http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000 004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a_ ___&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0

Beautifully clear wonderfully informed argument. Thank you for posting it.
I am very pleased for couples in California. All happiness to them.

We are all inclined to judge ourselves by our ideals; others, by their acts. ~Harold Nicolson

Apparently you didn't read my comments above?

@ Xinavera: Guess it didn't take long for the name-calling to start; didn't even require much prompting for you to bring up the Neanderthal thing. Thanks for nullifying your own argument.

A positive outpouring of support in forum like this isn't necessarily a sign of wider acceptance of this sort of thing.

Looks like someone from the flat-earth society crashed the thread. So do you plan on riding dinosaurs when you get to heaven? LOL

nah

As for George and Brad.. how anyone can look at that photo and not be filled with joy and happiness for such a perfect couple is beyond me.

Any justification against equal rights, religious or not, is discrimination.

And religious folks, I believe your very own Jesus said "Love one another, as I have loved you." Follow this advice more often, please.

I hope the voters insure that George and Brad will have many many uncontested years of matrimonial harmony.

Yes, marriage was originally a religious institution. But it has been thoroughly secularized and thus religious definitions of secular marriage can no longer apply.

Congratulations to George and Brad and all the other couples.

@Rectify made eloquently clear all the reasons for the checks and balances, but it's really very simply: the rule of the majority, but with protections for the minority.

Just because you are a minority does not mean you lose. It is supposed to mean that you are still protected under the law. "Equal protection under the law" is supposed to mean something, and finally it is starting to for this part of our population.

All the comments regarding marriage being based in religion make me a little confused. Sure, most marriages are performed in churches, but that's a tradition thing. If you look at cultures where there is no formal religion, male/female marriage unions can still be identified easily, and marriage ceremonies are common. But look for same-sex marriages in those places... None to be found. From that I'd conclude that marriage between a man and woman is a natural thing, and homosexual marriage is not.

Do homosexual relationships occur in the animal kingdom? Occasionally, but it's rarer than those who bring it up in defense of same-sex unions care to acknowledge. And when it does occur it's usually something that helps males determine pecking order, not long-term relationships. You Darwinists ought to be able to confirm that homosexuality is one trait that would not likely be passed on to succeeding generations; if it is inherited it's an aberration at best. And in today's human society, I'd dare say that homosexuality for most individuals is more of a learned behavior than anything else.

And the claims that it's a civil rights issue... Not.

Divorce is 50 grand.

*heh* Somebody obviously hasn't been surfing the internet very broadly.

My joke about the detractors was along the lines of Vako, but the other direction. If they really wanted to stop gay marriage, they should have outlawed gay divorce. *rimshot*

Congratulations George and Brad!

Good luck to you