Congratulations to the Gay Marriage Opposition Folks

[Fitz66]

I voted for the measure in Florida and the reasons, although maybe narrow minded, are because where does this marriage amendment lead, are polygamists to then be allowed to get married because that is what they feel is natural, I think that the bigger issue is that the United States including the liberal state of California is not endorsing an extreme liberal agenda and this message should ring loud and clear to the President and to the new Congress

Do you think citizens should have been allowed to vote down the interracial marriage ruling 60 years ago?

Granted.  But then again, the arguments against gay marriage are always directly or indirectly religious.  

[ufojoe]

I'm just asking if voters should be able to vote down SC rulings, no matter what they deal with.

Well the SC is supposed to interpret the law not make it and through the years they have tried to make laws and that is not their job under the Constitution, the 14th amendment which is a civil rights amendment is making it so the states cannot over rule the US Constitution but to answer your question it is not the responsibility of the SC to make laws

The Californian SC did not make a law when they opened the door to same sex marriage.

[ufojoe]

Granted.  But then again, the arguments against gay marriage are always directly or indirectly religious.  

Are the reasons relevant?

Should the citizens have been allowed to vote on that ruling?

[firefall]

Stupid law.  Should not be voted on.

[swirless]

California tends to be a tad liberal and I am guessing their state judges rule that way, the thing that the states are trying to push is for their to be a federal lawsuit and see where the supreme court stands, but they would not be able to rule on the status of the state laws because then they would be making laws by reading the Constitution in their views, and that is not their job, so ultimately and it will not be anytime soon, the US Congress and SC will have to rule on a Constitutional amendment to close the matter

[Got_Spleen]

I used to be so "against" it. I got a little older, and asked myself, "why?" I think when all you see is the extreme side of something, it can turn you off. I've learned that life is tough enough. People need to be happy. Life is too short. I don't agree with many things, but I defend people's right to disagree. It really is what makes this country great.

Joe, I don't think we should have ignored your hypothetical. I think that's why the Supreme Court is in place. They're in their position to interpret and hopefully, be the voice of reason and make sure the Constitution is upheld.

[Fitz66]

Granted. �But then again, the arguments against gay marriage are always directly or indirectly religious. �

Are the reasons relevant?

Should the citizens have been allowed to vote on that ruling?

What are the main reasons:  Protecting the 'sanctity' of marriage?  (yeah, 50% divorce rate,  celebs going through marriages like paper towels, etc), interpretation of the Bible (religious - shouldn't be voted on), would create unstable household for children (don't get me started)......

there aren't good any valid arguments to not let gays marry.

[spartan]

I voted against the amendment. Not because I am for gay marriage but in my opinion it had nothing to do with the State Constitution. If people want a ban on gay marriage it should be a law. The constitution, be it state or federal ought to be about protecting rights, not denying them. I personally do not think that gay marriage is a right, but it does enter into the realm of if it is or is it not. Putting it into the constitution you are saying that it is not, and if it is not, it should be a law and not in the constitution. The amendment therefore IMO contradicts itself.

I do not think opposing gay marriage is bigoted and fwiw this country is not a Democracy so doing everything that the masses want should not be a barometer.

[Fitz66]

I voted against the amendment. Not because I am for gay marriage but in my opinion it had nothing to do with the State Constitution. If people want a ban on gay marriage it should be a law. The constitution, be it state or federal ought to be about protecting rights, not denying them. I personally do not think that gay marriage is a right, but it does enter into the realm of if it is or is it not. Putting it into the constitution you are saying that it is not, and if it is not, it should be a law and not in the constitution. The amendment therefore IMO contradicts itself.

I do not think opposing gay marriage is bigoted and fwiw this country is not a Democracy so doing everything that the masses want should not be a barometer.

^ true that.

[firefall]

If things like this were voted on blacks and women would not be able to vote and interracial marraige would still be against the law.

[ufojoe]

I used to be so "against" it. I got a little older, and asked myself, "why?" I think when all you see is the extreme side of something, it can turn you off. I've learned that life is tough enough. People need to be happy. Life is too short. I don't agree with many things, but I defend people's right to disagree. It really is what makes this country great.

I used to be just like you and was against anything gay. Although the girl/girl thing was always a winner with me!

But as I got older, I changed too.

[swirless]

I voted against the amendment. Not because I am for gay marriage but in my opinion it had nothing to do with the State Constitution. If people want a ban on gay marriage it should be a law. The constitution, be it state or federal ought to be about protecting rights, not denying them. I personally do not think that gay marriage is a right, but it does enter into the realm of if it is or is it not. Putting it into the constitution you are saying that it is not, and if it is not, it should be a law and not in the constitution. The amendment therefore IMO contradicts itself.

I do not think opposing gay marriage is bigoted and fwiw this country is not a Democracy so doing everything that the masses want should not be a barometer.

One problem with the argument here, and it would have to be proved to the masses because obviously with the voting people did not want this, you must prove that being gay is part of nature and not nurture, when you have people acting or saying they are "bi-sexual" and making choices based on sexuality, this is not the same argument as the civil rights movement.  You do not choose to be a certain race, that is a given and therefore the civil rights movement based on this was and a extremely positive thing to try and begin to rebuild the wrongs that the US did to primarily women and blacks throughout its history and in my opinion you cannot place a sexual prefernce in with the civil rights movement.

[ufojoe]

If things like this were voted on blacks and women would not be able to vote and interracial marraige would still be against the law.

Maybe back then but not now.

And that was my point.

[ufojoe]

One problem with the argument here, and it would have to be proved to the masses because obviously with the voting people did not want this, you must prove that being gay is part of nature and not nurture, when you have people acting or saying they are "bi-sexual" and making choices based on sexuality, this is not the same argument as the civil rights movement.  You do not choose to be a certain race, that is a given and therefore the civil rights movement based on this was and a extremely positive thing to try and begin to rebuild the wrongs that the US did to primarily women and blacks throughout its history and in my opinion you cannot place a sexual prefernce in with the civil rights movement.

Did blacks and whites choose to date each other and then marry?

[swirless]

If things like this were voted on blacks and women would not be able to vote and interracial marraige would still be against the law.

That is totally not even in the same realm of discussion as this, you are born a certain gender and you are born a certain race, what the early history of the US did to both women and blacks in many instances was just disgusting and therefore the legislative branch with the backing of the Supreme Court rectified this situation with the 19th amendment and the 14th amendment and also the 1960's civil rights acts and you can even further that with the americans with disabilities act that was made in the 90's, these are totally different from the marriage laws.