Prop 8 UPHELD: Same-Sex Marriage is NOT Legal in California - By the VOICE of the People Who VOTE!

Defense of Marriage in California Must Step It Up!

Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, and LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa celebrate the California Supreme Court's ruling to overturn a voter-approved ban on gay marriage...(AP Photo/Gus Ruelas)
Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, and LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa celebrate the California Supreme Court's ruling to overturn a voter-approved ban on gay marriage...(AP Photo/Gus Ruelas)

Proposition 8 has passed, and restores the definition of marriage between a man and a woman.

Update: 11/5 -  California voters have once again, let their voices be known that the only definition of "Marriage" is between one man, and one woman.  Proposition 8 passed, which now restores and preserves traditional marriage in the state of California; by amending the state constitution.     

Update: 11/2 - Lest we forget the reason that we are now strongly urging a YES Vote on Proposition 8...

In a move that will and should, upset many U.S. Citizens, who value traditional marriage, which is between 'only' a man and a woman -- the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday May 15, 2008 that a ban on gay marriage was unlawful. What this means, is that now, same-sex couples are free to tie the knot in a landmark ruling.



This surprise decision coming out from the California Supreme Court, has some people feeling that this could have nationwide implications. The vote passed, by the seven-member panel who voted 4-3 in favor of the plaintiff. Plaintiff's argued that to restrict marriage only to men and women was discriminatory!



"... limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.




The Marriage Definition Battle in California and the Confusion!

Prior to this decision by the California State Supreme Court, only one US state, that being Massachusetts -- allowed gay marriage. But, California, New Jersey and Vermont have approved legislation which does grant same-sex partners many of the same legal rights as some married couples.

This overturn by the state Supreme Court in California, comes after a long-running battle which began in 2000. California voters went to the polls and approved a law, which declared that only marriage between a man and a women could be legally recognized!

So, how could something like this happen? What really, does it mean to vote in the state of California? Does your vote count?

These are the questions many Californians are asking the state of California right now... and they want some really good answers.

Let me explain what has been happening in the great state of California, since the majority of residence who reside in California, "thought" that they had spoken loud and clear...

Back in February of 2004, none other than the City of San Francisco... sided with opponents against proposition 22 and literally "defied" state legislature. In one of the most arrogant political moves one can recall... local city government began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples - arguing that these "laws" now in place, were illegal! They fought that their equal-rights were not being recognized.

Rightly so, the courts ultimately stopped the issuance of these false marriage licences and declared that every same-sex marriage that took place during this period was VOID!

Defending Marriage with Propostion 22 - What did it really mean?

Proposition 22 was fought and won - in order to protect traditional marriage in the state of California. If the majority of California voters have spoken according to protocol - how then can an action such as this, have happened in the California Supreme Court - of Justice?

As always, a debate for individual rights - that inflames this much passion -- will most likely never go away.

The San Francisco Superior Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, that was in 2005. Their position - was that they could find no "justification" for refusing to allow marriages on gender grounds.

But wait -- that decisions was overturned a year later by the California Court of Appeal. Are you exhausted yet? According to this decision " ...which ruled in a 2-1 decision that the state's desire to "carry out the expressed wishes of a majority" was sufficient to preserve the existing law.

California lawmakers have also voted in favor of gay marriage but the bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said that the matter is for the state's court system to decide on."

So... what do you think? Regardless of religious affiliation or opinion, the voters in California have made their voices quite clear on the subject of "marriage". What we seem to have here, is a backdoor approach to those who opposed the definition of traditional marriage, which is held by the majority in the state of California.

This issue is destined to need to be decided in the United States Supreme Court!



Please join LDS Members and many other faith-based organization in defending traditional marriage. Top LDS Leaders have issued a statement to Church members in California urging them to do "all that they can do" to support passing an amendment to the California Consitution, that once and for all - will define marriage.

Washington Has Released A Statement From the White House:

“It’s unfortunate when activist judges continue to seek to redefine marriage by court order – without regard for the will of the people. Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court illustrates that a federal constitutional amendment is the best way for the people to decide what marriage means.”

Article of Interest: Identical Twin Brothers: One Gay - One Straight, A Discussion about Same-Sex Marriage and Prop 8

More by this Author

Please feel free to leave your repectful comments... 96 comments

SweetiePie profile image

SweetiePie 8 years ago from Southern California, USA

Thank you for writing this hub because my feelings about the issue are the same as yours. I think marriage is sacred, but I was told I was closed minded for feeling that way. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Hi SweetiePie -

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this hub. At times, because of the liberal media - the actual majority who do feel that marriage is only between a man and a woman goes unheard.

It is for this reason, that this unprecedented overturn of the voice of the people is truly shameful.

The California Supreme Court simply over-stepped it's jurisdiction. Most likely, this decision will be short-lived.

The sadness that I feel personally, is that there must be a better way to work through these issues that are of concern for so many individuals -- and not be so terribly divisive in the process.

This is a big Country with many options for making all people feel a part and have their needs met - without infringing upon the rights of other good people.

Personally, I don't want to be divided from another person because of this issue. I really do respect other's rights and only ask that we work together to make things palatable for everyone.



ahmu profile image

ahmu 8 years ago

thanks for sharing about this this thing

Maddie Ruud profile image

Maddie Ruud 8 years ago from Oakland, CA

I think you underestimate how many Californians (and people all over the world!) agree with this ruling. Canada, The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and South Africa all uphold gay marriage, and another two dozen countries (including most of Europe) support same-sex unions.

Whatever one's personal beliefs, it is unconstitutional to deny individuals equal rights based on race, gender, religion, sexuality, political leanings. I can't take away the right to vote from people who disagree with me, and conservative Christians similarly can not take away the right to marry from those who disagree with them.

Marriage is a religious institution, anyway. We're supposed to have separation of church and state. Banning same-sex unions is a clear case of religion dictating policy. Whether or not your beliefs allow you to accept homosexuality, being gay does not suddenly make you subhuman, so you cannot deny that homosexuals have rights equal to any other human being.

Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 8 years ago

California again leads the way for the reat of the country!

Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 8 years ago

Ellen Degeneres to marry in California. Why not?

gamergirl profile image

gamergirl 8 years ago from Antioch, TN

Marriage is a religious institution. However, these same laws prevented gay folk from even entering the legal binding contracts that come with marriage. Health care, insurance, etcetera, these things are exclusive of the current conventional marriage system for couples, and California is just the first victory of many to come.

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Hello All -

I respect your opinions and appreciate that they have been offered with such respect.

Maddie - Most of your comment I can find understanding in your perspective. But, you must understand that the voice of the majority of people in the state of California has been ignored. This should be offensive to every U.S. Citizen. Unfortunately "that" point is being ignored in favor of this very devisive debate right now.

All of America needs to wake up. Even the White House has issued a statement that is not favorable to the California State Supreme Court judges, and their obvious mis-use of authority... the issue aside.

Here is the statement released from the White House:

“It’s unfortunate when activist judges continue to seek to redefine marriage

by court order – without regard for the will of the people. Today’s decision by

the California Supreme Court illustrates that a federal constitutional amendment

is the best way for the people to decide what marriage means.”

Paul - I do understand the tolerance that you offer another citizen, as this is not a religious or moral issue for you. Thanks.

gamegirl - I agree, gay people who desire to have a legal and binding relationship which would offer them these same types of benefits is something worth fighting for. My issue is that they feel compelled to call it marriage. For me personally, this is not acceptable, but I do respect their desires.

Thank you all for engaging in this conversation. Hubbers are awesome people.

It looks like this issue will definitely make the U.S. Supreme Court before we have any rest.



SweetiePie profile image

SweetiePie 8 years ago from Southern California, USA

I just wanted to point out that the ban on same sex marriage was approved in 2000.

When it comes to support of same sex marriage is is a demographic voting issue where Nothern and Southern California differ.

I grew up in a Southern California community that expressed very conservative fews on many topics. Voters in Southern California tend to vote more conservatively than those in Northern Californa. I am not trying to cause a debate, just point out the demographics of the issue.

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Thanks SweetiePie,

I appreciate your adding these links to the conversation.

You are correct on the liberal/conservative and North/South differences in the state of California's citizens... nonetheless - the "State" did speak, right?

It is kind of like the water supply issue in California, the North has the water, but the South must also have it to thrive.

We depend on each other as a state in more ways than one, and as the North cannot ignore the South - the South cannot thrive without the North.

We need each other and we best figure out a way to meet the needs of the entire State with respect for differences and the laws which govern the entire land.

The State of California, as a whole - in the past, has been a conservative Republican state.




SweetiePie profile image

SweetiePie 8 years ago from Southern California, USA

I agree that the state did speak. Actually the second article shows that polls show that the majority of Californians support traditional marriage. I guess I should have explained that better my last post :).

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author


Yes, I am fully aware of the polls. This is precisely "why" Americans overall should be concerned about what has happened in the State of California.

You might also want to check out the polls Nationwide on this same issue!

When the "voice of the people" has been ignored by those who have been given the kind of power that a State Supreme Court has been granted by the "people" - we must all raise our voices.

Regardless of what anyone is 'thinking' right now - no side (sadly) has won anything here. This has simply been one more strategic move - in the overall ongoing battle in the right to be considered "married" and have the same rights as heterosexual couples do, who legally marry. Some say it is simply semantics:-(

Right now, this actually comes down to an abuse of powers. U.S. Citizens cannot allow this, even for something which appears to some, as "worthy" enough to look past how they got here for now.

It is one thing when the people play tennis with their own issues. It is quite another when those of authority do so - and actually "think" it is acceptable.

One can only suspect, that these few who took this unconstitutional action in the State of California -- knew not only that 'what' they did, but 'how' they did it - was wrong; but did so in order to cause outrage nationwide and drive this issue to the United States Supreme Court.

Please remember that this was done by a body of seven persons, with a 4-3 vote - tight. Other members said that they too felt it was taking action that they did not have the authority to use.

This should tell us all something about what has happened. It was not, that they did or did not have the same opinion perhaps, but they "knew" it was a moral and ethical decision to not overturn the voice of the people whom they serve.

Your vote is to be honored!

This backfired for them in the past when they ignored the declaration of proposition 22 and the voice of the people of California. They began issuing marriage licenses without authority. These "marriages" were then rendered void.

Now, they have taken their case to the State Supreme Court and have convinced them too, to do that which is unlawful. This too will be overturned most likely.

U.S. Citizens are now 'banning' together on this issue of defending traditional marriage and are preparing to go all in amending the U.S. Constitution to protect marriage.

Once again, if state governing systems cannot do their job by upholding the "voice" of their people... it is time for the U.S. Government to get involved.

Whether the final voice, in the end - will be a majority of those who are on one side of this issue or the other -- doesn't really matter at the moment. We should all be on the "same-side" of this kind of arrogance in our local governments.



Kathryn Skaggs

In The Doghouse profile image

In The Doghouse 8 years ago from California


Your points are well stated, clearly expressing the REAL issue here, that of- over stepping bounds of authority. Since when did the people's vote not matter? If that is the case...what will be decided by a "few" in the future? I could not agree with you more in the statement you made warning the entire nation of a fearful future if this is left unchecked. We should all be enraged by this decision, for the basic fact that the voice of the people has been ignored! I do not care what the issue would we be feeling if a "few" deemed polygamy constitutional all of a sudden? Would the opinions go in the same direction I wonder? This simply must be a point of consideration...what are we really debating here after all? Great Hub with a lot of insights to consider, Thank you.

