Politics and Culture

California Supreme court judge listens to arguments before issuing his decree.

Apparently, the California constitution guarantees that men can marry other men.

Asymmetric thoughts:

1. Patriarchy/ traditional marriage-phobes might be cheering, but only because their side won- not because the California Supreme Court did any justice. They will say the CASC just wanted to apply the law equally to everyone.

Since homosexuals had as much right to marry somebody of the opposite sex as anybody else, the issue obviously had nothing to do with equal protection. Yet, my untraditional brothers and sisters will dismiss the California electorate as wrong and in need of "education." Those unwilling to succumb will face worse. Some will mention Martin Luther King and blacks.

What does this minority want? They want the traditional structure of society to fail. Why? One, it helps foster the kind of chaotic social situations that cry for government intervention. Two, it deals another blow to the traditions that compete with the state. Third, it gives people an opportunity to redo society according to their ideals.

Go to a feminist or communist book store for details (They can be more honest amongst themselves.).

2. As always, some won't care.

3. Emotionalists who felt sorry that some of their best gay friends couldn't have a wedding that "counted," will be happy. They won't be able to articulate any advantage gay marriage gives society. These will be the majority of those in favor of the ruling.

4. Some people will oppose it out of hate.

5. Some people will oppose it, but not be able to articulate why in a PC-acceptable way. These will be the majority of those opposed to the ruling. They can be intimidated into not caring.

6. Then there's me. I don't want a long post, but it has to do with natural law, children, and what I feel is the best (only?) way for a society to succeed. Don't tell me that I think the "gay boogie man is going to end my marriage." I'm immune to those tactics.

7. What will eventually happen if homosexuals are allowed to marry:

a. As in other countries such as the Netherlands that have allowed people of the same sex to marry, marriage will decline in both numbers and prestige, the latter probably effecting the former. Reaction to this development will be according to the above types of citizens. Some will deny it's happening.

b. Children in school will receive textbooks with gay couples. Health textbooks will emphasize that all families are equally valuable. Guest speakers, perhaps. History books will refer to the "dark ages" when the government limited marriages to one woman and one man along with sidebars dedicated to notable gays. Administrators will politely listen to the "hateful" parents (and then complain about a lack of parent involvement) and then confuse most of them with something or another.

c. The state will spend more money for something.

d. Once gays get the recognition they want, they'll consider marriage a joke along with everybody else except some religious people whom many will see as some kind of suburban Amish.

e. It might help make the conservative (and the McCain campaign's) case for judicial restraint.

f. Obama will try to avoid the issue.