Gay Marriage Ruling

[NotCranky]

So what do you think Mark Holmes?

[nostradamus]

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.

[nostradamus]

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.

[nostradamus]

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.

[nostradamus]

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.

[nostradamus]

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.

[SDEngineer]

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.

[SDEngineer]

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.

[SDEngineer]

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.

[SDEngineer]

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.

[SDEngineer]

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.

[rubbieslippers]

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.

[rubbieslippers]

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.

[rubbieslippers]

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.

[rubbieslippers]

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.

[Author]

Posts