digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at telegraph.co.uk

California's first gay marriages go ahead

telegraph.co.uk — The first legally recognised gay marriages were performed in California last night as the state became the second in the US to allow same-sex weddings.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • EatChex89, on 06/17/2008, -61/+15Last chance for them to get their names in history!
    • mikeyellenlee, on 06/17/2008, -6/+19And you will never make history or change anything.
    • didiman, on 06/17/2008, -1/+5hmm buried for who cares
  • Imnick, on 06/17/2008, -32/+182Bout time... gay or straight people are people.
    • cowsgonemadd3, on 06/17/2008, -76/+15Homosexuality is a sin.
      • KaiUno, on 06/17/2008, -7/+47If only the same were true for being a trolling biggot.
        • cowsgonemadd3, on 06/18/2008, -2/+1You just dont want to hear the truth.
        • KaiUno, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3Truth? Back it up with facts, buddy boy. And don't forget, jacking off to internet porn is a sin in your stupid little world as well. And I'm pretty damn sure you're guilty of that. So don't go pointing out other peoples "sins" you weird religious freak.

          It's really time for all that stupid superstition to completely die out.
      • ProjectGSX, on 06/17/2008, -4/+59Which is why we separate church and state.
      • yogurtslinger, on 06/17/2008, -4/+22Fred Phelps is that you?
      • mikeyellenlee, on 06/17/2008, -8/+17And your mother is a whore.

        HAIL SATAN!!!
        • stonebear, on 06/17/2008, -3/+3Excuse me, but... did your head just do a 360? And by-the-way, does this stuff stain?
        • mikeyellenlee, on 06/17/2008, -4/+3Yeah, and I projectile vomited.
      • mrsteveman1, on 06/17/2008, -6/+36I'm starting a new religion right now, its called Diggism. In Diggism, being a ***** moron troll is a sin.

        So there we have it, 2 ***** religions proclaiming arbitrary things to be sins.

        Diggism has as much legitimacy in declaring things to be immoral as you do.
        • tjsgigante, on 06/17/2008, -1/+7I guess this explains why we have so many crazy religions out there. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense for 1 God to have billions of different doctrines and religions does it.
        • mzx639, on 06/17/2008, -26/+2You are the f-ing troll, idiot diggtard.
        • sotose, on 06/17/2008, -0/+10sign me up.
      • chicofaraby, on 06/17/2008, -1/+29No it isn't, but stupidity is a shame.
      • nick1971, on 06/17/2008, -4/+45Not only is the answer bigoted its also wrong.
        Go into the bible my friend and you won't find anything except love therein. If you start quoting the old testament as a backup to your ill informed comment then you need to support all of it.
        So a friend of mine can sell his daughter

        Exodus 21:7
        "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do."

        Colleagues of yours who work on the Sabbath are also dammed

        Exodus 35:2
        "On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."

        American football teams are pretty screwed

        Leviticus 11
        and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.
        Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you."

        Watch what you eat
        Do not eat fat of ox, sheep or goats (Lev. 7.23)
        Do not eat rabbit (Lev. 11:6)
        Do not eat blood of fish, fowl or beast (Lev. 7:26)
        Do not eat ham, bacon, pork chops or ribs (Lev. 11:7)
        Do not eat lobster, crab, scallops or shrimp (Lev. 11:10 and Deut. 14:19)

        Get my point. If any thing is a sin accoring to the bible is your attitude. Let he without sin cast the 1st stone.

        and so on ...
        • kiwiboyus, on 06/17/2008, -1/+6Dugg you up for speaking the truth!
        • orangefly, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5AMEN!
        • mercano, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2Reminds me of President Bartlet laying the smackdown on a conservative talk show host on The West Wing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-zhNiGlogQ
        • Herolint, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Actually, Romans 1:27 "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
        • cowsgonemadd3, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1We are not under the law of Moses anymore.
      • Infidelcastr0, on 06/17/2008, -1/+9Love thy neighbor, do unto others, etc.
      • damonic, on 06/17/2008, -2/+20Its only a sin in your religion. Your religion is not my government.
      • ancalagon73, on 06/17/2008, -1/+15If homosexuality is a sin how about you let god take that up with them and mind your own *****' business?
        • Herolint, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1I agree wholeheartedly with you, but I understand the other side of it as well. If someone believes in God and believes that homosexuality is something that will be heavily punished, then people think it is the right thing to do to warn others.

          People are just people regardless of their beliefs, and if we are going to grant homosexuals the right to live as they believe, we have to extend the same courtesy to religious folks; otherwise we are hypocrites.
      • eviltandem, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1stupid should be one too...
      • nickynick8807, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0The argument over whether homosexuality is a sin or not is meaningless, as in this country we are SUPPOSED to have a separation between church and state; therefore laws cannot be created because of religious beliefs.
    • kidcodea, on 06/17/2008, -55/+4yeah but not everyone likes it up the ass from the same sex
      • mrsteveman1, on 06/17/2008, -1/+62Clearly if we allow them to get married, straight people everywhere will be expected to take it up the ass.
        • Herolint, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Dammit! Why didn't anybody tell me this before?
      • nick1971, on 06/17/2008, -1/+24Is this based upon personal research?
      • nickynick8807, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0This isn't about EVERYONE. This is only about homosexuals. If you're a heterosexual, then the entire gay marriage issue has no effect on your life whatsoever. If we accept homosexuality, we would only be allowing people who were once mistreated to become accepted as they should be. Our country has done it before, think of gender and race. At one time a woman could not vote, and now many women hold high political positions in every aspect of our government. At one time, our country owned slaves, and now we have one that is about to become president.
    • mikeyellenlee, on 06/17/2008, -21/+11So you must have tried it to know you don't like it, right?
    • CrazedLeper, on 06/17/2008, -43/+6Evolutionary benefits of homosexuality, anyone? C'mon, someone think of something! There is none, is there? So now what? Do we admit that homosexuality an abberation or do we admit that Neverlution is a lie? Neither: admit nothing, continue carrying both errors.

      How 'bout this: "maybe humanity is evolving to asexual reproduction". Yeah, that sounds like something that everyone will want to hear. Plus, it's "plausible" but I don't have to prove it because it will take "millions of years".
      • mrsteveman1, on 06/17/2008, -1/+25There are animals who have gay sex.....

        I guess they must be going to monkey hell.
        • CrazedLeper, on 06/17/2008, -6/+2You provided the requisite ridicule but you didn't answer the question. What is the "evolutionary" benefit?
        • mrsteveman1, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6I don't need to provide an answer, you implied that homosexuality was not a result of evolution, and I gave you an example of monkeys having gay sex. I highly doubt those monkeys chose to be gay after watching too much television and listening to Elton John. So yes, those monkeys are a result of the evolution of their species.

          I could speculate however that perhaps homosexuality is a biological check on rampant reproduction and overpopulation?
      • BobMysterioso, on 06/17/2008, -2/+28What about couples who can't have children. Should they still be allowed to marry?
      • bhamster, on 06/17/2008, -2/+5How about this.... you and I don't know *****.
        • CrazedLeper, on 06/17/2008, -7/+1Speak for yourself. I am well-informed.
        • notoneofus, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1@CrazedLeper: Your comments point to a different conclusion.
      • kiwiboyus, on 06/17/2008, -2/+18Marriage has nothing to do with evolution, most species are not monogamous so you point is moot.
        • CrazedLeper, on 06/17/2008, -7/+1No, my point it quite valid since Neverlution is a fantasy. It is exactly because most species are not monogamous that marriage is relevant. You can't have it both ways; either it is necessary for "survival" or we shouldn't have it.

          If you're admitting that it is not necessary for survival that how do you explain it's existence in "evolutionary" terms? You can't but you won't let that stop you from clinging to that silly theory so you don't have to go to church. Why don't you just admit that there is a God but you don't *want* to obey him? Honesty really takes the pressure off sometimes.
      • serialvibe, on 06/17/2008, -1/+18Tell me the evolutionary benefit of a wedding, or of saying vows in front of your friends and family, tell me the evolutionary benefit of buying a ring as a symbolic gesture. Then tell me how you help the evolution of man. Cuz I'd assume you're a step backwards.
        • CrazedLeper, on 06/17/2008, -7/+1Sorry, your question is clearly misdirected since I'm not the purveyor of the errant theory. There is no evolutionary benefit of anything because there is no evolution. I will, however, (attempt to) tell you the benefit of a wedding before witnesses. It is with this step that two take their place in society declaring their both their intent to uphold it (society) and propagate it while simultaneously making known to all others that they are are no longer available as a potential marriage mates.

