That's always how it is. Success in one area stirs up the opposition. We can only see that diversity and tolerance wins out in the end.

A story which may or may not be related is the smoking ban I witnessed in Columbus. A few little areas passed bans and it caught on like wildfire. People just saw that it was better. Maybe it's none of the government's business, but it is better that way.

As same sex couples become legalized even temporarily in more places, people will see it's perfectly fine. They walk around and love each other like any other couple. It's not going to be one big gay pride parade...
 

California? Something about that seems wrong. They just said gays can get married. Why give with one hand and take with the other? Yes, I know the U.S.
has historically done that, but that doesn't change the fact California said they could marry, many have, and now they want to resend that right? Are they going to recognize those marriages that occured after the California government said they could, if the people say to make it unconstitutional?

The way I see it, IF that person makes them happy and they both want to be together for life, as well as make their relationship recognized by law, then why not? Allowing people to marry those who make them happy could possibly cut down on the divorce rate.


One other point, what is the difference between denying same sex marriages and interracial marriages? Not long ago, people who fell in love and wanted marry could not marry if one was Black and the other was White. It was against the law especially in states South of Mason Dixon line until sometime after the 60s. IF there had not been two brave people taking it to the Supreme Court in the 60s, my sons, who I love very dearly, probably would not have existed today. Granted their father and I aren't together anymore, but our marital issues were no different than any other couples'. Colour was not the issue anymore than if a same sex couple married and then decided they could not be together and filed for divorce.


It angers me that these states give same sex couples the right to marry and THEN have the public vote on whether or not it should be. Such things should not be anymore unconstitutional than interracial marriages. To me it is no different than giving people the Supreme court right to marry any person of any colour and then saying, "Oh wait! We need the Southern states vote on this." *rolling eyes* Then what happens next? Any children of said marriage get taken away? That happened too, only these women, who happened to be White hadn't married the father because of the law at the time. Their baby was taken and given to a Black family (one drop law, which seems to still exist in Missouri).


Granted, few same sex couples have children at this time (some do though), BUT if they do during this time, are humans going to take their babies because of it and give the child to a traditional couple? Will it be based on more than that even? Like say, not only traditional, but also the same colour as the child, with some sort of "one drop law" involved?

Yes, I know, that last statement is a bit extreme, but looking at history, nothing would surprise me. These states that have said it is ok for them to marry or have a civil union should leave it alone not, not have a vote that could possibly make it unconstitutional. IF people must vote on it, they need to remember history as well as keep in mind some states have already approved such marriages/civil unions and ask themselves if they want to be "Indian givers" and the potential possibilities of what might happen IF they were to vote on it being unconstitutional given human history. It's not worth ruining people's happiness, in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with same sex couples anymore than there is interracial couples. I see this situation no different than the cases of interracial relationships before that Supreme Court decision concerning interracial couples.


It is time to allow ALL people to be happy with those they love and care about.
"