Robert, you are relatively new here. A moderator will probably warn you against double posting.



This has been discussed earlier and is an apple and an orange. The marriage statutes state that marriage is between a male and a female (remember this is Missouri).

Laws were struck down so that males could marry females and not be discriminated because of innate factors.

Could a black man legally marry a white women in those days? No

Can a gay man legally marry a female today? Yes. Jim Mgreery proves this.

Perhaps ol' Jim isn't gay, but bisexual. Seems more reasonable of an explanation for his situation. But that's neither here nor there....

Define "innate factors" please and how that only relates to people of different races and not gender as well.

AMF wrote:

How did I know, when I wrote that, that AMF would ask this question?

I will let the Merriam-Webster dictionary handle this one:



Now, if this were the case, then you must explain Jim Mgreevy. Was he straight at birth or Gay at birth, or perhaps bi-sexual at birth, but then that would not explain his statement that "I am a Gay American"

Doesn't appear innate to me.

Been there done that. But I could go for round two

Redliner if you remember first I showed you that people will pretend to be something they're not in order to bypass bigotry. I drew a parallel between a blackman pretending to be white... to a straight man pretending to be Gay.

Next, I asked you a simple question.... when did you choose? You said you never did. So how is attraction a choice? Please enlighten me.

But hey I got an easier test "Are there any gay people members of AD... if so did you choose to be attracted to the same sex?" After all it only takes one right. One person to say they were born that way, that should be enough proof to call homosexuality innate, right??

So what is it that McGreevy proved... that a gay man can get a hard-on with a woman?? I can get an erection when I have to pee. Does this mean that they aren't gay? Does that make men in prison, which are straight, but able to rape other men, gay?

A pilot that has not shown the skill to fly is a danger to society. What danger does a gay marriage present?



Explain what? A gay man that married a woman. It has happened throughout history. It is an example of someone denying themselves happiness because of the bigotry of the general population. It is an example of hatred causing someone to deny to themselves and the public what they truly are. I look at this same situation that you see as proof that gays have the same rights and see a system that tells people they are not good enough and must lie about their true feelings in order to be succesful and fit-in. And it is sad that anyone should have to do that just to make others comfortable. It's sad that who anyone else wants to marry (when it does no harm to anyone) is made into a national political issue.

People dye their hair different colors and wear colored contact lenses, it doesn't change the their natural hair and eye color. Just because someone feels it necessary to go through the motions of a socially accepted marriage does not mean they were not born gay. It means they felt it was the only choice they had, since they could not marry the person that they actually wanted to.

QUOTE from Redliner

Slim responded:


Nicely taken out of context. This was about how two people, my example was a Bus driver and an Airline pilot, can both "qualify" for a license to "drive" a "mode of transportation, but since both vehicles are VASTLY different, then the bus driver cannot fly the Airplane.

It is/was/will be an example, as requested by another participant as to how things that might be similar but are not treated the same due to the "unique" nature of each.

What danger would a "civil union" create?

Prior to the invention of the automobile, we had no laws that applied to automobile traffic. Would you content that we should have applied "Railroad" laws to automobile traffic?

Prior to the invention of the "flying machine", we had no aviation law. Do you think we should have applied "horse & buggy" law to flight?

Maybe we were wise to set up completely new standards for each, not try to make the new invention comply with the old standard?



Then it provides proof that discrimination does not exist in this vain!. You showed examples of how a black man disguised himself as a white man to fend off discrimination. Yet, even disguised he was acting illegally and could have faced jail!

Can Mgreevy be jailed for describing himself as Gay? NOPE!

You do not see the difference in this?

Redliner
Since you insist with this analogy. Flying plane takes more training than driving a bus. The rules of traffic in the air are different than that on the ground. In many areas the rules and laws are different to obtain and maintain the different licences.

For clarification: How do the rule of a marriage differ from the rules of civil union. I think this is important because you now have established that the rights aren't being abridged just by them not getting married as long as they have some means of "transportation" to point B(civil unions, I presume.) Would the laws be more beneficial toward a marriage. If yes.. then is this in essence abridging Gay rights?? If no... then what is the significance between civil unions and marriages to call them different modes of travel??

droop224 wrote:

You are making my point for me droop. The training to fly a plane is different, maybe VASTLY different then for driving a bus, yet the Bus Driver cannot claim discrimination because he is licensed to drive one "mode of transportation" and not the other.

If the Bus driver wants to, he may attempt to comply with the requlations and get a pilots license with the proper training and education. He is NOT being stopped from doing so.