          Both gestures are very necessary for a society to function. Without marriage a society descends into chaos and violence--just like you're seeing in the USA as its divorce rate spirals out of control.
        • metalpres, on 06/18/2008, -0/+0divorce rates are higher than ever, men beat their wives, cheat on them, wives do the same, the marriage that was supposed to be "until death do us part" gets broken up and children of the marriage suffer, financially both sides suffer, people get hurt, your fine with that happening all the time? But 2 men or 2 women who actually love each other and will be together happily for the rest of their lives are wrong? That is completely ass-backwards and saying things like that is extremely selfish and uncaring towards other people, some thing i think your bible greatly frowns upon.
      • kinseyincanada, on 06/17/2008, -3/+1not everyone is a homosexual
      • orangefly, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6population control/adoption of otherwise parentless children....???....
        • mlostracco, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2But the actual percentage is relatively low enough not to make any significant difference in population control—HOWEVER, species evolve over time to rid themselves of less advantageous traits (or, more correctly, to favour advantageous ones), but evolutionarily benign traits which don't cause any significant disadvantageous effects (like blue eyes, left-handedness, or—gasp!—homosexuality) are pretty much unaffected by evolution. Humanity is in no danger of disappearing because of gay people, and it's an uncommon (though normal) trait, so it's not something that is evolving out of the species.

          So, to answer your question, there aren't really any spectacular evolutionary or genetic benefits, but there aren't any significant evolutionary or genetic downsides either.
      • zortnac, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6What are you going on about? Why do you think there has to be an "evolutionary benefit" to homosexuality? Do you even know what that means?
      • Frumbler, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5It's been shown that the more males that are born to a mother the more likely they will be gay. So possibly the Evolutionary benefit is reducing violence among to many males competing for females. Just a theory of course not absolute fact like your bible.
      • Herolint, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Most Digg users have been practicing asexual sex for a long time. This is nothing new.
    • kingjam, on 06/17/2008, -39/+4As long as they dont adopt a child its cool with me.
      • Zaeth, on 06/17/2008, -2/+14....? ignorance is bliss i guess
      • kiwiboyus, on 06/17/2008, -2/+32And as long as you don't breed we'll all be happy.
        • kingjam, on 06/17/2008, -14/+2I dont breed...I make love and from that love comes a love child named sea sprit
      • kingjam, on 06/17/2008, -19/+3Think if your parents were gay... life would be hard. A child needs the care of a women and the guidance of a man.
        • serialvibe, on 06/17/2008, -0/+15YEAH!!! I TOTALLY AGREE!!! While we're at it we should really really address the issue of single parent families. Maybe we should just put down all those kids. Morons!! They should have just got a dog.
        • kingjam, on 06/17/2008, -13/+1Thats what Iam talkin about...
        • kinseyincanada, on 06/17/2008, -0/+12no a child needs loving parents who care for it, the gender does not have anything to do with it,
        • xexx, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5If life was hard it'd be because of people like you.
        • Frumbler, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6Life is hard if your parents are black..... at least harder than if your parents are white, are you suggesting that if a parent might cause any hardship in a childs life because of what they are the child should not be born? Life is freaking hard dude. Maybe nobody should have kids.
        • Linzee82, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4@kingjam - If you're actually advocating putting down the children of single parents, ***** you.

          -signed child of single parent.
        • Herolint, on 06/18/2008, -2/+2I actually agree with kingjam. The best possible situation for a child to be raised in is one where the child is raised by a mom and a dad. Single parent situations and homosexual situations are less than ideal. This is just a simple, proven fact.

          I don't think anybody is suggesting we kill children or their parents if they don't meet this ideal. We do the best we can with our given situations.

          However, if I were in charge of adopting children out to people, I would much rather put them in the most ideal situation possible first.
      • nick1971, on 06/17/2008, -2/+8What is better for a child to grow up in a home or with fleeting foster parents or to be adopted into a same sex marriage.
        Children grow up frequently in non perfect situations but it does not stop straight people from having children.
        There are a lot of kids out there who need a home. Why shouldn't a gay or lesbian one.
        • Herolint, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1The difference is that straight children can have their own children and gays, unless they make a temporary exception to their homosexuality, cannot.

          Other than that, you have a good point. Children should always be adopted into the best possible situations. It is about the child and not the desires of the parents, in my opinion.
      • davidrools, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4Sorry, gay couples have been able to adopt for years...at least in California they have. I think it would be kind of weird to grow up with two moms or two dads...but it probably sucks worse to grow up with a single parent.
      • notoneofus, on 06/17/2008, -0/+13I have several gay friends who have adopted kids. The parents are great and the kids will turn out the same as any others, except possibly with fewer prejudices.
        • mlostracco, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5And research and statistics consistently back that statement up.
        • Linzee82, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4To add to wht mlostracco said, the only known negative about growing up in a gay/lesbian household is a possible prejudice against homosexuals.

          That makes sense when you look at it like this: Because the child grows up in a gay/lesbian household, they are introduced to more prejudice against homosexuals. The more prejudice they see, the more likely they are to imitate it. Therefore, the only negative to growing up in a gay/lesbian household is the bigotry of others.
        • Herolint, on 06/18/2008, -2/+1Of course they do, as do many kids in abusive situations. But, it is not the most ideal situation for children to be raised in. I'm not saying it is bad, just not ideal, and there are plenty of studies to back that up.
      • pintomp3, on 06/17/2008, -0/+14god forbid children grow up in a home with two loving parents.
        • Herolint, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1I know others may be saying that. I am not. If the only option for a child was to be placed in foster care or be adopted into a gay family, I think the latter would be better for the child.

          Having said that, I have a friend whose father is gay and growing up in that environment made him pretty bitter.

          All I'm saying is that whatever decisions are made in these instances should be made with 100% consideration being given to the child. Not the parents' desires; regardless of sexual preferences.
      • BabyWookie, on 06/17/2008, -3/+2Is that you, Ron Paul?
        • Herolint, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1Blocked and blocked.
        • BabyWookie, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Ron Paul voted to prevent gay couples from being able to adapt kids in DC. Look it up. Thanks.
    • paulielatex, on 06/17/2008, -14/+3as long as they don't stick their dicks in a blender its cool with me
    • masterm1nd, on 06/17/2008, -3/+5Can we then also change the definition of gay to include straight people?
    • sickrubik, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2So why should it be, you and I get along so awefully?
    • arplayer2k, on 06/17/2008, -12/+4What a tragic time in history. Marriage has always meant a union between man and wife. Unless these people are changing their gender, this is wrong. What is wrong with just being partners? Marriage has been a straight institution, so why not just develop a special institution for your special situations? Not to mention the ridicule your adopted kids will have to endure when they are growing up.
      • Mercedes383, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6Perish the thought that we might actually be progressive in the institution of marriage.
      • TekTrixter, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6Marriage is a place where separation of church and state does not currently apply. The institution of marriage has legal benefits that homosexuals should not be denied.
        • Herolint, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1The tax benefits to married couples goes back to the days when women didn't work. They made sense back then. They probably don't make so much sense for anybody anymore; not that I want to do away with them or anything. I'm just saying...
      • Linzee82, on 06/17/2008, -1/+4"Not to mention the ridicule your adopted kids will have to endure when they are growing up."

        Well, thanks for ***** up children that aren't your own. If people minded their own business and stopped trying to be the "Moral Police", ***** like this wouldn't happen. Then there would be nothing wrong with children growing up in a gay/lesbian household.
      • MsArtGeek, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3What's wrong with "just being partners" is you are denied the legal benefits enjoyed by married partners, and thus relegated to the status of second-class citizen.

        What benefits, you ask? here's a few:
        - being considered the next of kin for purposes of inheritance;
        - being able to see your loved one in the hospital when they only admit "immediate family members"; and to make medical decisions for them when they are in a coma or unable to communicate
        - being able to get health coverage on your partner's health insurance the way a husband and wife do.
        - being able to adopt a child (or jointly parent one)

        more here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

        Providing access to marriage or the *legal equivalent* is a vital necessity. Our Constitution promises equal protection under the law but that's clearly not the case here. There is no good reason why all these things should be denied to two people in a loving, committed relationship if they choose to make that legal bond between them.
        • Herolint, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1"- being considered the next of kin for purposes of inheritance;"

          I'm a second-class citizen in this regard because my spouse is from Japan and currently doesn't have US citizenship. So, if I die, the US government comes in and demands half of everything I leave to my spouse in taxes. I agree this is unfair. You should be able to leave inheritances to anybody you wish without government money-grubbing being an issue.

          "- being able to see your loved one in the hospital when they only admit "immediate family members"; and to make medical decisions for them when they are in a coma or unable to communicate"

          This isn't really a good example because you can get around this without being married.

