I agree strongly, Ethan. However, the California State Supreme Court was ruling primarily on the constitutionality of the ban vis a vis the California constitution. I don’t believe anyone was making an argument relative to the US Constitution in this particular case. There may be a Federal case to make against the proposition; as far as I know the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the matter (for example is DOMA constitutional? That hasn’t been decided by the Supreme Court yet).
Thankfully Proposition 8 passed by a narrow margin. After Iowa legalized same sex marriage it seems to me California voters might be embarrassed to be behind Iowa… I suspect in the near future this ban will be overturned.

As far as I’m concerned, the judges just struck down the California constitution’s equal protection clause.
I am starting my own boycott or California goods and services.

I followed a live feed of the CA Supreme Court hearing on Prop 8 2 months ago. the lead counsel for the anti-prop8 side was strangely unable to convey this, or any, point. Like he wasn’t convinced himself of his arguments. So today’s ruling doesn’t surprise me. It seems bad choices of a poorly organized anti H8 campaign has led to the continued life of what should be a non-issue. It’s still disappointing, though.

@Mitsu, yes of course this is a California case. And it seemed they didn’t want to overturn the will of the people (even if the Mormon church did a great job manipulating that will). But it has to be overturned constitutionally. Of course, by my argument, we would also have to remove “In God We Trust” from courtrooms and currency, and that’s probably not going to happen soon. Freedom of Religion is possibly the least enforced aspect of our constitution.

Buddhism offers a very interesting set of tools for overcoming the habits and cultural conditioning that lead a person to believe that their morals and values must be imposed on others in order for their lives to have meaning and foundation. As Ethan and tjr point out, the California court today affirmed unequal protection under the law. Regardless of whether they are ruling on consitutionality or ballot issues, they missed an opportunity to be responsible to a foundational principle of American (and Californian) democracy. Maybe we should send them each a copy of the Buddhist introduction of Ethan’s choice, to help them achieve clarity about reality. No matter. It comes soon.

@minimofo: Great to have you back!
Although, unfortunately, Buddhist (cultural) history and Buddhist philosophy might be at odds with each other over gay marriage. I believe philosophically it’s a no-brainer, as you say, but I believe some “Buddhist” cultures have been fairly homophobic like ours

==As far as I’m concerned, the judges just struck down the California constitution’s equal protection clause.==
Except that they didn’t.
However, you’re free to insert your own “reality” into their decision, just as those who chose, then claim, to be homosexual changed their “reality.”
==I am starting my own boycott or California goods and services.==
So what?

==…it seemed they didn’t want to overturn the will of the people (even if the Mormon church did a great job manipulating that will).==
Those who claim to be homosexual, their supporters and activists had the same chance to “manipulate” opinions as anybody else. They failed. Move on.
== But it has to be overturned constitutionally.==
Won’t happen.
== Of course, by my argument, we would also have to remove “In God We Trust” from courtrooms and currency, and that’s probably not going to happen soon.==
That’s correct.

“If, on the other hand, marriage is religious, then the state cannot legally marry anybody (Hey, Church get the hell away from State! I thought I told you you couldn’t play together). All the state can offer are civil unions to all couples, and marriage is what you do with your minister, rabbi, Imam, priest or preceptor, not with City Hall.”
I couldn’t agree more. Marriage is a religious ceremony. The government has no business in it whatsoever. You also shouldn’t get any tax benefit for it or for having children. How many kids you have is your own damned business and you shouldn’t get a tax credit for it.

The state already does deny rights to certain couples. Close relatives and under age couples. Also to polymorous relationships. Of course, there are compelling reasons for these prohibitions that have already been dealt with. And the #’s of these relationships are miniscule compared to millions of gays.

==The state already does deny rights to certain couples.==
The Bakke SCOTUS decision [1978] says the groups — including, presumably, couples — have no Rights, that only individual persons do.

These people are only delaying the inevitable. Gay marriage will be legal nation wide within the next 10 years. Mr. (Not so) Incredible, I hope you aren’t that much of a idiot to think this is over. The old guard is dying out.

==These people are only delaying the inevitable.==
You are compelled to think that.
== Gay marriage will be legal nation wide within the next 10 years. ==
It already IS legal:
A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who is heterosexual, or claims to be homosexual.
A woman who claims to be homosexual may marry a man who is heterosexual, or claims to be homosexual.
No one may same-sex marry.
==I hope you aren’t that much of a idiot to think this is over.==
However, you people gotta live with it for now.
== The old guard is dying out.==
The last two elections on this say that intelligent sense has prevailed.

==The state already does deny rights to certain couples.==
Yes, if I love the opposite sex spouse of another person, I may not marry that person; if I love an opposite sex person and that person doesn’t love me and wants not to marry me, I may not marry that person.

Honestly, now, do you
really, truly believe
that we that have at once
tasted the fruits from the table
of universal equality will once
again settle upon the floor and wait for
table scraps from the patronizing hands
of those who sit in their plush dinner chairs?
Honestly? Really?
Really, now, do you
truly, honestly think that we -
the ones who are your poets,
your writers,
your speakers,
your holders of the mirror of society -
will allow you to fog that glass
with your breath of self-congratulatory contempt?
Really? Truly?
Truly, you are mistaken.
Really, the truth of this
matter is much more than a simple word.
Though it is a word that we seek,
it is also a
word that we wish to merely
impart upon you.
Love… Love…
like that command found by John.
Love… Love…
as expressable and ineffable
as a finger pointing towards the moon.
That word is like light to darkness,
you know,
honestly, really, truly.
When it comes down to it,
you have no choice but to concede that,
just as those who have come before us,
we, too, will tread
upon that path to universal equality,
just as light pierces through the blackest black of night without stars.
Honestly? Really? Truly.
The darkness of Hate has no
choice but to cower in the presence
of the Light of Love.
Darkness can only abide where Light is not.
Hatred can only abide where Love is not.
Ours is the side of Love.
Ours is the side of Light.
Honestly. Really. Truly.
Like Light,
we will not stop shining simply because
the Darkness desires us to. The Darkness
can sit and wail,
“Oh stop, stop,
our darkness cannot abide within your Light.
Therefore you must stop shining so bright
so that we, too can abide.”
Honestly. Really. Truly?
This is false.
Because you see, you are not Darkness.
You are Light.
We are not here to destroy your Darkness, because your
Darkness is merely the absence of your Light.
We are merely here to make you realize that you, too,
are Light.
Honestly. Really. Truly.
All you must do is open your eyes,
and you will always see that you, too,
are Light.
Honestly.
Really.
Truly.

Thanks for these comments. I think gay marriage will be federally legal in ten years. As the leader of the Iowa State Senate famously said after that state legalized it, nobody (or very few people) in the younger generation cares. It is inevitable.
For me, Keith Olbermann (who I often find disturbingly melodramatic) said it best (paraphrasing): In a world where true love and happiness are so rare, why would we ever want to stand in the way of people following their chance to have them? What is it to us?
To me, as a straight person, it’s a matter of seeing justice for my many gay friends, and seeing their love fulfilled.

