Governator to veto gay marriage billFollow

I'm not voting for him next election.

Because it's supposed to spread like wildfire? Personally, I support him on this. The state should never dictate what constitutes a religious tradition such as marriage. For that matter, should it be okay to let kids get drunk because they can have wine at Communion? Or, would you strict interpretationists say that the government should step in and illegalize Communion based on the same reasoning?

This has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with money and rights.

Would we still have marriage if we didn't have religion?

people CAn get married in court. which pretty much has no religious intonations...


I mean waht's the problem here? Aren't Wiccan marriages legally recognized??

If it really all comes down to religion???

THEN Why The Fu[/b]ck should any government have ANY say in it at ALL?

Seperation of Church and State being waht it is....


[b]So someone explain again to me why gay marriage is illegal. I forget


EDIT: Just saw Elderons post



So they are discriminating then aren't they?

Edited, Wed Sep 14 15:38:06 2005 by Kelvyquayo

EDIT: Just saw Elderons post



So they are discriminating then aren't they?

[/quote]

They are, but they can only get away with it due to a technicallity based on definition. Status quo does not -need- to be changed. That is a choice that is optional regardless of how in-equal it is. The American people are extremely prejudiced people, and they have the power essentially to say if a law stands when it is up for discussion. Moral majority ring a bell?

Technically yes and no. We have civil unions but it's not called a 'Marriage'. Gay people got a bit pissy over that.

They have the same rights as married couples though.


Edited, Wed Sep 14 15:54:55 2005 by TheDave

They realized that

a) distinction between church and state
b) state had its own secular marriage laws
c) charter of human rights allows everyone the same benefits
d) therefore the gov't must allow secular marriage to homosexuals and also protect the rights of religious groups to practice as they believe

So they were left with the choice of getting out of the marriage business altogether and having to deal with rewriting laws about benefits of marriage and everything else and leaving it as an issue strictly for the Churches or they could say "Churches you are exempt but we are going to allow gays the same rights as everyone else by allowing them to goto the justice of the peace". They chose the latter and things are going just fine.

I've said it once, I'll say it again that when you dig right down to the cultural significance of marriage is that it creates kinship bonds and is also a method of community approval of sexual relations. "We approve of you have sex together and whatever might come of it". Feel free to argue but that is just the accepted anthroplogical view on marriage and you can see it reflected in american society with the way "premarital sex" is viewed as wrong.

Its my honest opinion that a lot of people are against gay marriage because in the end even if they are only aware of it in a slight vague sort of way in which they dont care to admit to themselves, gay marriage is the last step in legitimizing and accepting homosexuality.

Indeed she did.

But I thought elected officals were doing the will of the populace by proxy. Isn't that what we elect them for?

That's what Gbaji taught me...

Same in Canada, cause the Queen said so.

I love it when you're assertive. RAWR!

The technicality being that marriage was a social institution far before the government of the United States formed (or even the Bear Republic for that matter, later known as the state of California)) so how can our young government make any basis on what is or isn't "marriage"?

I have to agree with Bhodi on this one. "Gay marriage" is basically the last string for our society to be socially accepting of the homosexual lifestyle. In all polls, there doesn't seem to be one state that an ammendment could win in. This society will never accept homosexuality as a normal sexual practice. In the case of legal unions in Great Britain, I would say that is probably the most logical answer to the issue at hand.

Excellent point, actually. The government already overstepped boundaries by defining its legal status as "married" although the common sensabilities of the day when our government was formed would never foresee a homosexual couple actually being out of the closet, much less seeking marriage. The notion would be percieved as absurd as wanting to marry a pet rock.