          "- being able to get health coverage on your partner's health insurance the way a husband and wife do."

          Almost everywhere I've ever worked has allowed this. In fact, it is unfair in the other direction. Companies offer health benefits to "partners" if you are gay, but not to "partners" if you are heterosexuals living together.

          "- being able to adopt a child (or jointly parent one)"

          I'm against this because it is not the ideal situation for a child to be in. When adopting a child to a couple, the child should always be adopted into the best possible situation and that is proven to be a family with a husband and a wife. It has nothing to do with whether the parents are gay or not. I feel the same way about single parent adoptions vs. married couple adoptions, where the couple are heterosexual.

          We can talk about being progressive, but studies show that children with a mom and a dad are in the best possible situation for development.
        • OctaneCL, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1@ HerolintHerolint
          "but studies show that children with a mom and a dad are in the best possible situation for development."

          Can you provide links to these studies that show this?

          Because I can provide links to studies that show that there is no systematic difference between gay and nongay parents.

          http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/policy/2006_Expan ...
          http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/f ...
        • Zong, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1@ HerolintHerolint
          We have plenty of unadopted kids, and even though what you say about the adoption of kids as no evidence to back it up. It's still a fact that a child that is adopted is going to be infinity better off than one that is not. Weather your single, straight or gay if you want a child to be raised in the best possible circumstances you should judge the parents by their character not their sexual preferences.
        • Herolint, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1@OctaneCL & @Zong (who may or may not be the same person since both spelled my name wrong in the same way).

          Not that I think it will change anybody on Digg's mind because most like to have their political agendas prepared in pill form before breakfast, but one of your links is to a site that is politicizing these issues and I was unable to determine quickly what the motivation behind the other one was. Either way, these sites don't carry much weight in their opinions.

          Let's get the opinion of some professionals in the field, shall we? Here are five references you can go begin educating yourself with:

          Pitirim Sorokin, Society, Culture, and Personality

          The American Sex Revolution

          Mary Parke, “Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?” Center for Law and Social Policy Policy Brief

          Kristin Anderson Moore, et al., “Marriage From a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?” Child Trends Research Brief, June 2002

          Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps
      • FLarsen, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2What IS "wrong". I can only think of one thing that is wrong, and that is to cause harm to others. This only causes good, as it enables a pair who really love each other to finally marry.

        I myself don't care much about marriage. As long as I can be together with the right one (haven't found her yet though), marriage doesn't matter.
      • notoneofus, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1"Always?" Haven't studied much history, have you? How about Greece, China, Japan, Egypt...

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
      • nickynick8807, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0The only ridicule the children of same-sex couples will face is caused by the hatred that you seem to be peddling. If we accepted homosexuality, then they would not face ridicule at all.
    • dafunkmonster, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3No. Straight people are inferior. Everybody knows this. They're sub-human.
  • reisrocks, on 06/17/2008, -67/+10Or those lipstick or butch? I can't tell.
  • RudeTurnip, on 06/17/2008, -34/+133Digg for the freedom to marry!
    • yaddayaddayoda, on 06/17/2008, -9/+3"That's so gay!"
    • paulielatex, on 06/17/2008, -10/+2Rudeturnip is ***** loser! Marriage sucks!
      • pintomp3, on 06/17/2008, -0/+8it does, but everyone should have the right to be miserable.
  • zacharytelschow, on 06/17/2008, -100/+19We'll get that reversed soon.
    • applemachome, on 06/17/2008, -6/+46based on divorce rates, the couples will reverse their own marriages.
      • Hypersapien, on 06/17/2008, -0/+7What? You mean the 25% divorce rate among same-sex couples?

        As opposed to the 50% divorce rate among different-sex couples?
    • Newportbeachguy, on 06/17/2008, -11/+42Who's that? The intolerant Christians?
      • Brownds, on 06/17/2008, -22/+4@ Newportbeachguy
        Hey at least when you disagree with a Christian you wont get stoned to death. And actually IMO atheists are more intolerable than Christians at least on Digg. Anyway I am happy for gays they disserve the same rights straights have.
        • kayala, on 06/17/2008, -1/+10When was the last time you were stoned to death for disagreeing with an atheist? Seriously.
        • sodade, on 06/17/2008, -4/+8That's because we are ***** sick to death of your insane hypocrisies. 8 ***** years of satanic rule in this country all thanks to you morons voting for someone who is anti-gay and anti-abortion. Don't come crying to me when you hear "to the lions" bitch.
        • Brownds, on 06/17/2008, -6/+3@kayala
          I was not referring to atheists I was talking about Muslims. I should have specified sorry.


          @sodade
          I never said I was a Christian and FYI I am not. I don't believe in organized religion. But your childish rant proved my point. “to the lions” lol, get a life you dolt.

        • sodade, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3I wasn't arguing your point, I was just making it clear that non-christians have plenty of justification for a severe backlash.
        • Herolint, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1@kayala

          Last Tuesday, I believe. It could have been the Friday before that though. I can't remember.
    • gsadamb, on 06/17/2008, -5/+49YES, HOW DARE WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO BE HAPPY?
      • zacharytelschow, on 06/17/2008, -14/+3If you require a sheet of paper for happiness, perhaps there are bigger issues at hand.
        • gsadamb, on 06/17/2008, -0/+12If you require the denial of some people a certain piece of paper to make you happy, maybe YOU have problems.
        • JoeVet, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6That piece of paper is required to assist your life partner when they are admitted to a hospital. Without it you are not allowed to inform the doctors of their wishes. That piece of paper is also required if your life partner suddenly dies without a will. That piece of paper is required to enjoy the benefits of tax breaks. It is required if your partner is arrested. By denying that piece of paper to so many loving couples you are essentially calling them second class citizens and telling them that their commitment to each other is worthless. Shame on you for treating your fellow human is such a despicable manner.
        • zacharytelschow, on 06/18/2008, -2/+1California gay couples already had all rights and privileges of married couples under their "domestic partnership" system. This change was in word only, and was entirely political and semantic.
    • Digger1218, on 06/17/2008, -4/+70Against Gay Marriage? Good! Don't get one.



      end of story.
      • zacharytelschow, on 06/17/2008, -25/+1Yes, good point. The actions of individuals have no effect on society as a whole. In fantasy worlds.
        • bigsteve, on 06/17/2008, -0/+16They um, .. they don't.

          They really don't. Tell me how. I haven't heard an argument yet that doesn't eventually boil away to "they just shouldn't" or "it's just wrong" or some other nonsense that's based on opinion. "It's not natural" is my favorite silly reason, since it exists all over nature, flora and fauna alike.

          And I know what the church says, I'm a Christian. The church says love thy neighbor, and judge not lest ye be judged. I hate that my faith has been publicly perverted by a vocal/powerful minority.
        • zacharytelschow, on 06/17/2008, -14/+1Read "The Screwtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis if you want to see how liberal ideas pervert Christian beliefs.
        • MsArtGeek, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6the actions of loving individuals DO have an effect on society as a whole. a good effect.

          the actions of hateful, intolerant individuals who support having a tenth of the population being treated as second-class citizens also has an effect on society as a whole. a bad effect.
        • Herolint, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1I'm a christian and I therefore believe that homosexuality is a sin. In my opinion, you cannot believe in the Bible and think otherwise.

          However, as a christian, I also believe in ones right to chose for themselves. I would never dream of taking away someones liberty, nor would I ever persecute someone for exercising it; regardless of my personal views.
        • Herolint, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I'm used to being buried on Digg, but this one confuses me. Am I being buried because I said that homosexuals have the right to be homosexuals or because I believe in the Bible?
    • mikeyellenlee, on 06/17/2008, -5/+38Really? I suppose you want to take away their voting rights, too? The world would never get a chance for positive change if it was up to ignorant, prejudice fools such as yourself.
    • nick1971, on 06/17/2008, -7/+15Thank you for your positive attitude such bigotry practiced by a group has not been seen since the Nazi. Will you be shipping the people of to a concentration camp. George W Bush has already set one up.
    • kayvman78, on 06/17/2008, -2/+11I don't doubt that the ignorant still out number the reasonable in this country. But that should be changing soon. So go ahead and take away the rights of another human being. I'm sure Jesus is jumping for joy. Go thump on your bible.
      • zacharytelschow, on 06/17/2008, -12/+2Being against gay marriage is hardly an ignorant position. You sympathizers are in a vast minority, which is why something like this could never occur through a statewide referendum. The people will overrule the courts soon enough.
        • Bith8654, on 06/17/2008, -0/+10Why? What's wrong with gay marriage? How does allowing it affect you? I really want to hear an honest answer, preferably something better than "it's wrong" or "the bible says you can't."
        • kayvman78, on 06/17/2008, -0/+7How is it not ignorant? You want another group of people to have less rights than supposed "normal" people. You don't know what it's like to be gay. You sit there and listen to your other ignorant friends and family and think you've figured it out. I would put money on you being a Christian, so you're probably being fed 2000 year old babble about thinking you have it all figured out. So yes, you're ignorant, you have not looked at the human side of this story and keep looking to an outdated manual to help you be even more ignorant. We don't ride camels across deserts anymore. It's called progress.
        • Herolint, on 06/18/2008, -2/+2@kayvman78

          Or it could be viewed as moral decay. Not every change we've made in history can be labeled as progress.

