellfish are sinners? Because it says so on your stupid fairytales book.
      • tjsgigante, on 06/12/2008, -12/+3If by that comment you refer to the law of Moses in the Bible, don't worry, Christ gave us a higher law now. You can eat all the pork and shellfish you want now and it's not against God's law. (see Acts 10)
        • Zong, on 06/12/2008, -2/+14how typical ignore half the bible to suit your needs
        • tjsgigante, on 06/12/2008, -8/+3Did I ever say that the whole Old Testament was invalidated?? Hardly so! The teachings contained in it are still of incredible value to us--including many other teachings contained in the law of Moses (such as the symbolism of Christ's sacrifice). I am by no means throwing out all the prophets from Adam to Abraham to Moses to Isaiah.
        • Zong, on 06/12/2008, -0/+10LEVITICUS is in the OLD TESTAMENT!!!!!
          So that homosexuality rule no longer applies just as it does for the shellfish.
    • rthakidn, on 06/12/2008, -7/+2Not necessarily, I believe the people of the state of California have already (twice I think) voted to ban gay marriage. Only to be "corrected" by the state supreme court. You know, the more I think about it, elections are a colossal waste of money. Can't we just let the men in black do for us, what they know is best for us. Really. Will of the people. Please.
    • PokerGigolo, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3According to the bible, I have a right to sell my children into slavery, and a moral obligation to kill anyone who plants different crops side by side, or wears clothing made from two different types of thread.

      I've worked on Sunday a number of times this year, I assume you'll be coming around to fulfill your obligation to put me to death sometime soon?

      I'm not sure basing our laws on the bible is the best plan, since almost every person in the country would have to be executed immediately.

      Oh, wait, I forgot, you pick and choose which portions of the bible are valid, and which parts are so obviously and wildly out of touch with reality that no one could possibly accept them. Who makes those decisions, anyway? Shall we just hand control of our legal system over to the Vatican?

      This is the base hypocrisy of the Christian faith. You're not following "God's laws", because if you did, you'd be required by God to kill everyone you know.

      I think it's time Christians accept that all of the laws and commandments in the bible were written by people suffering from Ergot poisoning, resulting from rotting grain baked into bread, and causing hallucinations. It's real easy to believe you heard the "voice of God" when you're on an acid trip, much like it was easy to believe someone was a witch. How could these drug-induced ramblings still impact people in the 21st century? I don't understand it at all. You might as well just worship Timothy Leary.
  • uzusan, on 06/12/2008, -3/+9doesn't anyone watch the simpsons? Of course this will happen.
  • j0hnk377y, on 06/12/2008, -15/+18200 million in phallic ice sculptures alone.
  • buckchoris, on 06/12/2008, -35/+6"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
    • ElAssoWipo, on 06/12/2008, -7/+12They don't lie, they suck and ***** each other.
    • Asvetic, on 06/12/2008, -2/+9Who talks like that?!
      • kevdotbadger, on 06/12/2008, -0/+6buckchoris apparently.
      • tjsgigante, on 06/12/2008, -9/+1Leviticus 18: 22 in the Bible does, and the scripture is true.
        • TheHayze, on 06/12/2008, -0/+9According to whom? How is it "true?" I don't think it's true. Lots of other people don't think it's true. You calling me, and everyone else a lier? Excuse me, sir, but you can kindly go to hell please!
        • tjsgigante, on 06/12/2008, -9/+2You're allowed to believe what you would like. I am not capable of forcing anybody to believe anything. I "feel" it's true when I read about it and pray about it. I also "believe" that if anybody honestly searches for the truth--through study and prayer--they will find it and maybe even change their beliefs, voluntarily. So no. I do not believe you are a liar.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 06/12/2008, -0/+5I found the truth by praying.

          The truth is the ceiling doesn't care what I say.
        • Zong, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2In a previous post you state that the Law of Moses do not apply yet the book of Leviticus is in fact in the old testament and a law of Moses thus bible states that Leviticus 18: 22 is in fact FLASE....
    • pintomp3, on 06/12/2008, -2/+21"Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