To make the claim that the Bus driver deserves a "pilots" license, because a Bus is a "mode of transportation", as is an Airplane is not realistic.





Actually I made no such statement. I think I have said, at least a dozen or more times that the rights are not being abridged because gays can marry, they have married and will continue to marry, and they do so without the fear of arrest should anyone find out they are Gay. Jim Mgreevy provided that proof.

As for the rights of civil union, that is a completely different debate.

But you didn't explain how any of these "innate factors" relates to race or gender. If race is innate, why isn't attraction to a particular type of person? And you can't hold up one bisexual -- who may be lying to cover himself over other scandals -- and claim that disproves everything that homosexuals feel. That would be completely nonsensical.

And your analogies stink, by the way. You're arguing that people have to "qualify" to be married. That's like those old laws here in the South where people had to "qualify" (wink wink) to vote. Sometimes old stupid laws get overturned by a higher court who can see that the law serves no useful purpose. Or do you believe that it serves a useful, legally justifiable purpose?

Case in point: it used to be quite illegal here in Georgia to participate in oral stimulation with another person... even if the other person is your spouse. Stupid, anti-gay law. Finally got overturned after a lot of years on the books.

As I've said many times in this debate: dinosaurs eventually died off. So will people's fear of gay marriage.

When did I say anything about a black man disguising himself? Don't put words in my mouth, please...



The difference in licensing between vehicle A and vehicle B has to do with the difference in risk associated to the general operation and the danger encountered by the population by the operator. You don't need a different license to drive a pick-up than to drive a sedan or a van, but those vehicles are vastly different. I sure as heck can see the difference immediately and feel uncomfortable when driving and I am surrounded by huge vans. Why no double standard in that case? Because it's not necessary since they have the same basic operation and pose the same risks to society. Same thing with a gay marriage vs. a straight marriage, I'm afraid.


And I don't care what context you offer the analogy in, I can dissect how I see fit. I see the different licensing as a way to protect society from people unable to perform a certain task (flying a plane). If there is no harm done to society by allowing a marriage between two consenting adults, then society has no business interfering.

So: what harm is done to anybody by allowing gays to marry?

AMF: Before asking questions, answer question.

Explain Mqreevy? Is he straight, is he Gay, is he Bisexual. Which is it. At one point or another he would PROCLAIM to be all three, or so it would appear.

You want to contend that he lied to hide something. And MAYBE he did. Prove it.

I posted the definition of innate. Where did you see in that definition that one could PROCLAIM what he/she was born with. A black cannot PROCLAIM that he is white. A female cannot PROCLAIM that she is male.





Name the single binding contract that one does NOT have to qualify for.

But heres your argument in a nutshell. I want to be a Airline Pilot. I know what it takes to qualify to be a Airline pilot. I don't like the qualifications and refuse to qualify to be am Airline Pilot, therefor society is discriminating against me because I refuse to qualify.

I am off for the long weekend. I hope you enjoy yours AMF,

Okay i will try it like this then. People can fall in love, various barriers that one can percieve can be overcome by this, it naturally happens, our orgainc living biology allows for it. So then it is natural right? i mean people are natraul right, like most living things we come from reproduction, either sexual or asexual, we need to consume energy/resources and live overall in an acceptable ecology, not nude in the north pole, we have the need for oxygen, can feel, and we exucute a nature and or a nurture or behavior that is possible or an applied abstraction of our biology. certain micorbes in certain areas can only do what they have come to do vs. other microbes and so on. To get into the point of 100% understanding of living things, that would include the human living thing, we still are working with plants and insects and so on, this ignorance if you will does apply to humanity and all the nifty things it makes up, from cultures, to morals, to governments, sports teams, whatever really, it holds itself evident man! we dont have 100% fact in a lot of areas, what are biology all means and so on for humans again, and at large organic living things is not known.

You say that a natrual couple, same sex, then america should not be able to get the legal ritual and benefits a hetero couple can get, because one is a man and one is a women and that makes the realtionship different, well i guess you are right, the two relationships will be different in that regard, but does not thost like terms then knock each other out of the equation, being they would be equal then in being different from that perspective. Can one women go out and make perfect relationships with every other women? or vice versa. Any negative arguments that can be posed against same sex couples happen in hetero couples, which i would think adds to defeat your stance even more. Maybe its hetero couples that should have to get different methods of marriage, being they can never live the difference it is to have a same sex marriage. I can forever more argue this point i guess.

There is no problem i see with it, no means or transportion for the issue to a solid case against. Its bigotry, and i do feel in my relitive perception/morality, that its going against the constituition do outlaw it, and overall the american way of life that claims to hold so much freedom again.

