A GREAT DAY IN CA

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

...Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.

The ruling has been made, the decision based on equal protection appears to be well supported and constitutionally sound (according to experts.)  It is, as I believe it should be, based on the fact that marriage is and has been a civil matter.  Religion comes into it only when the couple wants to add that element to their celebration.  I did not have a religious ceremony.  I had a civil ceremony.  

And I further agree that  "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

"Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."

                                          
 Thank you Judge Walker!

PLEASE VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8

Since California is not a "battleground" state and it looks very positive for Senator Obama (my neighbor's yard signs not withstanding.) I am very focused on what I believe to be the biggest issue in the election. That is proposition 8 - which seeks to reverse the decision of the California State Supreme Court that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution.

The effort to eliminate this right has been funded primarily by members of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and the money has been spent on a barrage of fear mongering ads - suggesting that little children will be taught to be homosexual and that the institution of marriage and the status of the church will somehow be undermined by same sex marriage.

This is the statement delivered by President Hinckley of the LDS Church:

Latter-day Saints are working as part of a coalition to safeguard traditional marriage from forces in our society which are attempting to redefine that sacred institution. God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God.

Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives.

I have no problem with any religious organization determining that they will not sanctify same sex marriages in their church. However, for a marriage to be legal, there must be a civil license taken out. When it is dissolved, it is, again a civil matter, not a religious one. I was not married in a church or by clergy, yet I am married. I'll take my chances with G-d.

I support the freedom of speech, I understand the rights churches have to insert their position in political discourse. I don't completely agree that it should be allowed along with tax fee status - but that is not the issue here.

The issue is that people in loving relationships, many of whom have children, ought to be allowed the right to marry (civilly) and enjoy the same protections as everyone else. I disagree with Sarah Palin that tolerance is the answer. Tolerance is not equality.

Why people cannot enjoy the rewards of their religious faith without foisting their views on the rest of us, I don't understand.

From the time my children started asking questions about homosexuality and lesbianism I told them that I didn't see anything wrong with people loving and caring for each other. I believe that sexuality is not a lifestyle but the way we are made - and as humans, we are all made to love each other.

It's too bad so many church members can't see that.