So lets see, I guess integration should not have happened since state laws prohibited that as well. Blacks should still be sitting on the back of the bus? Inter racial marriages should not be allowed?
It is the legislative's job to protect the civil rights of all of its citizens when laws are passed that take away the rights of part of its population. If the voters decided that Jews or Catholics should not be allowed in the state of California, would you be ok with that as well? Are the people able to vote for anything that they want against other citizens?
The California Supreme court did not vote in favor of gay marriage, they ruled that the legal constitution that was voted by the citizens of California prohibits discrimination against its citizens. The ballot issue was in contradiction with the state constitution.
And btw, the California legislature has voted in favor of gay marriage for the past 3 years only to be vetoed by Governor Swartznager. His reason that he has stated over and over again is that it should go through the judicial process to see whether the ballot measure was constitutional. Guess he got his answer.
If this is not a religious issue, then what is the reason why gay marriage should not be allowed? The only thing I have heard is coming from the Christian right saying marriage is a sacred covenant between God and man. I guess it is a civil right as well to be able to marry someone you love.
I knew that was going to come up. What at question then, wasn't the institution of marriage, but more so racial mixing. So what's to keep me and my lawn from getting married, and me filing taxes as "married filing jointly"?
And what did gay/same-sex marriage in achieve????...after all love-is-love as someone stated. course I'm not sure what the "couples laws" were before. But... last I checked California
already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the
same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. Huh??? So what was the big victory, to be defined sexually like a hetero couple... somewhat ass-backwards (pun intended)
My good friend deals with the same ordeals with her partner over custody with the coolest 5 yr old in the state, just as a male/female relationship would. They enjoy the same ups/downs... which is good. Sorta, in theory, no fun for her.
I'm not sure what this ruling does... shit on religion/culture? So be it. Fine. This has little to do with inclusion (see some of the comments in here that are making it a non-religious vs religious argument). The Western Culture has advanced and survived via man/woman relationships for thousands of years, not from same sex partnerships... it's how we've survived and evolved as a species... and this is to do what??? Further that cause for that union, and call it marriage... because the Christians call it that and men/women call it that, and we feel left out? I don't get it. Californians get the rights/privileges, and thankfully (as with my friend) the challenges and drawbacks. Is this the "left out of the country club" or "never joined a sorority/fraternity" feeling?.. I'm sure other states have it much worse, but California, Mass, NY.... come on.......
If same-sex "marriage" will
mainstream everyone, than great. We can then eliminate all the LGBT organizations that permeate our schools, corporations and daily life. Gays can be lawyers, neighbors, etc... vs having to be gay lawyers, gay neighbors... somehow I doubt it. The rights of the masses, yet the individuality. I think many heteros see "marriage" as part of their individuality, yet are all in favor of the same-sex partnership right prescribed in the State of California.
I don't know... I just say leave the hetero marriage lifestyle be... since there's so much individuality and the rights are already afforded to same sex unions... someone can explain. Not purposely posing as ignorant. Same-sex relationships are different, just as hetero relationships are different. But I'm seeing this as more of a sucker punch on the establishment, vs. the actual rights of what they seek.
I can propose eternal union with a cactus, do I need the state to recognize it? Is it discriminatory to then propose that we classify marriages in California as "straight marriages" vs "same-sex marriage"? Or what will surely boil some bubbles ...."pro-creation marriages" or "evolutionary superior marriages"... you get my point. Culture and religion are not synonymous. Perhaps in 10, no 5 years, we'll see a "Hetero Student Union" in a Berkeley high school. Imagine that? Or is doctrine that the minority is only subject to oppression? Folly.
I see many getting their jollys because they feel this ruling steps on the nads of certain religions (if not all, especially Muslims.. wonder how this news is being carried by Al Jezerra [digression]) and beliefs... sorry you had a bad experience with all that, that is why you left it in the first place.
Along the lines, of the spirit of individuality (whether right or wrong) this feels like a last hope for many heterosexuals. Many/most straight Californians are
NOT religious... if anything they are lightly religious, and feel the man/woman/pro-creation thing is still pertinent.
I can use the Koran as toilet paper too... it's the US afterall. You can do what you want, and should be afforded equal protection I suppose.
I understand it's a societal gain of rights and recognition... I do. I just see it as a word.