Gay marriage -- the constitutional debate

[gabosaurus]

If you haven't read or listened to the full transcript of the Supreme Court hearing today, please do so. It is quite interesting.

To me, the case boiled down to the opponents of Prop 8 asserting that gay marriage is protected under the 14th Amendment, which states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Which follows up one of the basic tenets of the Declaration of Independence, which states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The proponents of Prop 8 stated that it was valid because it was voted on by the electorate of the State of California. Which, because of the provisions granted to states, makes it legal and binding.

If the Prop 8 supporters are correct, does this mean that states have the ability to overturn other constitutional rights by presenting them to the voters?
If the State of California wanted to negate the Second Amendment, can we do so by vote?

[Robert A Whit]

If you haven't read or listened to the full transcript of the Supreme Court hearing today, please do so. It is quite interesting.

To me, the case boiled down to the opponents of Prop 8 asserting that gay marriage is protected under the 14th Amendment, which states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Which follows up one of the basic tenets of the Declaration of Independence, which states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The proponents of Prop 8 stated that it was valid because it was voted on by the electorate of the State of California. Which, because of the provisions granted to states, makes it legal and binding.

If the Prop 8 supporters are correct, does this mean that states have the ability to overturn other constitutional rights by presenting them to the voters?
If the State of California wanted to negate the Second Amendment, can we do so by vote?

Since I voted FOR Proposition 8, yet also voted for civil unions, they indeed have full rights to contract what they need.

If Marriage was a right, they could not ban polygamy, set ages to marry, recite who can't get married, such as bigamists, incest marriages for adults and probably other restrictive laws, I wish the lawyers had made this part of the argument and clear to the court.

I would not have voted for Proposition 8 had I believed I was in any way violating constitutional rights., Marriage is not mentioned in the constitution. I don't believe that to be an accident. By the way, it was the State Supreme court, very liberal indeed that ruled it is constitutional and allowed Prop 8 to stand.

[Noir]

If Marriage was a right, they could not ban polygamy, set ages to marry, recite who can't get married, such as bigamists, incest marriages for adults and probably other restrictive laws.

So you don't define it as a right because 'restrictive laws' apply? In the same sense, the right to bare arms wouldn't be a right, what with age restrictions ect.

[jimnyc]

Analysis: Supreme Court seems poised to avoid same-sex marriage tideWASHINGTON (Reuters) - For nearly four years, proponents of same-sex marriage have been strategically building a test case aimed at convincing the conservative-leaning Supreme Court to declare that gay marriage is a constitutional right. The advocates felt they were ready.

But on Tuesday, after an intense, wide-ranging hearing, it appeared the justices were not.

Over the course of the 80-minute session, it seemed that for the array of gay rights supporters across the country, neither their greatest hopes nor worst fears would be realized.

A majority of the justices suggested by their comments and questions that they were not prepared to rule on whether a fundamental right exists for gays and lesbians to marry. Some justices even suggested that the specific case before them, testing the validity of a 2008 California ballot initiative that defined marriage as only between a man and woman, might not be resolved on the merits.

The justices return to the bench on Wednesday for the narrower question of whether the federal government may deny benefits to married same-sex couples that are allowed their opposite-sex counterparts.

The court has several options on how it might resolve that case, from a finding that the Republican-dominated congressional group defending the law lacks "legal standing," resulting in dismissal, to a decision striking down the provision and robustly declaring that all laws tied to sexual orientation deserve tough judicial scrutiny.

That latter stance could eventually pave the way for gay marriage laws nationwide, well beyond the nine states and District of Columbia that now allow it. But from the tone of arguments on Tuesday, a majority would likely resist that route.

Justices across the ideological spectrum suggested they wanted to tread a cautious path in the cases that have become the most closely watched of the term.