      http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
      • trejrco, on 06/12/2008, -10/+2Blatant misunderstanding of Christianity ... (Jesus declared all foods "clean.") ...
        • andersan, on 06/12/2008, -1/+8There's obviously a communication issue between Jesus and God. Or Jesus and the dude that was trippin' on acid as he wrote the bible.
      • tjsgigante, on 06/12/2008, -4/+2Acts 10. (in the book sometimes referred to as silly, called the "Bible"--which the more you get to know the scriptures, the less silly they become)
        • Zarokima, on 06/12/2008, -1/+3Actually, if anything it gets more silly. The whole thing is a fairytale for adults. You're like the kid at school putting his hands over his ears and going "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" when his friends try to tell him Santa Clause doesn't exist.
        • tjsgigante, on 06/12/2008, -2/+1Have you read it? Have you prayed (yes, to our Heavenly Father) on your knees, all by yourself?
      • natsfan, on 06/12/2008, -1/+4Did he say anything about women, my wife is getting tired of camping in the yard every month

        "If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days" Leviticus 15:19
        • tjsgigante, on 06/12/2008, -2/+1It looks like it's that time of the month again. ;)

    • Zong, on 06/12/2008, -1/+8you can't just spit out a line from the bible and use it out of context.Which is about 2000 years old. Not to mention that it was probably translated incorrectly in the first place. The true bible has been lost, and thus has been corrupted by men through time. Starting with the Romans who were once the sworn enemies of Christianity until Constantine ordered it's creation. His bishops then picked which books of the bible to include. They left out many books, some of which have been recovered others that are lost forever. And since forever their hasn't been 1 single Christan religion going back to it's creation. Their has always existed different versions of it, going back to the Gnostics. Today we have so many it's hard to tell one from the other. Lastly every single Christian religion has been guilty of violating the 1st Commandment. You shall have no other gods before me, You shall not make for yourself an idol. Logically Jesus is not God but rather the son of him, but he gets more attention than the father. Even if Jesus and God where the same being you still created an idol, of Jesus on the Cross which you pray to every day. The bible is flawed because it has been in the hands of many men not all of them were divine thus corrupting the true nature of what it means to be a Christan. And lastly you are guiltily of violating the a direct command from god that is not only recognized by the Jews, but also the Muslims. So how about you learn something about th bible before you start using it's words.
    • slvrbullet87, on 06/12/2008, -1/+5"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

      Try that one sometime god-boy
  • seanmx, on 06/12/2008, -6/+37Thats the gayest thing I've ever heard
    • bjornski, on 06/12/2008, -3/+8Not that there's anything wrong with that!
      • Larsonal777, on 06/12/2008, -1/+2Yeap... we all have to be PC... because PC is ALWAYS right. *cough.
  • Ljay90, on 06/12/2008, -15/+4*Looks at the back of a dollar*

    I guess it is one nation under God after all...
    • thawkth, on 06/12/2008, -2/+2I wonder how the flying spaghetti monster feels about gay marriage?

      Is it remotely reasonable or rational? If so, sign me up!
      • Ljay90, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2I think spaghetti monster's cool with it, just so long as no pasta based meals are served.
      • GlassAgate, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1If two people are happy together, no matter their gender,
        then they may fight less. The less they fight, the more
        time that they have to praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

        So, in my opinion, it's okay with it.

        All praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
  • seanberry, on 06/12/2008, -6/+10If the law of opposites works, then a gay couple will be looking for a straight wedding planner. I have found my new profession!
  • lonelycanuck, on 06/12/2008, -5/+35This is a issue of civil rights, not economics.
    • gweller, on 06/12/2008, -8/+3Not really, a lot of issues are supported due to economics. You're a little naive if you think economics isn't a factor in this.
      • hmunkey, on 06/12/2008, -2/+10I don't care. Treating people differently because of how they're born is an issue on civil rights.
        • greysun, on 06/12/2008, -2/+3A ban on gay marriage is NOT 'Treating people differently because of how they're born' ... people aren't allowed to marry someone of the same gender, gay or not ... it is the government stepping in and restricting who you can marry. As long as it is between consenting adults, marriage choices should have nothing to do with the government, including polygamy, incest and even gay marriage.
        • andersan, on 06/12/2008, -1/+5Just another example of the separation of church and state being a goddamn farce. I'm agnostic and I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage or polygamy (the kind that Bill Paxton practices).