          @Bith8654

          First, let me say that I'm all for people's right to chose for themselves. But you asked a question, so I'll answer.

          The biggest problem with legalized gay marriage is that the people overwhelmingly voted against it. So, for a judge to just change the outcome of that vote, despite the will of the people of California, is a huge testament to how corrupt our government has become.

          Also, I think gay marriage is hypocritical. If we are going to recognize the sexual desires of homosexuals, then we should open up marriages to polygamy; since some people seem to think that's a good thing.
        • kayvman78, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2@herolint

          Who's morality are we decaying? There are hundreds of millions of Muslims that have a different moral structure. There are million and millions of people in this country that are n ot bound by "christian" morals. It's not about morality, it's about what we stand for. The people also voted for segregation, should we bow to the will of that group of people? Our Republic was formed so that no group of people have too much power. We are a land of laws and we live by the constitution which states that ALL people have a right to be who they are.
        • Herolint, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1@kayvman78

          Wow! You have a pretty flawed view of the way our government is supposed to work, don't you?

          Also, the constitution does not say that all people have a right to be who they are. That is an asinine assumption. I can show you hundreds of instances where our laws don't allow you to be who you are and even you are perfectly fine with it.

          Also, not recognizing gay marriage in no ways denies homosexuals from being who they are. Don't be daft.
      • AnOMNOMymous, on 06/17/2008, -0/+8Agreed. Gay rights is the next civil rights battle in America. 20 years from now Atheists will be the big civil rights battle. First it was slaves, then woman, then it was blacks, it's called progress, people! Jump on the train!
    • pintomp3, on 06/17/2008, -3/+11http://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/gay ...
  • Killer57, on 06/17/2008, -22/+197Look at the elderly couple! Clearly they are out to destroy marriage.
    • MattB123, on 06/17/2008, -4/+17And all things sacred. For the love of God!
    • davidrools, on 06/17/2008, -0/+12Imagine the honeymoon!
      • sushicombo, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3I'd rather not...aw ***** I DID!
      • AnOMNOMymous, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2Two old ladies that can barely bend over eating each other's muffs.... I'm there!
    • bigsteve, on 06/17/2008, -0/+11My marriage feels weaker already.
    • GlassAgate, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1They're plotting against us!
  • SeaweedWater, on 06/17/2008, -24/+141how gay.
  • dmark77, on 06/17/2008, -37/+34I can't wait to see the legal mess the divorces bring.
    • endustry, on 06/17/2008, -3/+37Yes, how exactly do you split a Miniature Pinscher 50/50?
      • kurttrail, on 06/17/2008, -3/+12Like Solomon, threaten to cut it in half, and the one that gives in first keeps the dog.
      • RudeTurnip, on 06/17/2008, -0/+13Probably the same way you would prepare a cornish game hen.
      • bjs3171, on 06/17/2008, -0/+12with two Pitt Bulls?
    • HyperionHK, on 06/17/2008, -4/+52How will it be any different than straight couple divorces? Or right, it wouldn't be.....
      • sonstone, on 06/17/2008, -3/+1I think he's talking about the legal issues with states that don't support gay marriage. What you mentioned obviously wouldn't be a problem. CA doesn't require you to be a resident to get married there, meaning there are legal issues for residents of other states that come to CA to get married.
        • sickrubik, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4He specifically mentions "divorce".
        • jterhune, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1What sonstone didn't mention is that while you can be married in California as a resident of another state, you cannot be divorced in California if you are a resident of another state.

          http://www.3stepdivorce.com/residency/california.s ...

          The legal mess would involve those who cross state borders to get married in California and later desire to divorce.
      • Shivetya, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Actually that is one area that many gays didn't want to go. I remember reading an article some old school gays were very upset their way of life was taken over by activist and such and the good times would come to an end.

        They wanted to be left alone, the legal right to care for each others health and finances, but not the burden of the court system when it came to separation.
    • stonebear, on 06/17/2008, -3/+23And who gets the Miata? I tell you; blood will be shed.
      • Vesuvias, on 06/17/2008, -5/+5I freaking laughed at this only because I have a gay friend who owns a miata and YES there would be bloodshed and im sure some glitter mixed in...
    • MattB123, on 06/17/2008, -2/+27I imagine it would look a lot like the current legal mess of failed marriages.
    • dygel, on 06/17/2008, -2/+32Yes, because I'm sure it would be TOTALLY DIFFERENT from heterosexual divorces. Yep. Completely and utterly not the same. I mean, all legal precedents would certainly have to be thrown out! Lawyers will definitely be clueless on how to proceeed, utterly unable to apply their experience from the 50% of married heterosexuals that get divorced.
      • dmark77, on 06/17/2008, -20/+2You completely put words in my mouth.

        My point, you douche, is that this is new ground, such as a divorce involving a child where neither are the biological parent.
        • MacEnvy, on 06/17/2008, -1/+16A mom and a dad for one child, neither are the biological parent (adopted), both work.
          They divorce.

          Who does the child live with?

          I hope you read the above and realize how stupid you sound.

          Edit: Hey, no fair. You completely changed your post after I commented. I guess you realized on your own that you sounded like an idiot.
        • ashfish, on 06/17/2008, -1/+10What does biology have anything to do with it? It's not like joint custody hasn't been granted to working parents. They are still legally the kid's parents after all even if they aren't married. Or I guess if only one parent was legally the child's guardian it custody would then go to the one who legally has the right to it but I'm sure some kind of visitation schedule would be set up. It's not like these people are going to stop parenting once they get divorced.
        • dmark77, on 06/17/2008, -14/+1MacEnvy: I was still editing asshat.

          How can I sound stupid when I am typing - since we're going to get all anal right now?

          ...and since the child never came out of either Father's anal opening - who is entitled to custody of the child if it were adopted?
        • phrenzy, on 06/17/2008, -1/+6dmark77 - really?? - you were "still editing"? That's funny. That period at the end of your last sentence sure indicated otherwise.

          "this is new ground, such as a divorce involving a child where neither are the biological parent."

          That sure seemed like you were finished with what you were saying. What was your next statement going to be? - "My previous sentence was said as a joke, that happens all the time with adopted children..."

          I guess that 5 minutes digg gives you to edit your statement will need to be extended for you.
        • dmark77, on 06/17/2008, -9/+1phrenzy: No I was able to get my edit in during the 5 minutes.

          Perhaps you need to re-read all the comments.
        • Pyehole, on 06/17/2008, -1/+9What, you think there has never been a case of adoptive parents getting divorced?
        • Eezyville, on 06/17/2008, -0/+7Oh and I guess the adopted child should go to the biological parents that he/she doesn't have. Oh yes its only right. Take this kid away from people who love and care for them and give them to people who abandoned them or who are dead.
        • Cate320, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Who's to say that the child won't be biologically related to one of the parents? Ever hear of surrogacy? or artificial insemination?

          It doesn't matter anyway, because straight parents with adopted children get divorced too and the lawyers somehow manage to figure that out, right?

          Any possible aspect of a divorce between a gay couple has had precedents set by straight people. I trust the lawyers and judges to somehow be able to figure it out.
    • acknotSW, on 06/17/2008, -2/+22It could turn out to be the best thing to ever happen to hetero guys when it comes to divorce. Imagine, the judge would have to decide things like alimony, child custody and support, etc... based on the evidence and legal arguments before him instead of just going down the list and saying:

      Alimony: you’re the man, you pay
      Child support: you’re the man, you pay
      Child custody: you’re the man, kids live with mom and you pay
      • Rivetgeek, on 06/17/2008, -1/+9Your lack of understanding regarding family law is astounding.

        This is how it really works.

        Alimony: You make the most money, you pay
        Child support: You make the most money, you pay
        Child custody: You make the most money, and you pay

        There are hundreds of thousands of women paying alimony and child support.
        • onefinalstep, on 06/17/2008, -7/+4Alimony: Who makes the most money? The man
          Child Support: Who makes the most money? The man
          Child custody: Who makes the most money? The man

          Who quit work three years after marriage? The woman
        • Cate320, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2@ onefinalstep

          So not only are you bigoted against homosexuals, but against women as well?