I think you all have the concept of separation of church and state wrong. The separation is still there. That rule was made in light of the religious battle(s) going on between Catholicism and Protestant views… where people were being murdered by the hundreds (Bloody Mary ring a bell?) to support whatever religious beliefs that the current head (Queen/King) held.
@Jules… what “H8 campaign”? Who does more hating? Some people are so fixated on how badly “wronged” they are, they fail to see that their actions are just as bad, if not worse in many cases, than those they accuse… be introspective, and look at your own hate before accusing others.
@Mitsu… is there something wrong with people from Iowa? Are Californians better, or somehow more “enlightened” or “informed”? Why would California be “embarrassed”?
@Ethan… thank you… you have managed to prove everything I just said… let me quote your prejudiced and hate…
“And it seemed they didn’t want to overturn the will of the people (even if the Mormon church did a great job manipulating that will). But it has to be overturned constitutionally. Of course, by my argument, we would also have to remove “In God We Trust” from courtrooms and currency, and that’s probably not going to happen soon. Freedom of Religion is possibly the least enforced aspect of our constitution.”
Hating against Mormons? Stereotyping them? “In God We Trust” has been used, because of that freedom of religion. When you think of what I said above, Freedom of Religion is probably the MOST enforced aspect. There are still those that hate others because of their views, but everyone gets to practice whatever form of religion they want, as long as it is not destructive to another’s right to life.
If all of you want to get down and dirty, you are trying to impose your own form of religion by trying to force the communities to recognize same-sex marriages. Is there a reason why you can’t have your views, and another their own? It just happens that in this case, the majority do not share your views… at least the majority of those that voted.
#minimofo
“Maybe we should send them each a copy of the Buddhist introduction of Ethan’s choice, to help them achieve clarity about reality. No matter. It comes soon.”
Really? Force people into Buddhism to get your way?… oh I’m sorry to “help them achieve clarity about reality”. Let me fix that statement for you: “to help them achieve clarity about MY reality”.
Maybe you should use those tools you speak of, because that statement is eerily like “…their morals and values must be imposed on others in order for their lives to have meaning and foundation.”
All I’m trying to say is that all of you are pointing fingers, making accusations, but fail to see you are just as guilty. A gay individual has the exact same rights that a heterosexual has (individually.) Why are gays so concerned about marriages? You can legally change your name to anything you want, you can live together, and most employers now offer “life partner” insurance benefits.

Etahn… you don’t need a marriage license in order to love someone, or have their love fullfilled.

I have no problems with gay marriage. I do not believe in homosexuality but that does not mean they do not have the right to marriage and life in general. The comments I see regarding love and expression of same as a hinderance to couples expression of same for one another is not valid. The issue is that these couples are not given the tax incentives and health benefits as conventional families. The issue is money money money. The breaks that are given to opposite sex couples should not be withheld from those that are the same sex. Again I do not agree with their life style. Of cousre I am pro gun and pro choice too:)

Stan, Why do same gender couples want the right to marry? Obviously, you have not had your life partner die and be denied access to them because you are not their “wife/husband”. Or perhaps it is because you have not worked with your partner for twenty years creating a home and being denied you inheritance rights when you partner dies, because you were not married. Why do same gender couples want to marry? Think rationally for a moment.

I personally find it very disturbing that a mob can overturn what has been determined to be unconstitutional. I am not very suprised this happened in California, for there are many dogmatic zealots living in the state. I know because I unfortuantely live here. Thank goodness I have raised my children to be open, loving and giving unlike most of their classmates. When I asked my 12 year old son what he thought of the issue, and he too thinks it is an outrage while most of his friends do not.

@Stan, I was not in any way dissing Mormons, but it is on the record that the Mormon church launched a multi-million $ campaign to run deceptive ads linking Obama with a pro-Prop 8 stance. How else can you explain how Obama got 63% of the California Vote yet Prop 8 still passed? Obama was on record as being anti-prop 8, but ads linked him to it.
Also, how is “In God We Trust” protecting separation of church and state? Are you serious? that one just doesn’t make sense. Nice to have you on our blog regardless. Hope you keep commenting.

@ Dean
=== How many kids you have is your own damned business ====
I heartily disagree. The amount of children that a family has is directly related to how many adult humans in the future will need to be fed, clothed, transported, cared for when sick, schooled, jailed, and taxed. I don’t think our government currently possesses the gracious tone necessary to enforce something as sensitive as population control skillfully, but as an individual I can stand up and say that it is directly my business how many children my neighbor is having and that our current projections for population growth look to an unsustainable future (Since births outnumber deaths, the world’s population is expected to reach about 9 billion by the year 2040). I don’t have a solution to this problem, but if Gay couples were allowed to marry and adopt children, I think it might help take some of the burdens off the state in terms of education, foster care, medical care and ultimately less taxes for you.

