From SF Chron this morning: " 'No rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners,' Kramer wrote in a decision that relied on rights guaranteed by the California Constitution. He cited as precedent another groundbreaking ruling, the state Supreme Court's 1948 decision striking down California's law against interracial marriage..." This from a judge who is both Catholic and Republican. What is the world coming to? http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/15/MNG8VBPILS1.DTL The opposition is predictably outraged. We have the usual irrational responses from some quoted in the Chron: "If everyone in the world would follow the same-sex pattern, then there would be genocide..." Yes, let's extrapolate from the minority of gays to the entire population of the earth in order to make the point??? For those of us who are straight, does this ruling suddenly change our sexual orientation? No. End of discussion. "People say that if people are in love they should be able to get married. But what if they are brothers? Or a father and a daughter?" Here we extrapolate into the bizarre. Yes, if we allow gay marriages, next we'll be allowing men to marry their dogs or their goldfish. Of course, the argument above (if you want to call it that) works just as well as an argument against heterosexual marriage. One has to already believe that gay marriage is wrong - it doesn't follow logically from his argument. "We support marriage as between a man and a woman because it is a building block of our society that is designed to give children a mother and a father." The judge correctly pointed out that if we follow this edict exactly, there would be no basis for allowing hetero couples who are either incapable of having children, or don't desire them, to marry. Further, gay marriage doesn't change the number of straight men and women who might want to marry and have children. There is the same number of "building blocks" as before. And then there are the usual quotes from the Bible about homosexuality as an abomination etc. etc. The Bible does not hold up well as a legal document. There are a few, er uh, contradictory passages in it. The judge's comparison to interracial marriages is an apt one. Fifty years ago the rants from the opposition sounded much the same. Thankfully, those who still oppose interracial marriage today are on the fringe. They keep their views to themselves for the most part, as society has moved on without them. This issue is heading for the same territory - eventually. I predict there will not be genocide.