San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

And, to clarify:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.se...

I really wish the government would just get out of the marriage business.

If the government wants a legal document filed to document a 'union' between two people fine. Man and woman, man and man, man and dog. I really don't care.

However, in MY view, "Marriage" is a RELIGIOUS institution and as such, I have a problem with Adam and Steve being "Married".

So, unless they change the government's role in marriage (i.e. the government views it in a strictly secular sense) and they stop calling it marriage and call it something more appropriate like a "civil union" I will continue to vote against "Gay Marriage".

And no, I'm no homophobe--I have quite a few gay friends. I just have a traditional view of "Marriage".

Pretty common attitude. So, my question is, have you or will you ask your gay friends how they feel about you voting against their right to marry? And given the unlikely possibility that the state or federal government will strike down the use of the word marriage in its civil marriage laws, do you see any time you will support gay marriage?

If the government feel the need to interfere with the definitely of "marriage" and their reason to ban gay marriage is to protect the sanctity of marriage, then they should also ban divorce as well, since divorce ruin the sanctity of marriage.

Marriage is a state institution.

Has been since states began issuing marriage licenses. States use the same word as religion, but neither has the right to claim ownership of that word. (There is nothing "sacred" about the word.) My religion has no problem with Adam and Steve. Time for everyone to get over arrogant superiority syndrome.

Hopefully this landmark decision will encourage another 48 states to follow, along with the repeal of the draconian federal defense of marriage act. This is a great day for those who are comitted to equal rights for all.

I'm against gay marriage. I don't think it sends the right message to today's youth. People can do what they want in private, and they do, but marriage should be between a man and a woman.

I really hope this ban sticks, and I hope California paves the way for gay marriage/civil unions to be legal in other states. Love is love, no matter where you find it. If two people want to make a public commitment to one another and ensure rights of property inheritance, etc., I really hope they get their chance. Society is a constantly evolving thing, and this is an evolution that is past due.

marion- "I don't think it sends the right message to today's youth."

What kind of message does divorce send to children? I think asianautica hit it on the head - ban divorce if this is about family values and the "sanctity" of marriage.

While I am pretty sure I will never become an activist for gay marriage, I support it. As long as "marriage", be it a religious experience or a legal one according to individual attitudes, is also a government institution with regulations affecting individuals of legal voting age it should not discriminate between who those adults are. Churches should be able to influence what happens on their own campuses but not in the halls of government.

Obviously there are significant social and emotional responses, if you don't or don't want to have children, whether gay or straight, to being "married" and therefore it should not be exclusive.

I do have some concerns specific to same sex partners in parenting but in general I think it has a much potential as other situations.I don't have much experience with homosexuals raising children to draw on. I am not an expert in this field. In any cae I don't think it is appropriate to make marriage exclusive based on opinions with regards to who should raise children since my wife and I were allowed to get married whether we wanted them or not.

From the Yahoo coverage:

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.

Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."

In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life," he said. "This is a life-affirming moment."

End quote.

On the other side of the aisle, we have people saying "it disgusts" them, or "bothers" them, but never illustrating how it AFFECTS them. The quote above shows the profound effect this has on gays and lesbians, yet people will vote for a state constitutional ban on gay marriage in November on something that will have NO effect on THEIR life, but will take away a right of another. This is a very sad commentary on the people of the state of California. History and our descendants will not cast a kind eye back on us.

I really don't care whay hole people use when making love so who's business is it to judge who others HAVE to love and who they HAVE to marry.

The law shouldn't be based on the bible.

So what do you think Mark Holmes?

I agree that the state should get out of the marriage business. What really annoys me is the political and media attention this type of issue receives. I feel like they're distracting us from real issues.

For me, consenting adults = good to go. 'nuff said.

Fully support this ruling and will vote against any attempt to amend the state constitution to ban it in that fashion (as I voted against prop 22).

The fact of the matter is that while some people may see it as a religious issue (as at least one of the posters here has framed the issue), not all religions (not even all Christian sects) have the same problem with "Adam and Steve" as the one poster's clearly does. Which makes it - if the issue is religious - a religious freedom issue.