The white marble and crimson velvet courtroom was crowded with nearly 400 spectators, some of whom had waited since last Thursday, in snow and rain, for seats. The paired cases have drawn a record number of "friend of the court" briefs and become the occasion for near daily declarations in support of gay marriage from public figures and prominent organizations.

'UNCHARTED WATERS'

Yet the justices do not seem ready for a role on centerstage in the matter. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, questioned whether the issue should percolate a little longer in the states. Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative, asserted that the notion of same-sex marriage was newer than today's ubiquitous cellphones and perhaps not ready for judicial intervention. And Justice Anthony Kennedy, the usual swing vote, likened the court's possible journey in the case to going into "uncharted waters" or even over "a cliff."

If the court avoids the looming question about a fundamental right, it could disappoint the two main lawyers pushing for same-sex marriage - Theodore Olson, who argued Tuesday, and David Boies, the legal partner who sat at his side. Yet, it would also mean that the worst-case scenario envisioned by other gay rights supporters would be avoided, too.

Their concern was certainly understandable. The Supreme Court's past cases on gay rights in narrower contexts, in 1996 and 2003, were vigorously fought. Four of the current nine justices are new to the gay rights issue. The bench is not as predictable as in the past, and overall, because Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Connor in 2006, the court may be more conservative on social policy.

http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-supreme-court-seems-poised-avoid-same-sex-214420678.html

[jimnyc]

If you haven't read or listened to the full transcript of the Supreme Court hearing today, please do so. It is quite interesting.

To me, the case boiled down to the opponents of Prop 8 asserting that gay marriage is protected under the 14th Amendment, which states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Which follows up one of the basic tenets of the Declaration of Independence, which states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The proponents of Prop 8 stated that it was valid because it was voted on by the electorate of the State of California. Which, because of the provisions granted to states, makes it legal and binding.

If the Prop 8 supporters are correct, does this mean that states have the ability to overturn other constitutional rights by presenting them to the voters?
If the State of California wanted to negate the Second Amendment, can we do so by vote?

No previous amendment was changed when the people voted. What you are putting forth does perhaps go against an amendment. 2 different things going on there. The State didn't vote to turn over an amendment.

[fj1200]

If you haven't read or listened to the full transcript of the Supreme Court hearing today, please do so. It is quite interesting.

To me, the case boiled down to the opponents of Prop 8 asserting that gay marriage is protected under the 14th Amendment, which states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Which follows up one of the basic tenets of the Declaration of Independence, which states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The proponents of Prop 8 stated that it was valid because it was voted on by the electorate of the State of California. Which, because of the provisions granted to states, makes it legal and binding.

If the Prop 8 supporters are correct, does this mean that states have the ability to overturn other constitutional rights by presenting them to the voters?
If the State of California wanted to negate the Second Amendment, can we do so by vote?

Don't be ridiculous, states don't determine Constitutionality and to declare marriage as a civil right to me is also ridiculous. However I do think DOMA is unC because it treats couples differently based on arbitrary definitions; hence the Equal Protection argument.

Olson and Boies make an interesting pair though.

[Robert A Whit]

So you don't define it as a right because 'restrictive laws' apply? In the same sense, the right to bare arms wouldn't be a right, what with age restrictions ect.

Me? I am saying the states and courts don't treat it as a right.

[fj1200]

Actually the best outcome here would be to uphold the State's ability to define relationships and invalidate every Federal reference to marriage thereby declaring Social Security, Medicare, etc. as unconstitutional... I can dream can't I?

[taft2012]

To me, the case boiled down to the opponents of Prop 8 asserting that gay marriage is protected under the 14th Amendment, which states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So obviously the 14th Amendment gave women the right to vote as well, didn't it? Oh wait, not it didn't.

You see, once upon a time the Supreme Court knew that its place to was to interpret the laws of the Constitution as the authors intended, not to twist it to suit their personal agendas.

So if the 14th Amendment was penned to provide "equal protection of the laws" to "citizens of the United States," why didn't it give women the right to vote?

