The "don't ask / don't tell" policy in the Military falls down when gays can legally marry.

There are not only openly gay people in the Canadian Military but some of them are openly married to other gay people in the Canadian Military.

Who will be the first to take a husband or wife of the same gender in the American Military?

About f'ing time!

What does one say about people that oppose two human being's rights to be with whomever they want to be.

Well done courts. Stand up for human rights!

Interestingly the court is 6 republican appointees and 1 democratic apointee and the decision was 4-3 meaning that at least half of the republicans voted to strike the ban down. Again, well done and sort of unexpected.

sorry, citizens...

"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" doesn't apply to you.

Gee..
So Americans living in America can be free to marry? I can't wait to hear the lamentation from the religious Nazi's on this since they are totally against freedom in this country.
Here's a news flash - It's not a "civil union", it's a marriage and you have no right to push your religious nonsense on these people no matter what your little black ficticious book says.
Freedom means no bias against race, religion, sex, sexual orientation (that includes transgender), or heritage. Although I'm annoyed by the religious nuts, I would contest anyone that tries to say that they can't worship or believe what they want. But make no mistake, I'll be in their face every time they try to attack people's civil rights.

I almost had a heart attack until I saw the word "state"

Good. It IS about time (as Goose2 already mentioned), about time the US started to join the rest of the civilized world as far as individual human rights are concerned.

There's really only one crime: theft. Murder is theft of someone's life, theft of property is theft of property, torture is theft of human dignity and the right to be free from pain (ditto for assault), driving while intoxicated is the potential theft of someone's life, rape is theft of human dignity, and so on.

As far as gay marriage is concerned, there is no theft, unless you recognize it as theft of the Christian fundamentalists' right to force everyone to abide by their interpretation of the writings of one particular book.

I wonder what heir groppenfuhrer has to say about that? He's probably talking to the shrub trying to get the U.S. supreme court to overturn the decision.

Geeze, all this from a state that spawned some of the worst conservatives, (of course that redundant).

Can't wait till a person is allowed to marry their pet beagle or pig. Currently people are allowed to will their inherentance to their pets.

And please don't anyone tell me a beagle or a pig couldn't say, ___"I do".___ Neither could a deaf/mute. And an X on a signed paper is legal in a court of law if the X or a finger or foot print was witnessed by two others.

"John do you take this pig for a wife?"

"I do."

And I see here we have a signed and witnessed doucument, that the pig wishes to take you John as her husband.

"Oink."

This is GREAT news in the ongoing struggle for civil and human rights, for fairness and democracy, and for social justice!

Kem-
Unfortunately, plenty of people are already married to pigs.

Kem... Keep your mitts off my beagle...

degenerate... ;-)

I have yet to hear an argument against same-sex marriage that is not based on either a) a religious belief, or b) irrational intolerance. Neither of these are a just basis for making or interpreting law.

"Sanctity of marriage" arguments, wherein someone claims that their own (heterosexual) marriage is somehow devalued, fall apart as soon as I ask someone to describe how. Most often, they resort to one of the two above arguments. Some try to argue that legal and economic benefits are somehow diluted, but then when I argue that once you consider that these couples, if they were not gay/lesbian, would probably marry anyhow, and thus there is no net effect on "dilution." Once I get this point across, the con position falls back to a) or b) above, once again.

I am a heterosexual married man living in California. I feel in no way threatened or diminished or short-changed by allowing two men or two women to receive all of the legal, economic, and social benefits of marriage. It's all none of my business anyway.

Please, I am open-minded, and am eager to hear if there is indeed any objective, valid, non-religious or non-bigoted argument to the con position against same sex marriage. I have tried and tried, in various forums, to solicit one. All I get in response is vocal, rancorous intolerance.

