Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban

The concept of marriage is a societal issue. By making marriage a legal matter the government is forcing society to alter societal mores to a common standard. And as always when government tries to fix a perceived problem, the "law of unintended consequences" proves that it is still the highest law of the land regardless of which direction pendulums and people swing.

If government didn't recognize marriage, the courts would have nothing to decide. Couples who don't marry have an easier time separating and seem to work matters out without a third party intervening. The pledge of a couple should be the only commitment needed to form a union.

Not kidding at all. If there's no contract there is no need for contract law. You insist on using the word marriage. Simply delete it. What changes when you do? If it changes your relationship you shouldn't be married.I can't believe that government is looking out for my best interests. Let me point out just a few laughables for you.
1. Who seriously thinks that government is preventing aliens from coming into this country?
2. $500,000/year given to the Metropolition Opera? I don't speak Italian.
3. $14 billion dollars for a tunnel in Boston?
4. How about a multi-million dollar bridge in Alaska that serves 20 people per day?
5. Why would it be illegal in some states to eat horse meat - dog meat?
6. Preventing bars from being constructed within 1000' of a church but no restriction on a church building within 1000' of a bar?
7. Being accused of murder for shooting someone fleeing with my car?I could go on but it would be pointless and no one will convince me that government is responsible for my well being. Maybe vice versa or maybe versa will soon be vice.

There are some interesting opinions about the meaning of marriage. What I've always found is that it is very difficult to make up a word and then find something to give it meaning. Normally its vice versa and people accept it as a definition else it vanishes into oblivion. Marriage has always been accepted in society as a union of men and women (not necessarily in the singular). I'm unaware of any other interpretation prior to governments adopting a legal status to the definition.Ever wonder why male jurists always wear robes? Wonder what the public would say if it had been reported that the court showed prejudice when they all appeared at the bench wearing dresses?Pardon my rhetorical sililoquy on judges.Edited by Libmr2bs, : No reason given.

I agree with your last statement entirely as I've stated before. We can delete the word marriage. And the law of unintended cicumstances will remove the word divorce from legal dictionaries resulting in courts having more time to concentrate on the threats to our lives and wellfares.

I'm always interested in why things change - words, history, etc. More interesting however is who is making these changes and if there is some underlying influence. It's really stupid for a jurist to be able to change a legal definition in one state. Now marriage will have a different meaning depending on which state you are in. Luckily for the time being I don't have worry about the problem.Dad had a saying that people often argue about what they are arguing about. To quote a President "what is is". Dad had a simple insight that amazed people.