Prop 8, don't discriminate

Lots of talk going on about Proposition 8 being being struck down.

Much anger about 'the will of the people' being subverted. Some say "why can't we decide on validity of propositions before they are put on the ballot?" The simple reason is that if the Proposition doesn't pass, no time or money is wasted.

And when a Proposition passes, that's when the legality is questioned. Just because a Proposition is popular enough to pass doesn't make it legal. Many 'unpopular rights' were still 'legalized' because of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Think Civil Rights and Women's Rights.

It's been over 40 years since Civil Rights legislation was adopted. 40 years from now, we'll be thinking the same thing about Gay Rights.

Someone on a site I have misplaced said the Government should give a Civil Union License to those who want to be together in the eyes of the Government and all of the legal implications. If they want to get married, they go to a church with all of the religious implications. Makes sense to me.  Separation of Church and State.

Here is an opinion piece from the Los Angeles Times with a little background on Judge Walker, who struck down Proposition 8, and some quick info on racial discrimination in the 1960's. Proposition 8, Judge Walker, and our short memories (LA Times)

And another opinion on why Republicans shouldn't stand on the wrong side of another civil rights issue.  My Fellow Conservatives: Think Carefully About Your Opposition to Gay Marriage (Fox News)

Marriage: One of These and One of Those?

When it comes to 'the definition of marriage' I know I won't sway anyone by giving my opinion on the matter.  Those who have their mind made up on either side of the debate won't change their mind because of me.  I'm not so full of myself to think that I'll say X and someone reading this will say 'Wow, never thought of that.  Guess I'll change sides!'

But I will, for the record state my view.  And the reason for my view is what determines many of the opinions I do hold.  Simply stated, it is: if people are of legal age and aren't harming anyone else, let 'em do it.

Applying this to marriage, if a woman and a man want to get married, let 'em do it.  If a woman and a woman want to get married, let 'em do it.  And if a man and a man want to get married (wait for it...) let 'em do it.

In addition, if two women and a man want to get married, let 'em do it.  As long as everyone involved is of legal age and no one is being harmed, where is the issue?  If six women and fix men want to get married?  You know where I stand.

All of this just means that society, moving forward, will have to figure out how to handle these 'plus-sized marriages'.  Sure, a child will still have two biological parents, but if they are brought up in a large family, raised by everyone, how will we handle 'bring your father to work day?'  When filling out the emergency contact card at school, will extra spaces need to be provided?  Will 'Couples Retreats' need to be renamed 'Spouses Retreats'?

The possibilities are endless.

What brought this to mind lately was a judge striking down the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (Washington Post);  a place the federal government has no place to be.  (A future posting will discuss why the Federal Government needs to have their hands in so many issues.)