And that's likely to be all we're going to hear in CA on this issue from now until November.

bughunter,

What do you think about polygamists? I feel in no way diminished or threatened by polygamists (setting aside the situation in Texas where child brides were involved), and would not feel threatened by a woman married to several men. What about the polygamists' rights? I am not a polygamist, but I do see an inconsistency with people who claim that open-mindedness requires acceptance of gay marriage but not of polygamy. And I do not engage in incest, but I also wonder what is the harm of incestual relations that do not involve children or reproduction? And personally, I cannot see the problem with bestiality as long as the animal is not harmed, but again I see that selective open-mindedness on this issue.

It is my guess that if the human race lasts that long, most people will prefer having sex with machines by the end of the century (usually robots with human appearances, but not always), as machines could be programmed to behave just so.

My old room mate in college was gay and we would have all sorts of discussions on the topics important to the gay community. One that seemed to really grab my attention was the shift in messaging from the gay community. In the past, I recall homosexuality was put forth as a "lifestyle choice," later to be (rightfully) corrected as a pre-determined at birth.

But a Law & Order episode gave us a glimpse of the future. In the current (American) climate, I wouldn't doubt that some fundamentalists/neo-cons are privately funding research to isolate the gene (if there is one) that determines sexuality, so as to develop a cure.

So bughunter, I assume this isn't the reasoned argument that you were looking for (I am Catholic, Black and Heterosexual...and nevertheless have no problems with gay marriage...perhaps being Canadian has an effect). In any event, I believe there are those who are currently looking for a way to "cure" homosexuals of their "disease" so as to skirt the issue of gay marriage in its entirety. Good post BTW! It's always important to isolate the irrational arguments of the neo-con fundies and dismantle them piece by piece.

~KIVALS~ I wouldn't be threatened by a woman being married to several men either. I doubt if she'd have the time or energy to be a threat. She should have no more than six husbands so she could have a day of rest and relaxation. Or is that the day she does the laundry and darns sox?

KEM PATRICK,

If a woman has six husbands, it is my guess she would be the queen of the household, not the slave. There need be nothing in the interpretation of marriage saying she has to give herself equally or that she has to give herself at all.

Name someone you know who darns socks!

RE: perhaps being Canadian has an effect

You mean the fact that the world has not fallen apart because of it!

RE: Pets

Romeo Dallaire had a "no fraternising" rule for his troops when stationed in Rwanda because he figured that there would be too many things to interfere with consent when one person had a uniform and the other was a civilian.

Can a dog consent to marriage? I doubt it. They cannot "forsake all others" nor do they have any indication that they are being asked to do so.

Ken -- Your average beagle or pig is going to have a hard time dealing with the whole age of majority issue, and its mom can't sign the permission for marriage below that age. There are, additionally, issues of consent to be addressed. Comparing consenting adults to animals is more than a little insulting, but of course we all know you mean to be.

Bob Elko -- Thank you for reporting on this issue. One thing I'd like you to consider is that it's not just gays and lesbians who are affected by this, but also people like me who are bisexual/pansexual. It's not that hard to include us. The phrase "same sex marriage" covers everyone who will be affected by the decision and "same sex couples" isn't that much harder to write than "gay and lesbian couples." In fact, it has fewer letters. Give it some thought.

I'm a little tired of being made invisible when I've been working for equal rights for sexual minorities for years now. Bisexuals (by whatever term they identify) have been a part of this movement since its inception and we are affected by every decision in this matter, just like gay and lesbian individuals. All we ask is to be included in the discourse.

vaudree,

Of course a dog cannot consent to marriage and I believe KEM was being facetious, though I wonder whether a dog can consent to a sexual relationship with a human? It probably can to the extent it develops an interactive relationship and an understanding with the human. However, most bestiality probably does not involve consent, though I doubt it involves asking more of animals than what is usually taken from them, e.g. requiring them to carry heavy loads or doing some sort of other difficult work, or even giving up their lives.

