Having expressed my displeasure of having religious ceremonies enshrined in government policies and institutions, I have to say, which might not have been evident, that I am very happy for the gays! If the state wishes to continue, then it will want some children to be born and raised in stable households. On the other hand, it the state wishes to wither away, then it will not want children to be born or not want them raised in stable households. In tadacip 20 mg either case, it is not a matter of indifference to the state. Read the opinion. The judge cites to the studies and the testimony. He didn't just make up findings of fact. He based each one on the testimony presented to him. Point blank, marriage is a meaningless, bankrupt institution.I love my partner (hetero) and believe allowing a church or a government to approve of our union would diminish our relationship and lend credit to other corrupt institutions. I don't need approval to enter a loving relationship, and find those that need to find approval for their love from some higher authority, frankly, pathetic. I haven't seen anyone here, liberal or otherwise, argue that there is no connection between marriage and procreation/child-rearing. But to say that the state only has an interest in heterosexual unions because those are the only unions capable of producing biological children of both spouses ignores the other purposes of marriage. The state was not involved in the litigation as you can see from the remedies in the judge's decision - REMEDIES Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result,see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings. And why exactly is the creation of children in the interest of the state? "34. Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other,"Does California require that married couples live together?Also, isn't saying that the state "approves" of the couple going a little far? I'm sure there are plenty of marriages in California that no rational person would approve. (Crack addicts, etc.) as far as discrimination against non-married couples, the judge addressed this. The state does cipla tadacip have an interest in promoting amrriage in general because it provides stability in the populace. Therefore, it is ok to discriminate against non-married couples bu not offering them the benefits that go with marriage. According to this decision, the problwm arises when people are denied marriage itself for no other reason than some people find their relationship morally wrong. If there is no other legitimate state interest, then the law is uncomsitutional. Also, not all laws have to have a rational basis, only those that infringe a fundamental right or deny equal protection under the law. Everything else can be a dumb as we want it to be. This is not just nonsense but (as they say) nonsense on stilts. Other than the bride and groom, I doubt if anyone at the wedding has any idea whether the couple intends to have children. On the other hand, many same sex couples marry precisely so they can raise children together. But in any case, why does the State have anything to say about it, anymore than the State cares whether the married couple intends to have dogs versus cats? As a resident of MA, I will also attest to this. People's hetero marriages under attack only from themselves. There may be a compelling state purpose that creates a rational basis for not allowing marriages between multiple people or between blood relatives. If the state shows a rational basis for that classification, it is free to refuse marriage recognition. The issue here is that the defendants failed to show even a rational basis for refusing same-sex couples marriage rights. Remember, states are free to decide what constitutes a marriage, as long as that definition does not violate the Constitution. I don't know the answer to this, but is there sufficient study of gay marriages to conclude that personal benefits from heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage are identical? For example, do gay marriages make individuals smoke and drink less? Marriage is a partnership between two people who love each other whether they be gay or cipla tadacip 20 straight. Polygamy is a man taking as many wives as he pleases. You honestly don't see a fundamental difference here? It does matter what the driver's license does. If a driver's license allows you to sit in a car in your driveway, then it makes no sense to deny a license to a blind person. However, if the license allows you to drive the car on public streets, it does make sense.If you don't know what the purpose of a government program is, you can't reasonably determine who can or cannot participate in it.