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author


Thank you for taking the time to comment. You add to the considerations that must be acknowledged with this situation.

A small group of individuals given authority - need to know that this type of action will not be tolerated by U.S. Citizens. This type of manipulation of power must be seen through -- whether or not we like the action for our cause taken.

Thank you for staying on topic here.



Uninvited Writer profile image

Uninvited Writer 8 years ago from Kitchener, Ontario

Sorry, everyone has the right to get married...

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Uninvited Writer,

Everyone should have equal rights. Calling it "marriage" is a completely different matter. This is where we should focus on a discussion that could really make changes that would benefit everyone.

Thanks for your comment.



donnaleemason profile image

donnaleemason 8 years ago from North Dakota, USA

It seems to be those that are loudest now days that get heard.

We have many Gay right groups and activists.

We have very few who are willing to bat against it. But, then what comes next?

outraged! 8 years ago

Marriage is the union between a man and woman! If the homosexual community wants to have certain rights then fight for those rights, but let's not confuse things by calling it marriage!

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author


Same thing happens with our own children 'if' we are not careful... the loudest one seems to get most of the attention and the other's needs can easily be set aside. This does not mean, that each of their needs are important.

But, as in the 'family' - when differences or needs are perceived as divisive, unity is never achieved.

I don't believe that we need to see this as a battle. I would much more like to see this as a needed conversation or dialogue, where we can meet the needs of the entire family, without disrespecting each other.

If functional families are able to obtain such an environment, then surely we adults can work this out too.

We must stop dealing with this, as a right or wrong issue per se. Even if we do have our moral or ethical differences.

My only issue with what is considered "equal rights" and offering the same to all people - does come down to the fact that children become involved - children without choice.

We must insist that however or whatever determinations are made by the majority of voters in this country - by due process - are fought for!

Thanks for commenting.



LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author


You are correct.

I truly believe that when both sides of this issue are willing to communicate respectfully with one another and not in sensational terms - we could work out a system for those who want their gay-rights and those who stand firm on the definition of what "marriage" is...

I don't believe that most people who are out to defend marriage are necessarily homophobic. I am not.

I do however, believe that those out to defend marriage are very strongly pro-family, in the traditional sense.

Problems begin to arise when those who desire to have the traditional marriage, also want to consider themselves traditional families as well. I believe that this is what seems to inflame this dialogue most.

Maybe I am wrong, but if it were only about benefits, rights of a married partner to their spouse, etc... I really don't think things would become quite as heated.

So what is it that really inflames this issue? It most likely comes down to some who feel that a moral judgement is being made here. I don't like that conclusion though.



Paynefull 8 years ago

I completely agree with Nana and Doghouse. It seems that the entire human race tends to sweep things “under the rug” as long as it agrees with your lifestyle. We do this in politics, sports, religion even race. As was stated earlier, this is not (or at least SHOULD not be) about gay vs. straight, but rather about the “few” deciding for the majority. If this was regarding a completely different issue, the same people that are celebrating today would be outraged.

Just my opinion.

SweetiePie profile image

SweetiePie 8 years ago from Southern California, USA

You are very correct when you say this issue is about the vote of the people being overturned and not a moral judgement. From your hubs I can tell you are a very caring person about the feelings of all people and I think that is wonderful. I think many people are pro-traditional marriage are not homophobic and I, just as you are, am not prejudiced against anyone. Also, I have Muslim friends who agree with me on this one and who feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman, so it is not just Christians who feel this way. Even some people who are homosexual are against same sex marriage and this may sound outlandish, but there are actually people out there that feel that way too.

kerryg profile image

kerryg 8 years ago from USA

I agree with Maddie, Gamergirl, etc. Proposition 22 was obviously unconstitutional, so this is a case where the "voice of the people" can justly be overruled by the voice of the American people, which upholds the equal rights granted to all citizens under the Constitution. If people want to fight for an amendment to our federal Constitution, that is another matter, but I will consider it a sad day if such an amendment ever passes, to see discrimination written into a document that has upheld equal rights for so long. I do wholeheartedly agree that religious groups who oppose same-sex marriage should not be forced to perform marriages for same-sex couples, but nor should they be allowed to dictate the life options of those who do not share their beliefs.

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author



Your point is very well made. I appreciate your taking the time to comment here.



LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

SweetiePie -

Thank you so much for engaging with this thread, on this important conversation that needs to be discussed.

I really appreciate the points that you have made and added to the dialogue. I hope that others can see the wider view with what has happened in the State of California.



Craig Dewe profile image

Craig Dewe 8 years ago from Auckland, New Zealand

With all due respect, you stated it right there: "Problems begin to arise when those who desire to have the traditional marriage, also want to consider themselves traditional families as well."

Why should same-sex couples not be able to consider themselves traditional families? So a single mother with two children becomes an nontraditional family. Should anyone that doesn't have a father, a mother, and children consider themselves inferior because they aren't part of a 'traditional' family?

Because that's what the argument comes down to. People not wanting to give the same acknowledgement to same-sex couples. Why do they not deserve your term of marriage that you hold so sacred? Because it could denote equality?

Look at history. A black person wasn't allowed to drink from the same water fountain as a white person. They still got the water, but the very nature of segregation labelled them as 'inferior.' This is the exact same issue with the term marriage. It's saying "you can do what you like, but you will never be the same as us!"

And in my humble opinion, what the court done was correct. When "the people" are denying the basic human rights and ignoring your own constitution, they deserve to be overturned. The majority is not always right.

At the time, the German people were quite happy killing Jews, so we should have let that continue? At the time, a majority of the US people were quite happy with slavery and other blatantly racist behaviors, so that should have continued?

And considering the fact that most US states don't even have "civil union" partnerships that give same-sex couples the same rights, this clearly shows that the issue is not over terminology. It's over discrimination.

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Hi KerryG - Your points are well made, and I am certainly cognizant of them.

I still, really cannot see how such a position can be maintained when those who voted on Prop 22, did so through the proper channels which are designated in this Country to 'know' the will of the people.

How can the "voice of the people" be unconstitutional, when it is gained by the majority of Citizens who live in a state and also by the legal system in place?

This just does not jive, to me.



Craig Dewe profile image

Craig Dewe 8 years ago from Auckland, New Zealand

The voice of the people can be unconstitutional when your 14th Amendment states:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The courts are simply trying to fix the earlier error.

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author


I personally do not believe that this is what has happened. The institution of "traditional" marriage is not the only avenue to have every citizens rights honored. It is only so, if others insist that it be so.

If focusing on the word "abridged" meaning to shorten a thing or whittle it down and in this manner cut others off or even shorten the "definition", etc... I do not feel that your interpretation of this part of the constitution is appropriate. Nor does the statement for the U.S. White House agree with what you are suggesting.

If anything, what is happening here is a move to "lengthen" marriage to something that it simply is not and never has been.

Thank you for engaging in this conversation. Do you feel that designating any type of "relationship" which wishes to gain the same status in every-way as those who are "married" as we know it now - is constitutional?

What about polygyny, etc... ? I am curious as to how we would then bring in any others in "different" than the traditional "marriage" relationships - into this same conversations?

Thanks. This is a serious question for us to consider. Same-sex relationships are not the only people in this country who want to form legal "relationships", etc...



SweetiePie profile image

SweetiePie 8 years ago from Southern California, USA

It sadens me that people are making a connection between racism and same sex marriage because this is just not the case. It seems right now it is not popular to say you support traditional marriage and I do not understand why people are so opposed to it. Everyone should have the right to a job, to vote, to shop, health care, live with who they want, but marriage is a very different thing. I think if people should live together that is their choice, but why do they need a marriage to prove it? Marriage is traditionally a union between and man and a woman, and I think if people are so much for change they would not need to be defined by a marriage. Also like I said before not all homosexuals are in support of same sex marriage because many of them have converted to Christianity and Islam which does not allow it. Some people are afraid to express their opinions supporting traditional marriage because people will think they are close minded. Same sex marriage is not allowed in many Islamic countries, but please consider the fact that gay people are treated with equal rights in the US, whereas in Egypt someone can be openly harassed for being homosexual. I think in the US we must continue to always ensure everyone is treated fairly, respectfully, with rights, and not harassed. However, I think marriage should remain as it is. Same sex marriage may be legalized across the country one day, but this could be at the expense of many people who feel marriage is for a husband and wife. Many friends I know who do not believe in marriage live together and think marriage is to constrictive. So I am wondering, if traditional marriage is to exclusive for some, why do so many want to join in these unions?

Maddie Ruud profile image

Maddie Ruud 8 years ago from Oakland, CA


You keep saying that the problem is that the courts are ignoring the will of the people. If the majority of people in this country want to discriminate, I'm all for having that will ignored. Should slavery have remained legal in this country, simply because the majority of the South wanted it to?

And I just can't see the logic in claiming that allowing other people to have the title "married," infringes somehow on other "married" people's rights. And I'd like to state again that I think the root mistake here is allowing the government to be caught up in an issue that is religious in nature. Marriage is a religious institution. I bet your church wouldn't "marry" two people of the same sex. So in that case, you do, indeed, have dibs on "marriage"--at least in the way that it seems to matter to you.

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author


I wanted to just take a brief moment and thank those who have engaged in this conversation on my hub, and done so without rancor. I know how difficult that this conversation can be, since we all have such passionate feelings. I can't tell you how much I personally respect how you have all communicated here, and also without the normal sensationalism which can often be found in many threads...

Maddie - I feel that when we bring the "race" issue into this conversation - we still do not have an appropriate level with which to compare.

For those who are desiring to defend marriage as it is known to the majority - those who have suffered discrimination due to race, which as we all realize, absolutely requires that equal rights are ensured through those courts that are in place to do so. No one today, will argue this and there is a reason for that...

Here is where we most likely have differences of thought, and to which there is still another great debate being had... It is whether homosexuality is nature or nurture? I don't know for sure, but what I do know is in order to engage in a homosexual relationship - a choice must be made.

The color of our skin is not something that we can choose -- even if we have strong tendencies or urges, etc... So 'choice of actions' is a major component when it comes to discriminating against those who absolutely have no ability to change their own circumstances.

Neither can a woman (without surgery) decide that she will now be a man to avoid being discriminated against.

I understand that saying this, feels discriminatory toward some, but in reality it can actually be offensive to those who truly are discriminated against, because of that which they could "never" change due to a choice to act one way or the other.

Because of this major debate in the conversation of "discrimination" in relation to those who desire any other kind of relationship, other than "traditional" marriage -- we must understand that a choice to act in a way that is in opposition to the majority, will naturally be met with opposition.

This is not to say that I feel those who desire anything but the traditional type of "marriage" are intentionally oppositional. But, it is the position that they make a choice to place themselves in, by a choice that is "different".

Simply because someone is "different" by their choice of actions, does not give them equal rights as those in the majority. This could almost be termed as a "false" minority.

I asked the question earlier of a poster and they have not responded. Perhaps you might have some thoughts...

"Do you feel that designating any type of "relationship" which wishes to gain the same status in every-way as those who are "married" as we know it now - is constitutional?