I had a good friend who grew up in Turkey who said bestiality was very common for teen boys in the villages. They considered homosexuality to be completely forbidden and abnormal, but thought bestiality was normal and healthy. Then he was shocked when he came to this country and found that most here consider bestiality to be completely forbidden and abnormal, and consider homosexuality to be completely normal and healthy.

kivals, as one who read Robert Heinlein as a youth, I have no issue with polygamy or polyamory in general, provided that it is practiced without coercion, abuse, chauvinism or double standard. Now in practice, we see that frequently it results in social conditions that are oppressive or even abusive. Objectively, it is impossible to prove that these conditions are not due to the effects of the social stigmas that polygamist groups endure, and that the oppression/abuse results directly from the practice itself.

As for bestiality, it is not pertinent to this issue. A beast cannot give informed consent to the sex act, much less to a contract such as marriage. The same goes for pedophilia.

And, Garvey, I reject the notion that homosexuality is a disease, as I suspect do you. So does the psychological community. Only religious fundamentalists and secular bigots continue to ascribe homosexuality as a disease or defect. Nor does the evidence suggest that it is 100% either nature or nurture. Like so many things, it's very likely a combination of both, as is my preference for assertive women with auburn hair.

Regardless, as long as homosexuality falls within the range of "normal human behavior" (as history and medicine both strongly suggest) I fail to see how the nature vs nurture outcome could be used to successfully support a contra same-sex marriage position. But if anyone wishes to try, I will continue to keep an open mind. And a sharp critical wit.

bughunter, I agree with Garvey that you've posed an interesting series of questions. The problem, I think, with trying to decide what is moral depends largely on the particular culture you're dealing with, ie morality is relative. However, it seems to me that what is moral and what is not can be answered by posing this question: Does a particular action somehow harm someone else, that is does it take something from someone that they have a right to have?

1. polygamy? The only thing I can think of that a polygamous relationship could take from anyone else would be a person's right to feel secure in their relationship, to feel loved and cherished by the person they're involved with. I suppose that would depend on the polygamous relationship itself, but the chances are good that someone in a polygamous relationship is going to feel left out or unloved if they're not given as much attention as another person in the relationship, which is certainly possible, and possibly even probable, so on that basis I guess polygamy could be determined immoral. However, there are plenty of people in monogamous relationships who don't feel loved or cherished by their partners, either, so again it's relative.

2. incest without involving reproduction? In a culture where this wasn't taboo, nothing would be taken from anyone at all, so it wouldn't be immoral. However, there is one thing that could be taken from someone in an incestuous relationship, and that would be if an accidental pregnancy occured it's possible that the child resulting from this pregnancy, would, because of birth defects, be deprived of a normal, healthy life, so in that case it would be immoral.

3. incest without involving children? Same as number 2.

4. bestiality? I think you would have the same problem here that you would have with animal abuse in general, in that the animal wouldn't have a choice. That is, it would be rape, which almost everyone agrees is immoral. I suppose you could argue that since we kill and eat animals anyway, what difference does it make? I don't know, maybe if someone thought it was okay to rape animals they might decide that it was okay to rape humans. After all, people who abuse animals physically do sometimes later turn out to be murderers.

* * *

I guess, when you get right down to it, whether something is immoral or not depends on what the majority of people in a particular culture thinks is immoral. Which means, of course, that unless someone is clearly harmed or not harmed by an action, the immorality or morality of the action is impossible to determine. So I guess I just wasted several minutes of my life trying to answer your unanswerable questions.

But I can't think of anything that is taken from anyone in a gay marriage, which makes it seem illogical to me that the Bush administration has tried so hard to prevent gay people from marrying, when it seems to feel that nothing has been taken from the million plus Iraqis that have been killed by our bombs and bullets, or that nothing has been taken from future American generations by the gigantic deficit caused by the Iraq War. Maybe I'm just not very logical. Oh well.

bughunter,

But polygamy need not be abusive, as long as the modern US legal interpretations of the rights of a spouse are upheld.

