California Revises Controversial Marriage License

Nothing alike

How can anyone compare marrying a goat to 2 people that are in love having the right to do what the rest of America can do?

I'm sorry, I see NO link here. I think it's only obvious to those that are blind with hate. Bigotry leads people to commit these offensive fallacies and it's sad that people are proud of their own ignorance.

And as for the gay couples raising children, at least the children may have a chance at having 2 paents who love them, as opposed to the 55% of all doomed heterosexual marriages that end in divorce leaving children in broken homes. Or how about the children saved from the horrible foster home drama?

There is no correlation here. Believing that gay couples will only raise gay kids would mean that heterosexual couples only raise straight kids, which we know is false.

Time to wake up and realize we are living in a new age. The world is changing, and it does not have to be as dramatic as we are making it. Gays in Denmark have had the right to marry for years now, and a vast majority of the population agrees it is better for the society.

Ok, so you don't like the thought of gay marriage. So what. Don't get one then. It's not going to hurt you any whether they get married or not. So why deny them the opportunity to be treated like the rest of us Americans that don't even consider marriage a right, take it for granted, then abuse the privilege with repeated divorces?

Sarcasm

Just sarcasm

got your goat

Why are the men who wrote the comments above so obsessed with goats? I'm a gay person, and I never think about goats. What is with these straight guys and their obsession with marrying goats? It's creepy. Goats, goats, goats. Maybe they should seek treatment.

Yes, let's equate sentient humans with non-sentient animals

I agree 100%. I mean, heck, what's the difference between a gay person and a goat? No difference at all! So if we agree that two self-aware sentient beings capable of expressing their desires actually express a desire to get married, well, that's just exactly like a one self-aware sentient being capable of expressing its desire to marry a being that, so far as we know, isn't capable of a reciprocal desire because it has no conceptual framework that could support that and, if somehow miraculously we're wrong and it actually is capable of such a desire, it is nevertheless incapable of communicating that to the other party. Otherwise, no difference.

I know, I know. The naysayers amongst you will say, "Well, a goat can't express its desire to marry a person, gay or otherwise, BECAUSE its a goat. It's just a beast!" Yeah, so? And gay people are different how?

You think just because they're human beings and can speak and express their desires and those desires might include marrying other beings who express reciprocal consensual desires, this is different from the situation that exists between a human being capable of doing that and a non-human being apparently incapable of doing that?

You must be crazy! As everyone can see, these two scenarios are virtually IDENTICAL!

And that's why we must forbid the ability of human beings to make these kinds of agreements amongst themselves. If we allow this, we have NO logical ground for refusing to allow people to marry goats. Or even horses.

And what will their offspring do? Get jobs acting in commercials for Axe deodorant?

If we let gay people marry, then we have to let anything else in the world happen. We have to let people marry goats. We have to allow serial murderers to express themselves. We can't have laws against child rape, or burglary, or anything else.

If only someone would have realized this before someone made it acceptable for Jacques parents to marry and have children....

Stupidity reign (as usual)

Quite frankly that the CA state goes to the trouble to use person A and person B shows how stupid the whole thing is. Gay wants to marry? Let them, who cares?

Change the bride and groom definition? Now that is really stupid. As far as now, gay or not, lesbian or not, there is still a 'groom' and a 'bride', up to them to determine which is which.

Check boxes to allow for the differences? Remember the 'pregnant' vote bulletins in Florida? This is how this will come out, a big mess that will be sorted out in court when a clerk does not interpret the check mark correctly...

Oh, yeah since CA is at it, why not add 'man and beast? A goat was married to a guy in Africa last year...

Instead of wasting state tax in weird forms, aren’t there more pressing issues to deal with like CA deficit?