Discrimination or Democracy?

So, this recent attack against democracy in California really has me thinking about the issue of homosexual marriage. For the record, I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage at all. I think the government's finger should be in as few cookie jars as possible, and that's one of them. It should be handled by religious or civil organizations. Not congresses or courts or governers. As for the issue itself, I don't care if Joe and Jim get married. That's between Joe, Jim, the sheets, and the attorney. I could care less, as it doesn't affect me. What has me outraged, is the blatant attack against democracy that occured when 5 Justices felt that their opinion was more important than over 60% of Californias. The citizens of that state passed a law by popular vote to ban gay marriage, yet the state's Supreme Court overturned it. Which has stirred this topic in my mind once more. Once I started thinking... you should know by now that it triggers a blog.

Why is gay marriage so important to homosexual couples? Don't they run around and tout their 'I don't care if you judge me attitude?' I'm simply trying to understand it all. Why do they fight so hard for nationwide validation of their relationship? Most states already have all the protections for a homosexual couple that a straight couple does, so why the uphill battle about this? I don't need church or state recognition to validate my relationship with someone. All that matters is that myself, my partner, either male or female, and God Almighty recognize our relationship. Especially when you can have every benefit of marriage.

They do their diversity parades, and talk about how different they are, and how we should embrace their differences, then turn around and sue the government because they want to be just like the straights and get married. If they want to be so different, why would they beg for the exact same thing as everyone else? If they like to stand out and buck the system so much, why fight to be a part of the system? It's the same thing I've never understood about the parades too. Are you that insecure about yourself that you have to join hundreds of other people to parade down streets? I'm a fan of females myself, so should we have a straight pride parade? Where all the girls come out dressed as french maids and school girls, and the guys come around dressed in their manly man outfits? Why do we have gay pride parades and not straight pride parades? Do they need them for the sake of moral? Are they all so insecure in their sexuality, that they have to put it out there for everyone to see? Why do they feel the need to cross dress as nuns and desecrate a Catholic church? So you can veal validated about your sexual preference? If you're born that way, why are you insecure? Why can't you just let it be part of you, and part of your life, and leave it at that? I don't flaunt my straightness by slapping 'Chicks Are Hott' bumper stickers on my car, or wearing shirts that say 'I love jugs' or anything like that.

As for the judgement itself, if a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, are polygamist, incestuous, pedophilic relationships unconstitutional? Where do we draw the line? If anything, relationships between members of the opposite sex involving family members, more than one spouse, or a vast age difference would be more natural than a homosexual relationship, due to those relationships still being able to produce offspring. So, if it's okay to be gay and marry, who is to decide that a 34 year old man can't marry a 15 year old girl if they both want to? Or that a man can't marry his daughter if he wishes? Or that a man can't have 6 wives if they all agree to it? How are those any more unnatural? You can give me the 'Oh, that's sick!' line, but that's still only your opinion. If GLAAD has a case, shouldn't NAMBLA as well? You may think I'm dropping the 'can god make a rock so big he can't pick it up' line, or even compare this to my argument against abortion when I compare it to rape, but that would simply be you dodging a logical argument.

I'm not here to tell you what's right or wrong on this issue. I've made my view on the issue known, and I've stated that my main problem is with the court's actions. But think about what I've said. It could start making sense....