And since it clearly didn't give women the right to vote, how the hell does it give gays the right to marry?

[taft2012]

So you don't define it as a right because 'restrictive laws' apply? In the same sense, the right to bare arms wouldn't be a right, what with age restrictions ect.

Children of any age have the right to freedom of religion, speech, assembly, etc. It's liberals that place restrictions on their second amendment rights, restrictions they wouldn't dream of applying to any "liberal approved" Constitutional right.

Marriage is a licensed privilege, like driving a car, which can be revoked or denied for reasons seen fit by the legislature. Constitutional rights can not be revoked (except upon due process). Liberals do everything ass-backwards: They want to turn marriage (a licensed privilege) into a Constitutional right, just they like they've turned enumerated 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights into a licensed privilege.

The problem with bans on interracial marriages was that it banned equal access to the privilege on the basis of race.

The issue before the court now is one of re-writing the privilege itself. A gay man can marry any woman he wants to. However, the issue now is re-writing the privilege and turning it into something it's not. Something the peoples' legislatures have not made it.

It's almost like saying I have a Constitutional right to go fishing because I have a hunting license.

[taft2012]

Today's arguments will be about the Defense of Marriage Act. Very important.

If you're driving across the country you don't have to stop in every state along the way to get a new driver's license.

If you move from New York State to Wisconsin you don't have to get remarried.

The states have interstate compacts wherein they honor certain of each others' licenses. This is why Jerry Lee Lewis was able to come to New York City with his 12 year-old cousin/wife and not get arrested.

If DOMA is stricken down, a gay couple married in New York State that moves to Georgia may be able to compel Georgia to recognize their marriage, despite what the state legislature rules.

There is no federal jurisdiction in any of this, and that is how the court *should* rule.

My guess? They'll do yet another tortured contortion of the commerce clause.

[gabosaurus]

I see the "Defense of Marriage Act" in the same manner as I see the previous state bans on interracial marriages. I don't see how the states or the federal government having any rights to decide which adults can get married.
You can object to it on traditional grounds all you want. It might disgust your moral fiber. But it should be legal on constitutional grounds.
Many Southern states disagreed with the ban on interracial marriages. Alabama didn't change its law until 1990. It still stood nationally.
Voters shouldn't have a say in a person's basic American freedoms.

[jimnyc]

I see the "Defense of Marriage Act" in the same manner as I see the previous state bans on interracial marriages. I don't see how the states or the federal government having any rights to decide which adults can get married.
You can object to it on traditional grounds all you want. It might disgust your moral fiber. But it should be legal on constitutional grounds.
Many Southern states disagreed with the ban on interracial marriages. Alabama didn't change its law until 1990. It still stood nationally.
Voters shouldn't have a say in a person's basic American freedoms.

From what I've been reading, there's a good chance they will send this back and let the States make their own decisions. I could be wrong, but so far it's like 33-4 or similar.

[Robert A Whit]

I see the "Defense of Marriage Act" in the same manner as I see the previous state bans on interracial marriages. I don't see how the states or the federal government having any rights to decide which adults can get married.
You can object to it on traditional grounds all you want. It might disgust your moral fiber. But it should be legal on constitutional grounds.
Many Southern states disagreed with the ban on interracial marriages. Alabama didn't change its law until 1990. It still stood nationally.
Voters shouldn't have a say in a person's basic American freedoms.

Obviously you do not wish your marriage is defended or protected, but i believe the public does. Back in the 1888-1892 era, Utah was told by the Feds, no polygamy or you can't become a state.

States supposedly long ago wanted to protect marriage and make sure the negatives were kept out, thus states picked minimum ages to marry, decided on issues like marrying relatives and so forth. They have long played a powerful role in the law of marriage. Bad or good,

We find nothing about marriage mentioned in the US Constitution and it has long been law that states handle those issues. Notice the Feds did nothing about interracial marriages thus the SC took that matter up and now here we are.

