California court out of line

I'm sure if this question had been asked in 1950: Do you believe bi-racial couples should be allowed to marry? A majority of respondents would have said no. Thankfully "activist" judges at the time acted on the Constitution (at both state and federal levels) to eliminate this denial of basic civil rights.

Personally, I think the government should get out of the marriage game altogether. The government should recognize civil unions only, and regardless of race, sexual orientation, whatever, two people can choose to be partners with all the legal rights currently given to married couples. Let individuals and their spiritual communities define what marriage is.

I just don't understand why some heterosexual couples feel threatened by gay marriage. My wife and I have never felt our marriage was any weaker as a result of our friends in same-sex relationships getting married. Perhaps the people so afraid of same-sex marriage are still struggling with their own sexuality and afraid that their own marriage wouldn't stand if given the alternative to marry someone of the same sex. That's the only sense I can make out of some people's strong opposition to this.

What should most be highlighted by this decision is that the foundation of the institution of marriage is fundamentally flawed and that the entire structure has for years been slipping into the sea taking all couples, straight or gay, to a watery grave.

I do not say this because homosexuals don’t deserve the right to be married, they do, but because it would be better to completely strike down the very notion of being married.

http://www.futureosophy.com/2008/05/overturning-marriage.html

Bigot = a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Sounds pretty spot on to me....

You are in NO WAY a bigot. Perversion is what is Inter Flop and you other whiners. We know it when we see it, and it is not acceptable behavior. Every time Marriage has been defined in every popular vote it has been between a man and a woman. Learn it, Live it, and Love it, or shut the heck up. I will not stand still for your actions.

I sick to death of the Homosexual Lobby shoving their perversion down our throats. The Surpeme Court of California will be reversed by the people of California in November when they reauthorize that a marriage ia between a man and a woman. Period.

If one wants to sleep with a mule, fine, as long as the mule is a willing participant. However, immediately stop trying to sell me that your behavior is acceptable. It is not.

It's editorials such as this that lead to people murdering gays and lesbians by leaving them strung up on fences to die.

And in case you didn't make it to Civics class the day they were discussing the role of Supreme Courts - it's Constitutional interpretation, not popular vote interpretation. Their purpose is to protect the rights of minorities whhen the majority seeks to take away or hinder their rights, just as the State of California did with Proposition 22.

I won't waste time responding to your slippery slope rationalizations why the GLBT community shouldn't be considered a minority except to say I sincerely hope you never have a gay/lesbian son or daughter. Lord help them with a parent such as yourself.

It's unbelievable that such a bigoted comment is posted here in the KS Star.

First, same-sex relationships are not solely about sexual behavior. Is your relationship with your husband or wife simply a "behavior"? Romantic relationships are based on feelings of love and attraction - and the ability to have a romantic relationship that is recognized is perhaps one of the core components of a happy and fulfilled life.

Moreover, gay and lesbian couples in long-term committed relationships - some of which involve children - are routinely denied basic rights that heterosexual couples take for granted. They are unable to visit their partners in the hospital, for example. They have difficulties inheriting or keeping shared properties and wealth after a partner's death. And there are many, many more legal issues that I will not list here.

Finally, let me question the phrase "activist judges". Since when have we expected judges to be inactive?! The role of the court is to interpret the constitution, which the California Supreme Court has done in this case. Decisions about civil rights are not left up to popular vote. And they should not be left up to popular vote. In a free and fair democracy, which is what we are assured by the constitution, it's up to the government to ensure that all people get the same rights and protections. In my opinion, to question that fundamental basis of our society is un-American.

What more is there to say about Balano? No doubt plenty. I wonder time and time again why the Star has granted this two-bit Michelle Malkin wannabe the opportunity to write under its imprimatur.

But as regards this issue, it's bigotry, pure and simple, and wholly antithetical to the American ideal granting equal rights under the law to all.