Our legal system may have some trouble coming up with equitable ways to deal with it, though.

I guess next people will want to get married to an animal or object or plant.

No, next is that people want to marry more than one person. It’s already happening. And the difficulty is, if we decide that tradition no longer defines marriage, we have no credible defense against the polygamists’ claims. We’re left with “my morality is better than your morality,” and that won’t be enough.

Thought for you- What about couples who don’t have kids?

Now all of this talk about civil liberties and what not. Everyone has the same civil liberties when it comes to Marriage. You know marriage what the MORAL majority claims is a legal union of man and woman.

I guess next people will want to get married to an animal or object or plant. Should we allow it? Is the person not in the norm as defined by the moral majority? Is the person sane? Is the person in there right mind?

Now I am not professing hate at all only that I should have the right to eat brocolli in my home,keyword here is HOME, but I should not have the right to FORCE it down someone elses throat. Yes I should have freedom of (religion,culture,sexuality, you get the idea) but NOT the ability to cram it down someones throat. America strives for freedom not thought control ( well in theory at least – if you believe that piece of paper in the capital). America strives for equality, not oppression of those that do not think like me.

I dont care what you wear, say, do etc as long as I have the ability to tell you to piss off and leave me alone if you bother me. It is a good thing that millions of people died for Americans to be free. I would hate to be forced to think or act a certain way because of the acts of MORAL minority terrorist that uses liberal groups in washington to do there thought control.

In hindsight please realize that politicians vote for the moral majority and if you want to influence the politicians that make laws then contact them and advise them of what you want and how you will vote come reelection if they go agaisnt the moral majority.

SO there is absolutely no confusion I agree with the marriage of a man and woman as it will help to continue the species

But why am I arguing with you? You don’t seem to even comprehend the subject at issue. You repeatedly state the issue in terms that fail to recognize that this isn’t about witholding a right to marry from a particular group, but rather, making a fundamental change to the existing insitution of marriage in order to pound the proverbial square peg into a round hole.

As to how it is force, when it is done by judicial force of will, that is by force. It is possible that some state constitutions do require same-sex marriage, so I do not suggest that any court decision so holding is sheer force, but in the mine run of cases, that is what it is. Your reply to Tully is similarly misguided; you seem to have adopted the view of equal protection suggested by Prof. Seidman, that equal protection ought to mean that government must not only treat similarly-situated people the same to the extent they are the same, but also, that it must treat differently-situated people differently to the extent that they are different. That is an attractive normative principle, but it is not the view apparent on the face of the equal protection clause, and I don’t know of any case that holds that equal protection analysis should follow that approach.

Then Simon wrote
The bottom line is that there’s a group – you’re part of it, I fancy – trying to force a change in the nature of the institution of marriage on an unconsenting society.

Some of society doesn’t consent some do. As someone who has been married to the same woman for 23 years, my marriage is not threatened in the least by allowing others to have the same legal remedies as I have. I would think that would fit the definition of tolerance. People who are intolerant are called bigots. It’s the English language you have an argument with. They could be intolerant because they are enlightened or because they are ignorant. I didn’t make any pronouncement either way, but they are clearly intolerant of gays right to marry.

you then said
people like Chris jump up and down, theorizing that all this is irrelevant because the issue was actually already settled in 1868 by passage of the 14th amendment…

Sorry Simon but can’t agree with you here either. The law as written says you can not deny equal protection under the law. It has been used to say that laws where they do not provide equal protection are unconstitutional. I would say that discriminatory laws were never in compliance with the law (or the spirit of the law) You would likely say that you can read into them that they only apply to black civil rights (which is not what they expressly say) Applying what you prefer to think it says seems to be a rather activist view of the law. If the 14th were written just for blacks it was poorly written but I would think to be consistent you would say it is not for the court to take an activist stand but rather apply what was written. I’m guessing that you have an out there too but equal seems pretty clear to me. Is there equal protection under the law now? I’d say no—and you?

Your side is trying to impose a change on society, by force in most instances.

How is it by force? People are petitioning their representatives to follow the law. They are in some cases asking that they write a new law since the existing Constitution is being ignored. If you want to take the state completely out of the marriage business, I would say I have no major issue with that. You just have to treat everyone the same.

Then Tully wrote
Chris, everyone IS treated the same under the law.

That is not a tenable argument IMO. You could say that marriage rights in general are special rights. Perhaps the State should not have any say in marriage but instead should define partnerships for legal rights. Perhaps, those people who have been divorced should be regarded as not respecting the sanctity of marriage and should be forced to reimburse society for all of the benefits they received in a marriage that they did not honor. Check in with Newt, McCain and Limbaugh on that one and let me know what they think. After all, they are affecting my marriage by taking their oaths so lightly aren’t they?