Of course, as long as the government can certify that people are married (and even marry them itself), and as long as being "married" has de facto civil benefits, the government should not be able to discriminate based on a characteristic or trait of a person completely outside of their control - which sexual orientation has proven to be (whether nature or nurture - or both - every reputable piece of research into this has concluded that it is clearly not a personal choice).

As to the message it sends to our youth - I prefer to think that it sends a message that we will tolerate differences, not exclude people based on them. It wasn't so long ago that the exact same questions were being asked about allowing interracial marriages - heck, I remember back in the 70's when I was young, it was a small neighborhood scandal when a interracial couple moved onto our La Jolla street - despite the fact that the couple was very well-educated, well-spoken, and exceedingly polite, I still overheard many things (it's amazing what adults will let slip around kids).

On the question of their raising kids, I believed there have been several studies done that show that kids raised by gay couples are certainly no worse off than kids raised by straight couples, and may even have some advantages. One reason why pediatrics associations back gay adoptions.

"Submitted by Alex_angel on May 15, 2008 - 12:40pm.

I really don't care whay hole people use when making love so who's business is it to judge who others HAVE to love and who they HAVE to marry.

The law shouldn't be based on the bible."

I don't sit in judgement on those in same-sex relationships. It's just something I'll never be in support of.

To clarify, I don't sit in the judgement of gay individuals and what goes on in their hearts and minds concerning their sexual orientation, but I don't think gay marriage as an institution is right.

I don't want my sons thinking gay marriage or behavior is normal, and they don't. It's how I have raised them and it's in line with our religious beliefs.

And meadandale makes a very good point.

I don't care who you marry or what you do in bed. As long as it doesn't included children,and it is between consenting adults, it's none of my business. So, I will be voting IN FAVOR of gay marriage.

You know this is just going to bring republicans out to vote against gay marriage and for Jon Mc Cain. It won't pass.

I repeat IT WONT PASS.

The government already intercedes in marriage beyond prohibiting gay marriage.

In most places, I can't marry my 14 year old neighbor (I love her, it's not my fault she's younger than me and I don't want to have to wait for her to be 18).

In most places, I can't marry my sister (I love her, it's not my fault we are related).

In most places I can't have more than one wife (I love them both and can support them, why can't I marry them both).

Well, WTF!! Who's business is it who and how many people that I marry!

I suppose that all you gay marriage supporters were outraged that the government raided the 'polygamist' compound--you know, the one where all the women were happy being there?

You can't have it both ways. Either EVERYTHING is ok when it comes to marriage or society, as a whole, can determine what we condone as the social norm.

"So what do you think Mark Holmes?"

Rustico; well, it affects me. It's not an abstract idea.

Looks like Rick Santorum made the same argument that I just floated:

http://www.slate.com/id/2081904/

"I don't sit in judgement on those in same-sex relationships. It's just something I'll never be in support of."

Well, one can't really argue with logic that isn't there. "I just won't support it" isn't logic. Neither is anything anyone else has said against gay marriage. (Previous attempts on this thread to argue against gay marriage have been shot down quite effectively already, so I don't think it's necessary to do it here. Although I'll happily rebut any future arguments).

It seems to me that arguments against it are all based in ignorance. Either saying that marriage is a religious thing or similarly incorrect arguments. But I think most people who are against it are just plain homophobic.

A lot of people say they disagree with it for religious reasons. And that's fine. You can disagree with it because the part of the bible that you agree with say it's an abomination (and we'll just conveniently forget about the parts of the bible that you ignore because you're a hypocrite). You can disagree with it, but when you try to stop someone else from doing it, that's wrong. That's like me saying, "my religion says that shoes are an abomination. Therefore nobody should be allowed to wear shoes." Just because my religion doesn't have a billion sheep -oops, I mean adherents - doesn't mean my religious views shouldn't have as much weight as yours. (And don't start with the "founding fathers were christians and our country is based on their religion" argument, because it isn't true and it won't fly. Or do start with that argument if you insist, and we'll go from there). Which is to say my religious viewpoints and yours shouldn't have any effect on the laws of this country.

