Live and let live, or accept your neighbour as your own, or . . . you know – don’t be a bigoted asshat. . .
Today, the California Supreme Court overturned a state law banning gay marriage. Kudos to the court. However, there is already a coalition of religious and social conservative groups trying to get a referendum on the ballot in November that would add an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman. Asses. I find this very disheartening and I’ve never understood it. If you are a man and do not want to marry a man, then great – don’t marry that man.
I firmly believe in the equality of all man (or woman) and the ideologies of some who propose to interfere with private rights seem inherently unethical. That is not to say morality is not a public issue, because it is. However, I believe only inasmuch as in individual’s right to self-determination cannot and should not conflict with another’s. By that, I mean if you want to do something that may be considered immoral (by whatever means the majority defines it), then as long as it does not affect someone else’s privacy, it should be left alone.
It can not affect me or my family, if a man chooses to marry a man, or a woman a woman. . . That is a choice, I believe, that should be left to the individuals involved. I cannot see why it would be any other way.
I can only hope the voters in November see things similarly. The Court ruled it is a basic “civil right” for a person to marry another person they love. Should that not be the status quo?
Goddess/Goddess Marriage-speed.
p.s. Gotta love the gays. 
