http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story
" "I think the voters were thinking, well, if it makes them happy, why shouldn't we let gay couples get married. And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage," he said."
In a word, uh, no.
What implications? Where? When? The same implications when we banned polygamy? Allowed interracial marriage? I was born in Massachusetts, and travel there several times a year. At no point has the presence of gay married couples affected me in any way. Ever.
I'm sorry, but I take this personally. There used to be laws that said I couldn't marry the person that I married. It offends me that we treat any group of Americans as second class citizens.
I only barely understand my own marriage, so I am hard pressed to pass judgement on anyone else's.
Why don't they just call it what it is: "Proposition We Hate Gay People"?
Hi! I just now got to your comment on my blog. I actually agree with you here. I believe that it is detrimental to freedoms set up even by the religious. The religious were afforded freedom due to government not dictating how to run their lives. Is this not also extended to gays? Once you egin to regulate something like that they open themselves up to being regulated. Sad more people do not recognize this.
ReplyDeleteI just see it as a human rights thing. The constitution covers everybody-straight, gay, brown, purple with blue stripes, whatever.
ReplyDeleteI married someone of a different race, which used to be illegal for exactly the same reasons, so I take these stupid rules personally.