          I do have a problem with incest, because I think it's disgusting, but if two adults who have the same last name before they get married want to get it on, thats up to them. It's just not for me.
        • gweller, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0It's going to be a long while before we have the actual technology and real science to prove that gay people are "born that way". But anyway let's play your silly game:

          Murderers, pedophiles, live stock *****, etc can all claim to be "born that way". Let's not treat them any differently either?
    • Zong, on 06/12/2008, -3/+1it probably didn't hurt the blacks cause when the whites realized that they can increase their profits.
  • Dolomite, on 06/12/2008, -13/+2In other news, the PCH has been renamed Hershey Highway.
  • kevdotbadger, on 06/12/2008, -16/+8We're here, we're queer, we don't want anymore bears.
  • doorwayboy, on 06/12/2008, -2/+11Old. Homer Simpson figured that out back in 2005.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There's_Something_Abo ...
  • Jenadae, on 06/12/2008, -10/+3HAHA COOKIES ON DOWELS!
  • edebolt, on 06/12/2008, -31/+5sure 684 mil but if I have to watch two dudes suck face then I am gonna vomit into a bucket...
    • pintomp3, on 06/12/2008, -2/+15who's forcing you to watch?
      • innocentsinner, on 06/12/2008, -0/+16Um. Apparently you don't know many gays. Those disgusting people practically make out right in your face and it's not like you can turn away! Not when their soft lips are passionately pressed together, tongues intertwining, their strong hands roaming over each other's firm bodies...
    • Devrdander, on 06/12/2008, -2/+5His boyfriend...
    • trejrco, on 06/12/2008, -3/+2I almost lost my coffee reading that ... funny!
    • kayala, on 06/12/2008, -0/+7Eww, gay people! Gross!
      What are you, 14 years old? Grow up, dude.
  • Duositex, on 06/12/2008, -12/+2CNN.Com has been consistently ranked one of the most popular websites on the internet for YEARS. Why is Digg linking to CNN every article they publish, especially when most of the time they're just Reuters or AP wire stories? Why?? What's the point? By the time they hit the front page of Digg 24 hours later, they're not only out of date, but everyone has already read it! I'm so tired of seeing the same articles on digg today that I read all over the news yesterday. VERY lame. Buried.

    Once again, I want a blacklist system in my profile to filter submissions by site. PLEASE.
    • Malarie, on 06/12/2008, -0/+7Because we can comment and debate about any article?
    • meruru, on 06/12/2008, -0/+4In fairness this article was posted to Digg almost 24 hours ago (presumably when it was first published). It takes time to get diggs and become popular. If you are looking for digg to promote stories instantly then you need a moderator based system; which isn't what digg is about.
    • bjornski, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2"CNN.Com has been consistently ranked one of the most popular websites on the internet for YEARS. Why is Digg linking to CNN every article they publish"


      Maybe because Diggers like to discuss topics mentioned on articles from places like "one of the most popular websites on the internet".
    • Diggnabbit, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Maybe because Diggers don't want to link to some unpopular site that will get hammered by the Digg effect?
  • cwmather, on 06/12/2008, -11/+7Yes, because the economy should be the deciding factor on changing the definition of marriage. Is there no concept of right and wrong anymore or is it all about the (not so) almighty dollar?
    • galore, on 06/12/2008, -2/+10I agree, gay marriage should be legal regardless of economic advantages. Because it is just wrong to deny civil rights.
    • wtrwlkr, on 06/12/2008, -3/+7and who decided what the "definition of marriage" was, anyway? god? the people who wrote the bible? If that's your answer, you've lost your argument already.
      • cwmather, on 06/12/2008, -4/+2Let's put your argument up to a majority vote. Oh wait, we have, and you sir, have lost.

