By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
California residents can't seem to get enough of the gay marriage issue. Prediction: Coming soon to the nation's largest state -- a ban on such unions.
The state Supreme Court on Wednesday moved to allow a public vote this fall on whether to allow same-sex marriage.
Voters likely will approve a ban as they did earlier this decade. So what's wrong with this picture?
In Missouri, we already have our voter-approved prohibition of same-sex marriage. It's a stupid law.
Let's face it: Heterosexual marriages would not be threatened if gay people were allowed to wed.
The economic impact on the state and cities would be nil.
So why the hang-up? It's partly tied to religious prohibitions.
And to the pure "yuck" factor that -- like it or not -- drives the feelings of a lot of people on an issue such as this one.
This November tens of millions of Californians will be deciding whether their state will allow gay marriages in the future.
Even in liberal California, this issue is probably a loser for gay people.
Delicious
Digg
Bunch of hogwash, "Rogue."
Bunch of hogwash, "Rogue." Subterfuge for you to hide your discomfort behind.
Two hetero siblings can't get married now, so what's the confusion? You can't marry yourself now, so what's the confusion? All we're talking about is two consenting adults who happen to be of the same gender who are in love and want to get hitched at City Hall. They want the civic version of what their straight counterparts have always had. It's really not that hard to understand.
Oh and straight folks have done a fine job all by themselves of making a mockery out of marriage. That's a weak argument.
And you with your oh-so-funny little dialog make a mockery out of the love gay couples share, merely because you personally don't understand it. That's a shame. Gee, someday when you look back on your life you can be proud of how hard you fought to keep two people in love from getting married and having a stable happy life. What an accomplishment.
Poll don't lie
And here's another paper in California that says the anti-marriage crowd is losing.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20080718-9999-1n18field.html
Hey it's your life
Why would describing your life hurt me?
Gosh it hurts huh?
Sorry Mickey (mouse) I did not mean to touch a nerve!
Old, older, oldest
Yes, we've all seen this about 1000 times on the internet. You need to get some new material.
OH Hell, why not?
City Hall in San Francisco
( A scene at City Hall in San Francisco )
"Next."
"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?"
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest?" No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.
Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been
denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get
married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have.
But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want
to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just
because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane
loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and
me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express
our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's
just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more
the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution
guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Deets."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry
the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"
Not everyone thinks gay marriage is on the ropes.....
In a recent article in the LA Times, a Republican gives pretty good arguments why the initiative will fail. The fact is people are not particularly interested in changing the constitution to eliminate rights. When one right is eliminated by a simple majority vote, what rights will be next? Is this a precedent we really want written into law?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-steinberg12-2008jul12,0,4554282.story