From the "other" side: Pam's House Blend:: Freeper, fundie heads exploding over CA marriage ruling 

No, I won't repeat any of it here, but ... well, when you listen to some of the comments, it makes me happy for the decision all the more, if only to lead to more exploding heads.

Well, I will say a couple of things:

1. The basis for the decision, in the face of the previously (eight years ago) initiative law voted in by the populace, was that the populace and their representatives had crafted a body of law regarding domestic partnerships that was close to marriage already, save for the name. Except that it couldn't be called that. Except the justices decided that was discriminatory.
2. Despite all the rhetoric of "every child deserves and needs a mother and father," a different ruling would have done nothing regarding California child custody laws.
3. It is, in fact, one of the most important jobs of high courts to stand up to the will of the people when that will, in law, is not in keeping with the (state or federal) constitution. That can be irksome. That can also be a critical protection of your rights, too. Idjits.
4. I don't insist on knowing and approving everything you do in your bedroom. I do insist you show similar courtesy to others. I didn't ask your permission to enter into a committed relationship with someone I love; ditto on the insistence of similar courtesy.
5. Oh, and, that whole "marriage is dooooooomed!" thing? Here's what I think.

(via Les)

Filed under :: Gay Stuff :: Politics & Law :: ZT & PC

I'm with you here.

We've had same-sex marriage here in Canuckistan for several years now. My marriage has withstood it.

In Canada, it's always been seen as a civil rights issue, not a moral or religious issue. To discriminate against someone because of their race, gender, or sexuality is against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in my country. Once the Charter was created, it was just a matter of time until a case went to our Supreme Court to extend marriage rights.

Yeah, see, to my way of thinking, it's a civil rights issue as well -- a little something in our Constitution that talks about "equal protection under the law" -- which means if the government treats one group of people one way, and another group another way, they need a darned good reason -- which aesthetics and religious dogma ought not to count toward that.

But, then, I'm one of those knee-jerk liberal atheist commie pervert-lovers, so what do you expect?

Via Les, still more bleats of blasphemy from the Right. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2008/05/right_attacks_c.html