[Mark Holmes]

Meadandale; perhaps appealing to your heart was a mistake. Maybe someday you will find yourself in the minority, your rights subject to others whims. I would imagine you’ve never experienced that. I could be wrong. But in my experience, those who exhibit empathy for others have experienced something similar in their lives at some time.

Vote the way you like. But asking you to not vote is no different than trying to convince you to vote otherwise. It’s simply political discussion. I’m not trying to “take away” your rights, as the constitutional amendment, if it passes in November, will most decidedly do to gay Californians who have finally been given the right to marry.

[Mark Holmes]

Meadandale; perhaps appealing to your heart was a mistake. Maybe someday you will find yourself in the minority, your rights subject to others whims. I would imagine you’ve never experienced that. I could be wrong. But in my experience, those who exhibit empathy for others have experienced something similar in their lives at some time.

Vote the way you like. But asking you to not vote is no different than trying to convince you to vote otherwise. It’s simply political discussion. I’m not trying to “take away” your rights, as the constitutional amendment, if it passes in November, will most decidedly do to gay Californians who have finally been given the right to marry.

[Mark Holmes]

Meadandale; perhaps appealing to your heart was a mistake. Maybe someday you will find yourself in the minority, your rights subject to others whims. I would imagine you’ve never experienced that. I could be wrong. But in my experience, those who exhibit empathy for others have experienced something similar in their lives at some time.

Vote the way you like. But asking you to not vote is no different than trying to convince you to vote otherwise. It’s simply political discussion. I’m not trying to “take away” your rights, as the constitutional amendment, if it passes in November, will most decidedly do to gay Californians who have finally been given the right to marry.

[Mark Holmes]

Meadandale; perhaps appealing to your heart was a mistake. Maybe someday you will find yourself in the minority, your rights subject to others whims. I would imagine you’ve never experienced that. I could be wrong. But in my experience, those who exhibit empathy for others have experienced something similar in their lives at some time.

Vote the way you like. But asking you to not vote is no different than trying to convince you to vote otherwise. It’s simply political discussion. I’m not trying to “take away” your rights, as the constitutional amendment, if it passes in November, will most decidedly do to gay Californians who have finally been given the right to marry.

[Mark Holmes]

Meadandale; perhaps appealing to your heart was a mistake. Maybe someday you will find yourself in the minority, your rights subject to others whims. I would imagine you’ve never experienced that. I could be wrong. But in my experience, those who exhibit empathy for others have experienced something similar in their lives at some time.

Vote the way you like. But asking you to not vote is no different than trying to convince you to vote otherwise. It’s simply political discussion. I’m not trying to “take away” your rights, as the constitutional amendment, if it passes in November, will most decidedly do to gay Californians who have finally been given the right to marry.

[Mark Holmes]

And from the judgge who made the ruling:

“LOS ANGELES—In the days leading up to the California Supreme Court’s historic ruling on gay marriage, the case weighed on Chief Justice Ronald George like no other in his nearly 17 years on the court.

George assigned the majority opinion to himself. He wrote and rewrote, poring over draft after draft. Each word change had to be approved by the other three justices joining him in the 4-3 majority that would legalize gay marriage by overturning a law approved by California voters.

The 68-year-old Republican told the Los Angeles Times that as he read legal arguments, he recalled a trip he made many years ago with his parents through the South. Signs warning “No Negro” or “No colored” left an indelible impression on him.

He indicated he saw the fight for gay marriage as a civil rights case akin to the legal battle that ended laws banning interracial marriage.

“I think there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe,” he told the Times.

The case was set in motion in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom threw open City Hall to gay couples to get married in a calculated challenge to California law. In his opinion Thursday, George concluded “that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.”

He described his thinking on the status of marriage laws as
more evolution than epiphany, the result of his reading and long discussions with staff lawyers.

George, who grew up in Los Angeles, told the newspaper he counts gays among his friends.

Court rules bar George from discussing the ruling until it takes effect in 30 days or more. During an interview with the newspaper, he refused to disclose anything about the court’s internal deliberations and responded to a number of questions by reading from the decision.

Asked whether he thought most Californians would accept the marriage ruling, George said, “I really don’t know.””

I truly hope that those of you who oppose it now can at least find it in your hearts to simply not vote on the constitutional amendment ballot initiative in November. I’m not asking you to support gay marriage. Simply leave that box empty on election day.

[Mark Holmes]

And from the judgge who made the ruling:

“LOS ANGELES—In the days leading up to the California Supreme Court’s historic ruling on gay marriage, the case weighed on Chief Justice Ronald George like no other in his nearly 17 years on the court.

George assigned the majority opinion to himself. He wrote and rewrote, poring over draft after draft. Each word change had to be approved by the other three justices joining him in the 4-3 majority that would legalize gay marriage by overturning a law approved by California voters.

The 68-year-old Republican told the Los Angeles Times that as he read legal arguments, he recalled a trip he made many years ago with his parents through the South. Signs warning “No Negro” or “No colored” left an indelible impression on him.