Bestiality is pertinent if one sees gay marriage as part of the evolution of accepted sexual practices in our society, as a broader context is helpful in that regard. I cannot see gay marriage legalization as a minor correction in traditional marriage, as some apparently do, but instead see it as part of that cultural evolution leading away from sex and marriage being considered as primarily for procreation and raising families. In this great cultural shift, we get gay marriage as one indicator of where we are. And I actually think the cons are right that if we continue to separate marriage further and further from procreation, marriage may gradually fade away, but I do not think they can stop that, as advances in technology are driving this cultural evolution and will continue to drive it.

On a more humorous note, Texas gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman used to say the gays have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

Kivals,

I've always thought that the US ban on polygamy and the veritable war on the Mormons was as blatant a violation of the first Amendment's protection of religious freedom as you can get. (Full disclosure: I am not nor have I ever been an LDS and am happily involved in a monogamous hetero marriage.) I used to work on a legal studies journal and one article came through with the title, "How Many Wives Does the Constitution Allow?" I thought that summarized the argument against banning polygamy pretty succinctly.

I know that there are a lot of folks out there with solid critiques of polygamy based on various approaches, and I respect these critiques. However, from what I've read on the subject (and it ain't much), polygamy and slavery were denounced at around the same time and by the same people --- not because of their innate immorality, mind you, but because of their associations with primitive cultures (i.e., dark-skinned folks around the world).

So I don't have anything against polygamy in theory and feel like legal arguments against it are pretty specious for the most part. Do what thou wilt (as long as it only involves consenting adults) and all that.

"But a Law & Order episode gave us a glimpse of the future. In the current (American) climate, I wouldn't doubt that some fundamentalists/neo-cons are privately funding research to isolate the gene (if there is one) that determines sexuality, so as to develop a cure."

Garvey, a genetic basis or influence on homosexuality appears unlikely. The condition is what biologists call "maladaptive" simply meaning that traditionally, committed homosexuals do not reproduce and hence do not transmit their genes. To overcome this enormous negative selection pressure their reproducing relatives would be required to have a very large advantage if the condition had a genetic component. This advantage seems not to occur.

I would have to say that polygamy and polyandry pose issues that I think preclude them from gaining the status of 'marriage'.

1. What do you do with survivor benefits like Social Security? Pay 1/x to each of the surviving partners?

2. In case of divorce how do you arrange support? One pays support to all the others? What if the others continue on in one marriage and only one bows out? If only one is thrown out?

3. In case of divorce how do you arrange the children? Child support?

4. Taxes - do you give bigger and bigger deductions as the number of spouses increases?

5. Medical situations. Spouse 1 is in a coma. Spouse 2 says pull the plug. Spouse 3 says no way.

6. Do loveseats become 18" wider?

I think that for any two consenting adults, same sex or not, related or not, whatever, marriage has to be available equally. For bestiality, there is no way to have consent. Same applies to someone that "marrys" a can of tuna or some other inanimate object. Doesn't make sense.

That having been said, if a threesome or x-some decides to enter into some union, they should be able to create some contract that lets them do so at least to the extent of hospital visitation and wills and that sort of civil, non-governmental stuff.

You don't darn sox ~Vaudree~? Wow, I thought all gals darned sox. Every time my wife picks my sox up off the kitchen, bath or living room floor, or from atop the bedroom TV set she says, __ "Darn it."

I was joking about marrying dogs and pigs, forgot that some don't have a sense of humor here and take "everything" so seriously. Having the right for consenting adults to marry is fine with me BTW, so is pologamy. I don't approve of their children being forced into marriage or sex however.

My perfect marriage would be a male with five lovely and consenting wives, who could be bi-sexual if they so chose. Two being long haul team truckers, one workng for an IBM type of corporation or some other well paying job, maybe a doctor or a college professor and two just enjoying taking care of the property.

