Marriage = 1 MAN + 1 WOMAN...
Period...
Otherwise, God would not have created Eve...

Instead of Adam and Eve, it would have been Adam and Steve! or Madam and Eve! The historical nature and order of things should not be over-ridden by clever creation of "rights".

I have a more pragmatic view of marriage. Where in the Constitution does it give the gov't the power to define or regulate marriage? The answer is "no where".

As such, it's none of the gov'ts business, if you want to get married see your local clergy of choice...

I guess that, along with Eve, God must have created all those fossils, too, just to fool us into thinking that life on Earth evolved over billions of years, instead of the few thousand years in the Bible.

I have no problem with people following the beliefs of their religious traditions in deciding collectively who can marry in their particular church. But, do we really want anyone's religious views (yours? mine? someone else's? whose?) determining public secular policy on whose marriage can be legally recognized by the state for purposes of deciding property rights, survivor benefits, etc.?

Here we go again...

Actually, 'Our' and 'Jake' give pretty good examples of why fundamental rights should never be left to a popular vote, as if they were ordinary political issues.

Looking at their comments, 'Our' wants to foist her religious beliefs off on everybody else, and the deeply philosophical 'Jake' is satisfied with snickering schoolyard analysis. AND YET, their vote counts just as much as anyone's.

Fundamental rights decided in a Constitutional framework, on the other hand, require at least a 'rational basis' for treating similarly situated people differently under the law, and probably a lot more than that. And no such merit is there to be found in 'Our' and 'Jake's' comments -- nor was it there at trial in the case now before the US Supreme Court. Not because the lawyers didn't try, but because they just didn't have anything to work-with.

So, enjoy your last hurrahs, folks -- by summertime, you'll be historical dust motes, and the rest of us will be proud that the equality that ought to exist under the law DOES so exist.

Well stated, Citizen Paine, Dave, Aubrey! I concur whole heartily! (Not much for me to add!)

Citizen "pain" is falling for the socialist liberal gay agenda---and it IS an agenda! This is only the beginning of demands that will eventually destroy our country that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

I need to make one clarification...I don't think the gov't should sanction ANY union, thru tax policy, or otherwise.

If you're worried about property distribution when you die, have a will or trust in place. Failure to do that means you really don't care because you didn't take the time to put it in writing...

You know, Denise, I was just about to ask whether you think the Negroes have an agenda, too -- but then I realized that you probably believe that, as well -- and LOOK! Half-of-one-of-them has been elected President -- TWICE! That makes a whole one! Whatever shall you do, other than doubling-down on those anti-psychotics?

I also realized that when An Agenda has only one to-do item on it:

"1 -- Fight for the right to be treated like everybody else in the society"

-- then I DO subscribe to it -- whole-heartedly. I am Spartacus.

Actually, it is the other way around. The RIGHTEOUSNOUS OF RELIGION, leveraged through our government, of the people, by the people and for the people, will be our nations greatest undoing.
Religious people, please take your "founding principles" arguments and keep them where they belong, in your house and in your place of worship. You pretend that Christians and Jews have a monopoly on "values," like agnostics and atheists, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists and reasonable, respectable people in a CIVILIZED society don't share the same.
I guess, we do "Trust in God." I know I do. I trust her omnipotent powers to result in school and movie theater massacres, in massive disease and unease, in storms that kill people, in adultery, rape and incest, and most of all priest pedophilia!!! God is such a wonderful all knowing person. God lets it all happen. Yes, in God we Trust!!!!

With regard to JT's post, God gave us free will, so throwing your massacre, disease, etc. theory at God is really ignorant of many religions. Also, regardless of what you believe, the parts of women were designed to work with the parts of men so if you use your brain, you'll realize anything else is just wrong. Square peg into round hole...

" ...the parts of women were designed to work with the parts of men... "

My dear Catherine, thank you for that elegant exposition, but sex is not at-issue in the case before the Supreme Court -- marriage is. Sex has been at-issue in many other cases, but not this one.

If you believe that marriage is just about sex, then you've got to be kidding me. And if you just want to talk about sex, kindly start your own thread. I bet you'll get lots of replies.

JT - It's posts like your's that make a true dialog about issues impossible with liberals. You think what you write is smart, but in reality it's arogant, disrespectful, and dripping with hate. You make it impossible to engage in a civil discourse...

CP, are you casting your pearls before swine again? I envy your tenacity! I don't even have the energy to enter this one, but I wish you all the luck in the world in keeping your sanity among comments about "parts" and "Adam and Steve." I do wonder when all these clever folks chose to be hetero....

It seems more and more every day that right is becoming wrong and vise versa. At this rate polygamy is next.

Aw, Joseph, the trouble with that 'slippery slope' notion is that all anybody's looking-for here is a level playing field.

No slope. No Muss. No Fuss. No harm. No foul. And really nobody's business except the two folks who love each other enough to want to get married.

But Diane, recall The Agenda? We're just getting started here, and I'm in-charge of the getting Liberace's mug on that new $3 bill! Hang-in there, girlfriend -- anyone who ripostes like yours in the 'organic foods' thread canNot be out of fuel.

You are Spartacus, too.

CP & Friends: You are articulate and apparently educated but wrong! God and religious aspects aside, the fundamental unit of societies has been the union of a man and a woman. Polished arguments and denigrating the opposing views do not change this fact. It is interesting that those who proclaim that the Government should not interfere, use the government to set aside the will of the people! Since you really liked my Adam and Steve comment, let me clarify that I have no problem with their relation; just don't believe it is a marriage.

Hi Jake -- Opie says I should get out more, so I'm trying another thread, just to stick my toe in the water.