He indicated he saw the fight for gay marriage as a civil rights case akin to the legal battle that ended laws banning interracial marriage.

“I think there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe,” he told the Times.

The case was set in motion in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom threw open City Hall to gay couples to get married in a calculated challenge to California law. In his opinion Thursday, George concluded “that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.”

He described his thinking on the status of marriage laws as
more evolution than epiphany, the result of his reading and long discussions with staff lawyers.

George, who grew up in Los Angeles, told the newspaper he counts gays among his friends.

Court rules bar George from discussing the ruling until it takes effect in 30 days or more. During an interview with the newspaper, he refused to disclose anything about the court’s internal deliberations and responded to a number of questions by reading from the decision.

Asked whether he thought most Californians would accept the marriage ruling, George said, “I really don’t know.””

I truly hope that those of you who oppose it now can at least find it in your hearts to simply not vote on the constitutional amendment ballot initiative in November. I’m not asking you to support gay marriage. Simply leave that box empty on election day.

[Mark Holmes]

And from the judgge who made the ruling:

“LOS ANGELES—In the days leading up to the California Supreme Court’s historic ruling on gay marriage, the case weighed on Chief Justice Ronald George like no other in his nearly 17 years on the court.

George assigned the majority opinion to himself. He wrote and rewrote, poring over draft after draft. Each word change had to be approved by the other three justices joining him in the 4-3 majority that would legalize gay marriage by overturning a law approved by California voters.

The 68-year-old Republican told the Los Angeles Times that as he read legal arguments, he recalled a trip he made many years ago with his parents through the South. Signs warning “No Negro” or “No colored” left an indelible impression on him.

He indicated he saw the fight for gay marriage as a civil rights case akin to the legal battle that ended laws banning interracial marriage.

“I think there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe,” he told the Times.

The case was set in motion in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom threw open City Hall to gay couples to get married in a calculated challenge to California law. In his opinion Thursday, George concluded “that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.”

He described his thinking on the status of marriage laws as
more evolution than epiphany, the result of his reading and long discussions with staff lawyers.

George, who grew up in Los Angeles, told the newspaper he counts gays among his friends.

Court rules bar George from discussing the ruling until it takes effect in 30 days or more. During an interview with the newspaper, he refused to disclose anything about the court’s internal deliberations and responded to a number of questions by reading from the decision.

Asked whether he thought most Californians would accept the marriage ruling, George said, “I really don’t know.””

I truly hope that those of you who oppose it now can at least find it in your hearts to simply not vote on the constitutional amendment ballot initiative in November. I’m not asking you to support gay marriage. Simply leave that box empty on election day.

[Mark Holmes]

And from the judgge who made the ruling:

“LOS ANGELES—In the days leading up to the California Supreme Court’s historic ruling on gay marriage, the case weighed on Chief Justice Ronald George like no other in his nearly 17 years on the court.

George assigned the majority opinion to himself. He wrote and rewrote, poring over draft after draft. Each word change had to be approved by the other three justices joining him in the 4-3 majority that would legalize gay marriage by overturning a law approved by California voters.

The 68-year-old Republican told the Los Angeles Times that as he read legal arguments, he recalled a trip he made many years ago with his parents through the South. Signs warning “No Negro” or “No colored” left an indelible impression on him.

He indicated he saw the fight for gay marriage as a civil rights case akin to the legal battle that ended laws banning interracial marriage.

“I think there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe,” he told the Times.

The case was set in motion in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom threw open City Hall to gay couples to get married in a calculated challenge to California law. In his opinion Thursday, George concluded “that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.”

He described his thinking on the status of marriage laws as
more evolution than epiphany, the result of his reading and long discussions with staff lawyers.

George, who grew up in Los Angeles, told the newspaper he counts gays among his friends.

Court rules bar George from discussing the ruling until it takes effect in 30 days or more. During an interview with the newspaper, he refused to disclose anything about the court’s internal deliberations and responded to a number of questions by reading from the decision.

Asked whether he thought most Californians would accept the marriage ruling, George said, “I really don’t know.””

I truly hope that those of you who oppose it now can at least find it in your hearts to simply not vote on the constitutional amendment ballot initiative in November. I’m not asking you to support gay marriage. Simply leave that box empty on election day.

[Mark Holmes]

And from the judgge who made the ruling:

“LOS ANGELES—In the days leading up to the California Supreme Court’s historic ruling on gay marriage, the case weighed on Chief Justice Ronald George like no other in his nearly 17 years on the court.

George assigned the majority opinion to himself. He wrote and rewrote, poring over draft after draft. Each word change had to be approved by the other three justices joining him in the 4-3 majority that would legalize gay marriage by overturning a law approved by California voters.

The 68-year-old Republican told the Los Angeles Times that as he read legal arguments, he recalled a trip he made many years ago with his parents through the South. Signs warning “No Negro” or “No colored” left an indelible impression on him.