Have a 12 room, double ranch style, double brick house with slate roofs on 160 or more secluded and high elevation acerage with seven bedrooms, nine baths, an eight car garage and workshop, a nice pool and tennis court, garden and orchards and no close neighobrs. A well furnished guest house or two and an observatory, an avery and a trout stream running through the property.

All powered with solar, wind and geo-thermal with all electric powered personal vehicles and a pair of Irish terriers to patrol the walled property. All the gals spayed and the guy tied off. We have enough children here for the time being, we could adopt some homeless children.

KEM - you did give me an image of a dog in a top hat running off in the middle of the ceremony after a poodle in heat while the human bride cries "How could you do this to me! I thought you loved me"

Seriously, Harper's bunch brought up animals getting marrying humans every chance they got.

You know that cat food commercial where they have guys playing cats with the slogan "only cats can be cats" - well here's the gay version - er spoof (October 30 - 2007):

http://www.cbc.ca/22minutes/

RE: My perfect marriage would be a male with five lovely and consenting wives

Probably your current wife won't be among them. Here is a man who has 26 wives - to give you some idea what having multiple wives is like. Guess what two of Winston Blackmore's wives did behind his back and without his knowledge:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/bustupinbountiful/index.html

RE: Of course a dog cannot consent to marriage and I believe KEM was being facetious, though I wonder whether a dog can consent to a sexual relationship with a human?

Yeah he was, but he still doesn't support gay marriage - even among those serving in the Military. Hey, it really makes no difference since, even if a married hetrosexual couple is serving on the same base, they are not even allowed to kiss. They are, however, allowed to eat meals together and have conversations.

Yays for the gays!!

Seriously, I have never understood what so threatens conservatives about same-sex marriage. Marriage is simply a contract between two people that regulates rights over children and property - religion can come into it, certainly, but to me that only means that churches should have the right not to marry same-sex couples within their churches if they so desire. But that doesn't give them the right to influence who can and cannot be legally married , which is the realm of the govt.

As far a polygamy goes, I'm not sure how I feel, but I suppose if it were equally legal (as in not just polygyny, which means only men can have multiple spouse) I can't see the problem. I do agree with the previous that it would be very very complicated from a legal standpoint. But I think it is a separate issue from same-sex marriage, which is, to my mind, simply giving gay couples the same rights that straight couples have.

Oh yeah, animal marriage or sex is not anywhere in the same realm due to the simple fact that animals can't consent. I understand that most of you were being facetious, but still wanted to add my two cents.

Kem, are you sure you know exactly where you stand?

Yeah, of course I know exactly where I stand~Nietzsche~. I don't oppose two gals marrying, or two guys marrying and never once said I did, as ~Vaudree~ stated of me. It's none of my business. Two of our very closest friends are lesbians who live together. They are wonderful gals, they are fun, very intelligent, loaded with common sense and are tootally honest. I prefer them over a whole lot of good born again, Bible thumping Christians we have known very well. Some of them are damn lying crooks and very unhappily married.

I personaly would much rather that homosexuality was an impossiblity and no one had ever thought of it in the first place. However it is reality and what others do is none of my business as long it does not effect me.

Our Irish Terrier, never ever lied to us or betryed our turst and she never asked for a dime of money. A wonderful dog, smarter than me too. ___ Really. Now there is somethng you can believe of me ~Vaudree~.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out those Republican
judges voted for it just to stir up the religious right and give them another reason to vote in Nov. McCain generates about as much excitement as a cockroach race. Same sex marriage worked for them before, could it work again?

Yep

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.

It's about time that gays are given a small (though temporary is the church has anything to say) amount of human rights.

"It wouldn't surprise me to find out those Republican
judges voted for it just to stir up the religious right and give them another reason to vote in Nov."

Bingo! Damn, those republinaziis are so clever and original...

It's been disappointing and aggravating to read post after post about marrying animals, and polygamy, when the subject is gays & lesbians getting married.

