Originally Posted by
Arielle
I`m 100% for gay marriage. I´m glad to see many of you here are with me on that topic. what I just don´t understand: why should there be a different word for this (civil union I guess) when it´s 100% the same thing. going to church and having your wedding there doesn´t change a thing in the relationship of 2 people. they won´t love each other more or less, it´s just an official tradition for religious people. and it won´t lower the value of marriage since I believe this has been happening over the last few years already. people are getting married for various reasons, sometimes for no real reason, sometimes not having known each other for more than a few hours, getting married for a green card, for a better life, for having a father for their child....whatever there is. look at how many people get divorced!!! marriage has lost it´s value and this is making me so sad. that´s why I don´t get it when people say marriage is sacred and should be kept to straight couples. what is there sacred about marriage anymore?
although I was born a catholic I don´t consider myself religious anymore, I never felt the need to believe in god, I DO believe that if 2 people get married and have thought about their decision for a good deal of time and are totally committed to each other and have a good marriage without lying, cheating and all that bad stuff.....this is something sacred in my opinion. sacred in the means of-this is somehing we should look up to. but marriage itself is not sacred for most people anymore
I think you should be able to choose where you want to get married and how, but WHY should there be a different term for this? just because the word marriage is grounded on religion? if some of us can accept gay people having relationships, then why can´t we accept that they get "MARRIED"? what´s the big deal about using this word? it´s JUST a word!!!
on another point: I can´t understand why Arnold Schwarzenegger is going to veto on this. if it´s the people´s decision he should keep his thoughts to himself and let them have their will. I hope he´s not being re-elected (in fact I wonder WHY he even got elected in the first place. and keep in mind that I´m Austrian too, and in my country not many people think that he was the right person to become governor anyway although we are proud that he has come so far in his life and obtained his VIP status, being a fellow countryman)
Andrea, sorry to say that you are misinformed on Arnold Schwarzenegger and I hope you can read up on it and not speculate.
The people of California voted on a proposition (22) to prevent recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries. The People voted on it! If the people pass a proposition and the law makers ignore that, what kind of democracy is that? Arnold Schwarzenegger is protecting the people of CA of thier powers, that is his job. The CA legislature is fucked and very left sided. That is not what democracy is about
Here is a quote:
Schwarzenegger said the legislation, given final approval Tuesday by lawmakers, would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved an initiative five years ago. Proposition 22 (search) was placed on the ballot to prevent California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.
"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote," the governor's press secretary, Margita Thompson, said in a statement. "Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto (the bill)."
Proposition 22 stated that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The bill to be vetoed by Schwarzenegger would have defined marriage as a civil contract between "two persons."