        If people get out and vote this November like they should, there will be an amendment to the California constitution that prohibits same-sex marriages. It's already a fact that the VAST majority of Californians (the most liberal state in the Union by far) disagree with the activist judges' decision to allow these marriages to occur. Regardless of what you might think, you are in the vast minority.
      • mlostracco, on 06/12/2008, -1/+4If laws were based solely on the will of the people, abolishing slavery and establishing equal rights for women wouldn't have advanced much. The courts are in place to keep a check on the people, and the Supreme Courts are in place to keep a check on the courts.
        • SQLDigger, on 06/12/2008, -2/+1Holy *****, I can't believe any one who calls themself an American (?) actually believes this *****. "The courts are in place to keep a check on the people"? What ***** country do you live in? The judiciary is a check on the legislative and judicial branch, to make sure they follow the will of the people. The PEOPLE are here to check all their asses.
        • mlostracco, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Well, I'm not American, but you're wrong. The people are not there to "check their asses." The judiciary gets appointed, not elected, and their only job is to interpret the law and the constitution. That's why it escalates to higher levels of appeal—each one overrides the one before it. The "public will" is very often counter to the guaranteed basic rights for Americans, particularly minorities.
        • SQLDigger, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1That is the myth they like to propagate. But America's not a fascist nationalist state just yet. A) In most states, citizens can elect and recall their judges. B) Congress can impeach and confirm federal judges, and citizens can influence that. C) That's what the *****' 2nd Amendment was for. So refrain from your ignorant commentary on how America works, because I highly suspect you've gotten your incomplete knowledge from the corrupt educational system in whatever ***** country you hail from.
    • Zong, on 06/12/2008, -3/+6definition of marriage in your religion can be whatever you want, but the definition of marriage for a country in which separation of church and state cannot take on that definition without taking into account the other people in this country. Frankly not only should gay marriage be legal, but plural marriages as well. As long as it's all consensual marriage between adults then why should that matter to anyone but the people involved.
  • c0baltfish, on 06/12/2008, -4/+29Homosexuals are gay.
  • chicoer2001, on 06/12/2008, -6/+9When conservatives wae up on June 17th, they'll realize the country has not gone to Hell in a handbasket.
    • wtrwlkr, on 06/12/2008, -2/+9or maybe that it's finally casting off one of the last great bastions of discrimination - homophobia. Welcome to the 21st century!
      • Zong, on 06/12/2008, -2/+3whatever dude their waiting for Jesus to come back to fix everything anyway so why not let us non-relgious types run things for a while. If we go to hell thats our problem, maybe we like fire and brimstone.
      • Larsonal777, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1You're a dumbass if you think homosexuality has only recently showed up.
    • Suricou, on 06/12/2008, -0/+5It doesn't work like that. If they were interested in the actual effects of gay marriage, they would need only take a look at Europe - several countries there have legalised gay marriage, and the impact on anyone other than the gays themselves has been essentially negligable. Here in the UK, with a culture very similar to the US in many ways, we have had legalised civil unions that are effectively equivilent to marriage for some years now - and again, noone really noticed other than those who wish to use them.

      But why look at reality? It's far easier to just say that 'destroying marriage' will lead to the end of civilisation. Say it often enough and loud enough, and eventually people will believe it.
  • m3rkvry, on 06/12/2008, -4/+14Ok, as "a gay", I'm allowed to say this . . . I giggled when I read that headline. It's hard not to envision dozens of overly-excited, lisping florists.
  • Lamadave222, on 06/12/2008, -17/+3Giving new meaning to the phrase a "gay divorcee". When Obama decides to double the inhertance tax, I'm marrying my 88 year old mother. Hey, whose to say what a marriage is? My mother and I have been in a committed relationship for 57 years. And there's this squirrel in the park that I have been feeding for years, perhaps we could hook up and then I could saddle the squirrel with all my bad debt. When will it end?
    • misterhat, on 06/12/2008, -2/+8Sounds like you need a better estate lawyer.
    • Zippo, on 06/12/2008, -2/+9Incest aside, there's a rather large difference between marrying another consenting human adult... and a squirrel.
      If countries such as Canada are any example, there is no slippery slope. It just ends where it needs to.

      Gay people can marry in Canada... Incest is still illegal. No one has attempted to marry a squirrel.
    • mlostracco, on 06/12/2008, -1/+5If you want to start a significant movement for people who want to legally marry their mothers, feel free. Because there doesn't seem to be anyone calling for it. I've never heard of anyone seriously wanting to marry a squirrel, either.

      Gay people, on the other hand, are a legion of consenting adults who have wanted this for ages, and granting them that quality not only doesn't affect anyone else, but it doesn't increase the amount of people wanting to marry their pets or parents.
    • thesoze, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1really, you're gonna inherit more than 2-3 million dollars - it really doesnt apply to you just the 1% of white beotches...
  • qwertymeister, on 06/12/2008, -3/+2Someone should tell Michael Bloomberg about the money aspect of Gay Marriage and what it might do for the New York economy.
  • gw2304, on 06/12/2008, -18/+4the sad thing is--these people still won't be happy. When U live your life in rebellion against God, you'll be forever searching for happiness, but it will elude U---Isaiah 57:20, 21 "But the wicked are like the tossing sea, which cannot rest, whose waves cast up mire and mud. There is no peace," says my God,"for the wicked"
    • LuciusVorenus77, on 06/12/2008, -3/+9In rebellion against God? Would an illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq be considered a rebellion against God? Would living in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, yet having more people in poverty and more people in prison constitute rebellion against God? I shouldn't even be wasting my time responding to your foolishness since we really have reached a point where people with your belief will never be convinced using reason but I just thought I'd give it one last try. Here's a statistic for you: how many americans that profess to believe the Bible is the word of God can read the Bible in its original language? That's all the evidence I need to know your 'faith' is shallow and pathetic.
    • enclaved, on 06/12/2008, -3/+4If it's bible time, count in me with my favs!

      Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions. -Ezekiel 23:19-20



      If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity. - Deuteronomy 25:11-12
      • CircleFusion, on 06/12/2008, -1/+4*fap fap fap*

        ...keep going, almost there.
      • tjsgigante, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1Ezekiel 23, read the whole chapter. It states at the beginning that it is putting it in a symbolic context. It is referring Samaria and Jerusalem to two women.
    • pintomp3, on 06/12/2008, -4/+2you sound like a gay preacher.
    • Strunt, on 06/12/2008, -1/+1He's talking about you, you tool. Those who judge are the wicked.
    • mokadi925, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0I never understood why people like you spend time on Digg. You won't find articles that make you happy.
  • boredhousewife, on 06/12/2008, -11/+2How very, very sad. Maybe "pathetic" is a better word.
    • Zippo, on 06/12/2008, -2/+3Your username must be accurate... and also "pathetic".
  • icemanex, on 06/12/2008, -9/+5Who the hell cares, why is this tripe on the front page, lots of things are worth lots of money
  • pintomp3, on 06/12/2008, -4/+11why are people opposed to gay marriage but ok with "who wants to marry a millionaire?" and "who wants to marry a midget?". don't the latter devalue marriage a lot more?
    • Suricou, on 06/12/2008, -0/+4To be fair, they sometimes condemn divorce too. Quite often.
      • ZenMojo, on 06/12/2008, -1/+4But not as often. Don't worry, it all comes down to conservatives feeling that the only thing keeping them from having sex with another dude is the law.
    • pitlord, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1People who watch those shows are gay.
      >.>
  • robbob, on 06/12/2008, -2/+4Gay marriages, florists, wedding planners

    A vertically integrated market.
  • swhite26, on 06/12/2008, -14/+3I am an Obama loving, Bush Hating, Fox Bashing, Gay Athiest. I am a proud Digger.
    And I love me some Rev. Wright
    Just don't drop the soap in Californication.

    oops I said something bad about the gays and Obama, Digg me down!!!!



  • smaskat, on 06/12/2008, -13/+0Okay, I got it. There is obviously an untapped market in legalizing alot of these supposedly illegal marriages.

    How about inter-family marriages.. you know brother/sister, cousin/cousin...
    How about inter-species marriages.. man/sheep.. man/cow.. man/dog... man/pigeon...

    I can see alot of people from the Southern states being very happy with my suggestions.
    • Larsonal777, on 06/12/2008, -3/+1Yeap... heck we should legalize EVERYTHING... you just have to pay a little money to do it... want to murder someone... theres just a hefty tax but its ok... want to drive 120 down the highway... just pay a tax to get a sticker in your window and you're good to go... want to do illicit drugs... go riiiiight ahead... just pay the tax first.
  • jkr801, on 06/12/2008, -3/+4Lois Griffin: Brian, you're not wearing the sweater I made you.
    Brian Griffin: Uh, we-well, it's a little warm in here, you know?
    Lois Griffin: "Don we now our gay apparel."
    Brian Griffin: Doesn't get much gayer than this.
  • Nemesisesq, on 06/12/2008, -9/+3my Biggest problem with the whole gay marriage argument is that it twists the definition of an individual and casts aside the constitution and constitutional supreme court precedent in pursuit of making people feel goof about their choices. I will say that I am a black man and being gay is no where close to being black. You can't stop being black but you can stop being gay and millions of men and women over history have stopped homosexual behavior. only one man to my knowledge has stopped bing black and that's michael jackson they still call him *****. No one knows your gay unless you tell them, and every one with two eyes knows your black or two ears in most cases. gays aren't oppressed with they highedst isposable income of any sub group of men or women. and positions in industry and media gays are far better represented in postilions of power than blacks are.