He then said
Gays want a new right that has not previously existed.

Rights always exist. They are often not recognized by governments. That is why they are rights. Many rights did not previously exist in our history but when the courts reviewed the Constitution they came to the conclusion that the words were worthless unless in fact the rights became recognized. Women’s right to vote, end to separate but equal etc.

Tully wrote
I’m in favor of that right…

For that I’d applaud you.

So if the law stated that all people had equal protection under the law and people named Tully and Simon had not been afforded the same rights as all other citizens in the US, it would take special legislation to give you equal protection under the law? If it is judicial activism to apply the law in a logically consistent fashion I guess I am for judicial activism.

There is plenty of viciousness on both sides of almost any debate. I think anyone who called you a homophobe was wrong. I get that there are high emotions. Doesn’t make it right and it is really a sideshow. Isn’t it a bit more understandable that tempers would be higher when one side is trying to prevent you from having a right the other has when to paraphrase Jefferson —it does me no injury for my neighbor to say “they are married or have a civil union”. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Imagine your outrage if with nothing personally at stake that would take anything from me I restricted your rights because I just didn’t like you having that right. I get it. It doesn’t excuse it but I get it.

Tully then wrote
Now, what I find grossly offensive is that you are conflating all of Xianity with a subset of same

You are totally misconstruing my point
I get that there are many thoughtful Christians and many who support gay rights. The fact remains. I know of no Christian church that does not believe in hell or that at the very least that heaven is for Christians…. no others need apply. If that is not at it’s core the very thing you are arguing against, (extremist and exclusionary) I don’t know what you are thinking. Again I know some people don’t believe what they say they do but that is church policy for every Christian church I am aware of.

You closed with
And no, I don’t call myself a Xian. I’m an agnostic.

Ask the head of any Christian friends church what happens to you in their churches doctrine for all eternity if you die an agnostic and then get back to me. You choose to be offended with people in the real world who use hyperbole (which I think almost every living being is guilty of) and give a pass to a belief system that says everyone who doesn’t toe their line is condemned to hell for all eternity. Which is it that seems less understandable? Or divisive? Dividing the world into the saved and unsaved makes it pretty clear to me. Perhaps you know thoughtful Christians who think that is a ridiculous and divisive belief but they aren’t toeing the party line then. I was just stating what is.

I prefer to do it in legislatures because it will cause less problem in the long run. But right now gay men and women have a right to marry that is being actively denied to them by government. Government is forcing them to accept second-class status, a status that has no basis in reason. Just as black Americans had an inherent right to all the privileges and responsibilities of white citizens.

We do after all hold that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with rights, not granted rights by government. So why should two men of legal age not be entitled to form a civil contract of marriage?

The “force” is that of some groups of citizen who wish to continue imposing second-class status on certain of their fellow Americans.

And yes, tWord, saying that Vermont and Maine were doing it right and that in-your-face viciousness and judicial activism was strategically counterproductive (a demonstrable fact, both from objective research and from my own decade of experience trying to keep a DOMA off of my state ballot) got me called a hatemonger and a bigot and a homophobe by gay activists, simply for dissenting from their doctrinaire dogmatic GroupThink. Disagree in any particular, and you automatically become a heretic, even more loathsome than an actual opponent.

Now, what I find grossly offensive is that you are conflating all of Xianity with a subset of same. News flash to bust out YOUR viriginity: A large part of the “Xian community” is quite liberal and actively on the “pro” side, and has been for years. I can name half a dozen or more Xian churches and church alliances off the top of my head that allow same-sex unions, including the US Episcopalian church, the Alliance of Baptists, the Church of Scotland, and so on.

Yet you ignore the huge diversity of opinion, doctrine, and behavior in Xianity to lump all Xians together as “THE Xian community” and disparage that mythically monolithic “Xian community” as “subscrib(ing) to a religion that worships a God who is supposed to torture gays (and all others who don’t agree with their beliefs) for all eternity.”

Sorry, hatemongering and bigotry runs both ways, and you openly committed it. Just as the pro side is not remotely accurately represented the screeching idiots of the activist crowd, the anti side is also not accurately represented by the obvious noisy targets.

And no, I don’t call myself a Xian. I’m an agnostic.

Also, a subject I’ve wanted to bring up is that I think this is all about sex. Gay sex. I think that’s the heart of the issue, and why so many people are opposed to gay marriage. America is obsessed with sex. You can see this with the allegories people draw saying that What’s next, people marrying animals? What’s implied with that statement is that people then will be having sex with animals. Which of course is completely different, since the animal can never give consent.

