Comments on: Thousands attend vigils ahead of Prop 8 hearing

By: shawn

shawn — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:45:10 +0000

Please take your low IQ hetero ass somewhere else Mr. Johnson. See ya.

By: Jack Johnson

Jack Johnson — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:41:22 +0000

So, if a man and a man get married, statistically males make more income than women. How would this be fair for a regular couple who has one working spouse and one at home spouse. There is only one source of income. It will bring unbalance to the taxing system with two males, which in return would have gay males making more income than a normal married couple male/female.
Lesbians, sorry, statically you will be making even less than a normal male/female marriage. Which in return may benefit you more, but then will be unfair for the gay males.

This is why you want to get married right? I see no other point, especially in a religious context, its only to gain an income advantage. You can be a couple and be happy, no reason to get married for it.

By: Jack Johnson

Jack Johnson — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:35:44 +0000

George,
The argument is, does every American have the right to marry the person of his or her mutual choosing?
- So this excludes polygamist?
It shouldn’t at all.
The fight gays are trying to bring is very one sided. Opening the possibilities under this mutual choosing should not exclude anyone else, Be it gay / lesbian / polygamist / bestiality or what ever your sexual preference may be.
Just try to be more open minded a fight for everyone’s rights, not just your own.

By: Gummi Bear

Gummi Bear — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:36:31 +0000

So, where was Court TV?

By: george

george — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:27:09 +0000

“There is no acceptable argument for supporting same-sex marriage but not polygamy. Adults should be able to form the relationships they want, and the state should respect that.”

Sorry, Randy, but I disagree with both you and Jack J. The argument is, does every American have the right to marry the person of his or her mutual choosing?

Heterosexuals don’t have the right to marry a group of persons, so why would gay citizens try to win rights that heterosexuals don’t have? Marriage is involves COMMITMENT, as in “I choose you”, not “I choose a bunch of people”.

Meanwhile, the polyandrous are actually still free to “form the relationships they want” but currently have no right to expect the state to recognize them legally.

Quite frankly, polygamy is simply a separate discussion. If they want to make a case for state recognition, let them make their case. It isn’t what we are discussing.

Personally, as a legally married gay man, I don’t care if people live in polygamous relationships – it’s no skin off my nose. It doesn’t affect me, but I’m absolutely convinced they’re unequal relationships (which is why I’m not in one). But I cannot fathom a legal argument over which spouse gets the ‘inheritance’ – the first wife? The 2nd (who bore his first child), or the 3rd wife (who gave him the best sex) or the 4th wife (the youngest and prettiest), or …? (You get the picture.) Same difficulty coming up with a reasonable argument over which wife would get to visit him in the hospital. (Oops, sorry, heterosexuals already have that right, and no one seeks to take it away.) And why is it ALWAYS 1 man, several wives in polygamous situations? And which wife would the (presumably employed) man’s health coverage cover?

Etc.

Hope you can understand why we believe polygamy is simply not what is at issue here.

Please don’t bother with the incest comparisons to SSM. I can go to beliefnet.com for that sh!t.

By: RICK N NICK

RICK N NICK — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:18:53 +0000

JUST WATCHED THE PRECEEDINGS–WHERE ARE THE GAY JUDGES? I THOUGHT THEY TREATED KEN STARR LIKE A CELEBRITY.SOME JUDGES WERE DEFINITELY BIASED !!!!

By: Debra

Debra — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:40:50 +0000

Jack J & Randy…when did 365GAY become the hot hangout for Mormon men? Rights of polygamists are probably being fought for on some other website, but not here. Google will probably get you there though. Move along now….

By: Randy

Randy — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:07:30 +0000

Jack Johnson is a jerk, but he’s also right. There is no acceptable argument for supporting same-sex marriage but not polygamy. Adults should be able to form the relationships they want, and the state should respect that.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:04:24 +0000

Jack Johnson: We are not trying to fight for “other type of marriages”. Although your thought may be that we are looking for some degradation of what marriage means, we are just looking to enter into union with one other person who happens to be of the same sex. I realize that in your mind (as your comments reeks of ignorance) we are looking for something out of the ordinary, but to us, it is a right. One that is given to every heterosexual person and that is not given to us. That is called discrimination – and that is what we are fighting. We are not being selfish, we just want to be an equal part of this country like every heterosexual person.

By: shawn

shawn — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:51:22 +0000

sadly, yes Thomas i believe your right. I HOPE your wrong but who the F**K knows! Court judges are hard to pin down. Makes no sense to me though how they can all of a sudden just reverse their “equal rights for all” position they took last year. In spite of this “people’s” referendum BS would they dare to contradict themselves in such a fashion? THAT alone I think would be a dangerous precedent in and of itself! Either way, Win, lose or draw our Gay Brethren have our FULL support!! Let’s go California!!!