So no discrimination huh? How about Uncle and nephew, or Aunt and niece? There is no biological consquense for these relationships to not be allowed except that it does not promote breeding.

 If these people too get to marry why shouldn't father and daughter or mother and son? No discrimination right?

interesting--I just wrote a blog on this called A Case For Preservation.  It looks at the word marriage from a linguistic and historic view and explains why a gay concentual contractual relationship can not be a marriage.  It seems the water has become very muddy regarding this issue.

JOA

(Joans Jousts and Jests, A Case For Preservation posted yesterday)

I am not sure this is true.  The fact is that many of the priviledges afforded married couples are not necessarily passed on to those joined under the civil union clauses. I am not sure why this is.  It may simply be that legal language and description of rights and benefits doesn't include civil union or it may be that there is actually a distinction being made.  None the less, it is not apples for apples.

Perhaps the reason for all the hub bub is the struggle for a sense of legitimacy.  That somehow were gay couples' uinons to be acually called marriage the struggle, which i believe to be deeply personal for gay folks, for approval would be over.  I am not sure.

JOA

Most of the homosexualists activists anger has been taken out against the LA Mormon Temple in Westwood.

LULA POSTS:

C'mon, I think under California law, even the arrangement of "domestic partnerships" are entitled to nearly all the legal privileges accorded to married couples ...at least in matters as taxes, estate planning and medical issues.

Gays gone wild again....  http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20081112/NEWS01/811120369

This will win people over, idiots.

For what it's worth, I've been trying to read this, but just get a blank screen every time I try.

Without doubt, check history....it's always been and this time is no different.....whenever the "gay" agenda is thwarted, violence and chaos shows itself. Note the violence is perpetrated against Christians who resisted same sex "marriage" in a very lawful and respectful manner.

Has anyone else noticed that instead of the victory of Prop 8, the mainstream media coverage focuses primarily and, in some cases, completely on the side of those asserting that same-sex "marriage" is a right?   

A majority in liberal California voted to uphold marriage is indeed a very big deal......but the media gave platforms to disgruntled homosexual activists and not to any supporters of Prop 8. Surprising? Nah, not at all.    

Latest blogs from the lunatic left sites - they are calling the blacks in California niggers (for voting against this), after voting for Obama.  Hmmm.....it seems we now know who the real racists are.

no kidding.  Where are the interviews with the family advocates?  You know..... the side that was victorious?   Usually the winning side of anything gets all the glory.  But not when the winning side is conservative I guess.  Nope.  In this case the whining losers are getting all the press.  Now,  look at Obama's victory.  Who's getting the press there?  Not us....the losers or even the whining losers although we don't whine even remotely like the liberals do.  They've got it down state of the art.  See how this all works?  And who dare says the media isn't left biased?   

I remember James Dobson from Focus on the Family writing about how he was always invited to Washington to discuss family values and such for like over 20 years.  If he wanted to speak with a Senator or Congressman he never had any trouble.  They always cleared their schedule for him.  That sure changed when the homosexual activisim started really heating up.  Now, they avoid Dobson like the plague and it's not easy making an appointment with the same leaders that had wide open doors before.

My, my how our world has changed and not for the better in my opinion. 

Gay=incest?

Huh?

I don't see what the big deal is...Christ, just let'em get hitched.  This "traditional" crap is stupid.  I believe the far more common arrangement was one man and many women- that's more traditional...it's got a longer history to it.

~Zoo 

not quite there young whippersnapper!

The original traditional way was one man, one woman.  Only later (from Cain's side) did we see the beginning of polygamy....you know Satan's seed?

 Genesis 4:17-19

Zoo,

I think the point here is more the slippery slope argument. There are lots of loving relationships out there...even those committed to their pets...however, that is not marriage.

The big deal is 2,000 years of traditional marriage.....universally understood by every civilization as a union between a man and a woman.

Like many others, you don't understand or are confused about what marriage really means. 

What is the reason to allow gay marriage? The reason liberals want it is to be nice. Don't we all know where the road of good intentions leads?

So why is the tradion stupid Zoo? Give us a real reason,  besides just degrading "traditional views".  Tradition has a reason for man and woman marriage, to produce children.

How can people who are classified as being "gay" become so angry? I thought it meant happy.