Re: Stop Same-*** Marriage in California !

jg <jg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote: 
> 
> The "family" point is quite a valid one although they'd probably let you

> in, but generally those features regarding property and wealth are to do

> with providing for children and/or a remaining spouse who would most 
> likely be disadvantaged by a death or desertion because of the children.

> It's not for the hording of wealth as such, but for its use in 
> sup****ting children in the interests of society. Seems to me it's 
> generally the hording wealth part which would be of most interest to 
> gays, but not to society.
> 
It's not really about "hoarding the wealth", it's about equality to 
hetero***uals like you and me under the law, and the right to make a 
commitment that way.

The modern day tradition of marriage is quite young of age.  It's not a 
Biblical tradition that goes back years.

And, I would like to add that I appreciate how our discussion has kept the

religious aspects out of it as well.  I don't see it as a religious thing,

but if you do, you have done well by discussing it on a societal basis and
I 
appreciate that.  And that's where I think it belongs.

I was married in a Church once, then again (after the first one ended) in
a 
civil ceremony.  In Las Vegas, by a guy dressed as Elvis Presley.  My wife

wore a pill box hat and a sleek red dress!

The second one was far more fun and less stressful!  Our marriage lasted
much 
longer too, and we're still good friends.