The biggest laugh I've got out of the entire issue is that the religious groups were pushing for Prop. 8 on the basis of "promoting responsible procreation."

Ummm... If a gay couple is incapable of conceiving a child via natural means, doesn't that mean they -are- procreating responsibly? I mean, they're not conceiving a child they may or may not have the means to care for, nor are they exacerbating our human-to-resources ratio problems.

Okay, I'll bite - if they have no benefit to society via raising strong families for the future, why should society extend them any benefits whatsoever?

They are not going to procreate either way, right?

Then go ahead and take the first step. Start telling people who are unable to have kids for one reason or another that their marriage has been declared null and void.

So that means they wouldn't have to pay any taxes whatsoever, say goodbye to the pink dollar or is that the dink dollar

I dunno, maybe for the same reason we extend the benefits of legal marriage to heterosexual couples who lack either the ability or the desire and intention to procreate?

The inability and/or unwillingness to procreate and raise a family can't be cited as a legally valid reason to deny two individuals the right to be legally married, unless the ability and willingness to do so is a legal requirement for marriage in the first place. It isn't.

the only sollution to this is to outlaw ALL marriage.

we will now only have legal unions which is and has been legal all along but "some" want the special notation of the word marriage as though it is any more legitimate or powerfull.

if equality were the real goal then the arguement would be that legal unions would have all the benefits and protections as marriage (but AFAIK they already do) and this would be very easy to get accross the board support for.

marriage was a religeous thing started in church, supposedly blessed by god, and conducted by preists so isnt goverment supposed to be seperate from religeon?

so i say marriage should no longer exist in law and all we have is legal unions, then anyone can "call" themselves married but it has no legal merit.

that would solve the whole problem but then there would be no drama and where would be the fun in that?

I have no problem with this, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the religious groups who have made a point of opposing same-sex marriage (and/or any kind of legally recognized "unions") will not agree to it. They want legal recognition of "marriage" as condoned and accepted within their own belief system, and no legal recognition for anything else.

im sure that some do but i think the vast majority are just opposed to the idea of a symbol of their reigion "the blessing of a marital union" be in some way cheapened by turning it into something like getting a driving license.

most of the people that i know who oppose it are just opposed to the use of the word marriage and not the act itself.

If this were really true I would expect them to be just as upset by the possibility of a heterosexual couple going to city hall, getting a license, hauling in a couple of strangers from nearby offices as witnesses, and having the appropriate gubmint official do what's needed to sign the paperwork that makes them married in the eyes of the law.

And I would expect to see them refuse to acknowledge the marriages of straight couples who fulfilled all the legal requirements but did not seek the approval of the clergy when doing so, and opted out of a church wedding.

But I don't see that.

It is perfectly possible for a straight couple to be married in the eyes of the law, without the benefit or endorsement of any clergy whatsoever, without the "blessing" of anything or anyone other than the law, and I have yet to see any anti-gay marriage group complain that this "cheapens" the idea of marriage. I have yet to see them lobby and spend wads of money trying to pass laws so that such things aren't allowed to happen. It seems obvious that it has less to do with who performs the wedding, who signs the paperwork, and who deems the couple "married" than it does with which two people got hitched and what mix of private parts are involved.

It's the same thing as with the "marriage is about procreation" argument. If one examines the argument and then carries it to its logical conclusion, one finds that it doesn't hold up. The thing that is supposed to be so "offensive" or "necessary" when it comes to marriage is only seen to be that way if the marriage involves a same-sex couple. The exact same thing, in the case of a straight couple, is either perfectly acceptable or (apparently) not worth making a fuss about.

well IMO if they were called same sex "unions" instead of marriages then IMO 60% of those who protest would stay home since they wouldnt find that term to be offensive.

yes there is a "gayism" or whatever "ism" fits to it but sometimes a word can mean more then you think and the way to get to the finish line is in stages. gay unions IMO are much more likely to gain wide acceptance, then once established in all 50 states it can be debated if the name actually matters which by that time i doubt it will

I am amazed that you still have people arguing that discrimination against gays is acceptable in a western liberal society.

If 7 million voters had voted to outlaw marriages between african-americans and persons of other races or adopted a law to prevent african-americans from moving into white neighborhoods, how many here would be defending the people's choice?

A bill of right exists to protect the rights of the minority from oppression by a majority.

Canada has had same-sex marriages since 2005 and it is a total non-issue here.

Sometimes I wonder if the USA is in the same century as the rest of the western world. :hmmm:

Nobody is discriminating against gays. They have the same freedom to marry a person of the opposite sex as anyone else.

We're not at all the same as you and you should be very, very afraid of us. :yep:

Then you would approve the drilling of oil in ANWAR, The rejection of Obama care, The reduction of tax on tobacco products, The rejection of abortion as law. All those things are minority in support.

Perhaps you should rethink your argument.

At any rate, over time religion is slowly being phased out of our government. Soon enough we wont have to squabble over such petty issues and we will become better at minding our own business I hope. Then maybe we can start to focus on the real problems facing this nation.

Oh the oppression
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:

Its not an argument, it's Constitutional Law 101. The basic premise of a Bill of Rights is that a majority will always be able, through the power of the crowd or the ballot, to protect its interest. The Bill of Rights exists to garantee all citizens equal rights and protection, whether they are african-americans, native americans, visible minorities, women, jews and even gays.

In 1982, Canada adopted a constitutional Charter of Rights which was closely modeled on the U.S. Bill of Rights. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, you had a series of court challenges against the existing marriage laws as being discriminatory against gays under the charter of rights. They all succeeded. In 2005, the federal Parliament conceded and modified all laws including the marriage laws so it would apply equally to heterosexual and same-sex couples.

Unless the US Supreme Court takes an extremely narrow interpretation or the US Constitution is amended, you should eventually have the exact same result in the USA.

When the Conservative government was elected here in 2006, they toyed with the idea of adopting a law that would give same-sex couples the same rights and obligations, but call it a "civil union" instead of "marriage". They finally dropped the idea since it made no sense to revive the debate for a purely cosmetic change.

Conservatives up here realize that the real battleground is not social, but economic, i.e: lower taxes, less/smarter governement regulations, more favourable business climate, etc.


I live in Montreal which has a reputation as an ultra-liberal city. I live a mainstream life, live in the suburbs, commute to work. We don't know any gay couple or gay family, none live in our neighborhood or have children in our son's school, as far as I can tell. In the past 5 years, I have only met 2 gay couples, both time because I had to review their wills. If it was'nt for the news media covering events in the gay neighborhoods or the odd time I see a gay couple holding hands downtown, I would not even know Montreal has a large gay community.

Legalization of same-sex marriages has had zero impact on canadian society.

Trying to tell responsible adults how they should live their personal lives is a losing and a loser issue.

...or just leave it as it is, and understand that male/female relationships contain a potential that homosexual relations don't, and understand that the current tradition respects that potential benefit to society - one of which gay marriage could NEVER provide.

As I said before, I not necessarily against civil unions. I really don't give a damn. I just don't like the disingenous method of the debate, and the all-or-nothing approach.