No one is trying to force anyone into a gay marriage. Were you trying to be obtuse, clever or just totally missing the point?

Only one side tries to force others into changing THEIR behavior totally because of their beliefs. Until you can find liberal groups trying to tell people on the right what they can legally do by say closing churches, forcing suffering on those at the end of their lives, forcing teenagers to have sex, telling someone that a blastocyst has more rights to existence than someone alive has a right to hope for a cure, ending marriage between fundamentalists, determining what religious people can drink or ingest or when they can do such things even when legal etc etc. (Imagine making communions illegal for instance) Then you would have a point.

The part that is offensive is that the base of the GOP tries to enforce their beliefs on behavior that does not directly affect their lives at all. Schiavo is the logical extension to all of the moralists out there who think they have a God given right to decide for others how to live their lives (even when they often fail miserably to live their own) Again, base it on facts. I’d oppose any rule by anyone that wasn’t logically constructed.

At the end of the day, a group with beliefs is trying to force them on everyone else including people who have not joined their club. I think that is always wrong.

I didn’t realize you were against gay marriage, a change that “a group with beliefs is trying to force … on everyone else….”

At the end of the day, a group with beliefs is trying to force them on everyone else including people who have not joined their club. I think that is always wrong.

I didn’t realize you were against gay marriage, a change that a group with beliefs is trying to force … on everyone else….”

That said, I think you would be disingenuous to claim that the Christian community were not prime movers in the anti marriage debate however.

As to Catholic belief, hard to say what excommunication actually means in reality. Whether or not one “wants” something to happen is really irrelevant if they actually believe what they profess to believe. (e.g. You are actually a cannibal or you don’t believe a central tenet of the faith and what you say you believe. Hard to find middle ground there in the real world either)

At the end of the day, a group with beliefs is trying to force them on everyone else including people who have not joined their club. I think that is always wrong. Legitimate arguments are based on facts. There seems to be no evidence that gay marriage is harmful to marriage since there are more divorces in the states without it and more divorces by the very group most adamantly against it. Some see that as small minded bigotry. Give me a coherent argument better than I or my God doesn’t like it and I will listen.

And by capture and conquest. Yes, we are quite thankful that marriage customs are not immutable. Well, most of us are. Those who appreciate the study of history, anyway.

Apologetics for hatemongering behavior massively fails to impress me, Word. It’s still blatant hypocrisy. “Death to the Heretic!” is despicable in a pluralistic society regardless of one’s side. Especially when the basis is pretty much “thought crimes.”

Most of these anti marriage people subscribe to a religion that worships a God who is supposed to torture gays (and all others who don’t agree with their beliefs) for all eternity. No irony there at all for you I am sure.

Not true, and I would defy you to quantify that with any competent and credible research. It also straw-mans the fundamentalist beliefs of the most radical of the anti’s into being the beliefs of ALL anti’s, just as the Pro-SS crowd straw-mans their own heretics into being hatemongers and homophobes. It’s about as true as saying that ALL Catholics want all women who have had abortions to burn in Hell. One can search the New Testament and find almost nothing about gays, and search the Gospels and find ZILCH, and very few modern Xians subscribe to the tender behavioral penalties demanded by, say, Leviticus.

One could just as well say that ALL pro-SS-marriage people want ALL anti’s to die in gruesome painful fashion. Which is also not true. The extremes do not really represent the bulk of even their own sides in that regard. But the extremes are quite happy to demonize the Other in their dogmatic squawking, even when the Other is otherwise substantively on their side. And in doing so, they work actively against their own causes by alienating the undecided and/or wavering, and demotivating their own heretics. The polling on Prop 8 shows clearly the decline in support as the pro-SS folks got rolling with their demonization of the other side, and I’ve seen it happen previously up close and personal in states with DOMA’s on the ballot.

As I said, activists are so often their own worst enemies. Had the anti-8 people managed to get the most rabid and vicious of the pro-8 people in the public eye and keep them there, they likely would have won the vote. Instead it happened the other way around, and they lost. As it stands now they have already won all the substance they wanted under California law, leaving the pro-8 people with just their cherished label. So the solution is, of course, to continue waging war to get the label, one they would eventually get anyway without doing a damn thing but letting societal evolution take its course, as it has in Vermont and Maine.

Just 40 years ago we had segregated bathrooms. There’s no doubt we have a long way to go as a society to push for equal rights for all members of the human race

Donar, who are you kidding? Bathrooms are still segregated. They are segregated based on gender; just like marriage.

Traditional marraige 5000 years ago was more like one man and multiple women, all aranged by the parents. Should we recognize those marraiges today as well? When are you going to grant equal rights to Muslim or Mormon Americans Donar? Wat are you, a bigot?