The Constitution of the United States and most, if not every, state gives every person equal rights. Since when does the majority get to vote on equal rights issues when a minority group is not receiving equal rights?

Consider a proposition to amending the constitution to not allow anyone who isn't of European heritage to marry, own a business, vote, etc.? You know why that probably wouldn't pass? Because the people of the United States are willing to accord the right to marry, own a business, vote, etc. to anyone (even an illegal immigrant) as long as they don't engage in a behavior that their religion teaches or their belief is wrong. If people are allowed to vote, they should have to state a reason and their vote rejected if it is because it is disgusting or the Bible or other religious doctrine says the behavior is wrong. Those are not logical arguments about why persons should be denied equal rights.

For some reason, people believe that if gay men and lesbians are allowed to marry, it will somehow cause havoc. Chuches will be denied their tax exempt status if they won't marry gay couples or that school systems will be forced to teach about gay marriage. Neither of these are true. What will happen, gays will marry. How does that effect hetro couples?

It affects everyone the same and it's NOT EVEN ABOUT MARRIAGE, it's about privilege, money, etc.

It's about the privilege to visit a partner who's in intensive care, to follow their wishes regarding their care, to chose the proper care for them, and to arrange the funeral they wished when they die. Right now this privilege is being denied and granted to parents or siblings who rejected and turned their backs on this person years ago. The person is denied their wishes for care and funeral because their family rejected them and the people who love them are shut out.

It's about the privilege of following in your loving parent's footsteps and legalizing your union in honor of them. It's about the privilege of having children who are raised by two loving adults to say that they had married parents.

It's about the privilege of a major television spokesperson being able to say that she was raised by married lesbians rather than that she grew up with two parents who were lesbians.

What is wrong with these privileges?

I find it a very strange belief that people without a "State partner" can't handle themselves as well.

“It's about the privilege to visit a partner who's in intensive care, to follow their wishes regarding their care, to chose the proper care for them, and to arrange the funeral they wished when they die.”

All it takes is one or two legal documents to get this “privilege” or in most states simply a civil contract.

”The person is denied their wishes for care and funeral because their family rejected them and the people who love them are shut out.”

Have you ever heard the term WILL?

“It's about the privilege of following in your loving parent's footsteps and legalizing your union in honor of them.”

Or the “privilege” of dishonoring them by thumbing your nose at their beliefs.

”It's about the privilege of having children who are raised by two loving adults to say that they had married parents.”

You mean adoptive guardians…..

“It's about the privilege of a major television spokesperson being able to say that she was raised by married lesbians rather than that she grew up with two parents who were lesbians.”

You mean adoptive guardians again…..

So choosing to live a deviant life style is a constitutional right according to you….
I guess you also support living totally oblivious drugged out life a life style that is protected….
A life style of crime is protected…
etc….

I do not judge others.

OH but you do...

<link>

and you do so without knowing what you are talking about.

TruettCollins:

So choosing to live a deviant life style is a constitutional right according to you….
I guess you also support living totally oblivious drugged out life a life style that is protected….
A life style of crime is protected…
etc….

Excuse me, Mother Superior, but "deviant" according to whom?

Your opinion is irrelevant, as are the opinions of those who share it.

And this is why an issue such as gay marriage ought never and should never be put to a vote "of the people." Everyone has an opinion; who is to say whose opinion is the right opinion, and whose is the wrong opinion? Consensus does not confer rightness. Did the shared opinion of many Southerners once upon a time mean that slavery was just fine? To them, it was; but I dare you to argue for slavery today. We now know it was a wrong opinion owing to the thorough legal and ethical examination of it.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what your opinion of gay people or homosexuality is. If you can't support your opinion without resorting to something you read in the Bible (itself a text historically debated and open to interpretation), then your opinion is meaningless in and of itself. You may take comfort in it, but that is all it is really good for.

When a majority of citizens bands together to deny rights and privileges they themselves enjoy universally to a minority of citizens for any reason, an inequality is created. The idea of our constitutional form of government is to, in part, promote the general welfare and to ensure domestic tranquility. You can't have any of that when inequality exists, because a two-tiered caste system defies the Constitution. Either one or the other must succeed.

The fact that your prejudice, from whatever intellectual deficit it is spawned, prevents you from understanding this speaks only to your determination to cling to a comfort zone that is both unrealistic and civically insupportable. Call it your religious belief if you like, but even that fails you because government is and must remain secular. And you don't get to use government or the political process to impose your religion or its dogma on others.