What about polygyny, plural marriage, etc... ? I am curious as to how we would then bring in any others in "different" than the traditional "marriage" relationships - into this same conversations?"

I personally do not feel, that we can isolate same-sex relationships as the only "false minority" to desire the same benefits and status as traditional "marriage".

For those paying close attention to what the fall-out of these most recent polygamous relationships potentially are, upon children with no choice -- a devastating state of affairs seems to be emerging...

Thanks Maddie. We are all searching to understanding the big picture, and avoid divisiveness.



WeClick2Travel profile image

WeClick2Travel 8 years ago from Northern Michigan

Hear, hear Maddie,

This is the point that I think has been missed in this discussion. The California Supreme Court has not “gone against the will of the people.” Nor has it “attempted to redefine marriage”. The Supreme Court in California did exactly what it was intended to do. Namely, to determine if a law contradicts the California state constitution.

What the Supreme Court said is that the constitution of California prohibits discrimination against any person based on their fundamental nature. If the law allows one group of people a certain right, the constitution guarantees that right must be extended to all people. If the majority of Californians thought that Buddhists should not be allowed to marry because Buddhism is contradictory to their idea of Christian values, the constitution would protect Buddhists’ rights as well.

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

weclicktotravel -

I appreciate your bringing into the conversation the principle of what is "fundamental" and this was basically my previous point that I was attempting to introduce.

I think that this is perhaps what is being cast aside in this conversation. What is fundamental and what is potentially a "choice" are hugely in debate.

The White House is not supportive of the actions of the California State Supreme Court. Of the 4-3 vote taken in the Supreme Court, the three dissenting members, from what I understand, have issued statements that what their colleagues have done was a misuse of authority as well.

Inferring into the conversation, as a fact, that homosexuality is a fundamental state of being for these individuals who choose to act on a tendency, urge, preference, etc.. is not credible enough to close this discussion...

Also, there are many many more - than those who profess Christianity -- who are willing to stand behind "traditional" marriage, and desire to protect it.

Ideally, if there were a true separation of Church and State and only "Churchs' could perform what is deemed as "marriage" between a man and a woman, due to it being a religious institution -- we would still have issue with those not "religious" wanting to say that they were a religious institution, such as "marriage".

I don't feel that it is correct to assume that those on one side of the conversation are "religious" and those on the other side are "not" religious. I happen to know that many gay people are religious. I don't feel it is right to insinuate such divisiveness on gender preference.

Most individuals that I know, who support marriage as between one man and one woman -- and not any other combination in a relationship, are solely based in the fundamental principle of the family unit and protecting children.

From a religious perspective, it is that the "family" is ordained of God for the perpetuating of the human race and for the optimum emotional well-being and progress of an individual from birth to adulthood.

This is not meant to imply that a person with same-gender attraction cannot be, or is not a good parent. What this does mean however, is that a child in the optimum circumstance, in general - is in having two parents -- which is a mother and a father -- by nature ideally.

This is what is being protected for as many children as possible. Adults may choose for themselves to engage in whatever types of relationships that they desire. They have every right to lobby to have equal rights granted them in regards to what legal benefits a committed partnership should be granted.

Those who in essence "defend" marriage as we generally know it today, do not want these legal partnerships considered traditional marriage, as to perpetuate what the family unit is not, naturally. This has everything to do with protecting the birthright of children, who cannot do so themselves.

This, is what is important when it comes to the equal rights of those who are not in a position to make these choices themselves. A decision to step out of traditional marriage and what is natural in creating such, is to make a choice based on the needs and wants of adults.

You suggest that if the constitution grants one person a thing, it is bound to grant it to all citizens, correct? "Marriage" is only between one man and one woman. This right of "marriage" is available to any two people in this type of relationship. There is no discrimination to a man and a woman that want to be married. That is what "marriage" is.

Those who desire to have any other kind of partnership, which may be similar to marriage, must define what that is for them, and work to achieve what they feel is necessary within the systems in place to care for all U.S. Citizens.

Thank you for taking the time to comment.



SweetiePie profile image

SweetiePie 8 years ago from Southern California, USA


I like how you described in the last paragraph how other types of partnerships should be defined by laws that respect the rights of all U.S. Citizens. I think you have made several really good points, but these have been overshadowed in this discussion. Also, I wanted to come back to the point that many religions do not accept same sex marriage and others of a non-religious nature also feel the same way. People who wish to preserve traditional marriages are not discriminating against others just because they want to preserve marriage, it is just a matter of principal and high importance to this majority. Most people I know would never say anything discriminatory towards individuals that are members of same sex relationships, but many people are willing to call those who support traditional marriage discriminatory. It seems that is an easy thing to say, but this hurts people feelings and just confuses the issue.

Honestly at this point I feel there is nothing more I can say, but I think it is wrong to say those who support traditional marriage are discriminatory just because they support traditional value. Also, as an ethnically mixed woman I have experienced true discriminatory remarks and I must add there is no comparison to this and opposing same sex marriage. For example, many different groups of people are member of same sex marriages, but when you encounter racism it is against only one group. Really both of these things are different and I did not want to bring up this point, but I just wanted to clarify. Some ethnic groups here in the US are treated with less respect than same sex marriage partners would ever be. For instance, a Caucasian white couple of a same sex partnership would be much more likely to be treated better in many restaurants than a family where a lady is wearing a hijab, and I have seen this happen several times. This is the last things I will say on the issue, but I just wanted to clarify.

WeClick2Travel profile image

WeClick2Travel 8 years ago from Northern Michigan

I understand the argument you are presenting here. Black skin can not be changed, nor can gender. You believe that being homosexual is a choice and that people who choose to be homosexual should change to avoid discrimination. For the sake of argument let's say I agree, for now, that being gay is a choice.

Christianity is the majority religion here in the US. Would we expect a Jew to change his religion to avoid discrimination, how about a Muslim? We aren’t born Jewish or Muslim or Christian. These are choices, just as easily changed as sexual orientation. Should I change my political view point from Republican to Democrat to avoid being discriminated against, my citizenship, my hair color? These choices are protected because, just like skin color and gender, they are fundamental to who each person is as an individual. Heterosexuality or homosexuality is a fundamental component of individual identity. No one should be asked to give up their core self to attain social equality.

The constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to marry, doesn’t define marriage in any way. It does say that if a right is granted to some, it must be guaranteed to all REGARDLESS of gender. It does guarantee the right to pursue happiness. So far it has never been amended to take away a right based on gender, only to guarantee them. I pray regularly that it will stay that way.

The issue of polygamy is interesting in the current climate. Polygamy was originally banned as a protection for women. Because polygamist relationships are typically one male multiple females, they were seen as exploitive of women. They were also often arranged and sometimes occurred when the female participants were very young. Marriage laws are intended to provide protection against abandonment and protection for children. That protection becomes troublesome when there are multiple branches within a family unit to protect.

Marriage laws create one protected relationship at a time. If you want to divorce and marry someone else that's fine, but the legal issues from one marriage must be resolved before another can begin. Some might call this serial polygamy. From a practical standpoint the state often regulates legal relationships in a way that keeps them simple. I will say however, that I think that the political pressure which was brought upon the Mormon Church before the turn of the century to disavow polygamist practices was quite clearly religious discrimination.

Gay marriage does not create the same social policy conflicts as plural marriage. An agreement of mutual support between two people is not dependant on their gender for enforcement. Extensive study of children raised by same sex partners shows that they suffer no harm and that they have, statistically, no higher likelihood of identifying themselves as gay when they reach adulthood. Gay relationships are no more or less stable than straight ones.

The problem comes when you see homosexuality as an abomination AND as something voluntary, a simple choice, like what kind of car to buy. When seen through that lens it is understandable how you can feel that marriage and the birthright of our children need to be protected from it. In addition, your opinion is formed by your Christian religious belief. You naturally feel that your beliefs are true and correct and assume that anyone who shares Christian beliefs would agree.

Many who oppose gay marriage say that it is a religious issue which the state should not attempt to regulate. You stated that some wish to paint the issue as religious vs. non religious. Then you kindly grant that some gay people are quite religious. I would assert that the only people who would paint the conflict in that way are those who believe they are defending traditional marriage. Fortunately there are many, less conservative Christian denominations which don’t share the belief that homosexuality is an abomination.

We don’t agree either, that God ordained marriage as only between a man and a woman, but we understand marriage to be between two people who love each other and wish to pledge that love forever. Every pro gay group I’ve been associated with was church based. The Christian church I attend recognizes gay spiritual marriages regularly. When those who oppose gay marriage say they are speaking on behalf of the church, I always have to wonder whose church they mean. Personally, I feel that the state's failure to recognize these marriages amounts to religious discrimination.

You say the ideal family for the propagation of children is one man and one woman. I would have to agree. It usually takes one man and one woman to create a baby. I will leave out the issues of fertility medicine from this discussion but when I say usually I don’t mean always. In my personal situation, my children are adopted. I (male) stayed home and raised them. My wife supported us. She was the professional and I was the nurturer. In our situation the requirement to have two biological contributors to create children was moot. Further, our gender roles were totally reversed. The fact of our gender difference had no real bearing on the quality of our ability to raise children.

From the perspective of the state, there really is no reason to prohibit gay marriage. It comes back, then, to why we are afraid if it. I, like Maddie, can see no reason why allowing two people of the same gender to be married would cause harm to anyone else’s relationship or the meaning of anyone else’s marriage.

The idea that the homosexual community is a "false minority" is somewhat divisive itself. Estimates are that approximately 3-5% of the population of the US identifies itself as homosexual (not including bisexuals). As far back as The Kinsey Report, estimates were that just over 6% of sexual activity in the US was homosexual.

On average children have first awareness of sexual orientation it at 10 years old, self label as gay or straight at 15 and come out to parents at 17.This self understanding is almost always more firmly rooted than religious or even family identity. Even if it is not a genetic predisposition, homosexuality is firmly ingrained at a developmental level. Gays are also the most frequent target of hate crimes in the US. 45% of males and 20% of females report verbal or physical abuse by peers.

These aren't people who frivolously made a decision one day and want the rest of the world to accommodate them. They suffer physical abuse, stereo-typing, social rejection and isolation because of who they are. They go to work, contribute to society and don’t pose any unusual threat to anyone else. I don't believe that as a community they are seeking any kind of false status. They simply wish to be allowed to be who they are and share in the rights and privileges that the rest of us have, regardless of the X or Y chromosome of their chosen partner.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 8 years ago

LdsNana, Would you support gay marriage if a majority voted in favor of it? Just curious. Do you support legal abortion in view of the fact that a majority, by all polls, supports it? Polls also show that a majority of Americans support handgun control legislation. May I assume that you support more effective control of handguns and assault weapons?

wbs 8 years ago

It's hard to believe that the state can over turn the vote of the people. 62% TO 38%. that a group of judges can overturn millions of voters by a 4 to 3 margain. so by 1 vote this has been overturned. This go's to show us how important it is for us to vote for people who will apoint judges, that will do the right!!!

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Thank you all for you very pertinent comments.  I don't have time right now to respond, but I will when I return home this evening.

Ralph -

Absolutely, although I would be very disappointed, as I truly have hopes that we can find an answer to this controversy.  But hey, as you can most likely tell - I am an idealist.  

What is  most devastating to me personally, in this entire issue, is that good people are being divided as if they should be enemies.