          The only reason that women make less money than men (with similar educations) is because of jerks with attitudes like yours.
      • eviltandem, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1...probably my favorite has to be that the woman gets to unilaterally decide whether or not to keep the child. If she decides to keep it then I'm on the hook to take care of it, even though I didn't want it.

        In today's day and age there's no excuse for nonsense like that. If you are married, etc, and choose to have children than you should be responsible for helping them. If you accidentally get someone pregnant and SHE chooses to keep it, it should be her responsibility not mine. If she wants the responsibility to choose for herself, she needs to have to deal with the consequences herself.
    • fclose, on 06/17/2008, -4/+2I'm pretty sure he means the gay ppl that are married (hetero married) getting divorced to get married to their "secret partner"
      • Cate320, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Would it matter? I'm sure straight people have gotten divorced in the past because they wanted to marry someone else as well.

        Also, if gays are currently living a lie, I think they SHOULD get divorces. Both they and their spouse would be better for it.
    • djdole, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2How do they know who gets to take half of the other's stuff?
  • Bloodburn, on 06/17/2008, -51/+11http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/ar ...

    Couldnt they have at least given us two 18 year old lipstick lesbians locking lipstick lips? Not two 100 year old fossils?

    • Coffeedemon, on 06/17/2008, -3/+8School is out for the year I guess.
    • stonebear, on 06/17/2008, -1/+15So that you will take it seriously.
    • mrsteveman1, on 06/17/2008, -6/+1I prefer daddys money lesbians actually.
    • mikeyellenlee, on 06/17/2008, -6/+15Not everything has to do with sex and you getting off, jack ass. These women made history, now let all that blood go back to your brain, put your dick away and show some ***** respect.
    • Taiyoryu, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3Digg the ageism

      /sarcasm
    • pintomp3, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5not everything on the internet is porn.
  • Revolution101, on 06/17/2008, -79/+10Booooooo
  • sillymeganlee, on 06/17/2008, -26/+4They have some sweet pastel coloured outfits.
  • forgiste, on 06/17/2008, -14/+62Why would they want to go and do a thing like that? Marriage ruins a relationship.
    • dygel, on 06/17/2008, -2/+36Oh, I dunno... Visitation rights, inheritance, legal custody of personal property and dependents, insurance benefits, pensions...
      • h3llscaper, on 06/17/2008, -3/+20And alimony, child support, divorce court, etc.

        I HAVE to believe there is some gay man or woman out there that is like "...*****" because now they don't have the "Wellll, honey, I would *LOVE* to marry you but, you know, the law and all..." argument anymore.

        Now they're ***** like the rest of us, congrats guys and gals! Welcome to our nightmare! :D
        • Monk22, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3way to steal that from a stand up comic there champ
      • DragoonWraith, on 06/17/2008, -0/+9Great comic I saw once (pinned on a bulletin board in my Catholic high school, all four years I was there, to be exact, which I find amusing)

        A man and a woman are watching TV, he's got a paper and she's knitting, standard, stereotypical American couple.

        Man: "Oh, now they want to the gays get married too? What's the world coming to? Haven't they suffered enough?"
      • damonic, on 06/17/2008, -7/+1My partner and I have all of these things without being married. Its called a Will, POA, working for good companies that provide domestic partner benefits, etc.
        • luchid, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6Really? A Will gives you visitation rights? A good lawyer could tear a will down if anyone on his family is opposed and you could end up getting nothing. Legal custody of personal property and dependants is not guaranteed to you in any way, unless you get married. Oh and what happens if your respective employers fires any of you and you (one or both) end up with crappy insurance? Yeah, your plan is foolproof.

          I really hate it when a fellow ***** is as uneducated as yourself, mainly because it's people like you who are so selfish and self absorbed that won't push the issue strongly enough to get what we, as a community, deserve. Your head is so far up your ass you can't even tell you're getting screwed over.
        • brjndr, on 06/17/2008, -0/+9It's still not the same. Look at your will. You don't get the federal marriage deduction. When a straight married person dies, their spouse can inherit the whole estate, regardless of size, tax free. This does not apply to same sex couples, as the federal defense of marriage act defines marriage as between a man and woman. Depending on the size of the estate, you could pay a marginal rate of up to 46%. For a smaller estate it's not as much of a concern.
  • suckanucka, on 06/17/2008, -30/+110Good picture, lets those bible belt ***** know that the gay community isn't represented by men in black leather and chains running around having sex in public.
    • stonebear, on 06/17/2008, -4/+46Not that there's anything wrong with that.
      • hokie47, on 06/17/2008, -2/+25There is a problem with people having sex in public but not the black leather and chains.
      • suckanucka, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6Oh there is nothing wrong with that, I agree. just making a point.
    • mrsteveman1, on 06/17/2008, -2/+7But those men seemed so nice in the park that day......
    • paulielatex, on 06/17/2008, -12/+3suckanucka is a bible belt *****
    • squaredUP, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1I always thought the folks in black leather and chains would be better labled of the gothic catagory. Then again I suppose that much of that group may very well apply to both catagories.
    • onefinalstep, on 06/17/2008, -5/+2Images of grandmothers licking each others vagina's is not going to win them over either.
  • DxunOrdo, on 06/17/2008, -47/+43I will only recognize Hot female lesbian marriages
    • jonnyboy1544, on 06/17/2008, -1/+7"I Skeletor take you as my lawfully wedded wife."
    • SSUK, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3These the same ones who ride Unicorns and live in Gold plated rocket ships?
    • jun2san, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2It's interesting to see how many people dugg you up and down, being at +1.
    • bashar2, on 06/17/2008, -2/+1I bet their honeymoon isn't a pretty sight
    • valrus, on 06/17/2008, -1/+0Is "Hot" a nationality now?
  • myranttoyou, on 06/17/2008, -21/+98Really? The Earth didn't spin off it's orbit into Hell like conservatives said it would?
    • CrazedLeper, on 06/17/2008, -25/+3Not like it's too late.
    • logosx1, on 06/17/2008, -12/+0Correct, the Earth will keep spinning as Western civilization steadily fades into the dim recesses of the history books.
    • Charun, on 06/17/2008, -3/+2It's my understanding that we can start marrying trees soon.
    • nickynick8807, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1If you're a heterosexual, then the entire gay marriage issue has no effect on your life whatsoever. If we accept homosexuality, we would only be allowing people who were once mistreated to become accepted, as they DESERVE to be accepted. Our country has done it before, think of gender and race. At one time a woman could not vote, and now many women hold high political positions in every aspect of our government. At one time, our country considered African-Americans as second-class, and now an African-American is about to become president. We've come a long way, there's no reason to stop now.
  • evilregis, on 06/17/2008, -43/+11Why do the gays hate America so much?
    • ProjectGSX, on 06/17/2008, -4/+25Because its populated by bigots who claim they are going to hell? Im guessing here, I dont know for sure.
    • Cate320, on 06/18/2008, -0/+3Because Americans (not all, just the idiots) seem to hate everyone that is marginally different from themselves?
  • magnus3994, on 06/17/2008, -33/+8Gay.
  • diggydougie, on 06/17/2008, -8/+94Why do people need the government's permission to get together? I say that the whole "licensing" process should be abolished.
    • Baldar, on 06/17/2008, -2/+36Agree.. I think..

      I think that marriage should be left to the church, that it's a religious institution. HOWEVER, I also believe in the seperation of church and state, and that the state should not be basing their laws off of a religious institution. Nor should companies (insurance companies, I'm looking at you). The government also should not tell churches how they should/should not marry homosexuals either.

      Who the hell cares if the second adult on an insurance policy is a spouse, gay lover, platonic roommate just trying to make ends meet, etc? It's my fricking benefit, let me give it to whom I want.

      Same goes for all other state and corporate benefits. Let people give THEIR OWN property to whomever they want, and let the church marry whom they see fit.

      Only when we realize the government does not own our stuff, and we can give it to whomever we want, will this problem be solved.
      • diggydougie, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6Sounds like an agreement to me.
      • kiwiboyus, on 06/17/2008, -3/+8No one is telling any religion that they have to allow gay marriage, these churchs you mention need to quit trying to control everyone and just stick to messing up their followers lives. I didn't get married in a church by any priest or minister and I don't need to have them recognize my marriage so why should anyone else? It's not a religious institution, if it was then why would one church recognize any marriage outside of it's self? And how do you explain all the heterosexual marriages that take place in court houses every day without protests?
        • Baldar, on 06/17/2008, -1/+6I think you missed the point. Why, besides religious reasons, should (not does) one need to get married anyways? Why must there be this overarching legal contract that controls that many aspects of your life?
      • onefinalstep, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Insurance companies sell packages for gay couples. Why wouldn't an insurance company want to tap into that market? But either way you look at it, your just paying for someone else's health insurance with your money. You don't really have to be married to do that. You can spend your money any way you like, gay or straight. I could buy my neighbor health insurance tomorrow and still only be his neighbor.
        • Baldar, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Yes and no. For example, employer policies. My employer policy only allows me to add my spouse and children to my policy, which is a discounted rate per person.

