it is what the people voted for……..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090526/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage
so it is obviously the MAJORITY of the state that wants it. how can you vote your conscience if it gets repealed and questioned? how is it that when people are stating their
thoughts, if it does not jive with what is popular they are marginalized? if i say i think this way then i can. you think your way, why can’t i? you say you are tolerant, into diversity all
that, SHOW IT!
i have no problem AT ALL with anyone as a person. i love all people the same.
i wish others did that too.
Pam and Juan said,
May 29, 2009 at 1:49 am
The recent vote in California and confirmation from the State Supreme Court to uphold the ban of same-sex marriage is reminiscent of 1948 when 30 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation, in other words these states upheld the illegality for interracial marriage. The 30 states wanted to maintain the ‘purity’ of the ‘white’ race and did not allow (state dependent) marriage of white people to Blacks, Native Americans, Asians, Filipino, Indian and, in Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia, any ‘non-white’. I don’t know if this might not have included Juan and me, Carolyn and Ignacio and Corinna and Fed. Certainly many of the 30 states would not have allowed Brett and Yoko to be married.
In 1967 the US Supreme Court (Loving vs. Virginia) ruled anti-miscegination laws unconstitutional, cancelling them in the 16 states that, in that year, still maintained them.
Widely called into question after WWII and in 1948 California was the first of the 30 states to abolish the anti-miscegination laws, the first to do so since 1887 (Ohio).
In a 1958 Gallop pole, 96% of white Americans opposed interracial marriage.
Democracy that promises justice for all is a painfully slow and deliberate process. Someday, we fervently hope it won’t be too distant, if Maria wants to marry in any state in the nation that she will be able to do so.
Louanne said,
June 10, 2009 at 3:55 am
Well if you want to bring race into it then you could say it was the homosexuals fault that they “took the black vote in California for granted”. Plain and simple. They “assumed” that the blacks would all vote their way because they were going to vote for Obama. Talk about backing people into a corner because of their race. And don’t try to say that it didn’t happen that way. I payed very close attention after the vote and MANY prominent black people in California commented on how they were marginalized by the homosexual groups until AFTER the vote when the numbers came out.
And why weren’t the homosexual groups protesting the black churches like they did the Mormons? The majority of black people hold a traditional view of marriage (Just like President Obama I might add) and you didn’t see anyone protesting their California churches.