California and Massachusetts are totally getting gay married
Posted on May 15th, 2008 at 6:32 pm by Contributor ArchiveEarlier today, the California Supreme Court struck down California’s ban on same-sex marriage, a ban that had existed since a voter referendum in 2000.
Why does this matter, especially for non-homosexuals who live in non-California? As San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom pointed out, “It’s a throwaway line, but I think it’s true: As California goes, so goes the nation.”
As California goes, so goes the nation.
IT’S TIME FOR A GAY MARRIAGE POP QUIZ!
QUESTION ONE:
Will gay marriage play a roll in the 2008 presidential elections, the same way it did in 2004?
QUESTION TWO:
How will the presidential candidates respond to the California Supreme Court’s decision?
BONUS QUESTION:
If the nation follows California, and the presidential candidates follow the nation, and the media follows the presidential candidates, and political bloggers follow the media, and California allows gay-marriage, and Elton John is gay-married, then which of the following statements are true:
a.) All political bloggers are actually Elton John.
b.) Dennis Kucinich’s wife is still way too hot for him.
22 Comments
Leave a comment
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Question 1: NO, “its the Economy, Stupid” Gay Marriage does not help put food on the table, or giving people better wages
Question 2: States Rights, but the Court should not dictate the laws
Bonus: B
Reply to Bonus Question.
Huckabee’s wife would be “too hot” for Kucinich.
I don’t care what gays do. They can bu_______ themselves to death, I don’t care… Just don’t let my insurance premiums reflect their aids-prone lifestyle. I do not want to pay extra for their pleasures.
Yes, it is an political issue if I have to pay extra. If it is just about gays trying to convince us and themselves that they are “normal”, please spare me.
Whodat don’t care what you do until it costs ME!
Whodat is pissed. Whodat found isuue dat make Whodat get mad.
I am proud dat Whodat in Texas is a fellow Texan.
Whodat make me laugh!
I’m honored and humbled at your words, sir.
That makes 2 Margaritas at Los Cucos I owe you.
Hook ‘Em Horns,
Whodat
A bit offensive Whodat.
Everyone knows AIDS is for killing blacks, not gays. Where did you get that? A little research, please.
Q1: McCain will definitely try to make it that kind of issue. If so, Obama will try to call him out.
Q2: Hillary and Obama *might* stay silent, McCain uses it to drum up support among the conservatives.
Bonus Q: B. No contest.
I don’t know how McCain can make it a big deal since he is suppose to believe marriage is a state issue.
‘So goes the nation’ is right: Down the tubes. Sad day indeed.
The priority of California may ring true, but why? Is it because it is so influential? Or is it that Cal. cracks under liberal pressure first?
Of course gay marriage is and will be an issue. But the better issue for the candidates to focus on is the court’s decision to throw out a decision made by the will and consent of the governed in an actual voter referendum. Now that should make people care - no matter what their views on marriage, economy or health care.
Thank you Eric for mentioning the REAL issue in all of this, the fact that the PEOPLE voted this into law. If I remember correctly, Governments are instituted among men to do the will of the people, not the will of the courts and the activist judges that sit on them, and it’s the people that loan the governement their power not the other way around.
Religious Marriage is between a man and a woman. Government Marriage is just a contract between two people. If people want to get hooked up to a contract where the other person gets half when they leave like the rest of us.. fine.
If the church wants to restrict services to just male/female marriage.. fine.
What’s the big deal?
The big deal is, and I write this humbly, not angrily or spitefully…
Religious people like myself believe that the traditional family is integral to the success of society and America. I know there are a lot of rantings and misunderstandings on all sides, but my beliefs about family are more foundational than my beliefs about almost everything else.
So when asked by the gov’t what our thoughts are, NO CITIZEN should be expected to set aside his true beliefs for a secularized version (which is to say: pretend you are an atheist). I don’t want to control what everyone else does or doesn’t do, but there are some foundational things that I think should be protected. Traditional marriage/family is one. All human life is another. And yes, it is hypocritical for religious people to try to get the gov’t to do the church’s job. But that’s not my approach. I just think that we should let the will of the people be upheld and not ignore it or strike it down just because the people are not pretending to be atheists.
