watching it live. they are getting shot down from the get go. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BALP169S4U.DTL

__________________
i'm the guy i've always wanted to be

Anyone that would think God would condemn any kind of love, would have to be crazy, Religion, there it goes again. Let the Gays have their Marriage for christs sake, look at what it does for straights, over 50% end in divorce. I guess I'm a little anti-gay, I feel a little uncomfortable around them, but I don't wish them any ill will. It's a pretty big world, and there is still room for everyone, although it's starting to get a little crowded.

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

Its unbelievably retarded that this is even an issue.

__________________
"Everyone of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish."-President Dick Nixon.
Technocracy, Try It!

it's more about the law at this point.

it was voted as a YES 2 years ago.

it was voted as a NO this past year.

they are trying to say it's "constitutional" to vote it YES but "unconstitutional" to vote it NO.

that doesn't make sense.

is it something that can be voted on or not? that is the issue.

__________________
i'm the guy i've always wanted to be

Why doesn't it make sense? Restriction of rights is unconstitutional, hence any vote that re-asserts or continues an unconstitutional restriction is therefore also unconstitutional. The opposite, any "Yes" vote to lift a restriction on personal liberties would have a hard time being claimed unconstitutional. In math, they call this asymmetry and is extremely important when writing logic formulas since it they are non-transitive.

It doesn't restrict rights, the Gays and Lesbians still have the same rights as any one else to marry a human being of the opposite gender.

__________________
Libertas inaestimabilis res est - Liberty is a thing beyond all price. | Sic Semper Tyrannis

Really? So they have the same rights under the law as man-woman marriages? Things like right to make medical decisions for a spouse, inheritance laws, tax treatment etc. You are claiming those rights are already afforded to committed gay couples?

Tell me, were inter-racial couples' rights restricted prior to 1967 Loving v. Virginia?

From the drug czar thread:
Pretty libertarian views for someone that wants to legally treat same sex marriage different than traditional marriages.

Don't let your religious views or distaste for gays (or whatever your reason is) cloud your reasoning on this issue.

Gay people should be allowed to marry and have the same rights.

They should all be allowed to adopt children too. There are so many kids out there longing for someone to pay attention to them.

It seems that in America some people are more equal than others, doesn't seem fair.

I never said they had the same rights as a man-woman marriage, you need to learn how to comprehend better.

I said they still have the ability to marry a person of the opposite sex, thus they are granted the same rights as any one else.

It's just as illegal for a straight female to marry another straight female, as it is for a homosexual female to marry another homosexual female. There is no difference in how either one are treated.

As far as your comment regarding interracial couples. What does that have to do with this?

__________________
Libertas inaestimabilis res est - Liberty is a thing beyond all price. | Sic Semper Tyrannis