This particular issue is does the public in CA have any say over Marriage. Two bites were taken of the same apple, homosexuals were handed on a silver platter the civil union but they simply decided to be unhappy. The CA supreme court ruled in favor of Proposition 8. At that point the Feds should have stayed out and not overturned the state Supreme Court. As well as overturn the people.

I was pleased when some of the Justices at the SC spoke of the plaintiffs as homosexuals and did not pretend they are happy or gay.

Voters were never intended by the constitution to vote for president but here we are.

But CA has a law that allows the citizens to put issues up for the vote at state level and if Prop 8 is overturned, it has the outcome of invalidating voter initiated laws. One more freedom lost to the will of the USSC.

[DragonStryk72]

Since I voted FOR Proposition 8, yet also voted for civil unions, they indeed have full rights to contract what they need.

If Marriage was a right, they could not ban polygamy, set ages to marry, recite who can't get married, such as bigamists, incest marriages for adults and probably other restrictive laws, I wish the lawyers had made this part of the argument and clear to the court.

I would not have voted for Proposition 8 had I believed I was in any way violating constitutional rights., Marriage is not mentioned in the constitution. I don't believe that to be an accident. By the way, it was the State Supreme court, very liberal indeed that ruled it is constitutional and allowed Prop 8 to stand.

uh, marriage is a right, which is there are no real requirements, just filing fees, and some paperwork for the government. Age requirements are the same as any other contract, thus the whole age of consent and whatnot. Incest marriages are banned on the medical consequences of those marriages. Polygamy is shot down on religious grounds, really, then someone in one of them screws up, and we point how we were right to ban it.

I don't get where people think you need to he GRANTED a right. you are BORN with your rights, and that's confirmed by the Constitution, with the inherent rights amendment, as well as the point that it does not grant any right, just puts protections in for those rights.

[DragonStryk72]

I do think we can agree, though, that the SCOTUS is being a bunch of chicken shits on it. You can already see them working to get out from under making any really significant ruling on the matter. They're gonna pass the buck back to the states, I think.

[Robert A Whit]

uh, marriage is a right, which is there are no real requirements, just filing fees, and some paperwork for the government. Age requirements are the same as any other contract, thus the whole age of consent and whatnot. Incest marriages are banned on the medical consequences of those marriages. Polygamy is shot down on religious grounds, really, then someone in one of them screws up, and we point how we were right to ban it.

I don't get where people think you need to he GRANTED a right. you are BORN with your rights, and that's confirmed by the Constitution, with the inherent rights amendment, as well as the point that it does not grant any right, just puts protections in for those rights.

Rights are non tamperable. Thus your argument shows flaws.

We are born with rights as you say, but since government has long screwed with laws of marriage, while there is much freedom, somehow the governments act as if rights are a joke thus make rules you apparently agree with.

Were you to openly embrace polygamy, adult incest marriages, and indeed all forms of marriages, you would have a point. But even you have limits.

[jimnyc]

I do think we can agree, though, that the SCOTUS is being a bunch of chicken shits on it. You can already see them working to get out from under making any really significant ruling on the matter. They're gonna pass the buck back to the states, I think.

That's what I've been reading as well. BUT, it appears progress is being made against DOMA, and perhaps having that 86'd. I heard we may not get rulings until sometime in June.

[KitchenKitten99]

Voters shouldn't have a say in a person's basic American freedoms.
Considering that there is a fallacy in the argument of 'equal rights' when it comes to same-sex marriage, there need not be any vote.

Gays want equal rights? Well by all means THEY FUCKING HAVE THEM! I, as a straight woman, cannot marry someone of the same sex any more than any gay man or woman. My guy friends who are single, but want the tax benefits of being married cannot marry each other either.

Then I hear the argument "well you can marry the person you love".