I've got more, but I've got to get back to work.

I would have to agree with Nos and the rest, I just dont think the Gov should be in this game. If you want to be married, go to a church and deal with the requirments they set out. Dont like those requirments, go to a different one, or start your own. Want what we now define as a civil union for the taxes, benifits, or psycological support reasons? Fine, go to the courthouse and fill out a form.

This whole debate is more about societal acceptance than about any real rights. Gays already had the same rights to life, liberty and the persute of happness (short hand for all the rights we have) in CA, what they dont have is the name of 'marriage' and the supposed social acceptance that comes with it. What you are seeing in the voting booths is more peoples unwillingness to be told that they WILL accept something that they are not comfortable with by a judge, even if they have nothing against any single individual.

Let me start by saying I'm against marriage in all forms, but if we are going to allow people to be married then I think everyone deserves a chance to be miserable. People who are against gay marriage are the same people who want to pass laws which tell a woman what to do with HER body, ban stem cell research and want to ban evolution from being taught in school (Creationism is not a theory, by definition theories are proven by an experiment which is repeatable with the same result, you cannot repeat the Creationism experiment therefore it is not a theory). They argue on emotion and belief not fact or logic and there's no arguing belief, ask a sports fan or someone who has religion. They take our focus off the real issues like our economy which is in a tail spin, the endless war, the downward slide of public education and our lack of healthcare. But to argue against them makes you seem like you want to kill babies, hate god and love homos, sad really.

Just curious....

If a person wants to take on multiple spouses, will the IRS allow that person to take multiple standard deductions too?

What if somebody wants to marry their pet? Can this pet be the primary beneficiary of the insurance and other assets?

In our own lifetimes we have seen places in this country enforce their laws on interracial marriages. We have grown up and moved on from that point. Do any of you remember the speeches made during those time by church leaders, doctors, senators and congressmen about the dangers of the interracial marriage to the society? Did any of those dangers come true?

Today, it is about gay marriage, tomorrow it will be something else. Maybe it is time to ask... why should any marriage be related to taxes/insurance/inheritance etc. ?

"People who are against gay marriage are the same people who want to pass laws which tell a woman what to do with HER body, ban stem cell research and want to ban evolution from being taught in school (Creationism is not a theory, by definition theories are proven by an experiment which is repeatable with the same result, you cannot repeat the Creationism experiment therefore it is not a theory). They argue on emotion and belief not fact or logic"

Wow...generalize much?

I love how the 'liberal' response to people who don't agree with them is to engage in ad hominem attacks--there is no debating people like you since the only right viewpoint is yours--everyone else is an idiot. So much for having an open mind. Liberals are only 'tolerant' of people who have the same viewpoint as them. Everyone else is a mouth breathing, knuckle dragging moron.

"Well, one can't really argue with logic that isn't there. "I just won't support it" isn't logic."

No it isn't logic in regards to an argument because I wasn't stating a reason, I was expressing my opinion.

My reason aside from my religious beliefs is based on human physiology and biology. Our sex organs prove that two humans of the same sex aren't made to be togeether romantically/sexually. So, why should we legalize a same sex union?

A lot of you support gay unions so that individuals in such unions can have property and financial rights, etc. I say do it some other way. Slap another name on it, but don't confuse our youth and say it's marriage. We all know that marriage as defined by the societal norm that has been a part of this country since its inception is based upon a union between a man and a woman-supported by basic biology.

Obviously there are people that think that it's time for societal norms to be changed in regard to this issue, I just don't happen to be one of them.

I remember reading a story of these 2 women that have been together for more than 50 years!!! They met during the 50's. That's longer than my parents were together. Longer than most relationships I know. (Maybe longer than anyone you know) I think my grandparents 60 years and my aunt and uncle 50 years. That's it. Most marriages are lucky to last 10 years.

I think as usual the government wants to dictate what people do. What does it matter if 2 people of the same sex want to get married? If they love each other, why would one want to deny them getting married. How will it affect you personally? Most of them just go to City Hall. It's not like they are demanding some religious ceremony.

