[October's Autumn]

I was so excited when I saw the headline this morning I almost started crying. From my husband's interactions with people in MA they say that the furor trying to get a constitutional ammendment will die down quickly when people realize that gay people getting married doesn't negatively affect them at all!

I'm so excited I could dance!

DanCE DancE DANce daNcE

[JosephM]

I guess it has different effects on different people. Personally I am neither excited nor disappointed. It seems to me that this government is founded on the principle of "We the People" (preamble opf Constitution), therefor it is left to the people to decide what they deem will promote to the general welfare and establish justice and insure domestic tranquillity with less emphasis on decisions by the courts whose main function is to interpret laws and how they apply to situations . This means they must understand the intent of the legislative branch who passes the laws and determine constituionality.

From a US standpoint, if a 2/3 majority of people decide against recognizing gay marriages then a ban on it will be constitutional. Laws seem to me to always be discriminatory to some extent to some people and they follow the whims and desires of the people and their leaders. Since presently there is no US constitutional law against gay marriages it seems to me that each state is entitled to form its own opinion and policy unless the US body as a whole deems it otherwise unsatisfactory.

It seems to me that this issue is far from over and I have no opinion either way. Just my 2 cents.

Joseph

[October's Autumn]

When it comes to civil rights "majority rules" is never a good idea. Civil Rights require leadership and people willing to take a stand on what is right, not what is popular.

[grampawombat]

I, too, am very pleased about this decision, particularly because it was the result of an opinion by a majority of justices all of whom, as I understand it, were appointed by Republican governors. This implies to me that gay rights are acceptable to those who are well versed in the law over a wider spectrum of political positions than I would have thought.

I am also pleased because the decision is consistent with a progressive religious perspective.

[minsocal]

Being from California, I watched this develop with great interest. There is now an attempt underway to modify the State Constitution to prevent gay marriages, but the Republican governor has vowed he wil not support any amendment and he will enforce the ruling of the State Supreme Court. This is a change of heart on his part that seems to have taken place in just the last few months and came as a welcome surprise.

What struck me was the fact that California already has laws granting rights to gay couples who enter into a civil union. The State Supreme Court declared that this was "not enough". All the more remarkable.

[October's Autumn]

My understanding was that Arnold was never against gay marriage, per se. He didn't think legislatures should be enacting a law I disagree with him, obviously. I think he was just playing the "Republican."

The attempt at a constitutional amendment has been in the works for sometime. If Mass. is a good example of what is to come then the furor will die down shortly and people will realize that gay people getting married is not going to affect them negatively in anyway. Kind of like interracial marriages

[Texas Lynn]

This si wonderful. wonderful news! The march of human progress goes on and on!

[October's Autumn]

It does. The saying has been: as California goes, so goes the nation. It will end up taking a constitutional amendment to undo what has been done in some 26 states. But eventually people are going to realize that regardless of their personal opinions and feelings people who are GLBT getting married really has no negative effect on them! Someday (soon) people look back and wonder why so much energy had to be put into gaining what should have been a given!