Isn't there supposed to a separation of church and state? If so, why are we letting our government tell us that same-sex couples aren't allowed to get married because marriage, as defined by the bible and other religions, is only between a man and a woman? The only reason why gay marriage is even an issue is because our country is ran by people who turn to religion first in making decisions for us all. Gay marriage wouldn't be "wrong" if religions didn't say so, and by following this, we are allowing faith to run our country. IT ISN"T FAIR!!!
How can you tell two people who are truly in love that they can't get married because they are the same sex and it isn't right in "God's eyes"? What kind of world to we live in, or country for that matter, that feels it can strip away a right because they believe that it is "morally wrong"? People should be allowed to marry whoever they want! It doesn't matter if they're both men or women, they should be able to share in the same right as heterosexuals. By denying gay people the right to marriage and only allowing civil unions, we are telling them that they're love shouldn't be recognized like the love between heterosexual couples is. This country is telling gay couples that their love is inferior...nothing worth giving real credit to. It's discrimination in its truest form. Gay people are people too! There should be equal rights for all...I feel like this is taking a step back...not a step forward towards more tolerance.
It just truly makes me sad.
I think your premise that the government is telling you who you can marry is flawed.
The whole point of the Proposition process is that it allows the PEOPLE to tell the GOVERNMENT what the laws will be. It is an exercise in direct democracy and results in rule by the majority.
If the Proposition passes, then it will be the people making the decision. But you'll likely be singing a different tune if the Proposition fails and the tyranny of unelected judges which recently over-ruled the will of the people is allowed to stand. Then you will be totally if favor of the government telling people how society will be structured.
I don't disagree with your point that it is discriminatory though. Not all discrimination is bad. I discriminate against rotten food for example because it is unhealthy. Likewise, even though I am not even slightly religious I am against gay marriage because I think it is unhealthy for society. I discriminate against all sorts of things and so do you. In your case it is probably Christians. Discrimination is one of the most important of our mental processes and it plays a role in almost every choice we make.
Tolerance is not necessarily all that great a thing either. For example in many cultures women are treated like chattel and are subjected to things like genital mutilation. When people from these cultures immigrate to America they often want to bring these barbaric practices with them. Is tolerance of these things a good thing? I think not. I am highly intolerant of these sorts of behaviors. I'm mildly tolerant of homosexuality. I don't think gays should be persecuted but I really don't think their lifestyle is healthy for society. I therefore tolerate them but I am not going to go out of my way to vote for laws that endorse their lifestyle.
The United States of America is not now nor has it ever been a "direct democracy." We are a Constitutional Republic, and the point of that is so that the "rule by the majority" is restrained from infringing on the rights of individuals. And while YOU may discriminate personally against pretty much anyone for any reason, our government is not so permitted, and must afford the same rights and must provide the equal protection of our laws to ALL of our citizens, barring a compelling interest of the State (which may not, btw, be contingent upon an invidious categorization of a group of citizens). And finally, what you think about gay people is irrelevant. Unless you can offer objective evidence that would make a compelling case that gay people (and our marriages) are "bad for society"--and I would submit that no such evidence exists)--then your concerns are noted, and have been filed in the circular bin at the corner of the Bench.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
You can have your opinion and I can have my concerns. This stuff wil get decided at the ballot box in a few days. And it will get revisited again and again after that.
The Initiative, The Referendum and The Recall are all definately tools of direct democracy. Not every state gives their people these tools. The United States is not a direct democracy but the State of California in some respects is. The people can use these tools to implement the popular will however they please but utltimately, I agree with you that the rights of the minority are protected by the Constitution and the majority cannot use these tools to trample on those rights.
I've pretty much given up trying to bother reading the Constitution because while I used to believe the words were important, I have come to hold the cynical view that the Constitution says only that and everything that the Supreme Court decides it says. I think that will become even more true as Obama reshapes the Court because he will definately not be nominating originalists or strict constructionists. So far the Court has not said that Gay marriage is a right protected by the Constitution. That day may come and it may not. But I sure can't find anything close in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere.
...is that some opinions are well-informed, and others...well, not so much. For example...
The United States is not a direct democracy but the State of California in some respects is.
Factually incorrect. The State of California is also a Constitutional Republic.
The Initiative, The Referendum and The Recall are all definately tools of direct democracy...The people can use these tools to implement the popular will however they please...
Factually incorrect. All of these actions in the body politic of the State of California are subject to Judicial Review, and may be invalidated if their results violate the State's Constitution.
So far the Court has not said that Gay marriage is a right protected by the Constitution.
Sort of true, sort of not true. The Supreme Court of the United States has not stated directly in a ruling that the all laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are unconstituional, but it HAS said that limiting the rights of gay people on the basis of their sexuality is illegal (see Romer v. Evans), and they HAVE upheld the ruling of a State Supreme Court (i.e. Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Public Health) that DOES say that these laws violate the 14th Amendment.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I was only a voter in California for one year before I moved to nicer places. I am not an expert on this stuff. But I am fairly certain that through the Initiative process that voters can amend the California Constitution.
For example, the California Supreme Court has recently ruled (and I am very fuzzy about the details of this although I'm sure that you know them well) that California's law which limited marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional. The entire purpose of Proposition 8 is to remove whatever was in the California Constitution that caused this ruling and to elevate the ban on gay marriage from being a mere law to being a bonafide Article of the Constitution. The Proposition process trumps the California Supreme court. If Proposition 8 passes, unless the USA Supreme Court strikes the proposition down, the will of the majority via direct democracy will have been imposed on the State and the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court will have been effectively reversed by a vote of the people.
That seems like an element of direct democracy to me. Is it pure direct Democracy? Nope. It all occurs within the framework of California's Constitution and republican form of government. But is very powerful stuff that allows the people, through a direct vote to trump every other branch of the state government.
There are, as I agreed with you previously, limits. The USA Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. The people through the initiative process probably cannot abolish the California Supreme Court because it is an element of a republican form of government. The people probably could (I am not saying it would be wise) force the members of the Court to stand for re-election every year and limit their power in other ways too just as they have limited the Legislature's powers to levy taxes with Proposition 13.
I like Federalism. While I am against gay marriage I think that having these decisions made at the State level means that the greatest number of people can live in happiness. If the people in California want gay marriage more power to them. It will be a long time before we vote in favor of it here in Wyoming. With Federalism we are happy in Wyoming and the people in California are happy too. I only wish the Supreme Court, since the Constitution was silent on the matter, had taken a federalist approach to the abortion issue because by getting involved they have given us 30 years of unrelenting controversy with no end in sight. The same will occur if they shove gay marriage down our throats.
I can't wait for November 4th. At the Federal level I already count myself as a loser no matter who wins. Either way, neither of them represents me and I won't be led in the direction they want to go. I may be dragged. But there is a lot going on around the country that I don't really feel that strongly about but which I find very interesting. I'm anxious to see how it all turns out.
I am fairly certain that through the Initiative process that voters can amend the California Constitution.
To quote the California Supreme Court In re MARRIAGE CASES....
So...in the short term, yes, the California public can change the Constitution via referendum, but that change can still be challenged in Court and reversed if it violates the "elementary principles" of the California or Federal Constitutions.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.