We've had full marriage rights in Massachusetts for quite a few years now in Massachusetts, and the sky hasn't fallen. Now if only I could find a husband...

I have promised not to log in to discuss issues on this site nor read the senseless and mindlessly insulting discussion that frequently follows the articles and I have kept that promise until now, because this is one issue that I am truly expert about. I am a heterosexual pastor with a gay brother.

Kivals, the major obvious difference, between gay marriage and these other issues,is that heterosexuals do not have the right to engage in bestiality, incest, or polygamy either. This is about equal rights, not special rights. I am raising an adopted son that has been the victim of incest by a heterosexual man. The effects of an event that he will never be able to remember (it occurred at 11 months of age) will last him his entire life and affects my parenting style with him as opposed to his brother on a daily basis. I don't believe arguments on polygamy are quite that clearcut either, since many world cultures accept polygamy for various reasons, but bestiality does in fact hurt the animal and the person. Human anatomy and animal anatomy are not always compatible.

What makes this a human rights issue is that we have no power to stop homosexuals from being with other homosexuals no matter how hard we try. It is a violation of the first amendment right of free association, but even repressive laws designed to deny those rights are circumvented by simply refusing to obey them. The man who has had the same partner since 1973 in the article is case in point. Western culture has had 900 years to wipe out this "unnatural lifestyle choice," using violence, legitimized threat to economic and home security, and social intimidation and they have not succeeded. Every generation breeds another crop of homosexuals.

Finally, the Biblical issue, the thinness of the Biblical proofs against homosexuals are well known and often debated, but the positive support for homosexuals is virtually unknown so I will leave you with this food for thought. Jonathon and David had a clearly homosexual relationship, where David said Jonathon's love was better than any woman (II Samuel 1:26) and David is shown receiving an orgasm from Jonathan in the Bible(I Samuel 20:40). The Hebrew is precisely that explicit. The mistranslation about David weeping was done because the translators started with a commitment to the idea that David could not have been homosexual in that scene. It was the heterosexual relationship with Bathsheba that God condemned, while the homosexual relationship is never condemned. In the social mores of the ancient Middle East, it may have been possible that the relationship with Jonathon was part of David's right to claim the throne of Israel.
Jesus is depicted healing the gay servant of a Roman Centurion in both Matthew and Luke. In Matthew 8, the centurion tells Jesus that his "pais" in the Greek is dying. Why translate this term as slave? Some scholars have translated the term in other texts as child. The reason is in Luke 7. The term is "doulas", which clearly does mean slave. So these parallel stories are about a Centurion with a slave. However, Socrates used the term "pais" to refer to young men with homosexual attractions towards others. In the Luke passage, the slave is "entimos" with the centurion. This term becomes intimate in English and has the full range of meanings that the modern term has. I believe the nature of this relationship is that of an owner and a male concubine, but Jesus does not take the opportunity to condemn this abominable relation. Instead he heals the servant and praises the Centurion's faith as superior to any in Israel.

Similarly, I believe the faithful homosexuals that stay in the church despite centuries of oppression from it are more faithful than any heterosexuals. It may not be legally sanctioned in my state, but any who would like someone to officiate at a commitment ceremony is welcome to call me if they can ever track me down. I won't be posting any more identifiable information on here.

I honestly believe that everyone should have equal rights regardless of their sex, religion, and sexual orientation. Moreover, while i may be an athiest i do respect religious institutions and what they symbolize to some. Marriage is an institution that has been exclusive to the church, domestic partnerships are fine but why involve the church? The gay community have had success on multiple fronts in their movement but isn't time they backed up a bit and enjoyed their newly gained rights before they intise a backlash.

Kem, sorry. I was going by comments on that thread about - I think it was Hoover.

Incase you are lazy. Two of Winston Blackmore's many wives did something without telling him - they went to court and got married - to each other.

