The ruling, striking down two state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman, paves the way for California to become the second state to allow same-sex marriage.
Fan-freaking-tastic.Please do not take this post as an opportunity to tell me you think gay marriage is wrong. I'm aware this is a hot-button political issue, but I am only writing this post to celebrate what has happened today, celebrate what it means to me and note that it is a step towards equality.
Besides, I live in Massachusetts. It's been legal here since 2003. See Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003). Thus, you telling me your opinion on what happened in California won't affect me in the least and will only serve to annoy me.
If you wish to celebrate equality with me, then you are welcome to post those comments.
Thank you for your consideration.
Blogged with the Flock Browser
4 comments:
I am with you girl! Am I gay/bisexual? No. Do I think that people who are deserve to celebrate life in any way they see fit? You freaking bet I do! Why does anything outside what the government considers "normal" scare the hell out of people? I do not get it but I seriously applaud Cali for jumping on the train with Mass (that's the love train just in case no one will get the reference...it is ALL about love after all!!!). NY will be next & then it is only a matter of time for the remaining states to figure it out.
Maybe you can answer this for me - it seems to me that laws confining marriage to one man and one woman are based on religion. If the Constitution requires a separation of church and state, shouldn't laws based on a religious viewpoint be unconstitutional? Shouldn't the Constitution outrank the constitution of individual states? Am I missing something? Probably. To paraphrase Phi Hartman -I'm just an unfrozen caveman patissiere. The ways of law are strange to me. But even stranger is the idea that two adults who love each other should not be able to get married because they happen to be the same gender.
Well, for the most part I think you're right. But the Supreme Court hasn't touched the issue and until they say for certain it's unconstitutional, these laws prohibiting gay marriage are basically being looked at as "morality" laws, under the same blanket as laws against polygamy and incest. A state has the right to protect the morality of its people, to some extent, when there's a compelling moral reason for it. And I think until very recently there was a general moral objection to gay marriage, outside of any religious bounds. But society is rapidly shifting away from that general moral objection, I haven't met anyone in a long time that has an objection that is not based on religious grounds. And many religious people I know even support being homosexual, they just have this lasting concern about the "sanctity of marriage." But lawmakers are certainly starting to note that the legal benefits of marriage are rights that everyone has. The spiritual benefits are not, nor have they ever been, rights in any sense of the word, so the churches do not have any obligation to confer those benefits on any couples they object to.
I think once enough states jump on the bandwagon supporting gay marriage, someone will get a case up to the US Supreme Court and at that point the separation of church and state issue will hopefully be addressed.
Thanks - that cleared up a lot for me.
Post a Comment