I have to ask why its so important that they get married in the first place? Couldnt they just change each others names and enjoy the same simulation?

Good news:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10074793-37.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

I have to ask why its so important that they get married in the first place? Couldnt they just change each others names and enjoy the same simulation?

wait what

no really is this serious because if so 

I have to ask why its so important that they get married in the first place? Couldnt they just change each others names and enjoy the same simulation?

Married couples enjoy certain legal benefits.

also there's kinda symbolic importance that to say two men can't get married implies it's of lesser meaning to a PERFECTLY NORMAL straight marriage.

bump: prop 8 passed, but here's something:

UPDATE: The fight is on.

there is an arguable legal challenge to prop. 8 that multiple groups, including the ACLU, are fighting.  the bad news is that it's going to have to go back to the California Supreme Court (initially).  this of course means that conservatives will do that crazy thing they do and get people to go nuts over their right to violate other people's rights being violated by those damn activist judges again.

i've seen a couple other legal scholars make the same argument, it seems like the consensus is that it's legally sound, but politically toxic.

Quote

Article 18 of the state Constitution provides that the document can be changed by amendment or by revision. An amendment may be enacted by initiative with a majority vote, whereas a revision must first be passed by two-thirds of the Legislature before being submitted to the voters. (California's Legislature has voted twice in recent years to legalize same-sex marriage, but the governor vetoed it.)

Does Proposition 8 qualify as a revision? Under the case law, it's a revision only if it "substantially alters the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution." Proposition 8 does exactly that, its opponents say, by eliminating a fundamental right for a specific group, and by limiting the judiciary's constitutional role in enforcing equal protection and privacy guarantees.

Historically, however, the court has taken a narrow view of what kind of measure "substantially alters the basic governmental framework." For example, neither Proposition 13, which capped property tax rates, nor Proposition 140, which imposed legislative term limits, were held to be a revision of the Constitution despite their far-reaching transformation of state government. Moreover, a 1972 initiative that reinstated the death penalty after the court had declared it cruel and unusual punishment was also deemed an amendment, not a revision, even though it directly limited the judiciary's power to declare fundamental rights.

Nevertheless, there are good reasons for the California Supreme Court to rethink its jurisprudence in this area. Even if Proposition 8 does not "substantially alter the basic governmental framework," there is no question that it targets a historically vulnerable group and eliminates a very important right. Changing the Constitution -- the state's paramount law -- in such a momentous way arguably calls for deliberative rather than direct democracy. Indeed, as early as the nation's founding, our constitutional tradition has favored representative democracy over simple majority rule when it comes to deciding minority rights.

The second question is whether Proposition 8 means the state must nullify the roughly 18,000 same-sex marriage licenses issued in recent months. Although the answer is not clear-cut, retroactivity is generally not favored in the law because people are entitled to conduct their lives in reliance on the law as it exists today, without having to anticipate how it might change in the future. Same-sex couples who got married may have decided to move in together, to buy property or even to adopt children in reliance on the personal commitment and societal legitimacy that accompany marriage.

Courts have been willing, in some instances, to apply a law retroactively if its retroactivity is clearly stated in the law itself or is clearly intended by the voters. But the text of Proposition 8 contains no clear statement to this effect. The official voter information guide contains a statement that Proposition 8 applies to marriages "regardless of when or where performed," but this language is buried in the fifth paragraph of the proponents' rebuttal to the opponents' argument. That's thin support for a finding of retroactivity.

Why does it matter whether gay couples remain married in a post-Proposition 8 world? One answer has to do with the dignity and stature that marriage confers. Even if marriage provides no greater rights than domestic partnership, a separate-but-equal regime unavoidably signals that same-sex relationships are of lesser worth.

Another answer has to do with the future of gay marriage writ large. Gay marriage is in the cross-hairs of a culture war, and culture wars, both sides know, are won through symbols, examples and personal experiences that shape one's worldview.

Each of the 18,000 same-sex couples and their families in California represents a potential catalyst for broader acceptance of gay marriage. The more familiar we become with gay spouses and their children -- as our friends, neighbors and co-workers -- the more gay marriage will become an unremarkable thread of our social fabric. Proposition 8 may then come to be viewed, in the long run, not as an enduring constitutional principle but as the will of a narrow and ultimately temporary majority.

here is the ACLU's LGBT page that you can watch for updates or look at as a guide to take action.  this apparently means harassing the fuck out of the Attorney General, the Governor, and representatives in the state legislature.  if you are not a Californian, find one to harass into doing this.  at the very least, we might be able to drain more mormon (and other Christian Right) money as they pay to do this shit and we have civil rights lawyers who work pro bono.

also black people are not responsible for proposition 8. if you want to feel dumb and/or angry, feel free to ask me why.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3006759 for more.

Why aren't black people responsible for proposition 8? I realize you aren't dm but I'm just throwing it out there. Any group who largely voted yes to prop 8 is responsible so I don't know why black people are not.

the thread goes into detail but basically when prop 8 passed a lot of blame was thrown to black liberals who would vote for obama but not for prop 8. turns out pro-prop 8ers hit up poor, mostly black, neighborhoods with robo calls featuring a quote from barack obama saying "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman", cutting out the preceding "I'm against proposition 8 but". they also made the language of the vote confusing.

so it's not specifically black voters fault or here's dm's reply actually:

as you said, they spent a lot of money on deceptively wording this. they also sent out robo-calls with clips of Obama saying "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" while leaving the "I oppose proposition 8, but" that was supposed to preceed it. when campaigns like this are run, what do you do to counter them? you inform people, and surprise, no on proposition 8 people didn't really reach out to black people (read: go to black neighborhoods). so you have to fault the opposition campaign for that too.

what really makes it a problem is that like 10 percent of the electorate was black. 52 percent voted for it total, 70 percent of black people did. if you subtract that number from the 70 percent, the deviance of the higher black vote on the total vote is somewhere around 2 percent, which doesn't come close to accounting for a 5 point split.

you can analyze and ask why the vote was that much higher, but you can't say that it had a decisive effect on the outcome.