A lot has been going on recently on the subject of gay marriage. Some say that it shouldn't be allowed because it demeans marriage for non-gays. Others think it's okay as long as it's not called marriage; they prefer the term "Civil Union." Still others don't believe it should be allowed in any way, shape, or form. Some states have enacted actual gay marriages, and some have allowed it under the term of "Civil Union." There are court cases pending on the issue throughout the country. It seems like a lot of ado about something that's (in my mind) very simple. If two consenting adults truly love each other and want to make a life-long commitment of living together & sharing their lives, I think they should be allowed to do so. I don't think it demeans anyone else's commitment, and I think there is precedence for my view.
When I was very young, there were a number of states that made it illegal for people of two different races to marry. This was in the mid-1960s & the years before. Now it's kind of hard to believe that if I, a Caucasian male, wanted to marry (let's say) an African-American female, it wouldn't be allowed in some states. My home state, Alabama, was one of them. The thing that's so astounding, to me, is that people used to use religious texts (the Bible mainly) to justify this. It's the same thing that's used to justify being against gay marriage. It wasn't true about marriage between races, and I don't think it's true about gay marriage.
The other aspect of this is when some folks claim that allowing gay marriage will make a mockery of "traditional" marriage. This is a totally laughable claim for me. I have to ask how letting two people of the same gender marry can make a mockery of marriage? No one's been able to give me a plausible answer to this question. This is especially true when I bring up people like Zsa Zsa Gabor, Cher, Mickey Rooney, Britney Spears, & other celebrities who marry & divorce as the winds or seasons change. Why aren't they pointed out as making a mockery of "traditional" marriage? Some have answered me that, "at least they were marrying someone of a different gender." "So what?" I retort. It's more a mockery, to me, when people use marriage as a convenience that can be discarded when it's inconvenient.
During the last election in November of 2008, there was an initiative on the ballot in the state of California. Known as Proposition 8, it was set up to establish, in the California Constitution, that marriage meant a union between a man & a woman. With a lot of lobbying & support by the Mormon church (formally know as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; LDS for short) it passed. The passing means that the Constitution of California was changed, and gay marriage is now illegal. I think it sucks. However, I don't now, and haven't ever lived in California. So it really & ultimately doesn't effect me. But I still don't like it.
Recently, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, and a lot of people are upset about that. However, I actually have to applaud the Court's decision even if I don't like it. As stated before, Proposition 8 amended the Constitution of California. The Court's job is to determine if a law is unconstitutional, and in this case, it's not; it's part of the Constitution. It's not the Court's job to disallow an amendment to the Constitution. So, though I don't like it that the amendment was passed, I do like that the California Court did it's job. What needs to be done is to re-amend the constitution to repeal Proposition 8. This was done when Prohibition was enacted; an amendment was passed the allowed the sale of alcohol. That's what needs to be done in this case. However, its up to the people of California to do this, not me in Washington, & not Pat Robertson in Virginia. This is an issue for Californians & only them. Until a federal law or amendment is passed, everyone else needs to stay out of it.
To sum-up, two people who love each other & want to share their lives together should be allowed to marry. It's no one else's business. That's my two cents anyway.... :)
Colorado’s Most Anti-Pot Newspaper Launches New Attack on Marijuana - The Colorado Springs Gazette, owned by conservative billionaire Phil Anschutz, has earned a reputation as the most overtly anti-marijuana major newspaper...
4 hours ago