How do you feel about the courts decision and why?

Question

This week the California Supreme Court voted to lift the ban on g*y marriage stating it was unconstitutional. Strong opinions have been shared from both sides of the aisle.

Answer 1

The California Supreme Court overrode the wishes of the majority of California citizens. This is an abuse of thr\eir power. Aside from that I also believe that marriage is a sacrament and should be between one man and one woman.

Answer 2

Um i guess lifting the ban was morally right but i am against lesbianism it is wrong (in my opinion), but people should be allowed to have g*y marriages if they are that way inclined.

good day.

Answer 3

I don't like the courts decision.  Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.  The fact that they lifted the ban is just a sign of the terrible times we are living in!

Answer 4

I go with Peter, and I also know history both Biblical  and I plan to buy some land east of the San Adrea's Fault line cause sooner or later it will be beach front property. Just like Sodom and Gomorrah

Answer 5

I think it is a good decision and I think people should mind their own business and keep their opinions to themselves and just let ppl live their own lives

Answer 6

Do you REALLY care that much about what other people do?  It doesn't involve you so what difference does it make?  There are too many people in this country to worry about what everyone else is doing.  If the religious n**i's would mind their own business, this wouldn't be an issue.

Answer 7

I totally agree with the courts on this. The founding fathers of our great nation wrote 'We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'.  Just like women and African Americans overcame diversity, as will g*y/L*****n/trans gender people with time. Why should we stand in their way of happiness?

Answer 8

Even though I'm heterosexual, I was really thrilled about the courts decision because, as they said, they need to insure that all citizens have equal protections under the law (if you disagree with that, you're in the wrong country) and the only way to enforce that is to either ban all marriages or grant same-s*x marriage. I don't care whether or not your religion endorses homosexual marriage, but when you're LEGALLY married, you have a LOT of rights and privileges that come along with it (over 3,000) and it's unconstitutional to deny those rights and privileges to anyone on a discriminatory basis. And that's exactly what the courts said (did any of you actually read the details of their decision??).

The argument that the courts "abused their power" and "wrongfully ignored popular vote" is absurd if you understand American government. It's the (supreme) courts' job to decide whether or not the laws hold up to the constitution. If a law is unconstitutional, it never should have been voted on in the first place. This is called "checks and balances" - the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) work separately and sometimes override eachother to maintain integrity in law. The vote was from the legislative branch but the judicial branch overrode it. This happens ALL the time, and it's a very important part of political science. It's easy to forget I guess if you haven't thought about it since it was first taught to you in the 7th grade.

One article that I read had a tiny little blip with ALOT of meaning behind it. It said that the courts did not rule out the possibility of removing the *word* "marriage" from ALL state-sanctioned unions, both heterosexual and homosexual. This is my favorite solution to the g*y marriage debate - if it weren't called "marriage," it wouldn't have religious connotations to so many people, and since the state grants rights to people who are legally married, totally separate from any religious meaning behind that bond, there needs to be a different word for state-sanctioned unions. Churches should grant "marriages" to whoever they want - man and woman only if that's their religion. The state could call the legal bond for all couples "civil unions", as long as they come with equal rights and protections for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. To further clarify the language problem, here's my answer to another YA question (best answer): http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

In conclusion, this issue isn't about who you think should and shouldn't be together. It's about making sure all people are equal under the law. Period. Thank you, Chief Justice Ron George, Justice Joyce Kennard, Justice Kathryn Werdegar, and Justice Carlos Moreno!!!

Edit: By the way, the idea that the decision was made based on pressure from the g*y community is also very false. The court's primary influence was the history of interracial marriage. Chief Justice George, a republican, is no stranger to ignoring political pressure, which is essential to being a good judge:  "The political repercussions of who I am going to please or who I am going to displease is not something I think about...I just put it out of my mind." http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9343475?so...

Answer 9

The court  decision was based on pressure from g*y rights groups, they're not the majority.  They are the minority wanting to sway the majority

An off beat analogy: I suspect, In very few years road rage people will want something passed , if there's enough of them.  Road rage, as an example, is a way of acting departed from the Norm.  Road rage is certainly acceptable if you happen to be in the "group of drivers who cannot stand the idiot Normal drivers."  Road rage drivers feel they are right, and when they're incensed they really feel justified.  

Is road rage proper?  No!  

In fact, the majority abhors it.  Well, they say, road rage people cannot help themselves, it's the way they feel?

A little too far departed but you know what I mean.

I'll probably get allot of flak over this but I don't want my Grandchildren to have to accept and see such g*y activity, how do I stop it?

I have to always keep in mind : it is the sin I want not be exposed but the people, I must love them regardless.

Answer 10

It is time we move n to the new age. I personally do not think g*y marriage is right....but operative word here is personally. I am personally heterosexual but have g*y friends and believe they have the right to the legal protection under the law that marriage will give these folks...inheritance, adoption, insurance dependency, etc.

I concur with what has already been said.....it is not the general populace to delve in to anybodies bedrooms. Heterosexual?? Homosexual?? It is all relative and for me to say "in my opinion" or "personally"...it is a value. we all have the right to our opinions and our own values but let these folks be and moveon...there are bigger fish that need our attention.

Answer 11

Whew, boy!  Excuse me while I batten down the hatches!  The seas are about to get rough with this question!

To answer---I really am not quite sure how I feel.  My religious convictions govern how I must view g*y marriage, but my heart also tells me that we should all learn to respect one another in spite of our differences.  I am just not sure that I can really answer.  Very thought provoking.

Answer 12

Most people that are against g*y marriages do it for a religious reason. That is never a good reason to be against something. Too many people have suffered in the name of religion. Religion itself is good. Mix it with people, and it is bad. Drugs themselves are for healing, mix it with people and it is bad.

Answer 13

Big thumbs up!

Love is mental and spiritual and has nothing to do with genitalia.