          Why wouldn't insurance companies want to tap into this market? For the same reason I listed above. Two individual policies are more money in their pocket than a discounted family one.
    • MacEnvy, on 06/17/2008, -5/+8Fine, but until it is, this is why homosexuals deserve to be allowed to be married:
      http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/bene ...
    • whataboutdave, on 06/17/2008, -0/+15EXACTLY. IT is a contract between consenting adults. The state ought to have nothing to do with it - gay or straight.
      • Baldar, on 06/17/2008, -4/+3But what exactly is the point of this contract, and why do we need it legally?

        Why do I need this contract? Now I'm a straight married guy, but my stuff is my stuff. For stuff that is "our" stuff, we've had to cosign on it anyways (House, cars). Why does it matter to an insurance company if this contract exists to cover another adult on my policy, if me or my employer are paying the premium for it? Why does it matter for death benefits, why can't I just write that in my will?

        • MisterEX, on 06/17/2008, -1/+4What if you fail to write a will, but you still wanted your spouse to have it? Where does all the stuff and benefits that are yours to give go?
        • Baldar, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3And if I'm single and don't write a will?
        • secrity, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2One of the major problems involves taxes, gay partners have to pay taxes on things that married couple don't have to pay taxes on. If one partner has health insurance on his partner, the premiums are taxed; they are not taxed for married couples. Death benefits are another tax issue and a rights issue.
        • Baldar, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2That sounds like more of a tax law issue than an issue of getting married or not. IT IS YOUR PROPERTY (including a "benefit"). The question is not "Who should be allowed to get married?" but is "Why can the government decide what is done with my stuff, and why are my taxes based off of who I have a contract with?"
    • RudeTurnip, on 06/17/2008, -2/+8There are more benefits to having a legal framework than a religious one...the big ones being inheritance, insurance, hospital visitation rights, etc. I'm all for abolishing the legal concept of marriage and replacing it with a Uniform Domestic General Partnership. Everyone gets the same partnership agreement. If you want to change the terms, you can see a lawyer. Using this idea, prenuptial agreements become obsolete because you can simply put those terms in your amended UDGP.
      Anyone could still have a religious marriage ceremony if they want, but the UDGP is what gives you your rights.
      • diggydougie, on 06/17/2008, -3/+7But you don't need the government's permission to enter into ANY partnership. You can sign anything you want without that. My point is that the government should not be allowed to insinuate itself into our personal lives.
        • secrity, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1It is not just the government that cares whether a couple is legally married or not. Many hospitals care A LOT about whether a patient's visitor is married to the patient or not. Many employers care A LOT when deciding whether to extend insurance and survivor benefits. There are many more examples.
      • ayeyah, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2Yes. The benefits of marriage and civil unions as they stand are mostly legal (joint tax benefits, inheritance, government spouse benefits, etc). They say there is virtually no legal difference between a "marriage" and a "civil union"; so why not completely abolish the idea of "marriage" in the religious sense and grant a civil union to all? All the same legal benefits, none of that moral hee-haw.
        • Baldar, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3But why even have the civil unions? Why let the government & corporations that far into your life?

          Lets say, as is common in todays world, you are living with your girlfriend and have two kids with her, living together as a "family" and for whatever reason are choosing not to get married. Why should the insurance company care if you are married or not on whether or not they cover her insurance if you pay the premium?

          A "benefit" is my property, just as anything else is my property. If the government gives me a dollar, it is my right to give that dollar to whomever I want, regardless of our relationship. What if I want to give my benefits to Bob the bartender, because I drink alot at Bobs and he listens to my stories? The benefits are mine, paid for by me (or given to me), who cares about the relationship? Why not just have benefits say "Your benefit covers you and one other adult"?
    • dood, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5I agree, to a point. Two people should be able to enter in to a contract that outlines all benefits and obligations of a marriage. This contract could be quite complex, and might well be a standard form that everyone uses to outline the same set of rules.

      However, the marriage license is more than a contract between the two consenting parties. It is, in a way, a contract with the state, requiring that the state treat the parties in a different way. You can take your marriage to another state and continue to be recognized as married (except where explicitly disallowed, such as in states where hateful people have voted to ban gay marriage).

      Additionally, if, in the future, society realizes that there was a right missing from the marriage contract, it can add that right for all marriages, without each couple having to update their contract (which may not even be possible, as in cases where one party is dead or incapacitated).
      • onefinalstep, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2The point is to limit the goverment so you don't need to be "recognized" in any way other than an individual. At that point you can sign any contract you want with anyone, including as many gay people you can put under your roof. What if i want to have a limited marriage that does not force me into all the obligations of the uniform system as it is? What if I want to marry two women? Why is the state involved?
    • pintomp3, on 06/17/2008, -2/+8According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,138 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:

      Access to Military Stores
      Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
      Bereavement Leave
      Immigration
      Insurance Breaks
      Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
      Sick Leave to Care for Partner
      Social Security Survivor Benefits
      Tax Breaks
      Veteran’s Discounts
      Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

      http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/bene ...
    • Cate320, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1Like others have stated, it is because the government confers legal benefits on married couples. I don't think anyone would want to give up those benefits just to not have the hassle of getting the piece of paper (which isn't very hard or complicated). Also, it is to ensure that people cannot get married illegally, like marrying someone JUST for a green card or marrying your siblings or cousins.
  • TrevorBelmont, on 06/17/2008, -10/+83Keep your *****' government outta my *****' love life!
    • legolas68, on 06/17/2008, -18/+3If it's your intent to reap government benefits based on "marriage" you bet your gay buttons the government should be in your life.
      • Taiyoryu, on 06/17/2008, -2/+2That's the point. Why should the government bestow benefits on two people who enter into a _private_ contract? And why should the government be in a position to limit who can enter into marriage contracts in the first place if the parties are legally able to enter into other private contracts?
        • ricperry1, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5By that line of reasoning, then there should be no legal or financial benefits to heterosexual marriage bestowed by the state or federal government. However, that isn't the case. All gay people want is the same treatment that heterosexual people already get.
        • Cate320, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Well it causes a lot of hassle for everyone involved in certain cases. Like say your spouse's family doesn't like you and they get seriously ill. Without those "government benefits" the family would be allowed to deny you visitation rights at the hospital, deny you the ability to carry out your partner's wishes (for treatment, lack thereof, organ donation etc) and even prevent you from attending the funeral (should it be necessary). Now, think about your spouse (if you have one) would you really want them to be treated like this? And yes, some people CAN be that spiteful. It happened here a few years back to a gay couple.

          Also, the marriage license can prevent people from getting married who shouldn't, like close family members, illegal immigrants (for green card purposes) etc.
        • Taiyoryu, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1And what makes you think you or anyone else are in a position to say who should and should not get married? Learn your history. Marriage licenses are a modern invention that came about as a result of racial bigotry. A marriage license was just one of many legal hurdles used to prevent or outlaw interracial marriages back in the 1920s. Now when the US Supreme Court finally put an end to that in Loving v. Virginia (1967), they ruled that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. Unfortunately, rather than abolishing marriage licenses outright, they ruled that a marriage license should not be denied based on race.

          Why should I have to ask the government for permission to spend my life with someone? People have been getting married for millenia without the government butting in. However, I do expect that when I get married that the government will recognize and enforce the marriage contract I entered, but I don't expect to be arbitrarily denied the ability to marry. With regards to spousal rights, everything should be outlined in the contract prior to getting married not granted de facto through a license. But since those rights are granted automatically through a license, then no one should be denied the ability to get a license. Get rid of marriage licenses all together and you solve the debate because the debate doesn't exist anymore, or turn licenses into certificates. Now if you start crying the end of the world is coming because of polygamy and people marrying animals and inanimate objects, then you're really no better than your anti-gay or racial bigot. Because a) animals and objects can't legally enter into a contract and b) it's hard enough to make a marriage work between two people; if people can manage to make it work with more than two people, more power to them.

