I don't get it

Barely a day's passed since yesterday's decision and, as expected, the opposition is fuming. What I really don't understand is the rhetoric.

Tom Del Beccaro, chairman of the Republican Party of Contra Costa, said marriage "should be decided by the American voters, not by the court." Exactly when should the rights of a few be put up to a vote of the many? Blacks would never have the right vote, segregation would still be legal, and a litany of other social ills would well be in force simply because they're popular. Please drop that argument.

"This decision will be gasoline on the fire of the pro-marriage movement in California as well as the rest of the country," said Mathew Staver of the Campaign for California Families. First off, I'm all for marriage. Secondly, what he's referring to is an initiative change the California constitution to ban it. Mark my words: he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of changing the California constitution to ban same sex marriage. Unlike other states, it takes 2/3rds vote in both the state senate and house to go to the voters. Already a third of the members of both houses are backing a Marriage License Nondiscrimation Act, and many others certainly aren't going to back a constitutional amendment. Secondly, they frequently cite that in 2000, 62% voted for Proposition 22, an initiative defining marriage as a man and a woman. This ain't 2000, dude. Polls show support in California for same sex marriage around 45% and civil unions around 25% (which we already have), while opposition to either only around 30%. The idea that a majority is going to approve a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage has a snowball's chance in Death Valley of passing.

"Although this was just a lower court ruling, it's a vivid reminder that opponents of traditional marriage have not given up their effort to overturn the will of the people," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. Who in the hell said we oppose traditional marriage? Marriage continues to be one man and one woman, and we have no intention of abolishing that. If I'm for gay rights, does that mean I'm against straight rights? If I'm anti-racist, does that mean I'm anti-white? I'm an not anti-Semitic, does that mean I'm anti-Christian? Tone down the rhetoric dude. Actually, it's not rhetoric, it's a bald-faced lie.

Thomas Wang, an evangelical pastor in Mountain View, said, "Freedom doesn't mean freedom to do anything. If that happens, then there is chaos." Dude, did you read the ruling, or just go out spouting party lines?

In determining whether the public interest requires the prohibition of a marriage between two persons, the state may take into consideration matters of legitimate concern to the state. Thus, disease that might become a peril to the prospective spouse or to the offspring of the marriage could be made a disqualification for marriage. Such legislation, however, must be based on tests of the individual, not on arbitrary classifications of groups or races, and must be administered without discrimination.

Likewise, the state can preclude incestuous marriages as well as establish a minimum age for effective consent to marriage because such limitations on the fundamental right to marry would further an important social objective by reasonable means and do not discriminate based on arbitrary classifications. Thus, the parade of horrible social ills envisioned by the opponents of same-sex marriage is not a necessary result from recognizing that there is a fundamental right to choose who one wants to marry.

I've said it before. Those who argue that giving same-sex couples the right to marry, then you'd have to give it to siblings or NAMBLA, follow the same argument that if you give women the right to vote, then you have to give it to dogs, or if you give blacks the right to own property then you have to give it to trees. Women can vote, and I don't see dogs given the right to vote. Blacks can now own property, and I don't see trees owning it anytime soon. Same sex couples in Massachusetts can now marry, and the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west, and hell did not open up and swallow Boston whole. In fact, Boston is still just as lovely of a place to visit, so please, drop that argument.

Wang added, "If everyone in the world would follow the same-sex pattern, then there would be genocide." Actually we tried that already. Thanks to the Fab 5, for awhile the entire world was metrosexual. Kids still got born, dude. Please drop that argument.

Even so, Kramer argued that the opponents were incorrect: Same sex couples can procreate. One member of a lesbian couple can be artifically inseminated and produce a child. Those who would argue that it is not the same as opposite sex couples procreating are also wrong. Find the case of a opposite sex couple where the male is infertile, and so sperm is donated and artificially insemiates the woman. Legally, the child his baby just as much as if it were his own sperm. And there's no legal precident to say their marriage is any less valid. Legally the argument has no grounds. Please drop that argument.

There's an overwhelming reason why the opposition failed in this case: They followed the exact same logic as that led up to the 1948 decision striking down interracial marriage. It's always been done, it's applied equally to men and women (or blacks and whites in the previous case), it would lead to social ills, the purpose of marriage is procreation. I ask you, if you're up for securities fraud, would you follow Martha Stewart's strategy? If you're up for murder, would you follow Scott Peterson's strategy? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different result. Exactly why did they think they were going to win this time? I have no idea, but then again, I'm not a psychologist and have no experience in diagnosing the insane.