Now you insert EMOTION into it. Government is not in the business of telling you the definition of 'love' and that you have to abide by it to get married, or how to feel about anyone. Hell, many people have had arranged marriages, especially in the Arabian, Indian, and Asian cultures, and in the aristocratic families of Europe and the US. Their marriages had little to do with love and all to do with status. Most of them didn't get to marry the person they loved.

I am sure many gay women have male friends, straight or gay as well. I am sure they 'love' them as a friend. Why not do each other a favor and get married. They get all the benefits they want and there is no obligation to live with each other, sleep together, nothing. They don't even have to change their names.

Government needs GET OUT of the marriage business, AND the divorce business.

I support civil unions for the benefits of each partner upon death or severe illness. But I do not buy into the 'equal rights' BS. And honestly, the way the activists have been behaving, I am not one to even help them get what they want with the way they keep insulting those of my friends who are fighting for what THEY believe, which is traditional marriage, no changes, etc. I have witnessed my friends and family attacked verbally in all forms for their beliefs. Because of that behavior, I am less inclined to give in, and more inclined to be like I am with my kids when they throw a fit because I won't buy a toy at the store or we won't go somewhere like the local indoor waterpark. I send them off someplace to cool off (like their room, etc) and then have them come back and talk to me rationally. Then unless it is a special occasion, I ensure they learn how to earn what they want.

What these people want is going to take time to sway others' opinions on. This country has MANY MANY MANY people who are firmly rooted in their beliefs. Too many changes too fast have made many dig their heels in. It means that patience is a virtue and rather than just calling these good, honest and generally kind people names, vilifying what they have been taught and lived likely from youth, is only going to entrench them more. Do you really think they are going to see it your way when you've just insulted them? Why would they listen to you now? Especially if all they have ever seen, is this bully-style activism, so they think all gays are like that? Maybe if those who want this, were kinder about it, actually talked with people rather than bully and insult them, they might get farther than they are now.

And don't get me started on the attempts to equate 'gay rights' to the black 'civil rights', which even I find incredibly insulting to what MLK Jr. fought, and ultimately gave his life for. Newsflash, the black community, especially the Southern Baptist communities do not like it either. And they vote.

Links for examples to this:

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/05/22/why_gay_is_not_the_new_black/page/full/

http://www.vfbaptist.org/articles/articles%20101-200/article00109.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/southern-baptists-gay-rig_n_1615466.html

http://www.charismamag.com/life/culture/5730-gay-rights-are-not-civil-rights

[KitchenKitten99]

This kind of bullying is not going to help the GLBT community...

http://www.examiner.com/article/gay-marriage-activists-maryland-bully-traditional-marriage-supporters


...However, The Washington Blade has taken this information and posted it on its website in searchable form, along with an interactive map of Maryland showing the areas with the highest concentration of signers. No explanation was provided by the newspaper of why they chose to post the information. The comments by Washington Blade readers below the article are a bit more forthcoming about its intended purpose, with some suggesting that gay activists should visit the signers.
...SNIP...
While I don’t believe most gay marriage supporters will act on this list beyond making a mental note of people they know, the Maryland Marriage Alliance (http://www.examiner.com/topic/maryland-marriage-alliance/articles) which led the petition effort has released a letter by a petition signer who was contacted by a gay activist due to an internet posting of the list. Her composure over the incident is impressive and serves as a model for us all. Her letter is posted below.


“This morning in front of my house I was approached by a man whom I had never met who asked me if I was [xxxxx] and then asked me if the house I was standing in front of, citing my address number, was my house. When I said yes, he said that he wanted me to know that my name, my address and a map to my house were posted on the Internet as a 'hater.'
“When I asked as a hater of what, he said of gay people and gay marriage. When I said I don't hate gay people, he said that I must because I signed the petition for the referendum on gay marriage and that my name is on the Internet for having signed the petition. When I continued to look puzzled he went on at length about his being gay, being with a partner for 20 years, etc. etc. and that I was hurting him by opposing gay marriage.