He indicated he saw the fight for gay marriage as a civil rights case akin to the legal battle that ended laws banning interracial marriage.

“I think there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe,” he told the Times.

The case was set in motion in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom threw open City Hall to gay couples to get married in a calculated challenge to California law. In his opinion Thursday, George concluded “that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.”

He described his thinking on the status of marriage laws as
more evolution than epiphany, the result of his reading and long discussions with staff lawyers.

George, who grew up in Los Angeles, told the newspaper he counts gays among his friends.

Court rules bar George from discussing the ruling until it takes effect in 30 days or more. During an interview with the newspaper, he refused to disclose anything about the court’s internal deliberations and responded to a number of questions by reading from the decision.

Asked whether he thought most Californians would accept the marriage ruling, George said, “I really don’t know.””

I truly hope that those of you who oppose it now can at least find it in your hearts to simply not vote on the constitutional amendment ballot initiative in November. I’m not asking you to support gay marriage. Simply leave that box empty on election day.

[Mark Holmes]

BeanMaestro – Thank you. That is exactly the point I’m trying to make here. Why do the straight people who have replied to this post care so much about something that does NOT affect them in ANY way. When gays can marry, it will not change your marriage or potential future marriage in any way. Period. that is not debatable. So let it go.

And BTW, holding this to a public vote, deciding whether to grant the same rights of the majority to a minority group, is patently unfair. That is why changing interracial marriage California state law in the 1960s took an action of the courts, against the majority opinion at the time.

And for those who argue that “the will of the people” should be the final word, I say, pick up an American history book or read up on constitutional law. This is not a direct democracy, but a constitutional republic. The courts were designed to serve as a counterbalance to public opinion, for just these kind of situations. The majority is not always right. A majority of the South once thought it was perfectly fine to own other human beings.

[Mark Holmes]

BeanMaestro – Thank you. That is exactly the point I’m trying to make here. Why do the straight people who have replied to this post care so much about something that does NOT affect them in ANY way. When gays can marry, it will not change your marriage or potential future marriage in any way. Period. that is not debatable. So let it go.

And BTW, holding this to a public vote, deciding whether to grant the same rights of the majority to a minority group, is patently unfair. That is why changing interracial marriage California state law in the 1960s took an action of the courts, against the majority opinion at the time.

And for those who argue that “the will of the people” should be the final word, I say, pick up an American history book or read up on constitutional law. This is not a direct democracy, but a constitutional republic. The courts were designed to serve as a counterbalance to public opinion, for just these kind of situations. The majority is not always right. A majority of the South once thought it was perfectly fine to own other human beings.

[Mark Holmes]

BeanMaestro – Thank you. That is exactly the point I’m trying to make here. Why do the straight people who have replied to this post care so much about something that does NOT affect them in ANY way. When gays can marry, it will not change your marriage or potential future marriage in any way. Period. that is not debatable. So let it go.

And BTW, holding this to a public vote, deciding whether to grant the same rights of the majority to a minority group, is patently unfair. That is why changing interracial marriage California state law in the 1960s took an action of the courts, against the majority opinion at the time.

And for those who argue that “the will of the people” should be the final word, I say, pick up an American history book or read up on constitutional law. This is not a direct democracy, but a constitutional republic. The courts were designed to serve as a counterbalance to public opinion, for just these kind of situations. The majority is not always right. A majority of the South once thought it was perfectly fine to own other human beings.

[Mark Holmes]

BeanMaestro – Thank you. That is exactly the point I’m trying to make here. Why do the straight people who have replied to this post care so much about something that does NOT affect them in ANY way. When gays can marry, it will not change your marriage or potential future marriage in any way. Period. that is not debatable. So let it go.

And BTW, holding this to a public vote, deciding whether to grant the same rights of the majority to a minority group, is patently unfair. That is why changing interracial marriage California state law in the 1960s took an action of the courts, against the majority opinion at the time.

And for those who argue that “the will of the people” should be the final word, I say, pick up an American history book or read up on constitutional law. This is not a direct democracy, but a constitutional republic. The courts were designed to serve as a counterbalance to public opinion, for just these kind of situations. The majority is not always right. A majority of the South once thought it was perfectly fine to own other human beings.

[Mark Holmes]

BeanMaestro – Thank you. That is exactly the point I’m trying to make here. Why do the straight people who have replied to this post care so much about something that does NOT affect them in ANY way. When gays can marry, it will not change your marriage or potential future marriage in any way. Period. that is not debatable. So let it go.

And BTW, holding this to a public vote, deciding whether to grant the same rights of the majority to a minority group, is patently unfair. That is why changing interracial marriage California state law in the 1960s took an action of the courts, against the majority opinion at the time.

And for those who argue that “the will of the people” should be the final word, I say, pick up an American history book or read up on constitutional law. This is not a direct democracy, but a constitutional republic. The courts were designed to serve as a counterbalance to public opinion, for just these kind of situations. The majority is not always right. A majority of the South once thought it was perfectly fine to own other human beings.

[Author]

Posts