That is the biggest lie in all of this!  Perhaps if we would make the "choice" to not see it in this light, we might make some headway.

Just because an issue is passed through the system to determine such, does not make it right, right? But let's insist on the proper use of the system in place, after all - it is the best we have:-)

No, just because the majority speaks on any issue, does not mean I support the issue now - I support the U.S. Constitution and the "voice" of the people properly spoken.

That is my major issue - right now:-)


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 8 years ago

I find it hard to see why anyone would be "devastated personally" by allowing others the benefits of a sanctified monogamous relationship. I don't see how that would affect you personally one-way or the other. On the other hand, the beneficial effect for gays who are permitted to marry will be quite significant.

Setting aside the issue of allowing the use of the term "marriage," I hope you at least support allowing gay couples' relationships to be recognized legally without calling the relationships marriage. As far as I am concerned the best answer would be to allow gays to have their relationships legally recognized in the same way as marriage and leave the issue of marriage up to their priests, ministers and rabbis. There is no real need to fight over whether or not to call these relationships marriage. Gays should be allowed to have civil unions recognized by the courts, employers, etc. And if they want to be married they should be free to seek out a church or temple or mosque willing to do so.

[BTW, I am heterosexual, raised a Christian, married to the same woman for 39 years and have three grown children .]

Craig Dewe profile image

Craig Dewe 8 years ago from Auckland, New Zealand

Sorry, here's my comment again from just above with proper wouldn't let me edit it to fix it...

You asked if polygamy should be considered under marriage as well, which is a valid question. At the risk of diving into a semi-related discussion, why not?

In your argument you refer repeatedly to what is "natural" or "nature vs nurture." If you look at nature, homosexuality between animals and humans has been going on for thousands of years. Therefore it is also, by definition, "traditional."

The same is true for polygamy, it is present in nature so it must be "natural." Polygamy becomes tricky when it is forced or corrupts children that don't know better. But if it exists between 3 or more consenting adults and they want their union recognised, who are we to judge?

By logic, simply looking to nature also shows us that God, in whatever shape or form he appears, must agree if the religion believes that God created life.

As for homosexuality being a "choice," I do not believe that debate is still raging. Ignoring nature and thousands of years of history for a moment, have you ever chosen to fall in love? Have you ever started a relationship because a person seemed to be a good provider for your family, or was there something more?

Attraction between any two creatures is a result of the biological functions of their bodies. The chemical interactions that occur and result in feelings. The scientific proof is there, it is simply being ignored to strengthen a weak argument.

You discuss the effect this may have on the children, which is also valid. However I believe you are missing a key fact. Children will adapt to the environment they are introduced into. Children are very resilient and do not come into this world asking why they don't have a mother and father. They have no preconceived notion of what a "family" consists of and all that matters is they receive love and nurturing.

What becomes a problem is when they are introduced to a social environment where their situation is deemed to be "different." This is a problem caused by societal pressure that can effect children. If this debate was over and all parents taught their children correctly that homosexuality is normal, the problem would disappear.

It is because people hold close minded views of how a "family" or "marriage" should be, that we arrive at these problems in the first place. If everyone was a lot more tolerant of differences, the world would be a better place.

And if you won't to haggle over definitions, abridged also means "to deprive; cut off," which is exactly what is happening with same-sex couples rights.

As for going against the US White House:"The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into."Governor Bush on gay marriage, Larry King Live (February 15, 2000)

SweetiePie - I saddens me that the rights of people are being oppressed.

The same rights, those given under marriage or even a recognised civil union, are not being given to same-sex couples.

It has no bearing on the argument that some homosexual couples don't want to get married, the argument is that they have the right to it. After this discussion I've decided to have a civil union when the time comes, but I still have the right to marriage because I am "luckily" attracted to women.

And I assure you that someone can be openly harassed for being homosexual in the US as well. Go to YouTube and type in anti gay rally for starters.

Ok, this was meant to be shorter but so many questions to answer. But it's worth it if I can get just one person to think long and hard about what is happening here and make the right choice. Because change happens one person at a time.

Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 8 years ago

A similar approach might work for polygamy--legally recognize only one marriage at a time for anyone. And if a man or woman wants to have more than one domestic partner at a time, that would be up to them, but the additional partners beyond one would not be recognized legally for any purpose such as inheritance, divorce, etc.

SweetiePie profile image

SweetiePie 8 years ago from Southern California, USA

Many churches and temples will marry same sex partners, but keep in mind these are places of worship deviate from mainline Christianity and even more traditional Jews would frown upon it. However, it will be harder to find a mosque that would marry a same sex couples because these unions are not acceptable in traditional Islam. I suggest those who want to see how same sex partners are treated in Egypt read the Yacoubian Building, which discusses how all groups are treated in that country. In Egypt you can be openly harassed for being even interested in this lifestyle, so it is very rare or unlikely to find a mosque that will marry same sex partners in most countries of the world. Some Canadian Muslims are support same sex marriage, but their opinions on this matter deviate from traditional Islam. With the many Christians, Sikhs, some Jews, the vast majority of Muslism, and many other religious and non-religious people, it is very clear there are many who do not support these unions. I am just pointing this out and I feel no one will change their minds about this matter, however, I think LdsNana has done an excellent job of pointing out how the majority of people in California feel about this issue. This is a very well researched and detailed hub, and even if you do not agree with those who support traditional marriage, I think you can see she has fairly and respectively presented the information here :).

sandra rinck 8 years ago

I can't see how a couples personal feelings for one another could or should have anything to do with you or me personally.

Why should you care or pretend to know what goes on in a gay marriage? I can't believe that people can or will hate people for wanting to get married.

What the hell is wrong with you people? How does a personans gayness have any effect on you or the world?

You know what I think is way about babies with out parents. Or parents who just don't want thier babies.

Worry about yourself. The only hate that comes from outsiders trying to make the world what you believe it should be like.

I love gay people, I think gay people have every right to be married. And there isn't a damn person in the world who should have the power to tell two people in love they can not be together under God.

Let God take care of it, not you. I pray that God will bless each and everyone one of them with security and love and acceptance, that no one can or will hurt them, make hate of them or try to make them feel as lesser humans.

SweetiePie profile image

SweetiePie 8 years ago from Southern California, USA

I just want to say I think no one hates anyone choicing to get married whether they are a same sex couple or a man and woman. This is merely a discussion of how many people feel about the institution of marriage. If same sex marriage is legalized in the US I am not going to rally against it, but I feel that myself and others who support traditional marriage have the same right to exrpess our feelings about this issue. This is about our opinions, no hate involved, and I pray that everyone is happy and I always hope all are happy.

Agro Donkey 8 years ago from Ohio

I think that same sex couples should be given the same rights as a married couple but should not have it labled as marriage. God doesn't like homosexuality it says so in many diffrent places in the Bible. Corinthians II states it the best and the planest. If you don't believe me read it. I understand why they want to get married but we need something that will allow them to receive the same benefits as a married couple but is not affiliated with religion in any way shape or form.

francetales profile image

francetales 8 years ago from Toulouse, France

By not allowing same sex couples to marry, same sex couples are denied certain rights that other people have. This violates every state constitution and the federal constitution, giving some groups rights and not all groups. That is why some states had to pass laws defining marriage, because without them, it was a clear case of discrimination. I am talking specifically about things like hospital visitation rights, access to healthcare, right of suvivorship on deeds to property.

I am not guaranteed those rights because I am not married to my partner and i cannot get married to my partner so I can never access those rights, rights which many of you have and have never even had to consider the implications of. There can be no doubt that this makes 2nd class citizens. If we cannot agree on this basic thing, then you are being disingenuous. Every gay person can tell you the laundry list of rights they are denied so if you cannot get the basic fact that this is discrimination, then you don't want to get it. Either you believe ALL people are entitled to the same rights or you endorse inequality.

Okay, I can even accept your argument that same sex marriage goes against your religious beliefs and that you believe marriage to be between a man and a woman. I think it is a bit weak but I can certainly accept it IF . . . . .

On the other hand you go out on the front lines with people fighting for Civil Unions. You don't want same sex couples to be able to call it marriage, fine, but YOU have the obligation to help fight for something else then too. Otherwise you are endorsing inequality and that is when we get to call you homophobic and a bigot. Really, it is that simple. If you say you believe people are equal then show it.

If you want us to believe that you care about equality for all then fight for it. I'm not religious so I don't care if I get to call it a marriage or not. What I am interested in is getting the same rights as others get. If I have to do it with Civil Unions that's fine, but to not even help us fight for Civil Unions shows your true agenda. It's even okay for you to be against gay people, but I'd prefer you'd just say so rather than trying to hide behind a very weak argument.

Please make a Hub soon with pictures about the demonstration you are going to go to in support of civil unions.

francetales profile image

francetales 8 years ago from Toulouse, France

Oh and the other thing, we live in France now because France has something called the PACS, a civil union. It gives almost identical rights to people who get PACSed, btw, more straight couples get PACSed then gay ones. What does that tell you about marriage as an institution? This means that churches don't have to perform a ceremony they might be against. In fact in France marriage is first a civil ceremony and then if you wnat to do it in a religious manner you go to a church after, but the civil ceremony is the binding one. If you feel the state makes your religion make too many compromises then why don't we once and for all enforce a separation of church and state? Wouldn't that solve the dilemma?

Again, either you are for all people having the same rights or you are not. It is that simple. If we put civil unions in place then what could your objection be? I mean, you could object because of your religion but you'd have to accept that our laws come from the constitution and not your religion. I could live rith next door to you and accept that you don't accept me as long as you agree to follow the Constitution. If you can't live by the constitution you should live somewhere else. I'm serious, I'm willing to live among people who have very different beliefs than I do as long as we all agree that we are all equal and deserve the same rights. I don't have to agree with your personal beliefs and you don't have to agree with mine, but we both should be bound by the constitution. You know, the document guaranteeing equal protection under the law. Sadly this was a big factor in our choosing to leave the US.

SweetiePie profile image

SweetiePie 8 years ago from Southern California, USA

Some people are not into demonstrating and only wish to share their beliefs about an issue. I for one would not demonstrate about any issue, even issues I believe in more strongly than these. Everyone is welcome to do that if they wish, but I think we are completely missing the point here. Honestly I was only sharing my point of view and I would not fight or demonstrate against anyone who wants a a same sex marriage. However, to argue that same sex couple are the only ones with less rights is just not fair. How about single people who never find the right person to marry or divorcees? Married couples, hetero domestic partners, and same sex couples living together in California get tax breaks that single people do not get, but I am not complaining about this. I do not get certain tax breaks that people with children get, but I never complain that this is violating my rights. The bottom line is I think everyone can say they are being denied something that the other one does not have, but using language such as saying someone is discriminatory, judgemental, or even saying people do not get it is just not nice behavior.

Ldsnana wrote several times about every one working together, but I noticed several came and were just becoming almost slightly hostile towards anyone expressing the desire to preserve traditional marriage. I am not married, I do not have kids, so I will say I have many disadvantages to those who do not have kids, but I also have advantages. Everyone has advantages and disadvantages, so why do we keep picking at that point? I think the answer at this point would be to give everyone health care, everyone a job that wants one, ensure everyone have housing, freedom of speech, voting rights, but this will not happen over night. Maybe the idea of what they do in France of calling same sex unions civil unions would work here because then we could distinguish between this and traditional marriage. I am not saying I have changed my mind about preserving traditional marriage, but I am thinking that might be a start. It still feels like many are judgemental towards those who support traditional marriage, which is not helping the situation.

