Gay Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fucking ridiculous.
 
Great. If CA can't keep gay marriages why am I hoping that CT will? =/
 
It's disgusting. Sad that on the day following such a positive thing for our country, such a disappointing thing could happen. But this is what really pisses me off: "It also represents a personal loss for the thousands of couples from California and others states who got married in the brief window when they could. Legal experts have said it will have to be resolved in court whether their unions still are valid." As if it isn't enough of an insult that they've rescinded it, let's just slap everyone who exercised their legal (and human, I might add) rights in the face some more.
 
does this mean you're finally gonna ask? Ive been pining for months!!!
 
>< I wish the powers that be would mind their own fucking lives! It doesn't directly effect me. I feel for you guys down there ; ;

Move to Canada, we're more "the land of the free" than you guys :(
 
Seriously, what is the problem?

Hey, guess what, Gay people are gay. Yeah, they have gay sex. Sometimes they make love. Get used to it.

Does gay marriage effect me? Nope. Does it effect the workplace? Nope. Does it effect neighbours, friends, family, strangers or anyone else for that matter? Nope.

Holy flying dog shit. Let gay people get married. They're gonna do all those things married people do anyways.

Seriously, Grow up.

Sorry for the nature of this post, but this pisses me off.

*Edited for Language* >.>
 
Last edited:
You're not the only ones disappointed. Just when I can finally feel pride in being an American again, we Californians just let down a huge segment of our population. We voted for Obama, we voted yes for better living conditions for farm animals, and a vote of no to abortion parental notification. Go figure…

From what I heard, the fear of schools teaching kids about gay marriage was a deciding factor for many. Never mind that marriage is not a big part of any curriculum (a minor mention within the context of sex ed that parents can opt out of), people were truly freaked about this. Here's hoping the courts can render this discriminatory proposition null and void.
 
The only hope in nullifying the amendment in CA would take the case all the way to the supreme court. Only document that can override this is the constitution. Thankfully attempts to amend that will fail.
 
Genkaku said:
Seriously, what is the problem?

Hey, guess what, Gay people are gay. Yeah, they have gay sex. Sometimes they make love. Get used to it.

Does gay marriage effect me? Nope. Does it effect the workplace? Nope. Does it effect neighbours, friends, family, strangers or anyone else for that matter? Nope.

Holy flying dog shit. Let gay people get married. They're gonna do all those things married people do anyways.

Seriously, Grow up.

Sorry for the nature of this post, but this pisses me off.

*Edited for Language* >.>
Click to expand...

this morning when I was watching the news, it was a slight lead to being passed, didn't think it would actually.

I don't support gay marriage but it's really hypocritical to pass a law allowing in then taking back that law after couples get married, it' serves as a more of a divider than a unified state. I still don't understand why civil union doesn't hold the same weight as marriage in the first place (taxes), the state's concept of marriage and the religious concept of marriage(pending religion duh) can be two different things itself.

I was more furious when the Arkansas law was passed forbidding gay-lesbian couples from adopting children...you don't catch anything from people different from you, you only learn and tolerate them better /facepalm
 
K. Ishitar said:
this morning when I was watching the news, it was a slight lead to being passed, didn't think it would actually.

I don't support gay marriage but it's really hypocritical to pass a law allowing in then taking back that law after couples get married, it' serves as a more of a divider than a unified state. I still don't understand why civil union doesn't hold the same weight as marriage in the first place (taxes), the state's concept of marriage and the religious concept of marriage(pending religion duh) can be two different things itself.

I was more furious when the Arkansas law was passed forbidding gay-lesbian couples from adopting children...you don't catch anything from people different from you, you only learn and tolerate them better /facepalm
Click to expand...

I think the civil unions should be all that are recognized by the government. There would be no "seperate but equal" -- there'd only be one option. Let your church sponsor it as a "marriage" if they so desire -- you may even put that on the civil contract as church sanctified. It wouldn't mean anything but something to the people involved.
 
Zyndara said:
But this is what really pisses me off: "It also represents a personal loss for the thousands of couples from California and others states who got married in the brief window when they could. Legal experts have said it will have to be resolved in court whether their unions still are valid."
Click to expand...


Didn't Ellen Degeneres just get married to Porsha De Rossi a few months back?...

And I agree with you Genk.
 
Arctyrael said:
I think the civil unions should be all that are recognized by the government. There would be no "seperate but equal" -- there'd only be one option. Let your church sponsor it as a "marriage" if they so desire -- you may even put that on the civil contract as church sanctified. It wouldn't mean anything but something to the people involved.
Click to expand...


Very "Render unto Caesar ..." and I like it.
 
it's moreso confusing when there's a separation of church and state then we have this marriage issue that is just a gray area when that federal law confronts this. Marriage as far as the the government is concerned should be a voucher for the benefits/taxes that come along with unison, it should be acknowledged in all states at the very least even if it's not supported( letting gay couples marry) since we all live in the same country and not 50 smaller ones.

It's just an issue I see with our democracy sometimes where we compromise our concepts to benefit the majority and be more flexible and expand. It alludes to the possiblility of socialism in our government, if it's to further benefit the country and the majority rule why is this an issue(assuming a candidates approach was leaning to it)?

Not to derail but back to marriage should mean more to the people invovled than what others think and it shouldn't need outside influence to make it more meaningful.
 
K. Ishitar said:
Not to derail but back to marriage should mean more to the people invovled than what others think and it shouldn't need outside influence to make it more meaningful.
Click to expand...

That is the reason a lot of people give to not get married. “We live together, isn’t that enough?” or “What can be gained by getting married that can’t be gained by common law?” Marriage means different things to different people. If gay/lesbian couples want to get married, why does anyone else care? How does it effect anyone else?
 
It doesn't really, it's a choice like any other you can agree with it or not. If it gets passed as a Federal law that gay marriage is legal more power to them, that doesn't mean necessarily that I'll endorse or feel different towards people. The United States of America is truly a great nation, but that ability to compromise can hurt us,as with the case of turning over the ability for gay couples to get married after being intact for how long(?).

I don't hold America as a sacred ground or an end to all means(ie if it's passed then I support it to full extent) so it's not a big issue to me, but if I'm asked to support it I wont due to my own beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top