Let's assume for the sake of this conversation that "the fundamental unit of societies has been a man and a woman."** If true, so what? Is that a basis for saying that it's the Only one Possible, or Legally Allowable? Because that's the issue here -- whether the popularity of the male/female pair means that it shall be deemed The Only legally recognized 'fundamental unit of society' (civil unions, as noted by the CA Supreme Court, just don't cut it -- legally or socially).

I say no -- there's no 'rational basis,' as Citizen P points out -- for holding so: no credible evidence that they are harmful, or that children raised in such circumstances are harmed (nor that their own innate sexual orientations are affected, fwiw). I don't think there's much sample-size yet on divorce or abuse rate comparability -- but do you think they're likely to do much worse than the record we breeders have compiled, in that regard? At the trial, Prop 8's former 'star' witness recanted -- essentially admitting that he'd made it all up. You see, at trial, his assertions were subject to cross examination, so he punted, instead.

Finally, is it hard to understand that 'majority rules' and "the Bill of Rights protects' are different concepts of democracy, each of which applies in different appropriate situations? How many criminal defendants would win a popular election on the issue of whether they should have access to an attorney? How many of us would elect to allow the Nazis a First Amendment right to march in heavily Jewish Skokie, IL? Would inter-racial marriage have won a referendum in 1967? Would it today?


** there's plenty of evidence that that statement is incredibly over-broad; in fact, there's pretty good evidence that throughout most of human history (hunting/gathering, especially), the tribe was the fundamental unit, and child-procreation and raising were, shall we say, shared activities. There is a pretty good and serious book called "Sex at Dawn" that makes that case.

The development of agriculture in the last 15K years, and the consequent invention of private property led to many, many fundamental changes in human social organization that are not necessarily consistent with our evolutionary origins, but that's just food for thought. There are also many, more recent human cultures organized around models other than the male/female pair.

Oh, yeah. I guess that makes me Spartacus, too.

Hello Tom and fellow Spartacus (Spartaci?). I had a long discussion with a family member regarding the issue of man/lady parts (I’m sorry – it gives me a chuckle just writing that down…), procreation as the basis of the marital institution, and why she felt that if my sister and her partner of over 20 years were allowed to marry, that somehow the entire institution of marriage would be forever lacking for us now downtrodden hetero types. This woman was well into her 60’s and no longer able to procreate herself, so we discussed whether it was appropriate for her and her husband to remain married. They couldn’t procreate after all, so why should the “rules” be altered for them? She couldn’t come up with anything better than the historical significance of marriage by definition being between opposite gender couples, and that it might be possible for her to still conceive (I tried hard not to laugh at that one).

I’m consistently shocked that that this issue remains. That I can marry and divorce 7 times and then marry again, and a same gender couple with a true commitment is unable to marry is just wrong. When I was a little girl, I dreamed of a beautiful wedding and I got one. Lucky me, I’m attracted to men, fell in love with a man and didn’t have to settle for a civil union. Committed, same gender couples deserve the same.

Civil rights should never be put to popular vote. As CP pointed out, it is just too easy for a group of misguided individuals who believe in things like “Adam and Steve” and somehow think that we decide who we will be attracted to and this determines our orientation, to decide to remove the rights of others.

CP is a fool covered in his own ignorance.

Well, Tyler, I guess we can't all be Spartacus.

But I'll tell you what I find encouraging. Diane will confirm that when we used to have these threads back in the Prop 8 days, there would sometimes be an honest back/forth discussion for upwards of 100-or-more comments, before the desperate name-calling would begin.

In the interim, a lot of folks have gotten past their unfamiliarity and discomfort with the idea that two same-sex people can and do experience the same love that anyone else does -- and that their love and its consecration in marriage is no threat to anyone, or to society. Not everyone quite yet agrees, obviously, but a Lot of progress has been made.

It's to the point where now, the desperate name-calling starts much sooner.

I like all this liberal thought! Pretty soon I can do polygamy! Why not? Don't judge my loveS. My neighbor's dog looking good too. Keep opening those floodgates. No standards are the best!!

So, you're upholding a 'Standard,' Ted, really? Something like "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others?" How fortunate for you, Squealer, that you were born on the right side of The 'Standard!' Web Link

As someone said above, there's no slippery slope here. Your neighbor's dog, or child, are off-limits to your marital ambitions, not based on any anti-kid or -canine malice, but because they are legally protected: they cannot consent.

As for the polygamists, they seem to be a concern primarily among certain of the more virulent opponents of same-sex marriage. Now, maybe they know something more about that institution and its dangers than I do, but I just find it a little ironic. I haven't seen any great groundswell of advocacy on the polygamists' behalf -- have you? Or are you just setting-up a series of straw spouses, to scare the children and the dogs?

Whew - thank goodness I don't have a neighbor named Ted! My dog's standards are pretty low, after all.

I can definitely confirm that the discourse in opposing opines during the prop 8 period was heated, yet took much longer to resort name calling and schoolyard chant "I know you are, but what am I?". Sadly, however, I'm guilty myself for pointing out the whole "pearls before swine" thing. I think in the present company, however, the swine analogy might not be low enough....and there I go again, dammit!

In considering the non-existent slippery slope - the same "reasoning" can be used in considering all marriage. If opposite gender couples were not allowed to marry, then same gender couples would not be fighting for the same rights. It's a mute point, however. The idea that by allowing same gender couples who are in a committed relationship marry will somehow result in our canine companions marrying the Teds of the universe is idiocy.

Unless you can reference the article in the Constitution granting the government power over marriage, the only justifiable argument is that government should not be the regulating power. Again, if you want to get married go see your local clergy of choice, leave the government out.

Why are such simple concepts so difficult?