http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000 004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a_ ___&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0

Beautifully clear wonderfully informed argument. Thank you for posting it.
I am very pleased for couples in California. All happiness to them.

We are all inclined to judge ourselves by our ideals; others, by their acts. ~Harold Nicolson

Apparently you didn’t read my comments above?

@ Xinavera: Guess it didn’t take long for the name-calling to start; didn’t even require much prompting for you to bring up the Neanderthal thing. Thanks for nullifying your own argument.

A positive outpouring of support in forum like this isn’t necessarily a sign of wider acceptance of this sort of thing.

Looks like someone from the flat-earth society crashed the thread. So do you plan on riding dinosaurs when you get to heaven? LOL

nah

As for George and Brad.. how anyone can look at that photo and not be filled with joy and happiness for such a perfect couple is beyond me.

Any justification against equal rights, religious or not, is discrimination.

And religious folks, I believe your very own Jesus said “Love one another, as I have loved you.” Follow this advice more often, please.

I hope the voters insure that George and Brad will have many many uncontested years of matrimonial harmony.

Yes, marriage was originally a religious institution. But it has been thoroughly secularized and thus religious definitions of secular marriage can no longer apply.

Congratulations to George and Brad and all the other couples.

@Rectify made eloquently clear all the reasons for the checks and balances, but it’s really very simply: the rule of the majority, but with protections for the minority.

Just because you are a minority does not mean you lose. It is supposed to mean that you are still protected under the law. “Equal protection under the law” is supposed to mean something, and finally it is starting to for this part of our population.

All the comments regarding marriage being based in religion make me a little confused. Sure, most marriages are performed in churches, but that’s a tradition thing. If you look at cultures where there is no formal religion, male/female marriage unions can still be identified easily, and marriage ceremonies are common. But look for same-sex marriages in those places… None to be found. From that I’d conclude that marriage between a man and woman is a natural thing, and homosexual marriage is not.

Do homosexual relationships occur in the animal kingdom? Occasionally, but it’s rarer than those who bring it up in defense of same-sex unions care to acknowledge. And when it does occur it’s usually something that helps males determine pecking order, not long-term relationships. You Darwinists ought to be able to confirm that homosexuality is one trait that would not likely be passed on to succeeding generations; if it is inherited it’s an aberration at best. And in today’s human society, I’d dare say that homosexuality for most individuals is more of a learned behavior than anything else.

And the claims that it’s a civil rights issue… Not.

Divorce is 50 grand.

*heh* Somebody obviously hasn’t been surfing the internet very broadly.

My joke about the detractors was along the lines of Vako, but the other direction. If they really wanted to stop gay marriage, they should have outlawed gay divorce. *rimshot*

Congratulations George and Brad!

Good luck to you

As it should be for any couple.

I’m not a US american, let alone a Californian, but there has always been one line from your countries history that I always thought should apply.

No taxation without representation.

The second class citizen status that the illegality of homosexuality, the banning of same sex marriage,the fact that life long partners could not be the beneficiarioes of pensions and had no rights in the event of death of their loved ones, always seemed that they were workling and being taxed but systematically excluded from being represented.

Nice to see that citizenship has become inclusive of all your gay and lesbian Californian brothers and sisters.

Also, why hasnt anyone had the same kind of opposition to Atheists getting married?

But I feel obligated to mention that ‘marriage’ is one of those ‘bullshit’ religious institutions that religions ‘force’ on people.

If you don’t agree, then how do you reconcile the fact that religious parents – if not outright forcing it – desire that their children marry before having sex?

It’s ironic to me.. it’s ironic because they’re fighting for the right to be religious! After all what’s wrong with a civil-union which already gives parnters equal rights?

Before anyone dismisses my comments here. As a Christian I think Christians should actually be at least content that gay couples have won the right to marry. Marriage in itself demonstrates commitment and it hopefully prevents sexual promiscurity.

The truth is that adultery and divorce ruin families, not gay people- and the church really has to get a grip on that before attacking other peoples sexual issues.

This was a decision by the California supreme court not the federal supreme court. Also this is a state law not a federal law that was overturned.

This is why the state supreme court of California was allowed to over turn the ban on gay marriage in California.

Most state supreme courts have implemented “discretionary review,” like their federal counterpart. Under such a system, intermediate appellate courts are entrusted with deciding the vast majority of appeals. For certain limited categories of cases, the state supreme court still operates under mandatory review, usually with regard to cases involving the interpretation of the state constitution or capital punishment. But for the vast majority, the state supreme court possesses the discretion to grant certiorari (known as review in states that discourage the use of Latin). These cases usually pertain to issues which different appellate courts within its jurisdiction have decided differently, or highly controversial cases involving a completely new legal issue never seen in that state.

Because there was a California constitutional ban on gay marriage there were a certain amount of people that appealed the decision in the California court system to the California supreme court by saying it violated their California constitutional rights of equality. And since they hear appeals that deal with interpretation of the California constitution, they heard this appeal and based on the appeal, interpreted it to conflict with a person’s right of equality as described in the constitution of California. Therefore they overturned the law based on it being unconstitutional with the state of California’s constitution.

If there is ever such a horrible day that the American people decide to vote for a federal ban on gay marriage through amending the Constitution of the United States, then the decision put forth by the California supreme court can be appealed to the federal supreme court. Because it can be argued that the state supreme courts ruling is in violation of federal constitutional law.

The duties of the federal supreme court are to interpret laws and can overturn laws they deem unconstitutional.

Both state supreme courts and the federal supreme court basically have the same duties and serve the same purpose the main difference is that the state supreme court deals with the jurisdiction of its respective state and the federal supreme court deals with federal law for the entire United States. And the decision of the federal supreme court trumps that of the state supreme court.

This is all part of the system of checks and balances set forth in the federal constitution of the United States and is used by the governments at state levels as well. All done to make sure no single institution could have all the power and in order to make sure laws are not put forth that violate the constitutional rights of individuals whether it be at a state or federal level.

Secular type arguments against gay marriage simply don’t hold water and are based in fear and homophobia, so I don’t see the problem here. I just hope that this doesn’t get overturned in CA, because that would be such a setback for humanity as a whole.

im really happy for them, and wish them the best.

Before you label me as anti-gay or a bigot. I have several very dear gay friends and support them whole heartedly. I am just sad about the legal aspect of this ruling.

I’m only 42, and when I was born it was still illegal in the US for people of different races to marry. Hopefully before I’m 84, it’ll be legal for same-sex couples to marry nationwide.

I think I’d respect the anti-gay contingent more if they just said, “We don’t have a good reason. We fear the unfamiliar.”

I can think of plenty of reasons to support, or at least not be bothered by, gay marriage, but I can’t really think of any reason to attack it, or any way it affects anybody else negatively (bizarre notions of gay contagion aside).

No need to overcomplicate things: happiness in abundance is far better, and even infinitely preferable than volumes of sadness.