No doubt among others, I've noticed that since that California decision came down all those Republicans who were such fervent advocates of "states' rights" because they don't like the power of federal government are starting to look a lot more fondly at Washington, or at least the Supreme Court. So here we go....

Don't get too excited! This decision was made by the California Supreme Court (in a 4 to 3 ruling). So, guess what, not everyone had such a great reaction to the court "abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench." So, the decision will go to the people.

The November ballot will include a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to unions between men and women. So if more than half of California voters approve the measure, it could neutralize last month's state Supreme Court ruling.

While I AGREE with the decision of the court, I'm not sure if I agree with how it was done. The Judicial branch is supposed to INTERPRET the laws, not make them.

From the LA Times:
The three dissenting justices argued that it was up to the electorate or the Legislature to decide whether gays should be permitted to marry.

"In my view, California should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage," Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote in the first sentence of her dissent.

"But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not."

Justice Marvin R. Baxter, joined by Justice Ming W. Chin, said the ruling "creates the opportunity for further judicial extension of this perceived constitutional right into dangerous territory."

"Who can say that in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?" Baxter wrote.

Okay, Baxter's probably being an alarmist here, but he makes a valid point. If you can look at it objectively, without any agenda getting in the way. Anyway, I say leave it to the people to decide. I have faith in my fellow Californians! I think...

Hmmm, interesting. I have to say that while I agree with gay marriage I think that everything should be put to a fair vote. I have a hard time believing that the Republican vote in Cali is very large, though. So it will all probably work out for the best.

All I can say is, i'm glad I dont live in Massachusetts or California. Sorry, just dont believe in it.

Quoted from tkitna

All I can say is, i'm glad I dont live in Massachusetts or California. Sorry, just dont believe in it.

But how would it affect you if gay marriage would be legalized in your state? And if you don't believe in something doesn't mean you can't tolerate it, right?

Maybe the thought of two men having sex seems disgusing to you but well... The thought of people over 70 having sex doesn't seem like a very pretty picture to me either, but you won't hear me say that people over 70 shouldn't be allowed to be married...

Everyone is allowed their own opinions.  That is why we are so lucky to live in this country where it is ok to have one.  

I didn't say that Tkitna isn't allowed to have his opinion, but he posted a statement and since this is a discussion forum I responded to that.

It just doesn't make any sense to me that a country that pounds itself on the chest for being 'The Land of the Free' is still so uptight about letting people do something that they want to do and that doesn't harm anyone in any way. Freedom of speech is nice, but isn't freedom of lifestyle even more important (as actions speak louder than words)? Homophobia is usually religiously motivated (either that, or just plain macho chauvinism, I can't really think of another reason to be homophobic) and didn't America have a separation of church and state?

Of course I'm glad I live in a country where I have freedom of speech. But I'm also very glad that I live in a country where mutual love in any form is accepted. Where any relationship between two mature people, be it a man and a woman or two men or two women, is acknowledged on the same level. Where homosexuals aren't insulted by some law that says that their relationships aren't as 'real' as a heterosexual relationship. Love is love.

'The Land of the Free'? Yeah, you're free to be christian, patriotic and heterosexual...

Quoted from HeatherBoo

Everyone is allowed their own opinions.  That is why we are so lucky to live in this country where it is ok to have one.  

You are right and Joost seems to be very hard on people. He was hard on me too. Let people say what they feel like saying. It`s ok.

Quoted from Jane

You are right and Joost seems to be very hard on people. He was hard on me too. Let people say what they feel like saying. It`s ok.

Sorry, I sincerely apologize if it seems like I am that way. I can assure you that I'm not. But this is just a subject that I'm very passionate about. And about the thing in the Beach Boys topic, well... Maybe I came off a little harsh, but I hope you see what I meant there.

You should realize that just like Tkitna I too am just expressing my opinion. If he can do it, so can I, right? And I'm not saying Tkitna isn't allowed to have his opinion. It's just that homophobia makes me sad. Life is hard enough as it is, we shouldn't waste our time on telling people who aren't harming anyone that how they live or what they do is wrong. I have a few friends who are homosexual and I know that their love for their partners isn't a lesser kind of love than the love between a woman and a man. But if you tell a homosexual couple that they don't have the same rights as a heterosexual couple, that's exactly what you're basically telling them: that their love isn't as 'real' as heterosexual love.