You may disagree, fine. But I hope that answers, in part, what “the big deal” is.
Oh, and before anyone starts warming up the First Amendment machine…
I believe the First Amendment - first for a reason - and for that matter, the rest of the Bill of Rights, protects people, churches, groups and States from the Fed. gov’t, and not the other way around.
Eric,
you can’t legislate morality. And regarding one’s true beliefs: What if one’s true beliefs dictates you can pray to the Virgin Mary and another’s dictates you can’t? Where does the line get drawn, and who decides? This country was founded on Freedom. Telling a man he can’t devote his life to another man is like them telling me I can’t have a nativity scene in my front yard. I do believe homosexuality is a sin, HOWEVER, I think I’ll remove the plank from my own eye before I attempt to remove the speck from there eye. Porn is a sin, not resting on the sabath is a sin, I could go on and on until I find one that you participate in. Sin is sin in God’s eyes, and we ALL do it.
I guess I’m saying I would rather love the gays than judge them. WWJD?
Wayne,
Thanks for interacting, but I’m not sure your argument is with me. I was trying to avoid words like morality and sin because I didn’t want this reaction. Anyway…
I actually was writing out a much longer reply, but just deleted most of it because I didn’t want to argue.
I’m NOT trying to force everyone to believe like me, or act like me, or go to my church. But I also cannot leave my beliefs at the door (judges are supposed to do that, not voters). For various reasons, recognition of marriage is a state matter (taxes, benefits, children, etc.) and will continue to be. I hope you don’t interpret the fact that I think it’s OK for people to give their opinions (especially when asked) as proud, hateful, or judgmental. I don’t think my words qualify as “legislating morality” or sinless pride.
“WWJD?”- He would bear the penalty for ALL our sin and tell us to live right lives. Right, he already did that.
We MUST legislate morality - what else is there to make laws about? If murder, rape, arson, fraud, etc. aren’t wrong, why are there laws against them? I see “you can’t legislate morality” as either a dodge to avoid debating difficult moral questions or a smokescreen to enable passage of corrupt law.
There are laws against the crimes you mentioned because they deny the rights of others, not because they are moral issues. The government is required to protect the rights of the individual not to legislate morality. The founders argued that the population should be moral or they would eventually give away their rights. You will not find a single argument from them for legislating morality.
There is no right to be married (straight or gay) in the Constitution. Rather, you have the right to contract with anyone you want (Article I, Section 10) including a marriage contract. The government should stay out of marriage altogether and should neither deny nor recognize “marriage” as a special status. If it did that, the argument would have been over a long time ago and we could get on with our lives straight or gay/bi/transgendered/transpecied or what-have-you.
And my point is your beliefs are just that, yours. I can see and must approve of your religions right to set it’s own rules about marriage. The religious marriage is and should be held in higher regard then the civil marriage.
I hope you agree that the civil marriage is simply a business contract.
Troy,
Seems simple enough to me;
A business contract, not a moral commitment.
Only thing that jams this up is
The children.
I am open-minded enough to support
Gays having a business contract,
And owning a house together…
And, getting some marriage “benefits”…
But, when the next step is kids
Lying in their little beds,
Listen to the spankin’ and the crankin’
In the room next door… Hmmm. That ain’t right!
Whodat not ready for role models in drag!
Whodat,you bring up a good point, but the question then becomes, when do we stop? Do we make it illegal for parents to drink because alcohol can ruin families? Do we pass legislation requiring families to go to church at least once a week? Do we ban adults with children from renting R rated movies or watching questionable television programs because they may be unscrupulous and watch them when their children are present?
Now, of course if there is outright child abuse in a home then the government must step in to protect the rights of the child. However, being gay doesn’t mean you’ll subject you children to abuse. Personally, I think homosexuality is a sin, but almost everyone has some aspect of their life that is sinful, and the government should NOT be attempting to protect children from their parents simply because the parents’ views are contrary to the majority of people.