    Marriage is not about who you love marriage is a contract made so that children born into that marriage are taken care of by the man. it's not a civil rights issues you as indvidual can mary any other individual of the opposite sex, Individual rights belong to the individual and cannot be shared amongst two people.
    • greystill, on 06/12/2008, -0/+5People seem to confuse gay sex with having attraction to the same sex. You can choose whether or not you have sex with the same sex, but you can't change that attraction. A gay man could easily get married to a woman but that won't stop him from being attracted to other guys(gay).
      • Nemesisesq, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0well let me ask you How do you know if another man is attracted to another man? he would have to tell you or act in a way to indicate that he was. I don't have to tell you I'm black you and pretty much see it if you're a functioning human being. in either case the point is Marriage is a union between a man and a woman because before it got cheapened by no fault divorce in the 70's a marriage was for the purpose of providing a stable home to children born our of the relationship between a man and a woman hence shot gun weddings, when a guy knocked a girl up he married her becasue it was his responsibility. Marriage has the function of proving and announcing to God that two people are commited to each other for the purpose of bearin children (oldest commandment). but aside from that Marriage is a contract which is why it's written on paper and signed by both parties and the function of that contract is to provide the best environment for children otherwise what is really the point of getting married. I don't think people who are just in love and straight should get married either so I'm not discriminating. I belive in the institution which is proven to keep children out of poverty, trouble and gives a child the best chance to become a productive adult. The assault that has been waged on the institution of marriage is directly correlatted to the moral decline of america this is just the latest salvo. I am sorry but the Family a man and a woman literally mixing genetic material creating a child is important and it's different that two people just loving each other.

  • Zong, on 06/12/2008, -2/+5happiness is not determined by God it never has... Free Will which defines us as human beings cannot be changed or manipulated by god. Happiness, sadness, hate, love, this is all a product of free will.

    Gay's are not happy now because they are abused and mistreated espically by those who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. They're taunted and broken down mentally and abandoned by their family and the entire world seems to want to eliminate them for something they cannot control their feelings. It's something they would choose to do if they could avoid it, and you cannot deny who you are without losing your mind. For their sake I not only hope they find happiness with each other but happiness being part of society.
    • ZenMojo, on 06/12/2008, -1/+6Remember all of those times Jesus talked about gay marriage?

      ...

      Me neither.

      Hell, the Bible spends more time attacking the rich than it does mentioning gay sex.
    • saikyan, on 06/12/2008, -1/+3You know, if God is omnipotent (and he must be, in order to be God) then he must be capable of manipulating free will. If he cannot manipulate free will, he is not omnipotent, and thus, not God.

      So which is it?
      • jo21, on 06/12/2008, -1/+3amen he doesn't exist... at least not in the way bible paint his picture.
    • pitlord, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Oh, puuhhleeezze. You have no idea what abuse and mistreatment IS! Look back a few decades to when homosexuals were hanged, burned alive at the stake, drawn and quartered. THAT is abuse and mistreatment, NOT telling you you can't have a legal marriage.
      -_-
  • MysticSavage, on 06/12/2008, -1/+2Won't someone please think of the money!!
  • killerds, on 06/12/2008, -3/+2I think civil unions should be legal. Marriage in terms of the church should be entirely up to the religious institution. If a church feels that gay marriage is wrong then there's no way they should be forced to perform one. Separation of church and state goes both ways.
  • saikyan, on 06/12/2008, -2/+3Proving once again that discrimination is bad for business.
  • Ultra200, on 06/12/2008, -8/+3Gay Marriage is just wrong.
  • RickyBarnes1960, on 06/12/2008, -1/+2There are those who believe we need their bigotry to save us from the horrible apocalypse that will ensue due to "rampant" homosexuality, abortion, atheism, racial diversity, and on and on. Same-sex marriage, in fact, is only one of many changes we need to save us from the ugliness and cultural apocalypse that is the bigotry of the major religions and of puritanical traditions.

    This change of events is a revolution in our culture, however, for same-sex couples, the revolution will not be complete until the issue of gay marriage melts away to simply become the issue of marriage. When that will occur is anyone's guess. We're still waiting for the change to addressing a man, a woman and a child as simply people without all of the divisive adjectives.

    I'm not a "white man". I'm simply a man. I'm not a "man". I'm simply a human being.
  • yourpalOZ, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3So do you Californians have an extra $16 Billion in your tax pockets to pay next year?
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2 ...
    Guess who's taxes are skyrocketing next year!
  • smokeymirror, on 06/13/2008, -1/+0Marriage is an institution.

    Go tell it on the mountains.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.