proposition 8 Options

[*Janette*]

By a vote of 6-1 (with Justice Carlos Moreno dissenting), the California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8 -- while preserving the marriage licenses of 18,000 same-sex couples who wed in the months prior to the November election. Paul Hogarth is reading the 185-page Court decision as we speak, and will be reporting later today with his legal analysis of the Court's reasoning.

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/BREAKI...rop_8_6962.html

discuss.

[DontStealMyNameI...]

I'm really disappointed with this too. Marriage may have originated from religion, but if the state is giving out "marriage licenses" to heterosexual couples, they should give the same treatment to homosexuals. I agree that religious institutions shouldn't have to do same-sex marriages if they don't want to, but just because a few gays have tried to sue them into doing so doesn't mean they should all be punished.

[brooklyneast05]

I agree that religious institutions shouldn't have to do same-sex marriages if they don't want to, but just because a few gays have tried to sue them into doing so doesn't mean they should all be punished.

i feel that way too. i think there's way more gay people who just wanna be married than wanna be married in churches.

[kryogenix]

i feel that way too. i think there's way more gay people who just wanna be married than wanna be married in churches.

You're missing the point.

The goal of the gay agenda is to have homosexual marriages viewed as 100% equivalent to heterosexual marriages. Read how the laws are worded. In the case of the lesbians that sued the methodist group in NJ, they absolutely had the grounds to sue that church group. I don't think the couple tried to overextend their case past the boundaries of the law at all.

The problem is, you can't have a 100% equivalency between heterosexual and homosexual
"marriages" and have freedom of religion at the same time. The concepts are mutually exclusive. And the absolute nature of the demands of both sides leaves no room for compromise. There is just simply no way for both sides to be content with any decision on this matter.

That's why I want a complete separation between the state and the concept of marriages. Both sides will be unhappy, I'm sure, but at least no one will be treated unfairly by the law, and no one will be forced to do anything they don't want to do.

[brooklyneast05]

You're missing the point.

The goal of the gay agenda is to have homosexual marriages viewed as 100% equivalent to heterosexual marriages. Read how the laws are worded. In the case of the lesbians that sued the methodist group in NJ, they absolutely had the grounds to sue that church group. I don't think the couple tried to overextend their case past the boundaries of the law at all.

The problem is, you can't have a 100% equivalency between heterosexual and homosexual
"marriages" and have freedom of religion at the same time. The concepts are mutually exclusive. And the absolute nature of the demands of both sides leaves no room for compromise. There is just simply no way for both sides to be content with any decision on this matter.

That's why I want a complete separation between the state and the concept of marriages. Both sides will be unhappy, I'm sure, but at least no one will be treated unfairly by the law, and no one will be forced to do anything they don't want to do.

hmmmm yeah true, i see what you mean that there's no way to be 100% equal or fair under the current system.