The status of marriage is mixed. (despite the articles author state-ments) And it is precisely the mixture of secular and religious
marriage that creates an issue of gay or with any type marriage
under the law.
If secular marriage were separated from religious marriage, wherein
secular marriage would be legal for everyone and to be performed only by public officials and say religious marriage could be performed only by any ordained minister and registered subsequently with no prior licence required(which is legal today )then an
admendment to the state of California’s constitution would easily
pass if it drew this distingsion, separated proceedures, and also
provided the continuation of the right for religious congregations
to marry only those that they deemed fit.
This matter becomes a human civil rights vs human religious rights
issue as long as both sides insist that there is only one type of marriage that must include both or prohibit some.
paul

I want to respond to No Name in the previous comment about homosexuality. He or she makes some very good points and I agree wholeheartedly with most of them. However, it struck me when he or she said, “I do not believe in homosexuality”. I am assuming that this person meant this in the moral sense ( I don’t believe it is ok.)
However the way it was stated kind of amused me. Saying that you don’t believe in homosexuality is like saying I don’t believe in trees, maybe because they drop leaves in your yard and you think you have to rake them up or some such thing. Homosexuality has been around since forever and will continue to be so – it is in the human and animal species and is just one more normal and natural expression of the various ways the human condition manifests itself. It really is wonderful that we have such diversity if you really think about it.
Now I realize that someone is going to get into the “slippery slope” idea that if we allow this thing, then these awful things are going to happen. But each “thing” has to be taken on its own merits. Homosexuality has nothing to do with anything else except homosexuality anymore than heterosexuality has anything to do with anything accept heterosexuality. The whole world is not going to go to hell in a handbasket because some people are oriented toward passion and love for the same sex. By the way, for those of you who think otherwise, most of the pedophiles and rapists are heterosexual men. Also years ago there was an article in Psychology Today that cited a study showing that many homosexual women were more mentally healthy than many heterosexual women, the reason being that the homosexual women had to go through so much self-searching, introspection, and personal growth to be able to know themselves and accept themselves and live openly in a society that is far too full of moral judgement, and petty bigotry.For those who think I am touting the homosexual lifestyle, I happen to be heterosexual, which is not to say that it wouldn’t be possible for me to really love another woman. I have only loved two men in my life, that way, so, just because I am heterosexual doesn’t mean that I am wildly desirous of men. I am capable of love and that is all that really matters in this world.
Peace and love and many blessings to all of you, Mary A.

Ethan, thanks for bringing up this issue here.
I have no problems with Mormons. Most of the Mormons I’ve met have been very sweet people. But I have as much of a problem with the Mormon Church elders raising money to break up my marriage, and bussing teams of volunteers into California from Utah to change the constitution of my state, as I would with a bunch of Orthodox Jewish rabbis from Brooklyn coming here to ban the consumption of pork or make circumcision compulsory by law. Fighting that kind of overreaching is precisely what equal protection under the law is for.
Just as some people here “don’t believe in homosexuality,” or insist that it’s a “lifestyle choice,” many whites didn’t believe that black people were fully human. That’s why slavery and lynchings flourished. That’s why civil rights laws were established. You can believe any idea you want and say that you heard it from a burning bush or read it off a golden tablet found in the desert for all I care. But don’t try to turn your beliefs into the laws of my state. That’s what the Mormon Church successfully did in California with Prop. 8, and if you look back at church documents from ten years ago, it’s clear that they did it to put the church in better standing with other Christian groups. I understand their ambition. Where their ambition crosses the line into promoting discrimination is where they must be stopped, by every peaceful means necessary.
Prop. 8 is pure, unadulterated discrimination — as plain and simple as the laws that deprived women of the vote and black people the right to be counted as fully human. Most of us look back at those laws as regrettable, even deeply tragic, chapters of American history. The Mormon church — assisted by the right wing and the GOP — has authored a new regrettable and tragic chapter in American history. I will do everything I can to bring that chapter to a happy ending.

The whole conversation is a non-issue, and the government had no intention of creating new laws in order to make a two-word addition into the Federal Licence Registration Act after totally rewriting the Federal Mental Health Act (whish still regards male and female Homosexuals as severly mentally Ill).
What we went through was a “Closed Referendum” (which is asking the people’s opinion within each State and presenting it in court) before making the decision to proceed further. An overwhelming amount of people said “no” to same-sex marriage.
Federal law overrides State laws. After all, this is the UNITED States, not a Commonwealth of Independant States (where each state is a mini country all of it’s own). It is the Battle of Independance that bought all the states together as one country. And the country has spoken. America is a democracy which means that what the majority agree on is the consensus.

