A mother and daughter or a father and daughter or a father and son or daughter, or a grandparent and grandchild, or a sister and or brother...

After all that we could go with a person and pet, you get the picture now, right?

Lulu

MWL, Absolutely. If the people of California want to pass an amendment AND it passes constitutional muster then why not? I guess I will never understand why some self-proclaimed ( and usually hypocritical ) moral guardians are so obsessed with other people's sex lives. Life is too short..

Pud, some people could care less about other people's sex lives (count me among them).  However, some of these same people care deeply for the structure of marriage.  If two or more concenting adults want to enter into a relationship, that should be (and is) none of the government's business.

Marriage, however, is more than that.  This is not a question of what the government PERMITS, but what government ENDORSES.  You might ask why ANY such relationship should have special status or special benefits.  From a Libertarian standpoint, that's a fair question to ask.  However, in our democratic republic, the people long ago decided that traditional marriage - involving one (1) man and one (1) woman, plus children, deserved special status and special protection.

In this case, the measure the California voters passed overwhelmingly in 2000 even allows for civil unions, with virtually all the rights and priviledges of marriage (at least on the state level).  Such civil unions are becoming more prevelent, and while I have some mixed feelings about that, I am willing to acede to the decision of the voting public in the individual states.

Heck, pud, if the public wants to redefine the marriage to include same sex couples - OR to extend to polygamy (another issue slowly winding its way through the courts - give it time) or to any other manner or types of "alternative family arrangements" - or even to abolish marriage and all its special perogatives in civil law altogether, and let marriage become entirely a private or church matter - I will stand by the will of the people, even though it may be a bit grudgingly at times. 

As long as these basic decision are defined by the people, acting through their elected representatives, I will accept that decision.

We are, and should be, led by our elected representatives, acting under our Constitution.  We will not be ruled by judges, unelected and accountable to no one.

A "distraction"?  Hardly.  Rather this is perhaps the most important and fundamental question facing our Republic.

MWL

This court decision is a sad day for Ca.  The good news is that the people of Ca. are preparing a state constitutional amendment to ban it. Reportedly, the people have already voted to ban gay marriage, but did not place the ban in the constitution.

hondo

Gotta look at he bright side.Gotta look at what was not on tv.There are thousands of divorce lawyers dancing in the streets at the thought of all the new potential divorce clients they will have in the future.

But back to the point.It seems that there is nothing that one can do anymore without litigation.Throw all the lawyers ,judges and politicians in a huge pot and what have you got?  It sure ain't mulligan stew,is it?

Today just about every aspect of our lives is being determined by someone else.Where one can smoke,seat belts,geraniums or marigolds,whether one should make house payments or rent payments for that matter.

It all stinks!!

These lawyers,judges and politicians are convinced that they know how we should run our lives better that we know.Personal freedoms are eroding and worse.......the ability to take on personal responsibility is being taken away.

All these blood suckers make their livings of the backs of real people and laugh all the way to the cayman islands banks.

What ever happened to good old fashioned common sense?

Ray 

 

Berner:

It seems that there is nothing that one can do anymore without litigation.

"We already have at least 10 times as many lawyers as any rational society can tolerate, which doubtless accounts for the triumph of irrationality in American life."  - Russell Baker

" Sodom is identified in Scripture with Gomorrah and the cities of the plain ( See Genesis 13:10 - 14:12 ) Sodom was known for its moral wickedness. The ancient site has not yet been clearly identified, but is thought to be possibly submerged under the waters of the Dead Sea south of the El-Lisan peninsula, in what was originally the vale of Siddim ( 14:3 ). Jebel Usdum (" Mount of Sodom" ), a salt mountain at the southwestern end of the Dead Sea, seems to preserve the ancient name. Excavations at nearby Bab edh-Dhra were begun by William F. Albright in 1924, and were completed by Paul Lapp for the American Schools of Oriental Research ( 1965-67 ). They revealed an enormous cemetary with over 20,000 tombs and several hundred thousand burials. Evidence of an extensive population in this area totally ceased after the twenty- first century B.C. ( about the time of Abraham ). Historical references to Sodom have been cited among the clay tablets from Ebla found at Tell Marikh in Syria. There can be no doubt that a flourishing civilization once existed in this area and came to an abrupt halt at the end of the Middle Bronze Age." The Liberty Annotated Study Bible pg.31

It is nice to have a religious faith that gives your life meaning and helps you to be a kinder more loving person. But lot of people in this country don't share your faith or your version of it. Those people have civil rights to.

 

While I am not wanting to know what happens, concerning others sexual preferences, I will stand by the definition of marriage, that has always been, between a man and a woman. This fact has been corroberated by the nature of the self preservation of mankind, for all time.  Best regards, Don

The Supreme Court is in place to interpret the law, not make laws.

By your reasoning, murder could be a "civil right".