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Wow, I am so impressed with the overall dialogue that has been engaged with here.  So many points made, which have given me much to contemplate:-)

I truly thank you all for your participation here... continue on please.

So much of the time, on so many other online blogs, this conversation becomes unruly and filled with rancor.  You all have refrained, and yet I understand that we all have strong opinions.

I thank you, for helping me to better understand your positions on these issues.  My heart truly goes out to all sincere individuals who feel that their needs and rights are not being met in this Country.

For me personally, and I do not speak for anyone else when writing here on Hubpages - I honestly hope that as American Citizens, we are able to help one another in making sure those needs are addressed and met - in ways that we can all find acceptable.

Yes, I am a devoted Christian.  I firmly believe and am also committed in my life to live and teach such principles - but do not desire to do so at the exclusion of others.  In saying this, I would hope that those who choose differently than I, would also know that I respect their right to do so and do not necessarily deem them "evil".  I would hope for the same in return.

Why some, are so determined to stress divisiveness with this topic, is beyond me?  I believe that such attitudes only hurt all of us.

Many have presented, suggested and asked great questions, etc...   I personally, wish I had all of the answers, but I don't.  My heart does not want others to be unhappy, but at the same time, that which I personally value and hold dear - is made much more difficult to preserve, "if" we do not find a way to work together and not disrespect that which each of us do value and choose.

Like I said, you all have been so very kind in your "presentations" here, and I feel like I could possibly respond a bit better through another Hub:-)  After all, that is what we do best here. LOL  In fact, some of your "comments" would make great hubs in themselves!  

What passion! 

Just one more thing...


Ralph - I did not say that I would be devastated with such a decision, but disappointed.  In fact, i realize that this is a real possibility.  My devastation, as I stated, would be with the potential inability for all of us, to find a way to communicate in such a way that nobody feels devastated or disappointed...

I personally would find no offense with any who chose a relationship that is different from one man and one woman being united in what we call a "marriage" -  seeking a different way to define such, in order that they too, can enjoy equal rights.  I would gladly consider this alternative to the ongoing issue currently being waged.

I believe in this Country and the ability of it, to provide that which is just for all it's Citizens.  This is precisely what I am fighting for at this time. 

Warm Regards,


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 8 years ago

I'm pleased that we've had a cordial, civil discussion on a controversial subject on which reasonable people disagree.

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Ralph -

Can I frame that? LOL History in the making!


SirDent 8 years ago

I have been watching this hub for a bit and thought I should give my opinion and a little bit of knowledge.

First off this country is a democracy and a republic. In a democracy, the vote of the people is the final say. In a republic, a judge can overturn the vote and rule it unfair or whatever he decides by his interpretation. That is my current understanding of how things work.

I personally believe homosexuality to be a sin and God is opposed to it. I also believe that gossip is a sin and that God is opposed to it also. We see sins as being worse than others, but in the eyes of God, one is no worse than the other.

Same sex marriage is something that I hate to see come into this country, but it is inevitable. I already believe that much of the problems of the world are the fault of sin of the people of the world.

This is my opinion and mine alone.

BIG Mike profile image

BIG Mike 8 years ago from Greece

Personally, I applaud the decision and I’ll share why.

Like it or not, agree with it or not, Gay couples in the United States have just as much right to the pursuit of happiness as do heterosexual couples. Being Gay is not a disease; to some extent, it’s a personal or biological choice; just as is choosing to be heterosexual or even bi-sexual.

The fundamental basis of the US Constitution is that we all have individual rights to do more or less anything as long as in doing so, we do not impugn the rights of others to that same happiness, which is what the majority of voters were doing anyways.

Should 2 consenting, competent adults, regardless of the sexual combination, decide to pursue marriage with all of its sacred vows, then who are the people of California to decide it’s inappropriate for them to do so? What will you do if the state of California ever has a Gay majority and decides to vote on a proposition of outlawing heterosexual marriages? Think about that…

It is ALWAYS wrong for the state to presume to interfere with individuals and to decide what the best life choices are for them. When two people decide to commit the rest of their lives to each other in a monogamous relationship, the decision is theirs and theirs alone.

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author


You certainly have just as much "right" as anyone to have an opinion. But, not even that, can make one's opinion, necessarily the "right" one. But, a good entry.

You present some valid points... I appreciate your adding your voice to this conversation.

You introduced the word "impugn". Excellent word.

I know that this thread has become quite long, but if you are able to read it completely -- I believe some discussion has been had, on attempting to not "impugn" either way. But, to work together to ensure that "all" enjoy the equal rights which are granted in the U.S. Constitution.

Also - I am in complete agreement with you in regard to what 2 consenting adults choose - but when that choice then affects those without choice or even the choices already made by others... well then, I think we need to consider the bigger picture. Of course, this is where it becomes more complicated.

We must refrain from judging others as best we can - and find ways to allow all people to pursue the life that they choose - within reason of others lives. That is most adult, don't you think?

The challenge in this ongoing discussion now, becomes "how" to do so?

I double dare ya? LOL

Thanks for taking the time to comment here.



francetales profile image

francetales 8 years ago from Toulouse, France

Sweetie Pie,

Just because you are single doesn't mean you don't have those rights, you just haven't exercised them yet. I will never have those rights. This is very different. Stop trying to argue that the current laws do not discriminate, they clearly do and it just makes you sound a little ignorant. The grey area is not whether or not discrimination exists, it is what to do about it. There are 3 sides, do nothing because I'm fine with the discrimination, usually taken by religious conservatives who actually think gay people are inferior, OR allow same sex couples some version of marriage but don't call it a marriage, usually taken by religious people who on one hand recognize the discrimination but on the other are not comfortable with calling it a marriage, OR allow full and equal gay marriage, usually taken by gay people and their strong supporters. There are only 3 positions and based on the fact that you won't do anything about it you are on the far right side of this equation. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, you always have the option to change to a more comfortable belief.

So you are not into demonstrating, fine, but you asked why people who favor "traditional" marriage are considered against gay people? That is why. You say you believe everyone should have equal rights but you don't do anything about it. You go so far as trying to say that gay people aren't discriminated against. Your religious views are not the law, the law comes from the Constitution. The constitution says this kind of thing is wrong. Why don't you feel the obligation to change it? Because you like it that way or you don't care, either way, this puts you against gay people.

Anyway, you don't seem to be making a compromise. I would prefer gay marriage but in an effort to accommodate those with strong religious issues I would accept civil unions, a compromise. You are against gay marriage because you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, are you willing to compromise and allow a form of marriage without calling it marriage, a civil union? Why do I have to do all the compromising?

I think marriage is really a civil ceremony more than a religious one BTW. When you want to get married you can either do it at City Hall or in a church. When you want to get divorced, do you go to a church? No you go to City Hall to file for a divorce. The church's word is not the binding one in marriage, it is the state's. Just something to think about.

MrMarmalade profile image

MrMarmalade 8 years ago from Sydney

Apart from the religious feelings generated, which in the main I agree with Kathryn, What happened to the four /three ruling.

I though the original discussion was on the right to change the law. I must admit that I am not knowledgeable on USA laws.

One of my maxims when things go wrong in Government or Big rich Companies is follow the money. Did some one of the four get a birthday bonus?

Again I agree with everything kathryn has stated about religion, still those people will not hurt me. I know I must love my neighbour , as I love myself.

This is a great hub.

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Hello MrM.

Thank  you for bringing us back on the real topic, right now.  I think I even have said, that the issue of what has happened in California "is" that the voice of the people has been squelched by those few with big authority.

Also, even the U.S. White House issued the statement which was NOT in support of what the California State Supreme Court did by overturning the gay-marriage ban.

The issue of same-sex relationships and desiring to legally be "married" is sort of like a big black hole.  It sucks everyone in and everything else with it... therefore, the true issues of proper governing go right down the hole as well:-(

I am not completely certain why this is, but I suppose I could venture a bit of a guess...

People by nature like to be right, right?  Again, this is like a bad tennis match - this continuing back and forth of someone needing to be right, thus making the other wrong or bad.

I don't like this at all.  When we all get too tired - we will end up letting the U.S. Supreme Court decide by an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It is really just like two kids, when they don't agree on a thing - and then they begin to get physically and emotionally abusive...  until mom or dad "has" to step in and because of these "kids" inability to behave like adults (lol) the big guns will make a final decision.

Guess what - most parents, without the intention - will be perceived as playing favorites.

Adults are big kids.  Now, before mom and dad take this thing away from the "people" -- doesn't anyone think it is a good idea for all of us to settle down and just talk about things?

Thanks MrM... we all needed your very wise "voice" of reason - before things get out of hand here:-)



Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 8 years ago

Well, as you know, our government has three branches. Laws are not based solely on the will of the majority. I haven't read the California decision or even a complete account of it. However, I suppose the court may have ruled that the equal protection clause of the 8th? amendment to the Constitution means that everyone has the right to enjoy the benefits of legal marriage. Excluding one group is unconstitutional. A similar ruling not long ago (in the fifties) ruled that laws passed by majority vote which prohibited inter-racial marriage are unconstitutional .. .. ..

b opinionated profile image

b opinionated 8 years ago from California

I am soo dissapointed. How on other does one persons life choice affect the sanctity of YOUR marriage? Who are you to judge another human being for falling in love and wanting to spend their lives together? This affects you in no way yet you complain as though they got married in your house and tore the place up. These are the types of predudices that stop of from progressing as human beings, as brothers as sisters, and as gods children. Let him be the judge, it is not up to you to judge someone or something you know little about.

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author


Perhaps you could be right? Your point that there are three judicial branches of our governing system is an important one. This is the checks and balance system that we will inevitably need to rely on - for this issue.

As I am sure you are aware, it is no surprise that there is currently a petition being circulated to do just this - take it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I don't really care too much for this alternative, although I admit I did sign the petition to preserve traditional marriage. But I do hope others realize that this petition is only going forward, or continuing - as it has been active for quite sometime - because it looks as though we have hit that darn wall...

There truly are those issues that are unconstitutional, but I am still of the feeling that the rights which same-sex relationships are seeking can be had, without calling it "marriage". As marriage, at least from my perspective is only between a man and a woman, etc...

That is not to say, as some would like to force here - that a judgement of individuals as being bad or evil is what makes them not able to "marry".

It is my desire only, to preserve marriage as I understand and truly believe it to be... it is not my desire or wish to keep others, from their legal rights in this country.

I hope I am getting that across. I really don't like watching good people, who honestly desire "marriage" to remain as it has always been, be seen as mean... anymore than others want to be seen by us, as "bad". This is just divisive and does nobody any good.

Most important, is that this is just not true... at least not from most of the people I associate with. I know that there are some zealots out there, as always. But most conservatives are quite reasonable -- in my world:-)

Firm, but not zealots! LOL



P.S. I too, need to take the time and read the full ruling and then I will be better able to respond here. I downloaded the pdf from the state website. Perhaps I should post the link here?

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

A quick note....  i have decided to approved a few comments that I feel are meant to inflame or could do so.