“He repeated several more times that my name and my address and even a map to my house were posted on the Internet and that I was listed as a hater and I had only to look it up to see.

“He finally left and I reported the incident to the police. The police told me to call them again when the man, who lives in the neighborhood, returns home.


“In the meantime, I do not intend to look my name up on the Internet, but if this is true that someone or some group has posted petition signer names on the Internet and labeled the list as people who hate gay people and provided names, addresses, and maps to people's houses, then I think this goes beyond a personal threat and becomes a case of organized intimidation on a larger scale.”
Can you imagine the reaction if traditional marriage supporters started visiting gays at their homes, calling them names, and dropping veiled threats?

...

[fj1200]

That's what I've been reading as well. BUT, it appears progress is being made against DOMA, and perhaps having that 86'd. I heard we may not get rulings until sometime in June.

I don't get that though. Let's say DOMA is unC then with various states having different rules on marriage and the Federal government not having defined marriage then it would seem you fall back to the equal protection problem, you would be treated differently based on the state you are in and not necessarily your relationship with someone else.

[taft2012]

You can object to it on traditional grounds all you want. It might disgust your moral fiber.

Nice strawman. I didn't say anything of the sort.


But it should be legal on constitutional grounds.

What Constitutional grounds?


Many Southern states disagreed with the ban on interracial marriages.

As I pointed out, the ban on interracial marriages prohibited access to the marriage privilege based on race, which is unconstitutional. However, it did not seek to rewrite the privilege itself, which is what the gay marriage advocates are seeking to do.

Advocates for interracial marriage did not seek to rewrite/redefine marriage.

Can you respond intelligently, as opposed to swooning and gasping like an on-line southern belle?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Considering that there is a fallacy in the argument of 'equal rights' when it comes to same-sex marriage, there need not be any vote.

Gays want equal rights? Well by all means THEY FUCKING HAVE THEM! I, as a straight woman, cannot marry someone of the same sex any more than any gay man or woman. My guy friends who are single, but want the tax benefits of being married cannot marry each other either.

Then I hear the argument "well you can marry the person you love".

Now you insert EMOTION into it. Government is not in the business of telling you the definition of 'love' and that you have to abide by it to get married, or how to feel about anyone. Hell, many people have had arranged marriages, especially in the Arabian, Indian, and Asian cultures, and in the aristocratic families of Europe and the US. Their marriages had little to do with love and all to do with status. Most of them didn't get to marry the person they loved.

I am sure many gay women have male friends, straight or gay as well. I am sure they 'love' them as a friend. Why not do each other a favor and get married. They get all the benefits they want and there is no obligation to live with each other, sleep together, nothing. They don't even have to change their names.

Government needs GET OUT of the marriage business, AND the divorce business.

I support civil unions for the benefits of each partner upon death or severe illness. But I do not buy into the 'equal rights' BS. And honestly, the way the activists have been behaving, I am not one to even help them get what they want with the way they keep insulting those of my friends who are fighting for what THEY believe, which is traditional marriage, no changes, etc. I have witnessed my friends and family attacked verbally in all forms for their beliefs. Because of that behavior, I am less inclined to give in, and more inclined to be like I am with my kids when they throw a fit because I won't buy a toy at the store or we won't go somewhere like the local indoor waterpark. I send them off someplace to cool off (like their room, etc) and then have them come back and talk to me rationally. Then unless it is a special occasion, I ensure they learn how to earn what they want.

What these people want is going to take time to sway others' opinions on. This country has MANY MANY MANY people who are firmly rooted in their beliefs. Too many changes too fast have made many dig their heels in. It means that patience is a virtue and rather than just calling these good, honest and generally kind people names, vilifying what they have been taught and lived likely from youth, is only going to entrench them more. Do you really think they are going to see it your way when you've just insulted them? Why would they listen to you now? Especially if all they have ever seen, is this bully-style activism, so they think all gays are like that? Maybe if those who want this, were kinder about it, actually talked with people rather than bully and insult them, they might get farther than they are now.

