Hooray?

Obviously I am happy the California Supreme Court overturned the ban on gay marriage (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080515.wsamesex0515/BNStory/International/home), but in reading the article this section jumped out at me: “In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote.”
Why should changes to marriage laws be decided on by the voters? Why do the voters care? They can only care if they still dispute the idea of homosexuality and if they believe it’s immoral or that it’s a lifestyle choice. Unfortunately I’m not sure that being gay can be “proven”. One can prove that one is handicapped, that one is a visible minority, but one cannot prove that one is gay. Because of this, being gay is still open to debate. Not surprisingly, right wing religious fundamentalist nut jobs are putting together a petition to try and overturn this decision. If we extrapolate this further we can state that: if the “coalition of religious and social conservative groups” (hey – aren’t those called "terrorists" in the Middle East?) garner enough voter support, they can deny gays the right to marry because it’s still socially acceptable to discount the “theory” of homosexuality.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again today: get the fuck out of my bedroom, and shove your religious theories up your ass – there is no place in politics for religion.
Alright. I want to end on a high note, so the thing that made me grin broadly was Jeanie Rizzo calling her partner of nineteen years and asking her to marry her. That made me happy… and kind of jealous.