Gay marriage and presidential politics

"Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate."

- B. Obama

So when two gays get married in California and moves to Texas (which has their own amendment to not recognize an out-of-state gay marriage), how long do you think it will be until it hits the courts?

It's really all about PRIVACY. If someone is gay, I don't need to know it. It's none of my business. At the root of the campaign for "gay marriage" is a motive to convince the rest of society that homosexuality is "normal" and that it should be celebrated. In fact, it is no more "normal" than my nearsightedness. Homosexual couples already have these rights: (1) the right to live together, (2) the right to put both names on property deeds, (3) the right to give each other medical power of attorney, (4) the right to name each other as beneficiaries in wills, (5) the right to name each other as beneficiaries in insurance policies. That is all the "marriage" they deserve. They also have the right to privacy and the right not to disclose their homosexuality to others outside of their friends, family, and other gay people. That is a right I wish they would express more often. California voters have the right to bring a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge this tyrannical action of the California court.

No, it is really all about Equality. If the state wishes to grant rights to pairs of adults, such as special tax rates, special inheritance treatments, automatic family rights, etc, then by what measure of Equal Protection under the Law may the state choose to grant those rights to some citizens and not others?

The obtuse so often miss the obvious.

With each volume of historical record that the bigot appropriates to substantiate their fear the basis of their argument is revealed and undone.

The fact that thousands of historical records, including major religious texts, have been referencing homosexuality together with heterosexuality for thousands of years is by itself a substantiation that homosexuality is an enduring constant in the human equation. While different societies throughout history have come to various conclusions about how to define and address this altogether real human condition, the irrefutable fact in the preponderance of proof found in the collective historic record of human history is that our differences in sexual nature have long endured.

Homosexuality has existed in the human record of history for as long as heterosexuality. So, what makes one more or less normal and natural than the other except the chosen perception of the individual?

Religious marriage breached the line of separation between church and state when it consented to become a civil marriage governed by the laws of nation and state and elected to receive hundreds of financial and legal benefits under those laws. In so doing, civil marriage effectively extended the right to marriage to all Americans under the governing provisions of The Constitution of the United States of America.

We the People are all entitled to share equally in the rights and benefits of civil marriage as part of our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

If the physically nearsighted and intellectually shortsighted gentleman in the previous post does not consider his state of vision normal and natural, I accept his chosen and limited definition of himself. However, being neither lord nor master of world he surveys, he has no right or position to command that all of humanity be defined and limited to his narrow understanding and minimalist experience.

Perpetuating ignorance prolongs fear. How much longer do you want to be afraid of what you choose not to understand?

Do you so fear being an individual or minority that you must aggressively disassociate yourself from any perceived minority to feel safe, strong or relevant as a member of some perceived social majority?

We are all alone together in this great, big world, my friend. Choose love, not fear.

It's really all about PRIVACY. If someone is straight, I don't need to know it. It's none of my business. At the root of the campaign for "straight marriage" is a motive to convince the rest of society that heterosexuality is "normal" and that it should be celebrated. In fact, it is no more "normal" than my nearsightedness. Heterosexual couples couples already have these rights: (1) the right to live together, (2) the right to put both names on property deeds, (3) the right to give each other medical power of attorney, (4) the right to name each other as beneficiaries in wills, (5) the right to name each other as beneficiaries in insurance policies. That is all the "marriage" they deserve. They also have the right to privacy and the right not to disclose their straightness to others outside of their friends, family, and other heterosexual people. That is a right I wish they would express more often.

How does that feel Mr. Wright?

In my mind, this issue is less about gay marriage and the legitimacy of it, and more about whether or not the voters have any say in the laws that are put into place. The people of California voted to put the ban on gay marriage in place during the last election that it was on the ballot. In other words, millions of people went to the polls to make a decision on a law for their state. However, it seems that the opinions of 7 people outweigh that of millions of others, simply because of the titles they carry.

My question is, what is the point of voting if that is how the system works? This creates a precedent in our legal system that will surely be carried over into other issues beyond gay marriage. Where does it end, and where are the checks and balances that are supposed to be in place to prevent any particular segment of government from having absolute rule?

So what if it does, Curious?

And why don't heterosexual couples keep their business private, Michael? Our Nation is built on equality, and the courts have the obligation, to insure that all rights of the minority are protected against the majority. A fundamental right should not be subject to the will of the majority, even a 90-10 or 99-1 majority.

And all rights are not given to gay couples. Tax rights are not, for instance. It's not that gays want to go around and dance in public, even though plenty of heterosexuals do just that, its that they deserve to be treated fairly and honestly in society, just as heterosexual couples are.

Todd,

See the comment above. Fundamental rights should not be subject to the will of the majority opinion. That is the crux of the issue. If YOU are in a room with 99 others and 51 say you should die because of your eye color does that make it right just because the majority says so?

WOW! Those Officials/Public Servants suppose to protect the law already pass by voters/majority of Californians are now dissolving it some kind of Public Servants huh?

Again, SKMJ - judges are supposed to protect rights, and if laws deny rights, it is up to the courts to strike down those laws. You need a lesson in civics.

The majority of Californian that vote to ban Gay marriages exercise their rights and understanding of the meaning of the word marriage as only between a man and a woman period.The Constitution was written by married med with morals and values there is not a mention of the word gays or lesbians as a matter of fact there weren't any gay couples in those days.

LM,

Is this not the, "Government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people"? Our Constitution was designed to REDUCE government involvement, not increase it. Is it not also a fundamental right to vote, and with that right, the ability to decide as a WHOLE what is best for the country rather than allow a select minority to decide for us? Again I ask, if the will of the people is discarded because a select few decided we were wrong in our decision, and THEIR will supersedes ours simply because of their title, then what is the point of voting?

As far as I'm concerned the bigger issue here is when our government casts aside the will of the people because 7 people who were appointed (not elected) decided we aren't intelligent enough to make decisions on our own. This in my opinion has nothing to do with the legitimacy of gay marriage because it could apply to any issue that could potentially be placed on the ballot.

That's not democracy. That's tyranny. Too many soldiers have fought for this country and died trying to protect the democracy that we so carelessly cast aside. Where do we draw the line?