And don't get me started on the attempts to equate 'gay rights' to the black 'civil rights', which even I find incredibly insulting to what MLK Jr. fought, and ultimately gave his life for. Newsflash, the black community, especially the Southern Baptist communities do not like it either. And they vote.

Links for examples to this:

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/05/22/why_gay_is_not_the_new_black/page/full/

http://www.vfbaptist.org/articles/articles%20101-200/article00109.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/southern-baptists-gay-rig_n_1615466.html

http://www.charismamag.com/life/culture/5730-gay-rights-are-not-civil-rights

Damn , read that and had to log in to thank you and reply.
Bravo!!

[Robert A Whit]

Considering that there is a fallacy in the argument of 'equal rights' when it comes to same-sex marriage, there need not be any vote.

Gays want equal rights? Well by all means THEY FUCKING HAVE THEM! I, as a straight woman, cannot marry someone of the same sex any more than any gay man or woman. My guy friends who are single, but want the tax benefits of being married cannot marry each other either.

Then I hear the argument "well you can marry the person you love".

Now you insert EMOTION into it. Government is not in the business of telling you the definition of 'love' and that you have to abide by it to get married, or how to feel about anyone. Hell, many people have had arranged marriages, especially in the Arabian, Indian, and Asian cultures, and in the aristocratic families of Europe and the US. Their marriages had little to do with love and all to do with status. Most of them didn't get to marry the person they loved.

I am sure many gay women have male friends, straight or gay as well. I am sure they 'love' them as a friend. Why not do each other a favor and get married. They get all the benefits they want and there is no obligation to live with each other, sleep together, nothing. They don't even have to change their names.

Government needs GET OUT of the marriage business, AND the divorce business.

I support civil unions for the benefits of each partner upon death or severe illness. But I do not buy into the 'equal rights' BS. And honestly, the way the activists have been behaving, I am not one to even help them get what they want with the way they keep insulting those of my friends who are fighting for what THEY believe, which is traditional marriage, no changes, etc. I have witnessed my friends and family attacked verbally in all forms for their beliefs. Because of that behavior, I am less inclined to give in, and more inclined to be like I am with my kids when they throw a fit because I won't buy a toy at the store or we won't go somewhere like the local indoor waterpark. I send them off someplace to cool off (like their room, etc) and then have them come back and talk to me rationally. Then unless it is a special occasion, I ensure they learn how to earn what they want.

What these people want is going to take time to sway others' opinions on. This country has MANY MANY MANY people who are firmly rooted in their beliefs. Too many changes too fast have made many dig their heels in. It means that patience is a virtue and rather than just calling these good, honest and generally kind people names, vilifying what they have been taught and lived likely from youth, is only going to entrench them more. Do you really think they are going to see it your way when you've just insulted them? Why would they listen to you now? Especially if all they have ever seen, is this bully-style activism, so they think all gays are like that? Maybe if those who want this, were kinder about it, actually talked with people rather than bully and insult them, they might get farther than they are now.

And don't get me started on the attempts to equate 'gay rights' to the black 'civil rights', which even I find incredibly insulting to what MLK Jr. fought, and ultimately gave his life for. Newsflash, the black community, especially the Southern Baptist communities do not like it either. And they vote.

Links for examples to this:

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/05/22/why_gay_is_not_the_new_black/page/full/

http://www.vfbaptist.org/articles/articles%20101-200/article00109.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/southern-baptists-gay-rig_n_1615466.html

http://www.charismamag.com/life/culture/5730-gay-rights-are-not-civil-rights

That applause you hear is from me. That is a damned fine legal argument.

Were you in law school, the class and teacher would give you kudos.

That is a straight A reply.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c10816120130327120100.jpg