How’s this for a rule. . .

Live and let live, or accept your neighbour as your own, or . . . you know – don’t be a bigoted asshat. . .

Today, the California Supreme Court overturned a state law banning gay marriage. Kudos to the court. However, there is already a coalition of religious and social conservative groups trying to get a referendum on the ballot in November that would add an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman. Asses. I find this very disheartening and I’ve never understood it. If you are a man and do not want to marry a man, then great – don’t marry that man.

I firmly believe in the equality of all man (or woman) and the ideologies of some who propose to interfere with private rights seem inherently unethical. That is not to say morality is not a public issue, because it is. However, I believe only inasmuch as in individual’s right to self-determination cannot and should not conflict with another’s. By that, I mean if you want to do something that may be considered immoral (by whatever means the majority defines it), then as long as it does not affect someone else’s privacy, it should be left alone.

It can not affect me or my family, if a man chooses to marry a man, or a woman a woman. . . That is a choice, I believe, that should be left to the individuals involved. I cannot see why it would be any other way.

I can only hope the voters in November see things similarly. The Court ruled it is a basic “civil right” for a person to marry another person they love. Should that not be the status quo?

Goddess/Goddess Marriage-speed.

p.s. Gotta love the gays. :D

Advertisements

~ by shinshige on 15 May 2008.

7 Responses to “How’s this for a rule. . .”

  1. I have always enjoyed the arguement, “A gay marriage threathens the foundations of the American Family.” Huh?

    So if a gay couple gets married, all the straight married couples are going to get a divorce?

    My two divorces have done more to destroy the institution of marriage than a boat load of “gay” marriages ever could. So would someone please explain why I can do this again and again and they shouldn’t be able to?

    Cele

  2. btw I totally hate that wordpress took away my eyes unless I log into wordpress first. And then I only get them back part of the time. But I know this isn’t your fault, it’s just if you see Tanglefoot, it’s really me, trying…trying…trying.

  3. In my humble opinion, Brittany Spears is the biggest threat to the sanctity of marriage. And Elizabeth Taylor. And Zsa Zsa Gabor. And anyone who’s been married more than once (at the same time, or serially).

    Oh. Global warming is a threat to the sanctity of marriage, too.

    And McDonalds. The Happy Meals are all about false advertising.

    Scott and I had a lovely, celebratory dinner tonight – not about the gay marriage thing, ‘cuz we’re already “registered domestic partners” – but because of the job sitch. But you already knew that.

  4. Job sitch – YAY YAY YAY YAY!!!!!!!

    Oh – and Cele – I know. Grrrrr.

  5. Yes, it SHOULD be a basic, civil right for anyone to marry the one they love.

  6. In total agreement with you!!
    Though we small numbers are insignificant when it comes to fore & against! It is unfortunate!

  7. Here Here CA Supers! Marriage is imploding in on itself as an institution and deserves to be challenged for its own sake anyway, but I’m a marriage cynic. Gay marriage could very well hold some keys to saving it like The Wild Concept of Gender Equality for one.

    It’s time to ask what it’s really for and listen for a true answer, not some idiotic blather from the uptight rightwinger. If it’s only for procreation as they say, then I shouldn’t marry anyway because I’m as sterile as a lamp post. Not a sliver of a chance that I will ever get pregnant again. (Menopause is another word for Freedom. As for Hot Flashes – where do you think the term “hot momma” came from?) Some fundies won’t let women in menopause have sex because they aren’t fertile, just as a little postscript. Which is a good thing because it means they can’t have any more little fundies.

    I’m ranting. Already ranted about the garments on Sidieon’s blog. Gotta stop. Should blog this, but it will take at least 72 hours straight and I would have no time to eat, drink, or pee. Etc. But the Love of Art knows no bounds, and I’ll probably do it anyway.

    LynnBlossom aka Lynnski

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: