A word on Gay marraige

Obviously, I am straight. I am also married...to a man, of course. But something has me quite unsettled from our recent election but it has taken a backseat to the absolute whirlwind of our new President we elected (YAY!!!). In California, they passed into law an amendment to their State constitution that will "restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman." This really bothers me. I firmly believe that if a man wants to marry another man or a woman wants to marry another woman, there should be no restriction to them. I don't find their love and desire to be married an assult on the sanctity of marriage. To even think such a thing is rediculus! Some may argue religous "facts" that would tell you homosexuals marrying would corrupt traditional values. Hogwash.

I found an interesting site that I wanted to share. Its written on a blog called Slate. This whole thing started when I was looking through Wikipedia reading about the Republican party (interesting, huh?), trying to educate myself on the differences in the major political parties so I can become more educated on the political world and more importantly, on the party that is opposite what I have come to align myself with. I am a Democrat. This site was cited in the footnotes. Here is the link. Also, there is a link within this article I found to be interesting, here.

It is just still surprising to me how people are letting their "religious beliefs" dictate the way the write/pass/implement LAWS in this country. Wasn't there something called Separatioin of Church and State?? Ok, I could go on and on but I won't. Not to mention, I already feel that my ADD is in danger of taking over and going on too many tangents!!! There is enough to read on the few links I put up in this blog. (I love Wikipedia!) I just want to leave you with an unrelated comment from another blog. This comment was made after a Massachusetts Supreme court ruling but I feel that it has application here:

"And why can't it be "forced on the people"? Integration was forced. Woman's rights were forced. Interracial marriage was forced (78% of the American public found it "immoral" at the time the Supreme court struck laws banning it down). The public eventually caught up. But generally people don;t pay much attention to issues which doesn;t affect them directly. One of the fuctions of the Judicial branch of the American government is to protect the rights of the minorities from the tyranny of the majority. I am sorry that is inconvenient to your misplaced notion that this is always about "what the people want" but that is not how a Republic works. Besides, civil rights are innate. They are not dependant on the the irational beliefs or ignorance of the majority of the populace."

OKTHXBI