a gay marriage court case

[. . . .]

Restrict marriage for the purpose of procreation ? I thought marriage was to symbolize the sanctity of that internal bond of love between two people? Its a civil union and the church is only a dressing for sanctimonious hoopla.
According to the Republicans its supposed to be held as a sacred union between a man and a woman even though it is just a civil ceremony and they use the outdated twisted views of the bible to justify there reasoning.

personally i think marriage is a crock, to some its a symbol but usually one thats usually ignored after a while.
if people want to sanctify their love then so be it. but let everyone sanctify it. maybe not in church because there the church and not the law sets the rules (within certain criteria) but everyone should be allowed the civility of a civil wedding.

The wedding contract just allows for 2 people to merge there finances like a business in ways that are recognized by the state and feds. Thats its purpose, its binding until one defaults.
The divorce rate is guesstimated to be 50% in the USA alone.
Some people are hopeless romantics and want the big gaudy all day wedding celebration ritual. I will have to admit(we) gays redefine "over the top" when they/we want to.

Marriage is a symbol of taking it one step further. It symbolises you stay with your partner no matter what (civilly or religiously).

The sexuality of the couple should not make a difference imo. leepy:

Well said, couldn't of said it better my self.

Thats just hog wash. Marriage was a covenant between a man and a woman and god. God was taken out of the equasion by man. The contract, which is what it is, was then between a man and a woman and the IRS with a large portion of lawyers thrown in for spice. The contract has become nothing more than a bad joke played to add another revenue source to the economy and in effect no more than just another money grab. Therefor i see no reason why homosexuals should be allowed to evade paying their share as the rest of you married suckers do. Yes I said suckers, but a more appropriate term would be "marks" .

God was in the equation because how, dont tell me its "his words" written in that rag of a bible? (Do not go there its a whole new mutli page thread topic)
Since god was taken out of the equation, then you think us gays should pay the fines to the revenue like the rest of the wedded fools? But if god what STILL in the equation, we shouldn't be married, and therefore not have to pay the revenues?

I disagree. In the old times maybe yes but why would atheists want a union with something they don't believe in ?

And yes we skweeezed profits out of it, but we do that with everything benny leepy:.

And most homosexuals i'm guessing would not even mind paying the tax if they could legally get married. Not even christians have to get married, it's just tradition.

Atheists do there rituals to. I would imagine its pretty dull. ("Do you? Yes. Do I? Yes. OK, we do and done" In front of a justice of the peace) Then they become a little business unit.
And most homosexuals You guess right - do not give a fling about no taxes for the wedding - we just want to be treated like everybody else even if that includes paying the fees. As long as they are the same fees paid by everybody else.

NO H8, Stop Hate and Reverse Prop 8, Marriage Equality For All
Is the current political cry in my state of California

Its happening slowly, one day we will be just like the rest of you in society's eyes. Being equally overtaxed like all of you. It's just a matter of time.
In the old days of some states the divorces were always between the 2 sexes. With the gender being a factor in the process, property and flotsam got divided up accordingly. The man usually gets shafted in the deal. Then there were pre-nups contracts. They help a little. Now there will be same sex divorces. OMG. Now that can be scary. I feel pitty for the divorce judges. I really do.