By the way, the notion that anyone is going to “force” churches to marry same-sex couples — when there are plenty of churches and temples that are happy and eager to do it — is not only absurd, it’s misleading. I’ve never heard of anyone “forcing” an Orthodox rabbi to perform an interfaith marriage. Marriages are celebrations of love and commitment, remember? The thought of a loving couple trying to force a homophobic minister to perform a wedding ceremony is about as likely as a black couple seeking out a preacher who’s a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
“Forcing” the state, on the other hand, to recognize the equal human status of gay people is the American way. Suggesting that demanding marriage equality is an infringement on religious freedom is like claiming that Tibetan monks infringed upon the rights of Chinese communists to not be Buddhists by meditating.

Mike, please provide a citation for the “Federal Mental Health Act.” Thank you.
America is indeed a democracy, and one founded with full awareness of the dangers of “the tyranny of the majority,” as James Madison described it in Federalist Paper #10. Equal protection laws were created to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
Prop. 8, on the other hand, was designed to undermine equal protection laws. The CA Supreme Court was well aware of that, and worded its decision very carefully to minimize the damaging effects of the law. See http://bit.ly/w0T0b

Stan: you DO realize of course, that “In God We Trust” was and is NOT our national motto? Our PROPER national motto is and has been since the time of Washington and Jefferson E Pluribus Unum. In god we trust was added to our currency during the height of the McCarthy era. It was ASSumed that being godless heretics, Communists could not touch our money if it had those silly words on it. Since all of our Founding Fathers, while faithful, were NON-accepting of religious fanaticism (remember, they were close enough to the exodus from Europe to remember WHY so many people had come here) they apparently seemed to feel that “Out of Many, One” was a more fitting national motto.

It is also an outrage that President Obama has remained silent on this decision, AND that bigots campaigning against marriage equality use Obama’s own words (“marriage is between a man and a woman) to support their cause.
Shameful all around.

Why shouldn’t they use his words? He said them on multiple occasions. He shouldn’t have said them. As the kid of a marriage that was itself illegal in 16 states until Obama was 6 years old — interracial — I’d hope he’d be more sensitive to the issue. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t.
But if he is, he may be being strategic about ensuring that this change comes from the states rather than DC. I’m not sure.

The only reason I said California ought to be embarrassed by Iowa is that Iowa is supposed to be a rural farm state, and California is supposed to be a national leader, so for California to be beat by Iowa is embarrassing. Nothing against Iowa, though, I like Iowa a lot. Just making a bit of a joke.
The thing to understand is that Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment, so it essentially amends the California equal protection clause, which is why the court upheld it despite its violation of the equal protection clause. What’s stupid is that California allows a simple majority vote to amend the Constitution. That is one of the most boneheaded ideas ever.
However, because of that, another ballot fight ought to be able to overturn it. It’s just a matter of time before justice will prevail.

Mitsu: “What’s stupid is that California allows a simple majority vote to amend the Constitution.”
YES! It’s a recipe for mob rule. And that’s not what any American wants to live with. Representative democracy is a lot different from simple majority rule.

Wow, I am seeing a lot of forward thinking, intelligent people here. I can’t place a lot of blame on Obama, or on the religious opposition to homosexuality. We are all allowed our opinions, whether they be good ones or not. But, as the above author said, decisions need to be either secular or religious and the government either needs to step out of it or get rid of religious pressure to make changes like this.

Substitute sex for race in the US Supreme Court case, and Prop 8 is clearly unconstitutional. Why is it fair for a gay couple in one state where gay marriage is legal to file federal income tax returns jointly and in a state where it is illegal, they have to file as singles? This is a civil rights issue, not a religious issue and it should be addressed.
14th amendment – Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Loving v. Virginia (1967) – Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Thanks JLH. Opponents of gay marriage have NO legal footing at all. And the H8! Stop it please!

