Well, it was good while it lasted...

[thistlechaser]

Calif. Court Voids S.F. Same-Sex Marriages.

Be that as it may, I still believe it was the right decision to marry the couples. Hopefully lawmakers will come out of the dark age and change the law soon.

Even after all this time, I still just totally boggle over people being against same-sex marriages. Why? Why? Why? If someone was forcing YOU to marry someone of the same sex, I could understand being against it, but no one is forcing anything on you. All adults should be free to make their own decisions on where and how to live, where and how to love, etc. (See that important word in there? "Free"? Something we're supposed to be here in America...)

Bah. If you don't like something or don't believe in it, then don't do it! But what in the world, what in the world, makes some people feel like what they believe should be forced upon everyone else?

Let's make a deal, people: No one will force you into a marriage with a gender that you aren't attracted to, and in return you stop trying to do the same.

Love is love is love is love. What gives one adult the right to tell another adult who to love?

*sigh* I just don't get people. Your beliefs are your own! You have no right to force them onto others! And sure as heck the laws should not be based on religious beliefs! "Separation of church and state", anyone?

Bah.

Edit: Rereading the story, at least it's not the end of the fight. It's just that in this case it was done incorrectly. Maybe there's still hope... (But I still don't believe they should be voided.)

Quote: "We're going to make this one of the most romantic civil rights struggles on earth.

Awwww. :)

Comments

[eilonwey.livejournal.com]

Amen. I hate people who try to force their beliefs on other people...

[alessar.livejournal.com]

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."
I think it falls under that. You know, in the core text Constitution, before even the Bill of Rights!

I think one reason that people are squicked by gay marriage is the idea that they'll have to have it in their church. I think Marriage needs to be recognized as a legal/civil procedure first and that churches just get to do it in a religious context as a courtesy. I mean, it's not like any kind of religious authority lets you skip a state marriage license! As far as I'm concerned, religions are private clubs... they can do what they want and internally discriminate all they want. Just don't come between me and the justice of the peace. Or, perhaps, the Elvis impersonator of my choice.

[alessar.livejournal.com]

I saw this bumper sticker a month or so ago, "Pray for the end of Abortion" it read.

I keep meaning to go on Cafe Press and make bumper stickers that say, "Pray for the end of religions interering with my Civil Rights" or something like that. (I can't remember exactly what I had cooked up originally, it was snarkier. :)

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

I'd buy a copy of it!

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

That would work for me as well. I wouldn't mind two different names for it, either. "Religious Union Thingie" could take place in churches and "Non-Religious Union Thingie" would cover everything else. Both would equal marriage...

[chichiri.livejournal.com]

That's really unfortunate. -_- It makes things so much harder on homosexuals than it already is. That would be crushing, and I can't imagine. >< such jerks. America is supposed to be free. somebody change the state definition of marriage. GET THE GOVERNATOR ON IT!

[wanderingscribe.livejournal.com]

[claps] Finally, someone who makes sense. You know, I'm in the gaymarriage comm here on LJ and even they're out of whack over this whole thing. :/

[gbeans.livejournal.com]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and probably get pwned. But that's what I get for being me ;)

First, "Separation of church and state" is a concept originally intended to protect the church from the state, not the other way around. As much as we may want to forget and deny, this country was founded by men with very strong religious beliefs. Early settlers, ie: puritians, were escaping the religious persecution they faced in England. They *wanted* religion in their lives and couldn't imagine life without it.

Now that we've cleared that up, let's look at "free". We I truely 'free' to do as I please I could go up and punch someone in the face because I felt like it. (In fact, I don't doubt our society will backslide to such depths at some point). What is preventing this 'freedom' is a social contract that such behaviour is unacceptable. As time progresses the social contract is constantly in negotiations and what is and isn't acceptable changes. Things what would have been completely unacceptable in our grandparents' generation are common nowadays (cursing, tattooing--though that was more of a WWII import--piercing, etc.)

Third, I believe it's unfair to squarely blame religious factions for homosexuals not having the same legal standing as other couples. Do they have an influence in it? Sure. But so do whites, blacks, men, women... I don't think dogs are in on it yet, but I could be wrong. The point is; it comes from all sides. (I've met enough homophobic pricks to know that no religion would lay claim to them.)

The social contract in the US is in the process of being renegotiated. This country is unique because it is made up of so many different parts. We all have our own ideas on how things should be ran. (I'd go for mail delivery on Sundays...)

With all that said, my 2 gil: sit back, relax, it'll work itself out. The fact that we're even *having* this discussion is a lot of progress. A generation ago the subject of homosexuality was taboo, now it's almost trendy. There may not be legalized marriages today, but 10 years from now? Who know... It could happen.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Howdy there!

First, "Separation of church and state" is a concept originally intended to protect the church from the state, not the other way around.

No matter how it was intended, it's the rule, right? You can't have a law/rule and only apply it one way!

Early settlers, ie: puritians, were escaping the religious persecution they faced in England. They *wanted* religion in their lives and couldn't imagine life without it.

They also wanted slaves, women barefoot and pregnant, etc. Quite happily, we've grown in many ways since then.

Agreed that "free" as a word on its own is a hard thing to defend. I should have been more clear. How about something like "In America, all adults should be free to do as they wish, so long as it does not take away someone else's freedom to do as they wish"? (Ugh, rough wording on that. Leaving work soon! In a little bit of a hurry.) That was my fault for wording (the post) poorly. :)

Third, I believe it's unfair to squarely blame religious factions for homosexuals not having the same legal standing as other couples. ... . The point is; it comes from all sides.

Agreed... but only to a point. I don't believe that religious folks are the only anti-same sex marriage people (or that every single religious person is anti- ), but I'd say that the biggest people against the marriages are likely religious folks.

(I'd go for mail delivery on Sundays...)

So long as email is 24/7, I'm happy. ;)

A generation ago the subject of homosexuality was taboo, now it's almost trendy.

See that NJ mayor (or whatever he was) stepping down from office today. He played "the gay card". It's almost too trendy! :) Agreed on the rest of that paragraph though.

Thanks for the comment! See you on-game!

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Glad I did! Sometimes I just rant and hope for the best. ;)

[gbeans.livejournal.com]

[laughs] Thanks for not tearing my head off ;)

Honestly, when it comes to things like this I'm really of two minds because I sincerely believe in both ways ^^;;; (Which sounds very odd, I admit). I identify with the religous folk, but it's like a sympathy for an outraged child that doesn't fully understand a situation, but is angry. Erm.. not wording it well. Ah well, it's late and I'll go to bed rather than shove my foot in my mouth ^^

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

I try never, ever to rip anyone's head off! :) Anyone is free to disagree on me about anything! Heck, sometimes I'm even known to be wrong... ;)

*snug*