I believe that marriage in general is not a constitutional right. With that said, there may be state rights that have been mandated. I'm not sure. However, it was my belief that the issue revolved around the specification of marriage as outlined in religious and legal terms. If someone can cite some information to help clarify the definitions of marriage and if it specifically indicated a union between a man and a woman, it might help here.
Nonetheless, where I am going with this is that I came to the understanding that those 'representing' the gay community were not interested in a union that was defined as gay marriage with the same legal equivalent to marriage. It was my understanding that they wanted marriage to encompass a union between a man and a woman; a woman and a woman; and a man and a man. Not something separately defined even if that 'new' definition had the same exact equivalent as the legal term of marriage (provided the legal term specifically outlines a marriage being a union between a man and woman only).
So, citing the legal definition might help here. I do understand, if my understanding is correct (as noted above), if those who represent the gay community (and the gay community at large) would not be interested in having a separate definition for gay marriage. A separate definition could mean complete equivalent now, but changes to one and not the other could make it not equivalent later. I would understand that since lawyers have a tendency to muck things up at times.
Anyway, the real issue is whether or not people accept homosexuality as a lifestyle. There are varying degrees of acceptance and tolerance too. It's certainly not an accepted lifestyle by everyone, including the religious community that have a great influence on politicians and possess huge voting power.
Including same sex marriage into the definition of marriage is a tough nut to swallow for a large part of the American population. Let's face it, sex in general is an uncomfortable topic for a large part of the American population. But I think the issue itself has come a long way in a positive direction.
If the proposition is getting defeated by the California voters, I for one must respect the choice they made. I may not agree or disagree with them, but there have been many a proposition I voted for/against that did not go my way. I liked/didn't like the outcome, but I have always respected the final outcome. Tomorrow is another day. And gay unions will not either, no matter what anyone thinks or desires.
I don't live in California anymore, so I didn't have the opportunity to vote on the issue. Ultimately, no matter what your sexual orientation, if two people care, love and support each other in committed long term relationship, they should be treated with the utmost respect and enjoy the same rights, privileges and/or benefits of any other couple who displays reverence for such a committed union.
Good luck and best wishes to California.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