          If you're going to use the birth defect argument to prevent first cousins from marriages, the defect rate among children whose parents are first cousins is no higher than that of a non-related couple where the woman is over 40 years of age. If you ban first-cousin marriages, you might as well prevent older women from having children too. Seeing how many middle eastern cultures practice first-cousin marriages, we should discriminate against them. Did your friend get married while traveling in Mexico? Given the increase in xenophobia lately that's going to be very suspect. The government will need to detain them indefinitely at the border. Seriously, do you not see the slippery slope? Denying two parties the ability to marry based on race, sexual orientation, nationality, or whatever attribute you wish to apply is all the same. As long as no fraud is being committed and their actions don't infringe on someone else, trust that people make the right decision for themselves and if they don't, they get to live with the consequences.

  • 2clone, on 06/17/2008, -38/+22That's Good news for MrBabyMan.
    • EatChex89, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1he's getting his posse to dig down your comment.
  • AlphaCrow, on 06/17/2008, -76/+7Buried for slippery slope...

    "I know she's my sister, but I LOVE her!"
    • TrevorBelmont, on 06/17/2008, -4/+34F' your "slippery slope" nonsense.
      "But what if snakes want to marry shopping carts?!?"
    • gsadamb, on 06/17/2008, -3/+32Buried for ridiculous and outdated argument.
    • tallguyg, on 06/17/2008, -4/+6chris crocker anyone?
    • CoFRBrutus, on 06/17/2008, -2/+12You don't seem to understand the 'but I want to marry my sister' argument doesn't work. There is a valid reason why brother and sister can't marry. I'll let you google it.

      As for the 'I want to marry my dog' crowd, an animal can't give consent, so there is no slippery slope.
      • AlphaCrow, on 06/17/2008, -12/+1Wait... you say siblings can't wed because they can't reliably produce viable offspring?

        Umm...

        Why not let them marry and then adopt?

        It's a slippery slope.
        • awtripp, on 06/17/2008, -0/+7They don't have to be married to produce children, that's not how science works. Your point is moot.
    • tdogg241, on 06/17/2008, -2/+4The government shouldn't have granted legal benefits to married couples in the first place. After all, marriage is a religious institution. So you're to blame for starting this whole mess, you ***** hypocrite!
      • mlostracco, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4Marriage didn't originate as a religious institution; it originated as a property transaction between groom and the wife's father—the wives being the property.
  • 2clone, on 06/17/2008, -30/+7That's Good news for MrBabyMan.
  • Dibou, on 06/17/2008, -78/+26This is disgusting.
    We vote 63% to keep marriage between a man and a woman and the court overturns it.
    The reasoning in the decision can be used to extend marriage in the future to animals (like the woman who married a dolphin), multiple people of whatever combination of sexes you want, or even inanimate objects (like the woman who married the Berlin Wall).
    The court attempted to further thwart the will of the people by not even waiting a couple more months so we can stop this foolishness through an amendment, thereby costing taxpayers millions when we have budget problems already.
    These judges should be impeached.
    • jdigg06, on 06/17/2008, -44/+10Yup. And it's not even a law yet - just some proposal by our screwed up judges. Way to go California, way to go.
      So much for an orderly judicial system.
      • suttercain, on 06/17/2008, -2/+32Most of the Southern states in 1860 wanted to keep slavery legal. Sometimes, just sometimes, the majority is wrong. Really really wrong.
      • DreKor, on 06/17/2008, -0/+22Why are judges "screwed up" when they legalize gay marriage but are "upholding America" when they criminalize abortion?
      • Pyehole, on 06/17/2008, -0/+17It makes it even more delicious that the majority of the California Supreme court were Republican appointees.
    • geniusj, on 06/17/2008, -11/+46The will of the people is irrelevant. Judgments are supposed to be made based on law as it stands at a point in time.

      I'm all for (and this country was founded on) the pursuit of happiness as long as it's not directly hurting others.
      • dafunkmonster, on 06/18/2008, -1/+5"The will of the people is irrelevant."

        Gee thanks, fascism. I had no idea.
      • Dibou, on 06/18/2008, -2/+4This is liberal fascism at its finest.
    • hokie47, on 06/17/2008, -12/+59The difference is that the two are consenting adults with freedom of choice. And ***** the 63% whom would rather embrace hate over love.
      • onefinalstep, on 06/17/2008, -7/+5"Hate over love" is an excellent legal argument. Did you include that in your amicus brief to the court?
        • DreKor, on 06/17/2008, -4/+8No, but the "two consenting adults with freedom" part probably made it in.
        • MsArtGeek, on 06/17/2008, -4/+4not to mention that whole "equal protection under the law" bit...
        • Dibou, on 06/18/2008, -1/+4What about that whole law that states "man and woman only" thing.
          Why would you look at one thing that only applies a little and ignore the other that directly applies (even though it goes against what you want.)
    • DreKor, on 06/17/2008, -9/+51That's what happens when you pass unconstitutional laws; they get struck down.
    • Hetman, on 06/17/2008, -4/+30Lets see humans have free will "possible Have free will anyways" and conciseness I do not think animals and inanimate objects can say "yea I agree to marry you." There is a big difference there.
      • geniusj, on 06/17/2008, -2/+9bingo
      • Dibou, on 06/18/2008, -3/+2You should read the actual court decision. There is NOTHING stopping people from marrying animals, multiple people or objects now. That is because their decision wasn't based on logic or president. It was arbitrary.
    • mtwoar, on 06/17/2008, -6/+42How about a law stating a human can only marry a human? Would that cure your disgust?
      • CrazedLeper, on 06/17/2008, -14/+4That would only last until "zoophilliacs" (as practicers of bestiality are also called) unite and begin demanding recognition. If a person cannot recognize his place on so basic a level as male or female, it does not matter what else he does. He (or she) will have no future and no progeny.
        • mtwoar, on 06/17/2008, -2/+11I would think a willful decision from a competent being would be in order. Even though they are speculated to be highly intelligent can a dolphin communicate to us, as humans, that it might want to marry outside of its species?

          I will recognize a zoophilliac as a human any day of the week, but the animal that they love so deeply that they want to marry is still an animal. This argument is beyond ridiculous.

          Why is it people who don't condone gay marriage feel it necessary to try and validate their arguments by likening gay "people" to something that is less? Get it through your head. A person is a person is a person... There is no way around it. A horse cant say 'I do', a pet turtle cant say 'I do' and the list goes on.

          His place? Who determines his place? I am a male and I know my place. It's exactly where I want to be.

          You seem to be very simple minded in the fact that you believe people are worthless unless they reproduce according to your standards. There are others like that on this planet... dogs, cats, and numerous other members of the animal kingdom where procreation and the spreading of the gene reigns supreme.

          Strange coincidence, you sharing a likeness to those animals you just referred to.
    • KaiUno, on 06/17/2008, -13/+6Yeah, like you live in a democracy! Ha! Americans. So gullible.
    • ProjectGSX, on 06/17/2008, -7/+39The "will of the people" as you put it was unconstitutional. Bravo to the judges for upholding the constitution.
      • onefinalstep, on 06/17/2008, -7/+4So things just all of a sudden become "unconstitutional" because some judges get appointed? This same court struck down gay marriage 4 years ago when it wasn't "unconstitutional." What kind of legal world do California Judges live in?
        • MsArtGeek, on 06/17/2008, -1/+5The kind where everyone has equal rights, and the law is there to uphold that concept, not deny it.

          It was always unconstitutional (at least since 1868), this ruling just formally brought that fact into the law.

          Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, look it up.
    • omegared, on 06/17/2008, -3/+38your right, in Canada we have people marrying pets, rocks all the time. What the ***** as happened, people thinking they should be treated as equals. it always the same old story when blacks and women wanted equal rights they were ridiculed and people were saying it was crazy and it would lead to the end of a MORAL society.
      • DreKor, on 06/17/2008, -2/+7I know! First we stopped enslaving blacks, then we started letting them marry whites, and then we started treating them as people. Now look where that's gotten us, a black man is running for President of the United States of America! If we're not careful, we might have a gay President one day!

        Oh wait, those are good things. Never mind.
    • krellor, on 06/17/2008, -3/+27There will always be oddballs in society. The people who want to marry animals or inanimate objects should not be used to prevent the much larger number of people who want to marry other people, that just happen to be the same sex. The only reason the government should have anything to do with "marriage" is to provide the necessary laws and governance, things like the ability to take charge of your spouses medical care if they fall gravely ill, etc...

      If you are a church and you don't want to perform gay marriages, then that is your right. But the government shouldn't be making moral decisions for the public, and people shouldn't be making moral decisions for their neighbors. So what if 63% of people are against it. The other 37% should have their rights infringed? No. What if 63% of people were for preventing Jewish people from getting married? Or Asians? Where does it suddenly become not ok for the government to prescribe morals to the people on the basis of majority rules. As long as they don't violate *your* precious morals? I don't believe in it, but go to hell Dibou.
    • CrazedLeper, on 06/17/2008, -35/+6They're kidding themselves anyway. Marriage is not a "legal" arrangement, it is a human arrangement. Furthermore, marriage is not before men or courts, it is before God. They are simply kidding themselves if they think that a piece of paper signed by a man and approved by a court changes the very structure of humanity.

