California's turn

I'm sorry, guys, for being makulit. But this time, it is California's turn for gay marriage.

Here's the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/13/prop-8-jerry-brown-urges-_n_682100.html

California? You would ask, "I thought California already had gay marriage, had it not?"

Well, the California situation is interesting and very instructive of how human rights work. You see, sometime ago, California indeed had gay marriage. Then, recently, there was a referendum, called Prop.8, asking to ban gay marriage in California. The Catholic Church, Mormon Church and the Evangelicals patched up their differences and banded together to campaign. As it turned out, Prop. 8 won in the referendum, by a small margin, to the dismay of Californian gays. The people has spoken, gays are out.

But wait, something interesting happens several months after the referendum. This week a federal court in California made a shocking decision (shocking in the eyes of the religious). The court declared the referendum results unconstitutional. Even if the ban against gay marriage won in the referendum, it will not stand. Even if the majority of the people has spoken, no way! In effect, the Court lectured that it is not correct to vote out the right of any minority. The right of a single individual cannot be voted upon by the majority. A civil right is always uphold whatever the majority thinks.






Here are the poor defenders of the ban, holding rally banner but unable to understand the legal principle of the ruling, he he he. They are hoping that a higher Court will rule in their favor. But in order for the Supreme Court to even start listening to the argument, the procedure is for the State of California to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. And here's the other shock: the state government said that they will not appeal the ruling. Bad trip! Talo na naman ang mga religious. See that queue of people at the stairs of the State House? Those are gays lining up to start getting married. Sobrang excited, ha ha ha.

So, unless Jesus himself comes back and correct the whole situation, I guess palaging dehado ang mga simbahan. That's it, guys.

again why do they need the sanctity of marriage? that just spoils the moral liberties right? besides, gays are the most promiscuous of all i have seen. they'd be spending so much more with divorce and separation, we'd need a whole new set of laws for them gays which of course will cost tax payers a lot more money.. id say the hell with it, they dont need marriage since they already act like a couple even without the legalities ^_^

You miss the point, Sakundes. Yes, they want marriage so that they can do adultery and divorce (plus all the other complications and economic and social benefits of the marriage contract). They want to have exactly what the heterosexuals have. The point is that they happen to believe in that concept that "All humans are born free, and equal in rights and dignity, etc. etc."

If heteros will ban marriage for everybody including to themselves and call the whole thing as "friendly bonding", then I am sure the homos will insist that they want to be "friendly bonded" too. That is the point. Equality.

Tsk.

Why insist on the thing called 'marriage'?
Eh, may divorce naman sa kanila?

Hindi ko talaga maintindihan...