Because it's unconstitutional, and the fact that it was even allowed to be voted on is a joke.Darth Budd said:whats the point of voting on the proposition if they're just going to try to overturn it? i voted against it but the american people have spoken and they dont want gay marriage. on a related note, it passed by a narrower margin than the previous one, i can see it being legalized in the next few years.
EndUnknown said:[qimg]http://sfist.com/attachments/SFist_Brock/prop%208%20hot%20guy.jpg[/qimg]
EndUnknown said:[qimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3046/3020917214_152332f2c5_o.png[/qimg]
While I agree that marriage is retarded and useless, that still doesn't mean you should be able to tell somebody else they can't do it.Terra said:There is something tragically illogical about debates that ignore the obvious & defend the indefensible.
Marriage is a word that describes a binding union that is the accepted process of human proliferation. Unique to heterosexuals
If we didn't have that, we'd all have 200 plus last names.
Society took the word one step further & introduced Marital rights.
Then the lawyers got hold of it & took the fundamental word & turned it into a corporate battle, that once a union is proven, it deemed an equal input union, irrespective if it's been equal or not. (Just a simple illogical assumption)
This is basically how their logic will work for Gay rights.
"Marriage is a Sterfumpian word for bridle. Horses wear bridals. A horse is a Nag. Nag spelt backwards is gan. Gan is only one letter away from meaning Gay. We live in a democracy & the majority rules. Two letters out of three is a majority, so gays can wear bridle attire & thus, be brides & that equals a marriage"
& of course, gay rights is their current bread & butter, (Or should I say, The food off your table).
Thus, the 21st century definition of marriage is to "Legally usurp a mates possessions & foist the hapless taxpayer with a greater load."
The lawyers will love these Lemmings.
Be careful what you wish for sugarplums.
Well, then a marriage recognized by the church shouldn't be recognized by the state.Darth Budd said:the term "marriage" is a religious term, and since the gov't is not allowed to control religion then there can be no law forcing them to allow gay marriage, HOWEVER all "married" heterosexual couples are forced to file for a civil union to be recognized by the gov't as a single entity. in fact, some heterosexual couples aren't married at all and only have civil unions. i have no problem with gays having civil unions and being recognized as a legitimate couple by sharing finances, legal rights over each other in medical emergencies and adopting, but forcing the religions to change is unconstitutional.
Joey said:Well, then a marriage recognized by the church shouldn't be recognized by the state.
EndUnknown said:@terra: They will be "normal" as soon as the bigots stop treating them as sub class beings. just like black people are accepted as people with full rights. and it is not legal corruption, it is GETTING RID of legal bigotry.