Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California

No. That's not the reason I proposed this. I think church should not have the right to close these kind of contracts anyway. But whatever happens, I want humans to have equal rights, no matter their sexual orientation/race/religion/whatever else you care to think of.I will say congratulations to california, seems another bigoted law got shot down.

That's how it is here pretty much as well, you can't get married in a church if you don't first get married by law. However, here, they are two seperate "ceremonies", first you marry by law, and then, if you want to, you can get married in a church. You don't have to marry in a church if you don't want to, the marriage is still valid (yes, I know, you don't have to in America either, but from your reply I did gather that a priest is legally capable of marrying a couple for the law, they aren't here, only "civil servants" are.).

Yes, I gathered that from Jar's post. Anyway, I think we had these discussions before, and you know I'm not against gays getting "married", I just don't care what they call a contract that is like marriage is now. There is of course no reason to change the name, but there you have it.By the way, this saturday is "Gay pride parade" in Amsterdam, 80 boats going through the canals queering it up!

Yes, I was alerted to these problems before (by Rrhain, I think).In my country, we just allowed gays to get "married", I think it's the simplest solution by far. But if it would help lessen the resistance, why not call it civil union, and make that equal to the now termed "marriage". Does a word really mean that much to people? (I guess that could be asked from either side)

And allowing them to "marry" will change this how? The bigots will all go: "Well, now that they can marry, I guess there's no reason to hate them anymore"? I must have missed that, got a link? But I agree, it's about much more than marriage. So again, allowing them to "Marry" will change this how? What dicks. I agree. I'm guessing your seeing gay marriage as a step in the right direction, then? You're country's got a long way to yet. I feel for you, dude. Yes, I see your point. Again, I just don't care what they call it, that's all.

I feel like punching those doctors...very hard...in the nuts....Goddammit, fucking inhumane sons of bitches, can't let someone who loves your patient see them? Why? Cause your a fucking bigot? Grow a fucking pair.Ok...*breathes deeply in and out*...rant over, we now return you to your regular programming.

Taladega Nights rocks!

Precisely. Nobody is stopping him from holding a religious marrying ceremony for the couple as well, if he is so inclined. If he doesn't want to marry people the state says can marry, it's pretty clear he should not be marrying at all. Say if I worked for a garbage disposal company, and one day I go up to my boss and say to him "Hey boss, you know what, I only want to take on pink dumpsters from now on, any other dumpster can stuff it as far as I'm concerned", what do you think my boss will do? Pff, just sell it to them when they're sixteen, we do it over here (well beverages up to 15% that is, anything over that and you need to be 18) Agree.

Yes, I agree. I know I've said this before, but in my country the only people who get to legally marry other people are civil servants, priests only get to marry them religiously but are not allowed to do so unless the couple first gets married by law. In fact, that's a felony. I know I'm sexy as hell, but that would be pushing it. Indeed, men are funnier than women. Hmm, if you put it that way... Bring it down to 28, and you've got yourself a deal!

Yes, which is why I find it absolutely not weird that they are in favour of prop 8.

Apparently because he thinks that because some people are bigotted fuckwits who discriminate, he can be one too.