Ok, so I still do not agree that homosexuality displayed in humans is genetic or natural, and I will not be convinced (when they isolate the gay gene, then I will be convinced
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_gene ). This whole argument about natural law vs. civil rights is a double edged sword. On one hand, homosexuality is displayed in nature, but to allow natural law to define civil rights would mean that other sexual preferences displayed in nature would have to be legal as well, three examples of which are pedophilia (pack leader of a wolf pack is 14 years old and impregnates a 6 month old bitch on her first heat), polygamy (lion pride has one ruling male and a number of females which he services), and incest (same lion pack possibly consists of the monarchs sisters and daughters, which he impregnates when they go into heat).
Cannabilism is also displayed regularly in nature
If you deny these happen in nature, you are obviously an uneducated moron, and I do not need to hear from you.
Please do not try to pick this apart, it stems from fact, I have heard all the delusional arguments about natural rights, I doubt you can tell me something I have not heard.
Anyways, nature aside, I do believe it is everyones right to happiness. Hell, the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed in the Constitution. If you need legalities to be happy though, that is sad. The Constitution, however, does not guarantee tax breaks or death benefits to anyone.
The point of where I am going is this.
Article from Foxnews.com
SACRAMENTO -- The sponsors of a second ballot measure seeking to repeal California's ban on same-sex marriage have been cleared to start collecting signatures.
The secretary of state on Friday gave the group Yes on Equality until Aug. 17 to collect the nearly 700,000 signatures needed to qualify its initiative for the 2010 ballot.
If approved by voters, the group's proposed constitutional amendment would rescind Proposition 8, which passed last November. The California Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on legal challenges to the voter-approved measure.
Earlier this month, two Southern California college students got permission to start circulating petitions for a separate initiative that would end all marriage as a state-sanctioned institution and instead make couples -- gay or straight -- eligible only for domestic partnerships.
Thousands demonstrated earlier this month as California Supreme Court justices weighed whether voters' decision in November to ban same-sex marriage was a denial of fundamental rights or within what one justice called the people's "very broad powers" to amend the state constitution.
Gay rights advocates are urging the court to overturn the ban on the grounds it was put before voters improperly, or at least prematurely. Under state law, the Legislature must approve significant constitutional changes before they can go on the ballot.
Proposition 8's sponsors, represented in court by former Pepperdine law school dean and Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, argue that the ballot initiative was approved correctly. They argued it would be a miscarriage of justice for the court to overturn the results of a fair election.
The ballot initiative, which passed with 52 percent of the vote, changed the California Constitution to trump last year's 4-3 Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage. The court found that denying same-sex couples the right to wed was an unconstitutional civil rights violation.
California voters first enacted a ban on gay marriage in 2000.The only problem I can see with this are with the federal laws on marriage, and how taking away the term entirely will affect existing marriages, including gay marriages.
Based on the arguments I have seen on this website from the Anti-8ers, revoking the term marriage altogether would not be a suitable solution because there are rights that come with the term from both state and federal government.
How do you feel about this?
