re: #797 SanFranciscoZionist

It could be argued that when the state is involved, as you advocate, it becomes my business. What I’d prefer is complete lack of involvement by the government on the whole issue. No sodomy laws or illegality, but no promotion either. This is basically how it works in Japan. I really like their model.

re: #751 SanFranciscoZionist

“Traditional gender roles” in a marriage have the man more as breadwinner and the woman more as homemaker and in charge of child care, all things being equal. C’mon, you know that. Judge Walker leans extensively on them being dead as a doornail in his ruling, of which I’ve read only a couple of excerpts at the moment:

Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage…

I completely disagree. Reading his logic, it’s easy to see how the stage for the ruling was set by the new idea of marriage as being completely sex-neutral. If that is the only route to legalizing same-sex marriage, then I don’t want to see it legalized. The more you build on a certain foundation, the harder it gets to yank away that foundation because the more is going to topple over when it goes down.

This is my biggest reason. I’m less concerned about the same-sex and more about sex! So think what you want of me, but please don’t imagine it’s mainly about religion.

I’ve got to quit this topic until I’ve read the ruling.