Please do not submit any more post, that it will be necessary to deny.

It is my honest desire to communicate with one another and leave the judgement aside on both sides of the issue.  There are other places online that you may have 'those" types of conversations.

I thank those who have remained respectful and kind.  I have very much enjoyed learning together.  My apologies for a few of these comments, but I felt as though these voices do have a right to speak, but I am saying --- tone it down please. 

I will not approve any more comments that I don't feel have the intentions to communicate respectfully and not inflame or divide.

Thank you, 


MrMarmalade profile image

MrMarmalade 8 years ago from Sydney

Yes do tone your comments down, they are getting rather strident. Have your say and let it rest. One day you may make a difference in the Supreme Court of the USA

Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 8 years ago

Many of those who criticize gay promiscuity are the same people who oppose their efforts to have lifelong monogamous relationships. That strikes me as inconsistent.

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author


Yes, it does "seem" inconsistent.... but,

regardless of a personal judgement or different opinion of another's behavior, this is just not relevant in the current conversation. We are really talking about the proper use of due process being potentially abused here... which is law. Or the interpretation of such...

Again, when we take this issue to the moral right or wrong of a person - we lose focus on what has happened, potentially - in the State of California. We are not judging people here, only what has happened to "all" people who vote as a voice - in this Country.

Even if "what" or "how" I think or believe is in opposition to how another person thinks or believes - as long as the law is not being broken - both are simply opinions to the "Courts". This is my understanding of how things work at this point.

Oh that I wish everyone saw and felt the same as I, but that is not going to happen. What I would prefer to focus on, is helping everyone to understand that regardless of personal "feelings" about who is right and who is wrong - the real issues are about equal rights and respecting the "feelings" about all, and ensuring the proper use of due process in this Country.

I am currently attempting to study up on the California Constitution in relations to what is currently going on. I am not a lawyer, nor are most of us having this dialogue. We will most likely need to depend on those guys that are better able to interpret legally what has happened.

But I will say this, that the three dissenting members of the CSC -- do know what has happened and do know how to interpret the CA. Constitution... and feel that the authority of their small group has been mis-used.

I am going with that for right now...

Thanks for commenting.



SweetiePie profile image

SweetiePie 8 years ago from Southern California, USA

I have decided after reading all the comments that I change my mind. If same sex people couples want to get married that is great for them. Sorry if anyone thought my opinions were unfair, but I know I am an intelligent and kind person, so I know I did not mean any harm to anyone. I can marry who I want so you should be able to marry who you want, I see your point now. However, I just would like one person to know who made that demeaning comment to me that I never demeaned them and I actually had been very nice to them recently in another forum. It seems people forget the nice things people do, but I will continue to be a nice person myself.

WeClick2Travel profile image

WeClick2Travel 8 years ago from Northern Michigan

I would have to say I agree with your statement. “What I would prefer to focus on, is helping everyone to understand that regardless of personal "feelings" about who is right and who is wrong - the real issues are about equal rights…”, This issue isn’t about the will of the people in creating a law by passing a proposition. It is about whether or not that law is in conflict with the will of the people as established in the California State Constitution. That is not a miss use of the Supreme Court it is the very reason for its existence, to create a check/balance when a law, whoever made it, violates the constitution.

I have more on this perspective. I find the discussion fun.

Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 8 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

Any referendum is subject to the Supreme Court, either of the State or the Federal. People in a state could vote in favor of a referendum that does not allow people of an ethnic group to be allowed to live in their state, and that would rightly be struck down. It would be unconstitutional.

Whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry in a church ceremony is a matter for each church to decide. Equal rights, however, are for the courts to decide - it falls squarely in the realm of the courts, much as did civil rights in the past.

Whether or not one agrees that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, the law is the law. One must be very legally well prepared to argue against the entire Constitution of the United States if one wishes to abridge the civil rights of a group.

Personally, I think if people had allowed homosexuals to gain the same rights as others through civil unions, the story would have ended there. But a very vocal anti-gay movement, with willing political assistance, wanted to deny them even that basic right.

I am not homosexual and I can't even say I have many friends who are. I do, however, tread lightly when it comes to making Constitutional amendments that seem to violate the very fabric of the Constitution. The 14th amendment states very clearly what the rights of such groups are, and just as there is no going back to slavery, or denying women the right to vote, there is no going back on extending basic civil rights to all citizens.

Having said that, I support your right to speak your mind and make your views known, even if I can't fully agree with them. You have had quite a large number of comments, and it is good to see people passionately and respectfully argue over current events.

coltakashi 8 years ago

Returning to the specific issue of the California Supreme Court (CSC) decision:

As noted above, it was a 4 to 3 split. If there were an explicit provision in the US or California constitutions that provided for homosexual unions that would be classified as "marriage" and have all the legal attributes of marriage, which is the subject of dozens of laws involving subjects like inheritance, child custody and support, taxes, tort liability, contractual liability, confidentiality of inter-spousal communications in trials, authority to make decisions about terminating medical care, etc., etc., then wouldn't it be a lot more obvious than that? Three of the seven members of the court, including one who states up front in his dissenting opinion that he would personally support, as a voter in an election or referendum, expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions, have told us in writing in their dissenting opinions that they do not see anything in the California or US Constitutions that alters the definition of marriage, and that their colleagues on the CSC have overstepped their authority under that Constitution by declaring that the right exists there, despite the fact that it has been invisible from the time that California became a state over a century ago until now.

The dissenters on the SCS note that the argument made by the 4 judge majority is that the acts of the California legislature, specifically the Domestic Partners Act (DPA), which grants homosexual couples virtually all the legal rights that married couples have, somehow is a declaration by the legislature that marriage under the California Constitution includes homosexual unions. The dissenters point out that the DPA, by specifically refraining from labelling these unions as "marriages", is exactly the opposite, i.e. a statement by the legislature that homosexual unions are NOT marriages. The fact that bills to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions have passed the Senate and Assembly, but been vetoed by the Governor, demonstrate that the legislature did NOT believe that the Constitution already addressed the matter, either way. If the legislature believed that the Constitution already provided for "marriage" to include homosexual unions, there would be no need for legislation. If the legislature believed that the Constitution specifically prohibited homosexual unions being recognized as marriage, then passing those bills would be a violation of the Constitution. So by passing those bills, the legislature demonstrated that there collective understanding of the Constitution is that it neither requires nor prohibits the inclusion of homosexual unions within the scope of the legal institution of marriage.

It is therefore clear that the 4 judge majority of the CSC was displaying wishful thinking in making its argument that the legislature actually supported its view that the Constitution endorses homosexual "marriage." There is no provision in the actual Constitution that has a clear meaning to that effect. The claim of the 4 judge majority that they found it there is simply dishonest.

Furthermore, by placing their fictional reading of the Constitution over the explicit action of the citizens of California, who voted by an almost 2/3 majority to bar homosexual marriage, the 4 judges were disregarding the explicit Constitutional rights of the citizens to govern themselves through voter initiatives. These judges acted outside their authority, since they have no authority to amend the California Constitution by any vote of the CSC, whether a bare majority fo 4 to 3 or even a unanimous decision, 7 to 0.

Constitutions in the United States of America, both Federal and State, are the ultimate, foundational laws of each government. They are explicitly created by the citizens of the States and of the Nation, and can only be amended by the same citizens. They both empower the branches of government, including both the legislature and the courts, and limit the authority of each. The Supreme Courts of the US and each State do not have any inherent authority to overrule acts of Congress or legislatures that are enacted into law. They only have authority to apply the higher law of their respective Constitutions. When they do so, they are obeying the commands of the citizens who enacted those Constitutions. The courts do not have inherent authority to revise the Constitutions, to amend them.

We have bought into a mythology of the courts as the final guardians of the rights of citizens against the legislative and executive branches. But the US and State Constitutions split power among all three branches of government. The courts can be just as despotic as any president or governor or legislature. Lawyers make up the plurality of people serving in all three branches of government. Turning a state Assemblyman into a judge does not transfigure that person and turn him or her into a divine being. The new judge is no more intelligent as a judge, nor more moral, than he or she was as a legislator. Our safety as citizens does not depend on any assumption that judges are inherently wiser or fairer than other citizens. Rather, their authority in the Common Law was always restricted in scope, and restrictions of court authority continued under the Constitutions of the US and its States.

We honor the US Supreme Court for ruling 50 years ago in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education that "separate schools segregated by race are inherently unequal." However, we should not forget that Brown was made necessary because 50 years before that, the same Supreme Court had ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that schools, trains, and other public accommodations could be "separate but equal." The notion that the white race could properly use its dominant political authority to tell members of what they defined as the "black race" (including people only 1/8 African, like Mr. Plessy) where to sit in trains, restaurants, schools, etc., and that such domination of one race by another represented "equality" under the 14th Amendment, was ridiculous on its face. But judges on the Supreme Court at the turn of the century effectively erased "equal rights" out ot eh US Constitution for 50 years.

What the CSC has done in this case is exactly the same kind of arrogant, elitist action that the US Supreme Court took a century ago when it told the nation that "equality" could be redefined to mean racial segregation. In both cases, judges decided that their respective Constitutions did not say what they wanted it to say, and so announced that they were revising it.

I have no doubt that this high-handed power grab by the CSC is going to motivate many people to support the amendment of the California Constitution to specifically bar expanding the institution of marriage to include homozexual unions. It is also going to motivate many to vote for the discharge from the CSC of the members of the CSC in this 4 person majority. By arrogating to themselves the power to overrule the vote of teh large majority of California citizens, the CSC majority has undermined the respect and moral authority of the CSC. Furthermore, as homosexual couples form other states get married in California and then bring lawsuits to force their home states to recognize those marriages, disrespect for the CSC will grow across the nation, and concern will grow also about the threat to liberty presented by judges who think they have the right to usurp the authority of the people to create the Constitutions that govern them.

I personally believe that this ruling will be a watershed in American judicial history, that will eventually see actions taken by voters, legislatures and Congress

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

coltakashi -

Thank you, for taking the time to help clarify and teach, regarding much of what has been being debated over in this thread.  As well, helping us to remain focused on the issue that is being presented in my article.

As a California resident; who not only walked long hours, the streets of my own neighborhood and collected signatures to place Prop. 22 on the ballot,  and then went to my voting poll and marked my ballot as to vote, so that my legitimate voice would be heard in this State, legally.  But then - to have the results of this 'American' effort so disrespected and arrogantly ignored by those in positions of "authority"...  IMO should outrage "every" U.S. Citizen living and voting in this Nation!

You have brought out clear evidence in your post, that what has happened in the State of California regarding the "now" complete overturn of the effects of Prop. 22 - was unconstitutional.

I support your final summation, and in particular the expected results, of these actions against the citizens of the State of California.

I fear, that what the majority of the good citizens of California will need to refrain from in the future - is taking out on same-sex relationships, their disgust with the recent actions of The California Supreme Court. 

There is no doubt, that a major backlash will come from the Citizens of California -- and this time, it will be a much more loud and clear voice.

As a matter of fact - I personally am even more motivated as a citizen of this State, to make known very clear, my personal dissatisfaction with what has happen in my State of California... and, I intend to using my now, well exercised voice and vote. 

Again, I very much appreciate you taking the time and making your voice heard here, on this important topic.



Kathryn Skaggs. 