The differences between Marriage and Domestic Partnership in the Golden State are 1007 laws.
In other words, Marriage has 1007 more laws that are not given to Domestic Partnerships.
It is a civil rights issue to the extent that it is a fundamental question about equality.
In most states, we have two sets of rules: One set of citizens is entitled to marry the Adult of their choice, and the other set is not entitled to do so. That is a state-recognized, state enforced, clear, and unambiguous kind of inequality. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that calling gay marriage a civil rights issue is provocative to some people whom bristle at what they take as a comparison between the gay rights struggle and the traditional civil rights struggle for African Americans. Of course, those two things are not identical. Of course, they have different social histories and play themselves out differently. However, I think there is a commonality whenever the government is saying there are different sets of rules for different groups of people; that are what makes it a civil rights issue.
Queers are a traditionally disadvantaged group of citizens who are treated differently. One needs only to read the Bay Areas Craigslist Rants and Raves to self validate. By the way, Prop 8 passed because it is a generational/ religious thing not a Black thing.
Sidebar- In God we trust- was added to US currency in the 1940s because of Senator McCarthy’s Red witch-hunt.

When will people realize that our religions, gods, and sacred scriptures were all created by our human imagination. Our myths, ethics, and moralities were created by us, not some fictional SkyDaddy. It is time we become fully personally responsible for how we treat our fellow human beings and stop being brain dead obedient sheep. Like it or not, we are in the Post-Christian age. I like it! Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed the death of Christianity back in the 19th Century. Stop the religious persecution of gay human beings!

Can anyone say Commerce Clause of the US Constitution? Same basis used to overturn state laws that forbade marriage between races. Plain and simple.

Like it or not…Prop 8 was decided by the voters to define marriage as between one man and one woman. End of story…you may not agree with it, but it’s a democracy. Before you begin with the discrimination..it’s unconstitutional tirades…under our system the supreme court is the final arbitrator of what is legal or not. Deal with it and move on! Or should I say move out…if you are gay and you gotta be married….go to a state that allows it. It’s just that simple.

Voters do not always represent the good of mankind, but rather it’s popular opinion. If we left it up to the voters, all minorities would still be oppressed. Think back to the Women’s Movement and Civil Rights. Proposition 8 is one of the last legally and morally acceptable expressions of prejudice, and it needs to be overturned. I am disappointed in our judicial system’s response not to grant equal rights for sexual minorities!

If you love somebody create your own meaningful ritual and marry before Spirit. Stay away from all this political, legalistic fray and all the problems of this world. Live your life as simply as possible without unnecessary complications. The world and the courts and people and politicians generate nothing but human misery. In a way, they may have a point at wanting to draw the line someplace. Living in this physical level we are forced sometimes to take action and anything you do will be imperfect in the end because the world is imperfect. Their point may be valid in that some parameters need to be drawn. What if someone (a pedophile) wants to marry an underage person? What if I want to marry my dog, or cat or horse. What if I want to marry a dead person? Should I be discriminated against? What if I want to marry more than one person at the same time? It would save me a lot of money if I could marry my 8 dogs and claim them as dependents and deduct their veterinary expenses. Gay marriage is only going to bring about gay divorce and a the only ones benefiting from all this will be lawyers. I wish my gay friends, who as a whole seem to have more common sense than my hetero friends would just be at peace and see the gift that they have been given to recognize that the bonds of love are greater than any legalities or political papers. They are blessed.

Wonderful, my partner has just been compared to a dog. Get a clue, that is SO OFFENSIVE. I find it hard to believe you have gay friends after writing such insults. I agree, happiness is in our hearts, not the court, but at least have valid arguments if you are going to uphold their hateful views.

I have a question – should the government really be in the business of deciding that only two people can get married, and not three? Why?

i think the court was correct in what they did as the people have twice voted to not alow gay marrige . i do beleve they have the same writes as everyone . but call it anythng other than marrige. as that term comes from the bible as a union between a man and a woman .i want anyone to show me that the bible says two guys or girls can be married. also the court did its job. it is not there job to change what the will of the people have said.

