Marriage Equality SOON !!
I gotta say, this forum sure has a lot more open minded people on it than some other forums I've been a member of.Usually, by this point in the thread, it would have pretty much disintigrated into a giant hate fest.
Full disclosure: I support civil unions for GLBT's, but not a definition of marriage.
I think the California Supreme Court overstepped its mandate by imposing its will upon the people of California rather than letting the duly-elected legislature make legislation. Marriage does not fall under the auspices of "strict scrutiny" of equal protection. It never has, not even for straight people. In this ruling the CSC has decided to ignore Section 3 of Article I of the California State Constitution in that:
By applying strict scrutiny to marriage, the CSC has opened that state up to almost ANY kind of marriage. Be it incest, bigamy, or just about any other kind of marriage you can think of between any citizen of that state. Public policy arguments are almost impossible to overcome strict scrutiny once that standard has been established and I don't think this state has seen the last of this issue.
I think the California Supreme Court overstepped its mandate by imposing its will upon the people of California rather than letting the duly-elected legislature make legislation. Marriage does not fall under the auspices of "strict scrutiny" of equal protection. It never has, not even for straight people. In this ruling the CSC has decided to ignore Section 3 of Article I of the California State Constitution in that:
SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to instruct their
representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and
assemble freely to consult for the common good...(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in
effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly
construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly
construed if it limits the right of access.
representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and
assemble freely to consult for the common good...(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in
effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly
construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly
construed if it limits the right of access.
As a woman who has been happily married for 19 yrs to a man 18 years my junior, I believe that true love crosses many "barriers". One day I discovered that my mother-in-law was 18 years older than I, and we decided that we could have shaken people up more if I'd married HER!
No reason for hate, we are all above that. I think everyone should be entitled to the misery of a relationship gone bad and loss of HALF of their belongings to another who may OR may not deserve it just for the sake of being able to say were married. Good luck with all that and god bless.
Right on Mitzi! My hubby is 13 years my junior and we celebrate 10 years in July. We've been together for 12 years at the end of this month. I've almost always dated younger and used to joke "long as they were legal and older then my son". Hubby turns 40 this year and my son is turning 35.

I had many LGBT friends and colleagues in NorCal who had more stable and committed relationships then many of the straight people I knew--I am thrilled for them! But I don't think this will be as easy of a 'win' as it seems...
No reason for hate, we are all above that. I think everyone should be entitled to the misery of a relationship gone bad and loss of HALF of their belongings to another who may OR may not deserve it just for the sake of being able to say were married. Good luck with all that and god bless.
Goose