P.S.  I will most likely need to re-read your excellent post a few times.  Great information, for which I am very happy to have posted on this thread. 



Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 8 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

There is nothing in the Constitution allowing or banning inter-racial marriages, either, but was there once? Some things are implicit, others are, for reasons that seemed best at the time, explicit. In the CSC decision, no matter what the outcome, I would have to believe these things had to take that into account.

When the California State Constitution was written, were there any sections that specified marriage could only to be defined as between a man and woman? I see why you are arguing, and while I may or may not agree on a morale level, I am not aware of any ban or endorsement of the CSC toward marriage in any sense, other than perhaps to forbid polygamy and beastiality.

I do believe that just as it was once illegal for interracial marriage, whether it was constitutional by state law in any particular state or another, and while people of conscience once found this despicable, in our times we recognize that a ban on interracial marriage is no longer legal and is known to be irrefutably unconstitutional on the Federal level.

Look: I do not care one way or another who gets married and who doesn't, just as I don't care who lives together or who doesn't. I think the basic issue for homosexuals is to put an end to the inability to get the same partner rights as married people enjoy.

If there can be some common ground in all of this, then find it and the matter will most likely go away. If it is impossible to get the civil rights issue out of the way without using the word marriage, then you will have a battle on your hands, because until and unless full rights are extended to gay couples, they will keep clamoring, rightly in my opinion, for rights to visitation to a partner's sick bed, inheritance and other things man and woman couples enjoy without question.

I will add another idea here - since there is such a mess in heterosexual marriages, why not ban divorce and legal separation? Get a state referendum to that effect. Since the Constitution does not mention the right to divorce, why not eliminate that as well? It all seems like the same bucket of legal worms to me. I bet you that the U.S. Supreme Court, no matter its ideological makeup, would also strike that down as unconstitutional.

If a marriage between a man and a woman is supposed to be forever, or "until death do us part", as it is said, then no one should have the right to abrogate the vows, even by mutual consent, except by death. If promising to remain faithfully married until death does part you from your spouse, then it is a legal contract, an unabridgeable part of marriage.

That, however, would be allowing government to intrude on Church matters, and I for one would not want to add that dimension to the argument.

Sometimes the separation of Church and state is in the interest of the Church.

Again, great hub; great comments.

And as Arnold said, "gay marriage should only be between a man and a woman."

livelonger profile image

livelonger 8 years ago from San Francisco

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions! I support the decision for my own reasons that I will not share because some might feel they are divisive.

SweetiePie profile image

SweetiePie 8 years ago from Southern California, USA

I agree with you livelonger. No matter what our opinions we should all respect each other.

Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 8 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

Yes, as free citizens we are entitled to our own opinions, and I served in the military for 5 years to keep that right, so I applaud the fact that we can have discussions that don't turn into shouting matches. Even if I disagree with another person's opinion, I do support their right to freely speak their peace.I am not an ardent supporter of "gay rights" over any other kind of rights, and I certainly understand why some people of religious conviction do not like associating the word marriage with gay unions. To me marriage is a church matter, not a state matter, and should be resolved within each denomination. I would also say that I would not welcome the state’s intrusion into church matters to force the acceptance of gay unions. Yet I can see a day when, if you succeed in making laws against gay marriage, and thus bringing the church into state matters, the pendulum may reverse and, with a precedent already in place, the state may feel perfectly comfortable forcing its will upon religious freedoms.However, the application of laws covering civil rights is not a church matter, in my humble opinion, and should never become so. As I stated earlier, the separation between church and state often protects the church more than the state. Just as I would not want any one state-mandated church denomination or religion to hold sway over my beliefs, neither would I want to decide civil rights matters by religious conviction. Both, it seems to me, speak of a theocracy, not a democracy.Also, in any state, any referendum that is found to be unconstitutional, no matter how popular it may be, no matter how "common sense" it might seem, must be struck down by the highest courts - that is the function of the judiciary branch, and any failure to do so would weaken our system of democracy. That includes any laws passed which do not support the constitution of the sate and of the United States.I know I harken back to the past, but that is what precedent is in law – using the past to justify the present. Slavery was extremely popular in some states, and was even sanctioned and supported by the churches where it existed. Biblical scripture was quoted day and night in favor of it. But, no matter how popular slavery was to those voters in those states, it was wrong, and had to be done away with.Equal rights were also unpopular in some states, and referenda and state laws prohibiting equal rights for all were popular, had voter support, yet were unconstitutional, and were done away with by judicial intervention.School segregation was popular, even supported by churches and scripture, was voted on and by popular consent it was made law, yet it, too, was unconstitutional, and was overturned by the U. S. Supreme Court.People who feel that homosexuality is wrong have a depth of feeling just as strong about the inherent immorality of allowing such things as marriage to be allowed, just as people of faith, and others as well, felt equally morally correct in forbidding interracial marriages. Biblical scripture was quoted and used to support laws against it. There were actually laws in some states that said marriage between a person of color and a white person were immoral, and churches often sanctioned these views. Marriage, in the prevailing popular opinion of the day, was between white man and a white woman only, and a black man and a black woman only.Without stating that homosexuality is good or bad, without judging it to be natural or unnatural, it is simply a fact of life, one which I do not wish to participate in, and one which, frankly, does interfere with my own sense of morals. That said, I also see that while I might personally feel compelled to campaign for or against it based upon my religious beliefs, I believe that making laws to prohibit it goes against the 14th amendment, and perhaps others as well, and in the end would weaken our Constitutional Rights by eroding the power of the constitution to protect everyone.By reducing the rights of a few, we weaken the argument to maintain the rights of us all. I know some may disagree with this statement, because they see this mostly as a moral issue, but every time a nation has eroded the rights of a few, the rights of the majority have subsequently suffered.I also believe there are many other issues much more important to the nation as a whole than this one. I know that people of religious convictions could and should work as hard as they have in the past to help rebuild American families. I see wonderful work being done by individuals and congregations of devoted, faith-filled people along these lines.To me, helping families in times of great crisis not only is a powerful witness for Christ, but also a way to bring people back to God. To that end I applaud those who work in the field, as it were, rebuilding our nation along the lines of strong families.Again, great hub, lots of passionate and powerful comments, and I again respectfully disagree that church should trump state in the matter of upholding the constitution of any state or the federal government.

shotgunbanjo profile image

shotgunbanjo 8 years ago

Thanks for this hub, i do think that marriage only belongs to the people with opposite sex, not with the same sex...and its sacred thing, not an ordinary thing to tackle with...

BIG Mike profile image

BIG Mike 8 years ago from Greece

I wanted to touch base with you on this statement you made:“Also - I am in complete agreement with you in regard to what 2 consenting adults choose - but when that choice then affects those without choice or even the choices already made by others... well then, I think we need to consider the bigger picture. Of course, this is where it becomes more complicated.”

How would the choice in terms of same-sex marriages affect others more or less so than the choice of heterosexual couples to marry? Aside from the couples themselves, there is no choice to be made by others.

I’m confused about the bigger picture – enlighten me; I triple dare you! J

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Hi Jeff,

I just wanted to thank you, for taking the time and contributing to this thread as you have. I know it has required a great passion of your own, to do so.

You bring out some really important points and views. Many of them I personally agree with...

It would be near impossible, for any 'one' of us - to not bring into our positions and vote - that of our personal convictions. Convictions will always be that which governs a people. Religion, or that which we believe, be it this or that - is a personal conviction of any individual. Call it what you will, but it is that, which motivates 'any' one of us to act in a given way, and also view the world in the way that we do.

It does not require 'godly' religion to be the only kind of 'religion' that governs one's mind.

I have loved for many years the words of Thomas Carlyl,

"A mans religion is the most important thing about him. This is what he believes, in, and thinks about, and stands for, and works at and lives by."

Those of "religious" persuasion, should not need be made to feel - that because they answer and are devoted to a "higher" power, which strongly influences how they perceive the world around them... as that which is not credible in determining 'life'.

The reality is, that personal conviction - coupled with the system in place to have all views put forth by the people - will always be that which drives this society. We have an excellent due process, if we are able to ensure that it does not become corrupted by individuals...

Right now, that is what we should 'all' be fighting for -- before we can move forward to the specific issues.

Once again, I thank you for your voice, which matters:-)



LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Hey BIG Mike,

LOL. You dare 'me' huh? Well, that is what it would take for me to march down that road right now on this thread... so I will "choose" not to do so at this time:-)

But I knew that in responding to you, I was leaving much of that comment unstated. My apologies. I have asked others who are posting here to refrain from bringing or introducing into the discussion that which would divide us, and attempt to remain on topic. It is so easy for this to happen... and where you are inviting me to go, crosses that line.

I hope you understand.

Now, if I take your "triple" dare, I will most likely do it through the form of another hub. Most likely, the comments themselves will triple, and I'm not too confident it could remain reasonable. That which inevitably divides people, rarely does.

Thank you for commenting. I am really enjoying chatting with everyone here and really appreciate all allowing understanding and respectful dialogue.



gamergirl profile image

gamergirl 8 years ago from Antioch, TN

Marriage itself, the union between two people sanctioned by whatever religious beliefs they hold, duly recognized by the appropriate legal processes, should be restricted to no-one.

Are you qualified to deny someone the right to this recognition in spirit and law? Hold your opinion close to your heart, but if your opinion is offensive or detracting from humanity's evolution and progress... you have a right to speak it, but it doesn't make you right.

I would hope that we all are reasonable enough to be understanding that every person on this earth has a right and deserves to be able to know love, and there is no valid reason beyond intolerance and/or religious propaganda which should stop two people who love one another from being joined in matrimony.

matrimony: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Hi gamegirl,

Nice to see you again. I appreciate your comment and what you are presenting here.

Personally, if we are talking about "love" -- I do not believe that law has anything to do with it, nor can it make it so.

Love comes from within an individual and is received by another... It is the most beautiful part of our lives.

Honestly, I don't consider myself one, that would in anyway - not want someone to experience "love". I do not believe that the 'right' to love or be loved is something that any of us could even possibly withhold from another - through the "law".

Of course, we each desire to express that love in various ways and that is a personal choice. That is not what I wrote this article about. But I understand your feelings and I thank you for sharing them in a kind tone.



gamergirl profile image

gamergirl 8 years ago from Antioch, TN


Marriage is a choice made as a product of finding the love that entices people to join in matrimony. This should NEVER be the purview of the lawmakers or voters. It is up to each individual, each couple, to cultivate and bloom within their romantic involvements.

The sad fact of the matter is that as long as people think that their lawmakers have a say in their romantic lives, things like this farce will continue.

No government should tell a person they cannot be joined in the bonds of wedlock with the one they love. None.

wellness5 profile image

wellness5 8 years ago from Fondi, Italy

Well, God created homosexuality so there is nothing wrong with people who have that sexual orientation in tying a bond , call it marriage or whatever but we have to protect these people's rights. What are homosexuals to do - live in a closet for the rest of their lives? There is room for everybody and no homosexual couple , married or not, is going to damage heterosexual marriages. Frankly they have their own problems- looking at the divorce rates !

Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 8 years ago

Well said!

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Hi gamegirl,I appreciate your opinion as always. But, from my point of view, I remain with the view that the definition of "marriage" is the union of one man and one woman. It is not that I desire to do that which would take away from those of other relationship "combinations" - their equal rights. I have attempted to make that known here as best I am able, and in sincerity.

I agree that at this point I would prefer that the religious institution of "marriage" had not been assumed by the courts in this country in the first place. But, in this - at least there is some hope that marriage can be preserved to be what it is - to those that believe in traditional marriage.

You mention the problem of divorce with those that are married. Do you believe that same-sex couples would be less vulnerable to divorce or the dissolution of a legal relationship? I doubt very seriously that they would be any better at keeping things together than the rest of us:-)



gamergirl profile image

gamergirl 8 years ago from Antioch, TN

No, it would be naive to think that gay relationships are better off in terms of longevity, in fact it is quite the opposite. However, and without getting long-winded about homosexual pairings as domestic and romantic partners living as-if-married without the recognition of the society around them in history, it isn't as if homosexual relationships resulting in marriage-like situations is a new thing.

It is only due to the legal and "marriage-only" privileges that are afforded couples that this discrimination and inequality versus homosexual relationships NEEDS to be fixed. All religious considerations for the present definition of marriage set aside, in order to receive the same benefits a heterosexual relationship enjoys, homosexual couples must be able to follow similar legal processes.

Point blank, let gays sign together on marriage licenses so that they can experience the same joys, responsibilities, and benefits that straight folks do. Homosexual relationships are just as "traditional" as heterosexual ones, and everyone deserves to be able to choose who to spend their lives with. A ban on gay marriage is a social element, not a legal right or responsibility.

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

gamegirl -

I just knew you meant that tongue in cheek. LOL But I am really glad I called you on it, because I love the one very important point that you have made in your response. Which has not, I believe, been made in this thread.

Responsibility. I believe also that this has to do with making individuals, by law - accountable to another person. I like this concept a lot.

Many know that I have written an article here, which brings up the fact that I believe the most important things about "marriage" place "love" down on that list...

The Three Pillars For A Successful Marriage - And Love, Is Not One Of Them!

So, I do like the element you have introduced, and reasons that make it very valid, for same-sex couples to desire a legal union today. In fact, if divorce could not be granted so easily as it is today, perhaps we would have less families being destroyed.

I don't know the history of the legal system taking over the institution of marriage in this country, but - one would have to feel that enforcing legally the commitment of the relationship had much to do with that interference.

I am in support of that which makes individuals accountable to another, and that is a positive place of law, if it must be involved with "loving" unions between persons, perhaps that reason alone is sufficient in the world today.

But I still don't believe it is necessary to call all of these contracts a "marriage". Particularly because it is not necessary to do so... and this will remain to divide us as a people, and are we not a United Nation?

Thanks gamegirl. You have given us something to consider here..



SweetiePie profile image

SweetiePie 8 years ago from Southern California, USA

I know the comments have stopped for the last few days now, but I just wanted to add something. I appreciate those who brought it to my attention that it is not fair to exclude marriage from certain individuals, but I feel the way in which that was done was very disrespectful. I am by no means ignorant for believing that marriage is between a man and a woman, but for awhile I felt I had to retract what I said because of one person's comment. I am not looking to start any new argument because this is the last thing I am going to say about it. I have just as much right as anyone else to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I do not care what other choices people make, but my believes are of no less value than anyone else's. Maturity requires that we stop calling each other ignorant and this a word that has no place in adult discussions.

Whitney05 profile image

Whitney05 8 years ago from Georgia

Being that my best friend is a lesbian, she and I were talking about this the other day. We both agree that it's been a long time coming. Who are we to decide who can and can't marry. It's about time more than one state has adopted same-sex marriages. Although CA didn't lead the way from the start, MA did, I think that as CA has a larger voice in the country than MA, this will be the onset of same-sex marriages across the board.

I do think that you can bring race into question. Although, yes, it is a completely different subject, but my friend and I were comparing black people gaining rights in the 40s and 50s and yet it was somewhat illegal to be homosexual until fairly recently. It's time that everyone has equal rights. You don't wake up and decide to be gay, it's built in. Are they supposed to be miserable for the rest of their life becuase they can't marry who they want to. Because you want them to marry of hte opposite sex. How fair is that?

You're human just like any gay person. What if someone told you that you (a female) couldn't marry a man, or vice versa.

Also, it's not being called a marriage, but a legal contract. Either way it's one step in the RIGHT direction.

I did not read all of the comments, as it seems I've found this hub rather late, but it seems that for once Ralph and I agree. I highly doubt people are "personally devastated" by this, and I highly doubt that the majority disagrees with it.

bettiegurrl profile image

bettiegurrl 8 years ago from Portland, Or

Id like to think that most people these days have an open mind. Obviously not everyone does. Especially about this issue. Im straight, always have been, always will be but I have never had a problem with gay people. I do not think it is a choice like a few people have said that they positively know it IS. Who would purposely CHOOSE to be discriminated against? A lot of things are wrong in this world, gay people getting married is at the bottom of my list.

If you think it is a choice to be gay, is it also a choice to be straight? That just doesnt make any sense to me. I didnt choose to be straight, Im just attracted to men.

I say let them have whatever we as straight couples have. It's certainly not hurting you unless you allow it to. And as for it hurting the children, what children is it hurting? Id like to know the answer to that. I feel that is just a cop-out. Something for a homophobic person to hide behind. I feel marriage is for anyone who is in love, black, white, yellow, gay, straight or crooked.

If youre really worried about the children, maybe you should be concerned about the crazy mothers out there murdering their offspring. And theyre straight women. Gay people dont warp their kids anymore than straight people do.

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

bettiegurrl -

Thank you for taking the time to comment about the ban on gay-marriage being overturned, and sharing your opinions here...

Because some, do not see things the same way as others do, does not necessarily label them as not being open-minded. Intelligent, kind and good people, do not always agree -- and this does not imply that they have not given a thing, deep thought in forming their personal beliefs and opinions.

We are not discussing either nature or nurture regarding homosexuality, as that is not determined, and as it has nothing to do with the issue of law, which has been abused by those with authority in the state of California.

A legitimate vote, to confirm that marriage in California is between only a man and a women, by a 60/40 vote in one of the largest states in the Union, was simply overturned by three persons. This should outrage every U.S. citizen in the Country.

Problem is, that those who feel that they have won a battle through these means, are ignoring what has really happened to "all" of us in this Country. We can allow ourselves to get bogged down judging one another and who should win the battle about same-sex marriage, or we can focus on the real issue at hand. The law does not care about my opinion or beliefs regarding homosexuality. But they better care about upholding the law, and that is what this thread is about.

Perhaps we will have more opportunity to discuss some of the other issues involved with same-sex marriages in the future, but most likely we will not find agreement. But we all must insist that whatever our voice is, as a people -- it is honored in the this land. We need to feel confident as citizens, that our voice, which is made by a powerful "vote" in this country - is given the power that is intended. If we all do not come together to speak out on this outrage, the future of this country will most likely become quite apathetic.

What makes this Country what is it in the world today - is that each individual, regardless of the many things that are debated over - has "a" voice which can be heard, which matters - and of which contributes to the voice of the people, regarding how things are governed in this Country.

We must refrain, however difficult it is - to not see what the California Supreme Court has illegally done, in overturning the ban on gay-marriage, as a win for anyone.



bettiegurrl profile image

bettiegurrl 8 years ago from Portland, Or

I know your topic wasnt about that but it was brought up and I wanted to say something about it.

I honestly feel that Freedom of Speech is not going to be around much longer in this country. There are many reasons I feel this way but will not point out any one just now. It's a scary thought, isnt it?

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Hi bettiegurrl -

I do understand. Same-sex marriage is such a hot topic, and we all have very passionate feelings and opinions.

I think that you could be very right about our ability to speak freely in this country, being on a short string. Some may feel that this may even be occurring as we speak now.

We can only hope that people will communicate what it is they want to say, in terms that will allow Freedom of Speech to continue. I fear that one of the reasons this may happen, is because we are losing our ability to have mutual respect for one another, regardless of our differences, and communicate accordingly.

I'm not sure what you think the reasons for this are or could be, but it is already unfortunate when good people, are being divided.



shiraleh 8 years ago

I understand your personal conflict from a religious standpoint, but since you base much of your argument here on the Court's overruling the will of the people, you might want to take a look at the numbers involved with Prop 22, because the publicity around its passage has been very misleading (as was Prop 22, for that matter).

Although many people don't realize it, by no means did a majority of CA voters actually vote in favor of Proposition 22. It's touted as having passed by a "landslide," and people seem to think that all Californians had their say - but in fact less than half of all registered voters (only about a third of all eligible voters) cast their vote on the proposition, and only 29% of registered voters (a little over 20% of eligible voters) actually voted in favor. Because of the circumstances of that particular election (March primary, 2000 - major Republican contest, with an open primary and no real Democratic competition), the voters who came out (whether they be Republican or Democrat) tended to be more conservative than the average Californian.

Bottom line: We've got 30,000,000 people in our state. Roughly 4.5 million people voted for Prop 22 - but nearly 3 million voted against it. Neither figure gives us much insight as to the will of the people. What does tell us a lot is that the legislature, a body full of elected officials, passed the Religious Freedom and Marriage Equality Act *twice* - once before an election, and once after an election. We elect our legislatures and entrust them to enact laws for our state. The fact that the Legislature was able to pass the bill *twice,* once on either side of an election, ought to speak toward the will of the people at least as much as Prop 22 does, don't you think?

In any event, the CA Supreme Court (and federal courts) overturned voter initiatives on numerous occasions, largely because CA has a history of passing discriminatory propositions. So it's not so shocking that the CA Supreme Court ruled that Prop 22 was unconstitutional, which is what actually happened. It wasn't a "backdoor" effort; it was the same legal process that has undermined countless other unconstitutional ballot initiatives.

Want hospitals to be able to turn away sick children just because they're not citizens? CA did. Or try searching for Reitman v. Mulkey, in which the CA Supreme Court even overturned a voter-approved constitutional amendment. Sound overreaching? Maybe, until you realize that the amendment sought to overturn a recently-passed law banning housing discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, sex, marital status, physical handicap, or familial status.

clint 8 years ago

I for one, think to often the higher Courts step in and hear cases that they shouldn`t. Just to make statments of law! In this instance it has more to do with the justifing an immoral life style,for the few and at the cost of traditional marriage ! Since when can one just demand the change to the meaning of a WORD to justifie their own needs . Marriage has For ever Ment ONE man and ONE woman! profile image 5 years ago from upstate, NY

Will-- The majority must prevail if we're to have a a government by "we the people". The founders all agreed on this as a foundational principle. While it is true that The courts were to have some insulation from public fads and passions, this is no fad the people of California have spoken and the governor should show some backbone and support the will of the people.

Many of these arrogant 9th circuit judges, should be censored if not impeached for their judicial policy making and blatant disregard for the Constitution.

Its a myth that judges should have the last word on the Constitution. Judicial review is widely misunderstood, the legislative branch is given clear oversight over the courts. There is no way that this should be in the courts jurisdiction in the first place.

The governor has the executive power to not enforce the courts decision and if he has true regard for the peoples rights, he need's to do this!

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 5 years ago from Southern California Author

wba -- thanks for taking the time to comment. It's hard to believe that this saga continues and that the people of California are still fighting to have their voices heard and upheld.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article