Gay Support Should Come From Voters

Governor Swarzenegger vetoed today “California’s Gender-Neutral Same-Sex Marriage Bill (AB 849)”. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/glrts/caab849.html

MoreThanCorn does support many gay causes. What is not acceptable is the use of the courts to move the agenda forward. The California Legislature introduced the bill with the following:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act."

As MoreThanCorn has written regarding “changing minds”; As the older generations who are less inclusive, are replaced by younger generations, the anti-homosexual crowd will dwindle in numbers. Inclusion is a Christ like quality. As a man of faith it appears to MoreThanCorn there should not necessarily be acceptance of the life style, however acceptance of the person. One can disagree with a life style and still accept the individual.

Marriage is not a “State Institution” it is a religious institution supported by the state. MoreThanCorn, while not versed well in law, has the previous opinion. The Act proposed by
California made a couple points worth arguing against;

(c) In 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state court in the country to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marriage. It was the only state supreme court to do so before the United States Supreme Court invalidated all those laws in 1967. The California Supreme Court held that "marriage is . . . something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men...Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws" (Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, 714-15).

It appears to be inappropriate to compare a race based issue with a gay marriage subject. I would be offended if I were a man of color.

It was also troublesome to read the California Legislature decided it necessary to add to the bill, the decisions Canada has made with regard to gay marriage.

(e)…The highest courts in seven Canadian provinces have similarly ruled that marriage laws that discriminate in favor of different-sex couples to the exclusion of same-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples and cannot stand.

Does the California Legislature always look to other countries to justify there own opinions? The United States should have stopped making decisions based on laws from other countries after the late 1700’s. Many of our own laws have grown out of British Common law and there were adoptions of others for sure, however to continue this trend in 2005 would be a step rearward.

Now it appears from the article on Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170835,00.html) the decision will be made by either the voters in California or the California Supreme Court. I hope it is the voters who decide what to do with the future of marriage. Many like to throw around “equal opportunity” and “civil rights.” These phrases help describe what is fair. How fair would it be for the California voters to not have a decision in the definition of marriage? We shall see the side The Civil Liberties Union will take on this case. History shows support for judicial decisions.