I guess Winston knows now why either of them claimed "headache" whenever he came around - or was too busy to notice that he hadn't had "alone time" with either of them for a while.

Seems that, after they got married to each other, they went home to Bountiful and went around their lives as usual.

You do know the basic premise of the the religion of bountiful. The man with the most wives is most blessed by god and will get into the better parts of heaven. A woman can only get into heaven if some man invites them. Thus, if a woman doesn't agree to marry whoever her father (or the church leader) tells her to, then her soul can be damned forever.

The rift between Winston Blackmore and Warren Jeffs started when one of Winston's 80 kids came home from school taking about this "blacks are evil" film she saw in school. Winston found the film extremely racist and offensive and to the school in no uncertain terms that he didn't want any of his 80 children to see anything like it again. There was also a small thing about Blackmore using "rainbows" to question whether or not Jeffs was a true prophet.

Eventually Warren Jeffs excommunicated Blackmore and half the community sided with Jeffs and half of the community sided with Blackmore. They even go to separate schools at separate times so that the children can avoid bumping into each other. Blackmore accuses Jeffs of "ruining our people" and says that Jeffs has a contract out on him.

Then there are the Palmer sisters - one which used to be married to Blackmore's father (who used to be the leader of the whole group) and one that used to be married to Blackmore. One of them is really up on geneology and knew that there were a couple of underage girls from Bountiful in the Texas compound that was raided.

I commend the California Supreme Court for their enlightened decision. Government has no business telling individuals who they can or can't marry. A breath of fresh in these sad, depressing and dangerous times.

forextrader 11:38 am
_______________________

Exactly.

PS: I also find it peculiar that this comments thread veered into issues like polygamy and bestiality. Apparently the toxic memes and associations proudly expressed by former Senator Rick Santorum are not limited to delusional wingnuts.

AWESOME! WAY TO GO HOME STATE...FINALLY SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF IN THIS STATE!
BUT ALAS...WE STILL ARE PAYING MORE FOR THE ILLEGAL BUSH DOCTRINE THAN ANY OTHER STATE...BY..GET THIS..TWICE AS MUCH...80 BILLION..YEAH..THAT'S RIGHT...BILLION...THE NEXT CLOSEST IS LIKE 50 BILLION...GULP! A MIXED BAG HERE IN CALI...TOO BAD WE HAVE TO CLAIM ORANGE COUNTY AND SAN DIEGO(WHICH TRANSLATES INTO "WHALE VAGINA")...WE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE A UTOPIA IF ONLY FOR A FEW INFLUENTIAL BILLIONAIRES...TOO BAD..

People do will their entire estates to dogs and cats, no one bitches about that being legal. So why should same sex marriage be illegal?

Let people do as they please with their own personal lives is my analogy there. Not that the two issues are both oranges. The issue of what people do personally is one issue. ___ Live and let live.

RE: I also find it peculiar that this comments thread veered into issues like polygamy and bestiality.

It always does. And these issues also came up when the American courts were debating whether whites and blacks should be allowed to marry. They don't any more.

Still think it ironic that one can have so little true intimacy in polygamy that two of one's "wives" can get married to each other and you are both unaware and unconcerned about it - as long as they pitch in with the housework and do their share of the chores. Sometimes you have to look at something to show how it is different from both hetrosexual and homosexual marriage.

It is the intimacy and commitment to each other that makes a marriage between two individuals to the exclusion of all others unique.

I am also against marriage when a pregnancy is involved because of the issue of consent. If one member of a couple is pregnant, then there are questions as to whether the consent of one or both parties is freely given - or whether it has been coerced.

This is one of those days where one wants to get work done, so one doesn't want to go in depths into anything but also one wants a break from work.

I was born male. But when I hit puberty I came to realize that I was a lesbian. It's been hard but I've come to accept it. I respect myself now. So I don't care what anyone thinks I'm gay and that's that.