What are your thoughts on this? Is this a step in the right direction, or is it an infringement on the rights of some Americans?

It is a step in the right direction.

yop !! good good! let al those sick people go get help

Time to rejoice in California.
Maybe take it a step further actually. . .

IT just means the people are not ready yet and a majority of them still hold to the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Things do change though, as we witnessed a day ago.

hopefully this does not change for worse to accept sodomites as legal.
It's strange anyway becos the US/UK were egging Nigeria to punish drug pushers but they are considering legalising cannabis (Igbo).

Nigeria should stop following these people

it's a step in the cave man direction. homosexuals don't harm you or anyone. why not let them be . it's funny how blacks voted yes by 70%-30%. oppressed minority against oppressed minority

Why are they forcing their sexuality on other people?

they should go and marry in their house.

Marriage is only between a man or woman, pali or not

they can harm society if they keep preaching their sodomy

These People should have rights like the rest. God will Judge Them!!

of course its a step in the right direction, when i was almost giving up on the wet common sence reigns at least in california

dhatz guud!!

the people have spoken.

Gamine:

Why are they forcing their sexuality on other people?

how are they forcing it in on you. do dykes hit on you on the regular??

they should go and marry in their house.

word, those "niggers" could also go back to africa too. you see how ignorant that sounds. you still haven't shown how homosexuality affects you.

Marriage is only between a man or woman, pali or not

because the holy bibeli told you so. now clap for your self. homosexuals have a right to equality. do you know how many benefits they lose by not getting the right to marry??

It's strange anyway because the US/UK were egging Nigeria to punish drug pushers but they are considering legalising cannabis

That's simply not true in the UK's case.
They're talking about classing Cannabis as a Class A drug, the same as heroin.

@Bawo

Do you agree that if gay marriages can be legalised on the grounds of ''consenting adults'',we might as well legalise incestuous marriage and polygamous marriages in the West.

we might as well legalise incestuous marriage and polygamous marriages in the West.

Why not? Hehe.

4 Play:

@Bawo

Do you agree that if gay marriages can be legalised on the grounds of ''consenting adults'',we might as well legalise incestuous marriage and polygamous marriages in the West.

why not. those mormons are hardly ever prosecuted anyway. go on. consent among adults right??

bawomolo:

why not. those mormons are hardly ever prosecuted anyway. go on. consent among adults right??

It's one thing to turn a blind eye to those sorts of marriages,it's quite another to give them the full backing of the law.

So two gay people who live together all their lives have no right to inherit like heterosexual people without paying huge taxes?

I don't agree with gay marriage being in the same class as a real marriage between man and wife, but there needs to be some sort of legal recognition so that gay people aren't just cynically ripped off by greedy government.

Bastage:

So two gay people who live together all their lives have no right to inherit like heterosexual people without paying huge taxes?

I don't agree with gay marriage being in the same class as a real marriage between man and wife, but there needs to be some sort of legal recognition so that gay people aren't just cynically ripped off by greedy government.

Gay couple inheriting or bequeathing you mean? If a gay couple can reproduce,they are free to bequeath.

What does reproducing have to do with leaving money to their partner?

And we wonder why the society is collapsing.

Anyways, if their are Certain Rights, the Married get

i can now understand why they are rushing to be legalized.

But any other way, i dont see the need.

Bastage:

What does reproducing have to do with leaving money to their partner?

There is no inherent right,using the term "right" in this context is even abusing its meaning, to inherit property with tax breaks.

To the extent that heterosexual couples are given tax breaks,it's driven by the objective of strengthening marriages. There is no such similar desire to strengthen homosexual relationships.

I will try not to make the argument that marriage is sacrosanct, because if I do, people will come back at me with their statistics on the prevalence of divorce.   Gamine, there's something called domestic partnership - it affords gays basically the same privileges married couples have.  Gays have the same rights as do other Americans.  They can marry a woman and I can marry a woman; it's just that they choose not to.  What they want is an extension of rights and it won't stop with them.  If this law passes, what's stopping my narcissistic [fictional] self-loving cousin who is attracted to himself from marrying himself?

4 Play:

To the extent that heterosexual couples are given tax breaks,it's driven by the objective of strengthening marriages. There is no such similar desire to strengthen homosexual relationships.

Exactly. Millions of dollars in taxpayers money wasted for the selfish social gain of a certain group of people.

@H202, nothing stops you, and i may consider it myself, i could be Autosexual for a change

I believe in equal rights, cos we are all human. But where the state brings in special rights for married persons, i wont blame anyone for wanting those rights.

good raddiance to

@Gamine,

I believe in equal rights, because we are all human. But where the state brings in special rights for married persons, i wont blame anyone for wanting those rights.

First and foremeost, marriage is not a right. If it is, then the society must ensure it is not violated in any way or form.

If anything at all, I think the homosexual community is very pissed by what they consider a double standard on the part of the society. Why shouldn't they get the same benefits afforded to heterosexual couples they argue. I answer them by asking if they give to the society, the same stability and asurance of conitnnuity that the heteroxexual marriages do.

Heterosexuals receive and deserve to receive the benefits from the society because they give to the society what no other associations is capable of doing - the assurance that the society will not go extinct. The State thus shows its appreciation for this union by granting them benefits.

The State does not grant the benefits as a reward for their sexual preference, but as a means to strengthen the society and ensure its survival. Homosexual marriages do not assure a community of its survival, but rather it guarantees its destruction in no distant time. Why should the society then subsidize such a relationship? Why should they reward them for their sexual prefernce?

I wonder why gay activists are protesting in CA. The people have spoken that they do not wish homosexual marriages be legalised . . . or am i missing some other definition for democracy?

At this rate, we might as well legalise bestiality.

Isn't that the problem with democracy in America.  The belief that the interpretation of the constitution is superior to the will of the people[majority] - sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad.  Extreme liberalism is going to take the US of A to hell.