What is your view of the recent legalization of gay marriage in California?

Is it an indication that our society has changed and come to accept others despite their sexual orientation? Are homosexual individuals now granted more freedoms because of the new law? How do you think this will influence other states across the nation and possibly countries abroad? Please be respectful. No derogatory material, as well.

Update:

Oh, thanks Stephen W for clearing that up..."court ruling"

Update 2:

Hey guys, I just want to remind you to keep your content clean and respectful. This is a sensitive issue and it needs to be treated with dignity.

30 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I think it's great. If two persons of the same sex want to get married, fine. I do not think that gay marriage affects me any more than a heterosexual couples' marriage, or their adultery and other poor choices.

    Nor will it bring about the end of civilization as we know it. Our civilzation is more resiliant than that. After all, we have managed to get along without slavery, and giving women and other minorities the vote did not bring about the fall the the republic, as was feared.

    There are no additional rights afforded after a gay marriage, since that is covered by registering as a domestic partner, but that's not the point. The point is to "be married".

    In fact, it has been an economic boon for the wedding industry, as gays have a higher than average per capita income, and therefore, more disposable income to spend on wedding accutrements. It will also bring a little more money in to the counties in license fees.

    Hopefully, this will become a non-issue. After all, at first it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry, then it became a social taboo, and now, here in California, it doesn't even turn heads.

    The sad part is that there is so much misinformation still out there, about a "gay agenda" in schools, and assuming homosexuality is the same as pedophilia, etc. I'm a teacher, and I guess I missed something at one of the faculty meetings. Although gays cannot reproduce sexually, and homosexuality has been around throught history, and even exists among other primates, I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

  • 1 decade ago

    Just my personal opinion. The First Amendment to the US Constitution is very important. It is unacceptable for the courts or the law to support one religion or denomination over another one.

    Put another way: Church 1 says gay relationships are sinful. Church 2 says gay relationships are not sinful and want to marry people.

    The legislature and courts should never ever support either side. The government must stay out of church doctrine issues and questions.

    If you look at history, marriage as a church sponsored activity only started in the 13th century (about 782 years ago). Before that date marriage was a civil activity and done at what we'd now consider to be the county clerk's office.

    To answer your question directly:

    1) As long as the government is in the marriage business any two individuals of legal age and sound mind should be able to marry.

    2) Marriage should be now and always be between two individuals.

    3) If marriage is for the sole purpose of having children then heterosexual couples who can't or don't have children should not be allowed to be married. The state should undo the marriage if it hasn't resulted in children within a specific time.

    Also once all the children grow up maybe the marriage should be over as its purpose is over.

    4) Personally, I believe marriage is for the purpose of allowing two individuals to share their lives together and to protect each other in mind, body, and soul. It should be a LIFE LONG COMMITMENT!!

    So, I'm in favor of gay marriage in California.

  • 4 years ago

    I settle for it and picture it the right aspect to do. i'm right now and that i'm married and the concept that allowing extra people to marry, even if or not they're gay, may do something to damage my marriage is the most absurd aspect i have ever heard. Civil Marriage is a civil proper and can't be denied to everyone. I have some acquaintances who flew out to SF a number of years in the past at the same time as they were issuing marriage licenses and were given married. yet beforehand they were given a probability to sign in the marriage on the courtroom homestead the courts slapped an injuction that stopped it. i'm very pleased for those 2 females and for the thousands of alternative couples who can now have what I actually were in a position to savour for years.

  • 1 decade ago

    Why are you asking? What is your opinion?

    I think California is always 'out there' when it comes to social tendencies. Where else can you be Mexican and a Republican? (Well, maybe Chicago.) Just an example, but hopefully it makes a difficult point.

    I'm not entirely convinced that there should be legalised gay marriages in any state of America, so I can't say that our society has changed and come to accept others (in spite of and) because of their sexual orientation. I don't think it will influence countries abroad because the world is SO big, and America is seen as one conglomerate nation.

    I, for one, accept people on their individual merits. Being straight or homosexual is entirely irrelevant to how kind a person someone is, in California or elsewhere.

    What do you think?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Well..... It is hard to give a view,,mainly because I will never know what it feels like to be Gay. I feel every person on earth is entitled to be who they want to be, and that means their sexuality as well. I'm very old fashioned, and believe in tradionalism, but this had been around for along time, just never spoken about. A child can be loved just as much if not more in a non-traditional family as a tradional family. Who knows, maybe they will grow being a stronger individual,,especially in their beliefs. I think if I were a gay person, I would want the respect, that a non gay person thinks they deserve, Sooo, with that said....I wouldn't convince someone to do it, and i might not totally understand, but I would never look down on two sould that are in love. It's their right, and their choice, afterall,,think about it,,,,i don't want someone,,giving their two cents especially if negaitive about the way I live my life.

    You have to do what feels right for you.

  • 1 decade ago

    I don't think it's any indication of society, the courts rule based on what will save the government money, not what is right or what society wants. The government sees respecting homosexuals as a way to save money they are spending to fight the lawsuits brought on by the ACLU, not a way to accept anyone.

  • 1 decade ago

    I think that is great. I think that that will give the gay community a chance to shine.

    but as a side note I know that most Americans are not opposed to domestic partnerships or civil unions, but they freak out when you bring the term marriage in it. I think we should go for civil unions or domestic partnerships first then go for marriage next. I think if we keep pushing for marriage instead of taking it step by step we may end up with nothing.

    there is ancient text of marriage where polygamy exist. so it is clear that marriage is not just between one man and a woman in the ancient world. So the Christians are wrong unless they are referring to traditional Christian marriage.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Personally I find it a bit odd and distasteful and I live in California. But since there seem to be so many of them and most would seem to be "trapped" in the wrong body and seem to be for the most part decent humans why not give them some form of legally recognized status since they seem to share assets- no pun intended. It will be a hundred years before the Bible belt accepts them if ever. I think what offends others the most is calling it a "marriage"- should have picked a better name (and another party to represent them). Democrats already have to bare the burden of abortion rights which have already swung far too many important elections.

  • 1 decade ago

    I don't think it's so much about society accepting us but rather appeals judges providing us with fair and equitable rights. We were not granted more 'freedoms' but rather the same 'freedoms', at least under California law.

  • 1 decade ago

    It's not a new law, it was a Court ruling. There's been talk of a constitutional amendment since, so we have to wait to see what happens this November.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.