.
"BTW, who the hell is this Tam guy and why should I care?"

I don't know if you should care but...

In California there is a court case going on called “Perry v Schwarzenneger” which challenges the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8.

The trial will address issues including "how having same-sex parents affects children and if gay unions undermine male-female marriages", the "history of discrimination against gay people", and the "effects on gay people of prejudice."

This trial is considered a landmark case that will be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Hak-Shing William Tam is one of five defendant-intervenors who petitioned the court to be allowed to defend Proposition 8 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
.

Sorta pointless law suit they can argue all they want

The fact is the people of California VOTED <-- done deal .
They will have to sue every person who voted for prop-8 , if they wanna win anything . Suing California government means absolutely nothing , after all the people voted

If you know, why do you feel you have to expound on it.

Age of consent or within prohibited degrees is redundant; under age is within a prohibited degree.

That's achievable without marriage.


Rights to death?


Taxpayers are individuals.

km

Prop 8 is about the rights of gays to marry - the idiocy involves how it was handled, as it was worded in a fashion that confused voters and was taken advantage of by various organizations AGAINST gay marriage. (From what I heard, though, on a few talk shows - one of which includes someone in favor of gay marriage - the gays brought it on themselves, assuming they had the necessary votes. This is why those of you in support of Marijuana legalization can't just sit on your butts and assume you've won, because a number of these groups have a dislike for that as well - and aren't afraid to be vocal about it!)

BTW, Leslie, hope you get that second-chance vote - I also heard (not going to substantiate) that part of the reason for the confusing wording was from certain religious group's involvement in trying to stop it from appearing on any ballet. Could be wrong on that, but either way, gay people should be allowed the same rights as straights.

The good news is that Boies and Olson haven't asked km to be there paralegal.

Just show you don't know

Here there is what called Tenancy by the Entirety - which is only offered to married couples - There is a Joint Tenancy that is offered to two or more individuals , but they don't enjoy the same benefits that married couple have

Rights to death
Means if you are not married <-- you have no rights at ALL - the family takes over - Simply if you are a boyfriend or a girlfriend and one passes away , you have no rights <-- I know this first hand when my fiance past away in my arms before we were married .

Tax payers as a couple get discounts in their tax return when filled jointly - Single individuals are taxed at a higher rate

Regardless the vote has been cast

You can sue the Cali Gov will not mean anything at all <-- end that crap , such a waste of peoples time and pant loads of money

The gays just have to rally up at the next election , and be smart enough to not get blind sided the next time

You seem a bit vague about who's allowed and who's not allowed to marry in California.


Not really... the age of consent concerns a person's age and prohibited degrees concern the relationship.

km

I live in Canada where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2003. And as I am sure y'all have noticed, the sky has not fallen, Canada has not gone to hell in a hand basket nor has it affected heterosexual marriage in any way, shape or form.

I shall follow the trial with great interest.