@(Starman), The MIDI Man: Not to mention all those awful pro-8 ads where they implied that children would be brainwashed and taught all about gay marriage in school.

@cowboybebopfan: Did you mean to reply to genterara? My response to him was to point out that if things were left to the majority vote and if losing parties had let things be, we'd still have unfair laws. Race was the issue back then, and now it's sexual orientation.

@genterara: So why did we ever bother integrating schools or allowing interracial marriages? I guess the losing parties then should have just given up and let things be.

@julianda01: They were able to overturn it because it violated basic rights for a group of people. Health care legislation was not passed to purposely discriminate against one group of people.

@blackcat12: The majority is not always correct. e.g. the majority that did not want integration of races in schools.

Meg Whitman, eBay CEO, is conspicuously absent. Though, this shouldn't be surprising since part of her campaign message is that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Who are these lords of the internet? Is Steven Hawking one of them?

@complextinction: What's there to tiptoe around with either homosexuals or Islam? People aren't offended until there's a suggestion that homosexuals don't deserve equal protection and privileges under the law.

I really hate to be the grammar nazi, but should be "Blah blah blah." See how I capitalized and used punctuation?

@Gary Carmody: Same sex couples get taxed for those benefits, while heterosexual couples do not.

@Billybird: Even by his logic, there are no laws preventing you from choosing to rent an expensive place or undergo plastic surgery. There are laws preventing same sex couples from getting married, however. That's the distinction. The issue is not that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. The issue is the inequitable…

@truthtellah: The thing is, straight unmarried couples can get married. Same sex couples in a civil union have gotten as close to marriage as the government allows and they can't go further.

@Pedro Rodriguez: MS gives full medical benefits to same sex partners. One story I was told was that an MS employee's partner had cancer, and because of MS' insurance policy, neither of them had to worry about money or paying for treatments or care.

@dogved: Google is covering benefits for couples in domestic partnerships - so you pay taxes and declare that person to be your partner, and they can verify this because that person you live with would be covered by Google's insurance plan.

@jetRink: Yup, and it's "she" :) I don't think the government will get out of the marriage business because there's more legal issues than just taxes, but I do believe the government can easily recognize all civil unions as marriages. The word "marriage" is already so ingrained in our society that I just don't think…

@iElvis: Google still needs to right the wrongs in states that will not unban gay marriage.

@complextinction: This definitely comes off as anti-gay. You don't CHOOSE to be gay in the way that you choose to live in a luxurious lifestyle. The reason homosexuals in this country don't have marriage across all states is largely due to the bigotry.

@quillaja: I wish they could have two terms: Marriage, aka civil unions, which would be taken care of by the state and grant couples the legal benefits like tax breaks and the right to visit your spouse in a hospital, and Matrimony, which would be the religious counterpart. Couples must have a marriage in order to…

This is great! Sometimes I think that large corporations just don't care about the individual and are concerned with overall profit. Stories like this prove me wrong and restore a little bit of faith in humanity. :)

@JakeMG: OH GOD. Awesome concept, but just think of the consequences. No one can control cats. No one! When you give them weapons, they'll be unstoppable little terrors pointing their machine gun leg in your face demanding pets and treats!