The divorce rate in California is lower than Texas.  Texas also has a rate twice as high as Massachusetts.  The "Bible Belt" has a higher divorce rate than the Northeast.  Be careful when casting dispersions.

I will be at the bald event.

Great post!  I've always said that if two people are lucky enough to fall in love, who cares about gender?

Bighorn, I don't decide what goes on the front page, I just write the stories. And I'd be glad to write of your event, although be prepared for some backlash from the Crossroads Wig Society.

Riverboat, I see your point. Just trying to get some discussion going on the topic because there are passionate people on both sides of this issue that wish to be heard. 

"a court could probably solve the problem of polygamists who want to get married by defining marriage as between two people, regardless of gender."

Aprill, a huge majority of voters in California thought they had already decided the matter regarding homosexual marriage in California. CALIFORNIA! This is a state where a couple that has been married for five years celebrates their Golden Anniversary. And if you're counting on courts to settle a matter, let me introduce you to Ms. Roe and Mr. Wade.

April,

We are planning a BALD PRIDE CELEBARTION at Alamo Beach next weekend. We bald folks (both men and women) are sick and tired of being thought less of, and being discriminated against by the majority of this society. We demand respect (and attention) despite our faults and short comings. We have the right in this society to expect rights beyond our appearance and behavior. We are only as old as we look (or was that feel?)!

Some of us can't even get dates with fashion models because this society is bigoted and hateful. We can't help that we were born this way (or got that way in a hurry)! I know, I know, some open minded younger folks have chosen to join our side of their own free will. This is only because they are wonderful people and have chosen to join us, if even for just a short time.

There has never been an event like this in the Crossroads area, and we encourage all bald people to attend. Those  are bald curious (thinking about shaving one's head) or just thin on top are encouraged to come out in support. All headgear (caps, hats, coonskins, and especially toupees) are expressedly forbidden (please come out of the closet!). Transportation, beverages, entertainment, and worship will be provide to all female admirers of the bald man. Attendees encouraged to bring along sunscreen, unbrellas, bug repellant and rogaine.

Can we count on the Advocates support with a front page story?

Hello Aprill,

Great point about changing the definition of marriage to marriage bewteen two people, but I think if the definition is going to be changed to favor homosexuals for gender, then one could argue that it's discrimanatory to draw the line based upon gender alone and could include number of people.

Based upon loving each other and being a family, the polygamist would have a good shot at a legal challenge too, but so far, cultural taboos have not allowed this, IMO.

Even if there are a miniscule number of incestous couples that want to marry,  should that matter in a court of law? If the court determines they have a right to marry, even if they are in the minority, they should be able to marry, not?  (sorry- Lavaca County grammar creeps in) BTW, I'm not arguing for sibling marriagae. I just see a similarity in arguments.

Thanks for the discussion and the link. I'll check it out.

Some good points Mary Ann. Just for discussion purposes, a court could probably solve the problem of polygamists who want to get married by defining marriage as between two people, regardless of gender.

As for the incestuous couples who wish to get married, one I would think that it would be such a miniscule sect of the population, it could probably be handled on a case by case basis and and two, courts could probably also cite the high risk of birth defects that occur when close relatives reproduce.

A good article to read on laws prohibiting incest is by law professor Joanna Grossman, who explores the topic in depth, including origins of the laws and how this issue may actually end up in a high court. The article was written in 2002 but I think it's still pretty relevant.

Just throwing some things out there for discussion. And thanks everyone for keeping it civil.

California voted in 2000 to uphold the definition of marriage to a one man and one woman with 61% of its electorate supporting this definition. Now a court comes along and votes 4-3 to undo what the voters placed on the books.

If two men or two women are allowed legally to marry, then government should not be in the business of  denying two siblings or one man and two women from marrying. Opening up the definition of marriage in America is quite problematic. How can you tell the two men it's okay for them to "marry" since they love each other, when a brother and a sister might love each other as well?

What about the polygamist who has two wives, and they all love one another? It's discrimanatory if the definition of marriage is changed to allow homosexuals to marry to now say that what the pollies practicies are wrong.

This is happening in the German courts rights now, as Germany, which allows gay marriage, has a case pending with a German brother and sister who love each other, have four kids, and want to marry legally.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/...

I do not agree with homosexual marriage, as I believe homosexual sex is unnatural and unhealthy. But as Ernie said, just because I disagree with some on the issue doesn't mean I hate anyone. Disagreement doesn't equal hate.  I would rather discuss this issue all day long with a calm homosexual than I would with a worked-up fundamentalist who agrees with me or a worked-up homosexual who doesn't agree with me. When you argue with emotions, logic often goes out the window.

I am glad to know that I am raising my daughter in a world where she can marry/co-habitate with anyone she wants -- as long as it's not another girl. That just boggles my mind. She can marry a man on trial for a quadruple murder, but she cannot marry a woman. Sigh. I will be glad when this sort of thing no longer makes for breaking news headlines or mile-long blogs, because that will mean we've finally reached the point where we're all just living our lives and letting others live theirs. That's what I hope for. That's the world I want my daughter to live and raise her children in. Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming. But it's a nice dream, isn't it?

THANKYOU APRILL FOR POSTING THIS BLOG-FROM THE GLBTVictoria

Aprill, thanks for having the guts to write this blog!  I am strictly hetero, but believe that the government shouldn't legislate LOVE!  That's wrong.  I am also a Christian and believe that homosexual acts are a sin....HOWEVER, I also believe that God is a forgiving Deity and just because someone is gay doesn't mean they will be condemned to the fiery pits of hades....   Love the sinner hate the sin and all that.  I'm glad that California Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriages.... Yes, the Anita Bryant's of the new age will be out in force, but you know, the world is changing.  It wasn't too many decades ago that it was illegal --- ILLEGAL for an African American to marry a white person.  There were pastors, deacons, elders of different religions stating how immoral it was.... Look around today.... there are many, many interracial couples and we accept it!  The time will come when the world will accept same-sex marriages as well.  It will NOT destroy the sanctity of heterosexual marriages or take away from it.  Who is it hurting?  No one!  OK, I'm stepping down from my soapbox now.