<p>
[quote]
People shouldn't be allowed to vote on issues of civil rights
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That should be the end of argument. </p>
<p>And I am ESPECIALLY surprised when multi-racial children are against gay marriage. It wasn't that long ago that their parents wouldn't have been allowed to marry. </p>
<p>** It is not anybody's right to say who I can and cannot marry. ** That is between me, the ** person ** I love, my family, my friends and my religion/god/goddess, NOT the government. </p>
<p>What if in my religion, it is perfectly OK for gays to marry? (Which it is), why is the government not protecting my religious freedom?</p>
<p>they believed in a state that doesnt not have the power to assign one religion. the idea of separation of church and state came later. common misconception.</p>
<p>If the homosexual community created their own church. . . or religious organization, and then started performing weddings, would the state have to recognize the marriage as a form of religious and state contract? If the government respects those marriage contracts for catholics and other religions, wouldn't they ALSO be required to recognize those from a gay marriage in a gay religion?</p>
<p>That's it, the homosexual community should just make their own church. : )</p>
<p>What are we comparing? Is there a meaningful argument to support gay marriage rights but not polygamous marriage rights? Regarding the earlier gay gene argument, who can truly claim, with all the adultery/ extra-marital relations going on in society, that there isn't an inherited preference for polygamy? I've read that multiple mates is quite common in nature. Why does it seem that some people prefer one mate; some prefer more? Until we know for sure, I don't think the gay gene argument is valid justification for California to allow gay over polygamy marriage rights. In the move to redefine marriage, I wonder if there is agreement among Californians as to the purpose of marriage. Should the California govt be regulating the rights of its citizens to marry the person(s) they love? I think that gays and polygamists do share the same battle for marriage rights.</p>
<p>I think that when the issue of gay marriage comes up, Polygamy is also a valid argument at that point. They both consist of consenting adults that deviate from what society considers a "normal" marriage. I see no reason why both can't be legalized. </p>
<p>And they say polygamy would mess with our tax system, but aren't the polygamists milking the welfare system? Because many of the wives live as "single mothers" in houses by themselves, many are put on the welfare system because THEY do not raise the proper amount of money for their family. Even though they're getting what they need from the husband, they still play the "damsel in distress," and use the welfare system unjustly. So it's a lose-lose situation. Might as well legalize it. : )</p>
<p>We are not supposed to be monogamous creatures, but that is a whole other issue. </p>
<p>I'll go on a limb and say it. POLYGAMY IS NOT BAD IN ITSELF. The cults that adopt polygamy, yes many are bad. But the cult and the polygamy are two different issues. </p>
<p>Any consenting adults should have the same rights whether they are Woman-Man, Man-Man, Woman-Woman, Woman-Man-Man, blah blah blah, etc. </p>
<p>** Love is love **. Our sexual organs are only a VERY small part of our identity. We don't fall in love with a man's or woman's sexual organs do we? Obviously not. We fall in love with them. Their personality, their soul, their views, etc, non-physical characteristics. Therefore, why should we define who we can and cannot marry by our physical characteristics?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've read that multiple mates is quite common in nature.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So is infanticide, but that doesn't mean we advocate that. Look, I don't support the idea of polygamy. It and everything that people often and sometimes unfairly associate with it (underage marriage, abuse, etc.) just sounds wrong to me. Then again, gay marriage sounds wrong to many people.</p>
<p>But I do NOT support the government butting in and picking and choosing what rights certain groups have and what certain groups do not based on what the (misinformed) majority thinks. That's exactly what prop 8 was. Thankfully all the hate filled propaganda and the millions of dollars of donations will all have gone to waste when people realize that "everyone except gays are equals" is complete fallacy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not in the Constitution, but it is in the Bill of Rights...your point?
[/quote]
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution.</p></li>
<li><p>"Freedom of Religion" is not a phrase in the 1st Amendment. The point is that the issue of religion is more complicated than everyone being able to whatever they want without government intervention.</p></li>
<li><p>I was against Prop 8. I don't think the government should have any role in "marriage." It should be able to give a civil union to any two adults that want one. If someone wants to be "married" they should have to find a church or some type of religion that is willing to marry them. I don't particularly care whether or not homosexuals can "marry," but I do think it would be hypocritical if they couldn't and atheists could.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Yikes.
Does anyone else feel this getting intense?</p>
<p>I'm just happy to know that if I wrote this on a board 10 years ago, it would most likely be more lopsided for Proposition 8. Things are getting better. By the time I graduate college in 2015 (LOL it sounds like its so far away), it will be legalized :)</p>
<p>What I meant was is that it's not a part of the original Constitution. And the phrase "freedom of religion" may not be exactly in there, but "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is pretty clear, no?</p>
<p>I love how Americans love sticking their nose in other people's business.... you got anti-GM people who would be unaffected by GM expending tremendous effort to combat it... and straight people getting all riled up and offended by homophobia.</p>
<p>Are you saying straight people shouldn't get offended?</p>
<p>So, if my SISTER hears somebody make a homophobic remark, she should just sit there, and laugh along, NOT. (The irony is my own mother voted FOR the one man one woman here in Florida, but, she hates me ;)</p>
<p>The fact is the straight people that get offended usually have a very close person to them that is gay or lesbian, so, they should get offended.</p>
<p>Whatever people say, this is going to get overturned. No reasonably intelligent person can deny that Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution (and federal law > state law).</p>
<p>Dragontoe, I wouldn't expect our govt to legitimize gay marriage just because it is ordained by gay religion. The practice of polygamy was allowed in the Mormon Church long ago until our govt ruled that polygamy wasn't protected by the Constitution - even if the church recognized the rights of people in love to marry. The argument for polygamy marriage is as valid as for gay marriage rights.</p>
<p>Absolutely disgusting.
This is basically implementing religious ideals into society.
Freedom for all my arse.</p>
<p>This is the first time any legislation is going to TAKE AWAY rights from the people. That sound right to anyone?</p>
<p>Okay, and the whole marriage between multiple men/women, and animals is different from gay marriage. I mean, this is about gender preferences, not of a different species or polygamy. It would just be the same if a transgender married one of the "opposite" sex. It just doesn't make any sense.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since when did reasonably intelligent people make up the majority of our nation?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The decision to repeal this proposition or not is going to be made by the courts, which thankfully do not represent the US as a whole in terms of intelligence.</p>
<p>And I don't see how anyone can argue that the government can start butting into everyone's personal lives. After thinking about it, I really don't see why you can tell three they can't marry if all three are of sound mind and fully consenting.</p>