Joost!!! You are very nice! and i know that we are all very touchy at times and sensitive. And on that subject you give very good, well-founded arguments, cause everybody has the right to be happy, to love and to be loved. every living creature. Why deprive people of love? Love is what matters, love is what everybody seeks in their lives, love is what gives sense to one`s life. Why be cruel?

Quoted from Joost

'The Land of the Free'? Yeah, you're free to be christian, patriotic and heterosexual...

Come on now. You know better than that. Change takes time you know and at least it's up for discussion. Not so in a lot of places. Look back at history and put things in perspective. A lot of change has taken place in a relatively short time. No one seems to remember this. It's always doom and gloom. Try going with the glass half full attitude sometimes.

Quoted from Joost

It just doesn't make any sense to me that a country that pounds itself on the chest for being 'The Land of the Free' is still so uptight about letting people do something that they want to do and that doesn't harm anyone in any way. Freedom of speech is nice, but isn't freedom of lifestyle even more important (as actions speak louder than words)? Homophobia is usually religiously motivated (either that, or just plain macho chauvinism, I can't really think of another reason to be homophobic) and didn't America have a separation of church and state?

Of course I'm glad I live in a country where I have freedom of speech. But I'm also very glad that I live in a country where mutual love in any form is accepted. Where any relationship between two mature people, be it a man and a woman or two men or two women, is acknowledged on the same level. Where homosexuals aren't insulted by some law that says that their relationships aren't as 'real' as a heterosexual relationship. Love is love.

I agree.  

Hey, why do we have to have marriage in the fist place. It's an archaic ritual. Yes, there's legal stuff to be considered, but everyone has a right to that. Anyway, it's an outdated social convention. You can LOVE a person and be COMMITTED to a person without having a piece of paper to prove it. Again, financial things are different and of course should be taken care of anyway. There are ways to do this.

And to have government approval is great and all, but really, if your family and friends acknowledge your life style and who you choose to love, then that's what's most important. My government could kiss my a** otherwise. They're wrong about so much anyway that I don't put a whole lot of stock in what they choose to accept and not to accept. People have the freedom to live as they choose anyway. Legalities are never going to be perfect. We are moving forward though and that's what's important.

But yes, I understand that it's a right people want. Must be married. Must be like everyone else.

I know I'm not expressing this correctly, but oh well.

Quoted from Joost

I didn't say that Tkitna isn't allowed to have his opinion, but he posted a statement and since this is a discussion forum I responded to that.

It just doesn't make any sense to me that a country that pounds itself on the chest for being 'The Land of the Free' is still so uptight about letting people do something that they want to do and that doesn't harm anyone in any way. Freedom of speech is nice, but isn't freedom of lifestyle even more important (as actions speak louder than words)? Homophobia is usually religiously motivated (either that, or just plain macho chauvinism, I can't really think of another reason to be homophobic) and didn't America have a separation of church and state?

.

There's SO much more to human nature than this as to what makes a person feel comfortable or uncomfortable. You can't fully understand a human being from one statement or one feeling. And to expect people to only feel the way you feel they should feel or think the way you think they should think on such matters is just as intolerant an attitude to take on as the one you're taking issue with.

Not to say that this is what you're implying. I'm just saying that if you live with other human beings, then you have to accept that people will have different ways of looking at things. This does not always mean they are bad or ignorant or phobic. You really don't know unless you take the time to know them. And if you find out that they think certain things or feel certain ways for reasons you don't agree with, you then have the choice to not associate with them. But at least there would be discussion and some sort of attempt to understand the individual based on more than a couple of statements.  

Oh I wasn't coming down on anyone! I am happy that everyone is sharing their thoughts even if I do not agree with them. I just meant that we should all be happy that we can think for ourselves and not have to worry about getting in trouble for it.  

And as time goes one, things change and people change.  I think sometimes people get set in their ways (the way it was when they were young, what was acceptable then and what was not) and so that's why it takes time for things to change because some people are really against change.  Now that the younger generation can vote and homosexuality has been more open during their lifetime,  they are more willing to be for it rather than against it like the older generation who, when they were younger, it was not as accepted.