MarriageNewsNow Weekend Debate: What are the best arguments for traditional marriage? http://tinyurl.com/laqcsj

MarriageNewsNow Weekend Debate!
“What are the best arguments for traditional marriage”?
http://tinyurl.com/laqcsj

MarriageNewsNow dot com has a good list of reasons traditional marriage law must be maintained and even strengthened. It’s featured on the front page right now, I think

Marriage is secular, and the State can extend benefits to some but not others. After all, all laws do this. That is, all laws are written for some majority situation and exclude certain people or groups of people for practical reasons, as is the case with marriage law.
In this case, marriage law exists among heterosexuals because nature saddled heterosexuals with the creation and long-term care and education of the citizenry. The law of marriage arises from that biological & national reality, and the state has an interest in protecting the machinery from which it is produced and developed.
Finally, one’s sexual preferences are more like one’s food or TV preferences than like being black or female. It’s plainly not a civil rights issue.

in may of 2008 the CA supreme court struck down the ban on Gay marriage.
“The California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, “does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”
In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that “responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.”
“We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples,” Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.”
source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/
so it does seem like a bit of a betrayal that the courts would change take away the rights of “certain People” just because a majority wishes to discriminate based on fear, ignorance and plain old hatred.

Sofia,
How is my being gay equivalent to my choice of food or a TV show?? And, please, a little more thought-out of an answer other than, “Well, they’re all choices!!” Being gay is not a choice. It is biologically, chemically, and physiologically-based. Just as you are hardwired to be attracted to men, I am hardwired to be attracted to women. It is no more correct to say I “choose” to be with a woman over being with a man, than it would be to say you “choose” to be with a man rather than a woman. You don’t choose to be with men rather than women, as you are not attracted to women, so there is no choice. The same holds true for me.

==Being gay…==
You SAY you are homosexual. We don’t know THAT you are other than your saying it.
==… is not a choice.==
You chose to say that you are homosexual cuz you have chosen the homosexual, alternative-lifestyle orientation option for you.
== It is biologically, chemically, and physiologically-based. ==
There is no objective, scientific, uncorrupted evidence to show that.

==Being gay is not a choice.==
Actually, what happened is that you accepted your choice to encounter homosexuality, and, with each encounter, you reinforced that choice, and, over time, you became conditioned to that choice, and it looked to you as though it’s natural.
Who knows what, exactly, triggered consideration and, then, to make that first choice from among all the alternatives. It could have been that opposite sex people didn’t like you and you turned to somebody who claimed to be homosexual who offered you “comfort,” and, then, you were off and running. Your first choice was reinforced by succeeding choices.

==…the courts would change take away the rights of “certain People” just because a majority wishes to discriminate based on fear, ignorance and plain old hatred. ==
You’re a man, or a woman. The law that defines “marriage” says that a man is the husband and the woman is his wife. If you are a man, you are not excluded. If you are a woman, you are not excluded. If you are a member of a third sex, you are excluded.

The one thing that I sense in all of this is that there are emotions that run high. As a species we vote to rule and the majority rules. That is the way our societies have always been set up. Unfortunately there are those who don’t like the rule that the majority sets up and wants to change them by suing that state and saying that the people who voted didn’t know what they were doing or didn’t understand or something. And yet the ones suing DO?
We have a set of rules called the constitution and then we have the other people who think that the original framer of the constitution didn’t know what they were doing so they are going to change the rules of law that have governed us for the past two hundred plus years . Well that’s great as long as the majority goes along with that premise. That problem exists when a minority wants the majority to bow to them for whatever reason.
My question is why is it that the minority can’t abide by what the majority sets as rules to run their society without always having to go to court and make fools of themselves.
Prop 8 is just one of a long list of rules that the majority voted on and the minority didn’t like. The list really goes on and on and touches on all realms of our society. Why is it that this minority can’t abide by the majorities rules at least at this time in history. Just because you think something should be changed doesn’t mean that the mainstream majority is ready for it and pushing them into court is not going to engender them to your way of thinking. You may find officials who seem to go along with you but there too they have an agenda. There is always that agenda to be considered before wallowing in the fray.