It's also sad that if one becomes ill, the other would not be permitted to be in ICU, for example. I think that's restricted to family.

There are many laws that favor married couples and many benefits, for example, insurance, that are being denied gay couples. I think that's predominantly why the government is against it. They use religion as an emotional excuse to get others to vote against it. (like wars)

liberals are intolerantly tolerant

and I got nothing better to do today.

"Submitted by jpinpb on May 15, 2008 - 1:56pm.

There are many laws that favor married couples and many benefits, for example, insurance, that are being denied gay couples. I think that's predominantly why the government is against it. They use religion as an emotional excuse to get others to vote against it. (like wars)"

People are going to do what they want to do, that includes people choosing to engage in gay relationships. I do think there should be some kind of way that these couples can get benefits that are a part of marriage. I don't think the government should deny them that. Perhaps they could commit to some kind of contract or something. I just don't agree that a relationship between two people of the same sex should be defined by society as a "marriage". Just because they are in love doesn't mean they have that right.

Not so long ago, homsexuality and pedophilia were often seen as overlapping 'problems". Gays prowled on younger people, converted them, spread the word, convinced teens to join the ranks. This attitude can still be seen in traces of what marion is saying, in that she doesn't want her boys to think "gay marriage" is normal. they might be infected by the societal acceptance of gayness, a predatory disease which could screw up their minds. Never mind of course that her boys might actually be gay. Some are, you know, and their parents are often the last to know. I think in the old days, people couldn't really be seen as 'consenting" to homsexual acts, in the same way that we cannot ever view pedophilia as "consensual". On the other hand, if you saw some of the stat rape cases i see, you'd probably change your mind and say, man, that 15 year old girl was like a sexual predator. consent? She practically raped the guy. So, should gay marriage be legal? probably not. Why would we want to inflict it upon these perfectly nice gay people. On the other hand, it will generate a whole enw line of income for divorce lawyers. so, i suppose, for the good of the "economy", we should all be in favor of gay mariage. people will spend money on useless gay engagement rings, but dresses/tuxes, spend dumb money on weddings, new furnishings for the lovenest, and eventually lots ofmoney on divorce fees. Sounds good. Just the thing we need to pull oout of this recession!

Drink Heavily.

Not so long ago, homsexuality and pedophilia were often seen as overlapping 'problems". Gays prowled on younger people, converted them, spread the word, convinced teens to join the ranks. This attitude can still be seen in traces of what marion is saying, in that she doesn't want her boys to think "gay marriage" is normal. they might be infected by the societal acceptance of gayness, a predatory disease which could screw up their minds. Never mind of course that her boys might actually be gay. Some are, you know, and their parents are often the last to know. I think in the old days, people couldn't really be seen as 'consenting" to homsexual acts, in the same way that we cannot ever view pedophilia as "consensual". On the other hand, if you saw some of the stat rape cases i see, you'd probably change your mind and say, man, that 15 year old girl was like a sexual predator. consent? She practically raped the guy. So, should gay marriage be legal? probably not. Why would we want to inflict it upon these perfectly nice gay people. On the other hand, it will generate a whole enw line of income for divorce lawyers. so, i suppose, for the good of the "economy", we should all be in favor of gay mariage. people will spend money on useless gay engagement rings, but dresses/tuxes, spend dumb money on weddings, new furnishings for the lovenest, and eventually lots ofmoney on divorce fees. Sounds good. Just the thing we need to pull out of this recession! Alternatively, i would be in favor of marriage only for breeders, non-breeding couples of any gender don't get to marry, uness they adopt, also excluded would be any heterosexual couples who intend to have non-breeding intercourse, including but not limited to anal or oral sex. A marriage is only meant to be between a man and a woman, but not just any kinda deviant man and woman, only a man and a woman who are committed to a non-onanistic lifestyle where seed is not dispersed willy nilly, but is placed only where it was intended to be placed at the appropriate time where it can be used for its intended purpose; the breeding of more breeders. Only kidding.

Drink Heavily.