same-sex marriage…

Howdy,

Lots of folks have the gay rights and gay marriage issue confused. Most little kids will tell you that you can only get married to a memeber of the opposite sex. The reeducation on a definition of marriage will be immense. Folks won’t buy it either. It”ll look like that book 1984. Well, it already does. I’ve seen about fifteen stories on the gay marriage debacle in California today. None sound like this:

California Prepares for Supreme Disgrace

AP – California’s citizens express outrage at their humiliation in front of the nation by its own supreme court. By a 5-4 threadbare majority California’s Supreme Court has disgraced its citizens by overturning proposition 22, a ballot amendment that passed with a twenty point majority. Moreover, the state has ruled not to stay the enactment of benchmark use of jurisprudence to inject its own political views on the citizens whose rights it is sworn to uphold. Starting tomorrow, with the first so called “gay marriages,” California will follow Massachusetts in pronouncing a governmental travesty of a magnitude not seen since Caligula’s horse was named consul of Rome.

More shocking, starting tomorrow, every state in the union will be imperiled by this rogue court. Marriage licenses will be issued from California for any couple from every other state in the union. Not only did California’s five “justices” dare overturn the will of its own populace, it has purposely sought to wreak havoc on its brother and sister states. Finally, you can rest assured that no matter what California’s citizens say in November the 9th circuit federal court will overrule them. Before the new year is out this will be before the same supreme court of these United States that just granted illegal immigrants and terrorists additional rights.

… What’s happened to my country?

I believe that rights that are given by the state, such as inheritance, should be given to these couples, however I am set against the term ‘marriage’. Blame my religious upbringing.

From a purely genetic standpoint, it is possible to state that union of any type should be disallowed, since there is no natural way for progeny ot occur. I am also surprised that no states use this form of definition

I am torn on many things, but my basic desire to ‘live and let live’ usually wins out.

Paul -
Well worded. But by that logic, if the populace voted slavery in, there would be slaves in CA. Isn’t the court there to uphold the law, as opposed to the will?

That’s called tyranny by the masses, at least from where I stand (ok, sit).

Thanks for the comment.
Please stop by again.

Oracle –

I like the way you dance around your upbringing. If nothing else, it’s honest.

I don’t believe the states can use genetics as a definition. Wouldn’t that also invalidate infertile couples?

Fortunately we get a pretty good caliber of reader here; no one has said anything patently stupid, like gays being married `violates the sanctity of marriage.’

If *any* group violates the sanctity of marriage, one needs to take a good look at the marriage, not the other group.

Thanks,
-leftystrat