What part of any of this do you not get?

I have no problem with gay marriage. Let me get that out there to start with. I am not sure it is a priority right now, with so many other things going on, but that is a different argument.

However, I do have a problem with bogus arguments. The point is that there are legitimate arguments about those things to which the constitutional "equal rights" protections apply. I am male. In my state, most women with medical insurance have policies that coverage cover mammograms. Do I therefore have a constitutional right to insist that the insurance company let me have them too?

I am married. My wife and I are of different "races." I also refuse to accept the argument that because "inter-racial" marriages are protected, so must intra-gender marriages be. Do I have a constitutional right to use the female showers at the gym? No? If you say no, you are implying that there is something different about men and women - which I surely agree with. Racially-segragated sports club changing-facilities - nope; unacceptable. Gender-segregated sports club changing-facilities? Totally acceptable.

Do I think these observations make gay marriage unacceptable? No. I just want gay-marriage propoonents to stop using lousy arguments to support their case.

...then you have no business commenting on anything where matters of right and wrong are being contemplated.

I happily and freely judge others. The muslim who supports suicide bomb murders in Israeli cafes? Scum. The South African policemen who killed Steve Biko? Vermin. The people who issue death threats against Geert Wilders and Salman Rushdie? Barbarians.

So why don't you judge others?

Just consider one case: the people instigating the Darfur genocide. Can you not bring yourself to judge them?

If not, I can't be bothered debating a single thing with you, as you must be morally bankrupt.

American_Bottom:

because government is and must remain secular. And you don't get to use government or the political process to impose your religion or its dogma on others.

Government works with religion all the time. Why do you think government is "secular"? There is nothing that makes government more secular than anything else. There is nothing that makes "secular" a better and less imposing idea.

Marie4isu:

The Constitution of the United States and most, if not every, state gives every person equal rights. Since when does the majority get to vote on equal rights issues when a minority group is not receiving equal rights?

Yeah, imagine if the states could deprive people of the right to sell legal advice based on silly criteria like "did you attend law school?".

Oh wait. They do.

What you're missing is that all law is discriminatory by its nature. It penalizes certain people and rewards others. So your view of 'equal rights' is essentially a statement that you believe law itself is evil.

The answer to your question "since when" is, of course, "since always". That's what Democracy is all about.

Do I think these observations make gay marriage unacceptable? No. I just want gay-marriage propoonents to stop using lousy arguments to support their case.

I agree. I want supporters to stop using lousy arguments to support their case too, and if you add up the state by state progress of pro-gay vs anti-gay... it's clear the pro-gays can do a whole hell of a lot better with their arguments.

In my view here are some of the real arguments:

Is the institution of marriage a constitutional right guaranteed to all citizens, yes or no? Please build your case.

Are the rights of marriage necessarily or arbitrarily sexed? Why and how so?

Does one's right to find same sex marriage offensive trump another's right to participate in same sex marriage even when others are offended? Yes or No?

Is building a separate but equal institution for gays sufficient to provide them with the full federal protections of marriage, or would declaring marriages gender neutral be the more ethical way to protect gays and all others who wish to be legally married?

These are all questions that must eventually be addressed at the federal level as the fight progresses on both sides.

For the record I am 110% FOR same sex marriage. I have no plans to marry someone of the same sex (or the opposite sex for that matter) during my lifetime (Been there, done that). But I don't see why I shouldn't have the option. And as I said in another post earlier.... whether people are 55% in favor of same sex marriage or 5%.. public opinion should have 0% to do with whether or not I have the right to do something. I either do have the right or I don't, and that's what must be argued in the courts... not how ready people are to "let" me exercise it.

I feel that we supporters are dwelling way too much on what public opinion is, and way too little on the constitutional issues at stake. As a result we are LOSING the legal fight, 6 or 7 firmly pro-gay marriage states outta 50 not withstanding.

American_Bottom: you go, girl. That response should be made into a template. Chinpudding, the lawyer in me loves the way you've framed the issues. Unfortunately, I don't think any rational legal argument will ever persuade people whose world-view is closed off. E.g., Scalia, et al. Do you think Kennedy (or some other such) is on the fence and persuadable by a good legal argument that would give him cover? I don't think the legal arguments are hard to make - it's very clear what should be done about gay marriage, to anyone with an understanding of homosexuality, or lacking that, any sense of fairness and compassion for others. I guess in the battle for hearts and minds, I think it's more about the hearts. The minds follow as a matter of course.