So the great state of California has decided to legalize a euphemism that has been named "same sex marriage".  A definition of marriage (albeit the third in the list) is:  the state of being husband and wife.  Now I am not going to get into a semantic argument over the definition of the word, but really!  Who is the husband and who is the wife in a same sex marriage.  Ok, so I made a semantic argument over the issue.  THAT IS HOW SILLY THE ISSUE IS.

 

The California supreme court has made a ruling that stands in the face of the referendum that was duly voted upon by the good citizens of California.  The Mayor of San Francisco has said that the Constitution is in place to protect the minority from the whim of the majority????  Pardon me, but this is a democracy.  51% is what is needed in most cases to pass a law by vote, not a cadre of judges looking down their noses at we simple minded chattel.  The enlightened Mayor also likened same sex marriage to inter-racial marriage and stated that he didn't think that inter-racial marriage would be approved by voters in present day California.  Elitist much?

 

Thank you so much for taking my hand and allowing me to see that all men are created equal, more equal if you are gay though.  I have a little problem with a small group of people telling the majority what they should recognize and what they shouldn't.  Objecting to the law is not a reason for not upholding a passed law, in fact it is the judge's jobs to enforce those laws passed either through the representative legislature or, in this case, referendum.

 

So lets lay this decision out for everyone to see.  The California state supreme court has decided that the law passed by the people of the State is unconstitutional.  This decision will undoubtedly go deeper than the "same sex" label that it has garnered.  The FLDSers in Texas, I am sure, would be interested in this decision.  What about the incestual couple in Australia.  Why wouldn't they want to move to California so they can drink from the trough of "same sex" marriage.  After all why wouldn't they want the equal protection that the state provides.  And why would they be able to prevent these "marriages"?  These people love each other.  Just because one group is more than two participants and one group is father and daughter shouldn't exclude them, should it?  Why?  Why not?  

 

I don't want to sound condescending to these well meaning gay people, but I most likely will.  You can call yourself married, you can go through the ceremony, you can wear the rings, you can even have children.  But, in my mind and in the majority of others in this great country you are not married.  I know that my friends get tired of my quoting a cartoon in serious debates like this, but in The Incredibles the evil Syndrome was attempting to market super power gadgets that would be available for purchase.  His idea was, since he has no super powers, to make everyone "super".  The argument being when everyone is super then nobody is super.  I see the same fate for marriage, when everyone is married then nobody is married.  It renders the term without meaning.  Sad.