Bill Gates & Steve Ballmer Write Huge Check For Marriage Equality: Yay or Nay?

Yay. So I guess that means that all the conservatives are going to have boycott Kraft, Google and Microsoft? lol What are they going to use as a search engine? Yahoo?

Good for them.!!!

Good for them - glad to see them supporting something that they believe in.

I thought Bill was more intelligent than this. What a let down! His check endorses INEQUALITY and is currently the largest individual donation to help propel America into it's destruction. Thanks Bill Gates... you're wallet won't save you forever!

Definite yay.

It is their money ;-)

Help is help^^ And it will be really good to get publicity like that on our side.

Why not? People write giant checks to save trees, help the whales, and feed children in other countries, why not give some to normal people in their own country?!

I disagree with gay marriage. I disagree the fact that the government recognises marriage, seeing as it is a religious ceremony. Let the Christians and Muslims and Jews keep their marriage, have the government only recognise civil ceremonies that are completely non-prejudiced.

Well if we're going to go by just religious definitions hen heyll still be able to get married there are several religion that allow it plus quite a few churches will probably split off and make their own sects just to allow it.

Religious institutions can marry whomever they like, it just won't have anything to do with the government, and they won't be recognised by the government. The joining of two people in the eyes of the government and the law would be a civil partnership.

I honestly don't see a problem with secular marriage it's just a mere word difference it's much simpler to call it what it is.

Because marriage is a religious thing, and we should have separation if church and state. It also means that the religious people have control over what marriage entails. You could still call it marriage, it would just be a separate thing from marriage, Which would just be a religious thing.

See thing is that's only your and I'm guessing your certain sect's opinion many religious people wouldn't agree. For my religion marriage is simply a bond between people who are in love what beleifs they have don't matter. Having secular marriage is called equal treatment what you seem to want is equall but separate and we already know how that works out.

Separation of religion, ie Marriage, and State, ie Civil Partnerships. This would mean that the Religious institutions cannot complain, and you could get a religious marriage and a Civil Partnership at the same time by signing two different books.

Again don't see the point it's exactly the same thing.

No, because marriage was traditionally a religious ceremony, and it should be purely religious. Having a civil partnership just for the government means that religions can marry whomever they like, and they can't complain about gay marriage, and gay people can't complain if the religions don't let them get a gay marriage. Everyone's happy.

Not really I don't think you understand what happens if ssm gets legalized, that law being passed doesn't force any religion to do anything it merely makes the state gov perform them that's all. The only other thing it does is allow religious groups that wish to perform them to do so. The only religious group that ever get forced to perform are state churches and the us doesn't have any so that's a non issue.

Yes, but calling it marriage make all the religious groups oppose it. If all partnerships recognised by the law were civil partnerships, no one could have any problem with it.

So now we have to call things different names because it might offend some people? This is America if nothing here offends you your a saint.
Also not all religious groups oppose it and frankly that shouldn't matter it's being legalized for secular marriage only, if they oppose it because their religion doesn't allow it but it's not affecting their religion then they're trying to both push their religious values on those outside of their religion and involving their religion into secular law. Both are wrong acts and un-American freedom of religion goes both ways, both for the religious and non religious so you should let those outside of your religion practice their own beliefs.

That's not the point, you know religion was a religious ceremony, and the fact it's called marriage makes Christians oppose it. What I'm saying is that the government should abandon marriage and just leave it to the religious folk, and have civil partnerships for all instead, which would be people joined together in the eyes of the government.

Non religious people still get married they call it marriage because it is marriage "civil partnership" doesn't exist that's as dumb as saying poo instead of crap it doesn't change anything and only stuck up people care. For example let's say the gov wasn't involved then guess what atheists and homosexuals and everybody else will still get married and still call it marriage you can't change that.
Also correction not all Christians oppose it for the most part it's mostly those from more conservative sects (example southern baptists) those from less conservative churches often support it in fact the latest polls suggest just over half the country supports legating gay marriage now assuming that all 20-25+% of the population who are non Christians support it (which isn't true as most Muslims and most Jews wouldn't) that still leaves at least 25% and most likely more which is a huge chunk of christianity.

No - marriage is a religious thing, government recognising it one of the things still connecting the government to the church, it is not a civil matter, because marriage predates government.

Marriage is not a purely religious thing the fact that we two religious people disagree on that in fact proves that as I and many others as a religious person do not think that we as religious people are the only ones who can get married.

Marriage also more then likely predates religion I guarantee the first people (our ancestors) probably decided to love eachother and become couples before they formed religious philosophies.

But marriage was a traditional religious ceremony. And only churches and other religious places of worship should be able to perform them, it should not be the same as writing your names on the register for marriage, and we should leave them to it - you can sigh your names any time and enter a civil relationship, but you need a priest for marriage. They should be completely separate. And I am not religious, but a marriage is traditionally a bond in the eyes of God, and should not be in the eyes of the government.

First off what it traditionally was treated as doesn't matter things change. Secondly it isn't traditionally a "bond in the eyes of god" that's merely the judeao/Christian/Islamic view on it and has no place in this marriage debate as it applies only to judeao/christian/Islamic marriage my religion for example which is equal under law views marriage as a bond between two people regardless of sexual orientation or religion. Therefore if your saying only the religious traditions can have marriage well guess what mine just opens the door to them anyways as my religion's traditions and practices must be treated equally.

What it's called has nothing to do with Christians opposing it. The fact that it's wrong, is why Christians oppose it!

Did you meant to spell your name Anonymouse or did you mean Anonymous?

Completely irrelevant, but yes, it's supposed to be Anonymouse.

I realize it was irrelevant, I was simply wondering.

This is great news for marriage equality; money is needed for the legal fight that will eventually be decided at the Supreme Court.

Thank you for that.

Yea everybody here in Washington expects it to pass.

finally some one to stand up to the Koch brothers.

Pretty stupid, in my mind. Unless they intend to redefine the meaning of 'marriage'-which is the definition of the legal union of a man AND a woman- then it is not possible for two people of the same sex to 'marry'. Just a load of PC poppycock from people who really should know better. Probably all they're doing is hoping all the 'gays' will rush out and buy their computers...

...don't mess with "traditional" marriage.

Huff and puff all you like. Who cares whether homosexuals sodomise one another or lesbians strap on dildoes and do whatever it is they do!! Even IF the Law caves into these ludicrous demands to legalise 'same sex' (!) marriage it won't make the slightest difference to the vast majority of people who will always consider 'marriage' between two
same sex individuals as nothing more than a joke-a PC driven farce of what REAL marriage actually is-THAT between a man and a woman.

"...it won't make the slightest difference to the vast majority of people who will always consider 'marriage' between two same sex individuals as nothing more than a joke"

Majority?



...I don't think so.

Who cares whether homosexuals sodomise one another
Apparently you?

Obviously I've touched a raw nerve there with you. "Sodomy" is INDEED an ugly word with sordid connotations. Perfect description for those who practise it..
Sorry if I've hurt your feelings..