      I'll recognize a gay marriage when it's participants reproduce--without technology, legality adoption, surrogacy and without the involvement of any third person. Anything short of that is a worthless delusion.
      • Hetman, on 06/17/2008, -1/+23My aunt is incapable of having kids. Her and my uncle had to adopt. Is there marriage void?
        • DreKor, on 06/17/2008, -1/+19you and your foolish "logic", it has no place in the biblebelt.
        • CrazedLeper, on 06/17/2008, -19/+2I am well aware that there are heterosexual couples that have issues and therefore cannot reproduce. This fact can in no way be taken to be any sort of "evidence" against the very concept of heterosexual reproduction. It's safe to assume that you, yourself, were the product (albeit misguided) of one man and one woman. No? 'Nuff said.
      • mlrigsby, on 06/17/2008, -0/+17So by your logic, a heterosexual marriage involving an infertile man or woman is "a worthless delusion"? Also, last I checked, marriage IS a legal arrangement, recognized by judges in courts.
        I hope you enjoy the view as history passes you by!
        • CrazedLeper, on 06/17/2008, -9/+2Many persons in times past married without the knowledge that either she was barren or he was impotent. There would be nothing either could do about it but they married with reasonable expectations. Gay marriage is futile because under the best of circumstances, it fails to result in a union that strengthens society.

          Marriage may be registered by a court but it is not court that makes marriage *real*. Marriage is the linchpin of society; without it there would be chaos. Chaos is what's becoming of America because of abandoning this fundamental principle of society.

          Furthermore, history may pass as it pleases. What you should be concerned about is not what's passing me by but what's catching up to you.
        • mrsteveman1, on 06/17/2008, -0/+9If by strengthen society you mean have more children, you're an idiot, we already have overpopulation in a lot of areas.

          Your definition of strengthen society is suspect and biased.

          You really are ***** insane mr leper
        • onefinalstep, on 06/17/2008, -6/+1No I think his logic was that fully functioning hetero's can have kids naturally (because thats what nature intended) and fully functioning *****'s can't.

          You can't really argue with that.
        • ashfish, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3No you can't argue the bodily functions but how does reproduction have anything to do with marriage in today's modern world?
      • krellor, on 06/17/2008, -2/+10The mistake our country made was to tie religious marriage to legal marriage and give them the same name. Your church doesn't have to marry same sex couples, and you don't have to like it. You can believe that they will go to hell. You can also believe the on the day of reckoning god will rain down cupcakes out of His magnificent ass. I don't really care what you think.

        The government shouldn't have the ability to infringe on the rights of the people, and shouldn't be used by the people to infringe on others rights. The age old question of where do my rights end, and your rights begin? My rights extend to the end of someone elses nose. So as long as I don't hurt you, I get to do pretty much whatever. So as long as gay people being married doesn't hurt anyone (and it doesn't) then they should be allowed to get married.
        • DragoonWraith, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3In order to prevent other people from infringing on the rights of others, logistically the government needs certain powers. In order to give something abstract (like a government) rights, you need to take those rights from someone who has them already - in this case, the governed.

          A government is essentially, in theory, an agreement between a group of people to sacrifice certain rights in order to empower a government capable of protecting people's rights. For example, to be imprisoned is an egregious affront to people's rights, but as a society people agree that they will sacrifice their rights should they break the laws of that country, in order to give the country the ability to enforce those laws. By accepting the trial and imprisonment of others, you in theory accept the reality that if you broke those laws, you would also lose your rights to freedom of movement or whatever.

          The theory breaks down, of course, since most of us did not actively choose what country we live in, what rights we have given up and what powers we have given to the government. This is a logistical reality of an imperfect system. We are then forced to work within the system to adapt it to our needs, or else accept it or leave.

          The American Republic was designed primarily by people who had left the system they were in, and it was an attempt to create a system where there was greater ability for the people to adapt it to its needs, so there were less people accepting what they perceive as injustice or leaving. It is again, imperfect, and there are many significant cases of problems within the system which do not allow the people the ability to adapt everything, but it also affords a certain degree of stability and also generally prevents the destruction of others' rights, even by the majority (at least including recent amendments, which themselves are a considerable improvement on previous methods of governance).

          That said, I do agree that it was a poor choice to make marriage such an ambiguous word, where different religions disagree on definitions and then have to argue about the "official" definition as offered by the state that they all are within. If the government only offered "civil unions" for all couples, this debate would be essentially moot - the majority of conservatives only freak out when it is "marriage" that the gays are getting, the concept of civil union would not bother all but the most bigoted.

          Unfortunately, since marriage is what the state offers everyone, it needs to be for everyone, and that causes problems for those with different definitions of marriage (and different definitions of people, since homosexuals seem to be considered sub-human by these groups), which is the sticking point here.

          Anyway, enough rambling from me.
      • mrsteveman1, on 06/17/2008, -0/+11No one is asking you to recognize gay marriages, because you don't really matter.

        Your opinion is insignificant here.
        • CrazedLeper, on 06/17/2008, -9/+1So you're saying what about yourself and your opinion?
        • mrsteveman1, on 06/17/2008, -0/+8That its an opinion and nothing more. No one is asking me, or you, to "recognize" gay marriages as you put it.

          Neither of us in fact have anything to do with it.
      • ashfish, on 06/17/2008, -2/+7So what about those heterosexual married couples that can't reproduce? Is their marriage invalid?
    • nationalist, on 06/17/2008, -11/+3don't worry i didn't agree with you and i still dugg you up
    • Andrwmorph, on 06/17/2008, -6/+15Feel free to get the ***** out of the country.
      • Dibou, on 06/18/2008, -2/+3It is the least screwed up one there is. You can go to Canada or Europe. I'm screwed if I lose America. You leave.
    • mrsteveman1, on 06/17/2008, -4/+24So on the one hand you have 2 adults getting married, and on the other you have people marrying dolphins, farm animals, and inanimate objects. You really don't see the difference?

      Heres a hint: one of those situations involves 2 adults who can legally sign a ***** marriage contract. You're argument is ***** ridiculous and you know it, you just think your religous beliefs trump all else and have repeated the same ridiculous farm animal argument because you can't think of anything else.

      Another tip: gay people getting married has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU, you have no ***** say in it, even if your ***** bible says its wrong. I don't ***** care. You don't get to decide which legal adults can get married, and neither does the government.
      • nick1971, on 06/17/2008, -0/+8I agree with the content of your message with the exception of the message its condemned in the bible.
        A lot of activities are condemned and allowed in the old testament particularly in Leviticus.
        From being able to sell your daughter, to not touching the skin of a pig (there goes football), to the requirement to stone your wife, mother sister for wearing clothes made of 2 threads. If you want to say that homosexuality is a sin then you should 1st allow a dissection of your life to see what sins you and the other people on the board have commit ed.

        Once this is done we can probably agree that a literal interpretation of the old testament does not bode well for any of us, unless we can find one person who is without sin, then we can start the process of stoning each other.
        • mrsteveman1, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3Don't digg him down hes right :D

          I don't think there is anything in the bible about it, theres the "lay with another man" line if i remember right.

          But other than that, "the bible tells me its wrong" is used a lot to justify this hate, so i threw it in :D
    • Spire3660, on 06/17/2008, -2/+25You do realize we live in a republic right? The 'will of the people' is secondary to what is in the best interest of ALL parties involved, not jsut the tyranny of the majority. Raw democracy, untempered by the fire of enshrined rights under a republic is an ugly thing indeed. Jsut becasue 63% of people voted one way on a issue doesnt make it right or just. That would be like saying that the Jim Crow laws were just because the majority of society supported them. Democracy, unchecked by a republic framework would quickly dissolve into the tyranny of the majority. A good example would be a Iraq, if they held general elections, most cetainly one of the factions would win considering they are the majority in the country. This would result in a quick and brutal oppression of the other smaller factions. Is that right or jsut?

      DEMOCRACY DOES NOT EQUATE TO FREEDOM.
    • TrevorBelmont, on 06/17/2008, -2/+19This is one of the strongest arguments in favor Representative Democracy. Often times the will of the people is short sighted, under informed or in this case, just wrong. We appoint representatives, not to do what the people want but to make the best decisions that protect the welfare and freedoms of everyone. This insulates us from the tumultuous vulnerabilities