Redliner, why are you going so far afield to justify a ban on gay marriage? Why persist with this McGreevy thing and these problematic transportation metaphors? Why not just come out and clue us all in to these mysterious diferences that make straight marriage OK and gay marriage impossible? Could it be that you are trying to hide the fact that there are no such differences?

I know a lesbian couple. They have been together for years, they love each other very much, and they have been through a "Holy Union" ceremony (because you can't call it a real marriage, right?) in, yes, and actual church with an actual minister. They have adopted a beautiful little baby girl named Natalie. For all intents and purposes, and in their hearts, and no doubt in the eyes of their little girl when she becomes old enough to understand, THEY ARE MARRIED. They deeply respect and revere the institution of marriage.

Yet they are denied the rights and priviledges of other married couples because they are of the same sex. And the denial of these rights and privileges causes them a great deal of inconvenience, money, indignation, and anguish.

When they question why this should be, what would you tell them? That it's just and fair because they could have each married men - men who they would not and could not want to marry? That they are just reaping the results of having "chosen" to be lesbians? That there's this whole bus driver/airplane pilot analogy that makes the necessity of their plight crystal clear? That since they both experience menopause, well heck, isn't it obvious why they can't be married? That Britney Spears can fly to Las Vegas on a whim and have a fully recognised marriage to a guy for 55 hours, and this should be considered more official and legal than Natalie's parents' deep lasting commitment to each other because Britney and her "husband" have different plumbing?

None of these arguments make any logical or practical sense, and yet real actual people are being denied real actual legal and societal recognition of their status.

So I ask again: Why should Natalie's parents be denied forever what Britney and her "husband" what-his-name came by so easily? This being the right to marry the one, single, unmarried, nonrelative consenting adult they wish to marry, and who wishes to marry them?

At first consideration, the movement to separate marriage from civil union is nothing more than the separate but equal argument. You have one faction which has always viewed loving relationships to be between opposite sexes. These relationships have been granted legal status with certain rights and commitments. The other faction sees loving relationships to exist between any two people. They wish for equal legal status for homosexual loving relationships. There are the compromisers who try and appease both factions with the separate but equal argument of civil union. Many know that separate but equal is any but equal. These folks are dismayed by the Missouri amendment and see it as backward and regressive.

There is another issue which is not being directly addressed in our nationwide debate on this subject. Redliner is correct in his assessment that a same sex marriage is apple and oranges different from our man and women marriage. Why? Because legal marriage has sex roles definitions.

Anyone who has had a divorce knows that the first thing a judge is going to want to know is the sex of each party. Males and females are not equal partners. There is a legal expectation that men are the providers. There are a string of legal presumptions I could go through but that is a diversion from the current debate. The point I wish to make is that having same sex marriages does not make sense to a judicial system where it has been dependent on sex to determine roles in the partnership.

The Missouri amendment goes beyond barring same sex marriages. It is people resisting a change in how we view sex roles. Marriage has not been an equal partnership and people do not want this to change. Same sex marriage does not just attack their traditional views on homosexuality but it also attacks their traditional views of heterosexual relationships. That is why there is such an emotional threat reaction to the idea.

Proponents of same sex marriage will need to take the sex role aspect of marriage head on and discuss the pros and cons of such a legal union. Should there be sex role unions ? Should there be genderless role unions ? Should there be both ? Do we rid ourselves of sex role unions entirely ? Should heterosexual partners have legal option for either ? Should homosexual partners have the option for either (they legally give themselves the man and women labels for legal purposes)? Are some of us in the delusion that men and women are equal in marriage? Our current legal definition must be addressed. Just fighting for equal rights for gays is missing the big picture of the changes such legal status ensues.

So then, to fight for equal rights in that regard is false because it does not take into account that some hetero couples may feel what? I still dont understand, being the making of marriage legal for same-sex couples does not impact hetero couples. I still see the vast difference thing a like term in the argument, in that a same-sex couple experience in general wll be equal in difference from a hetero version. Does marriage, the legal version take into account gender roles, and are gender roles absolute in the homo sapiens???? I still have yet to find anything real to back an argument against save some form of hate, disgust or bigotry that results in americans suffering. Yes, sexuality in the aspect of male-female relations in life that shares in the sexual reproduction aspect of biology will per say be able to reproduce most likly, but how does that deny the right of same-sex couples in america from getting married. In respects to any relgious or legal matters they might have as americans in america being a couple. Again these same sex couples natrually occur. Is the legal aspect of marriage in america to be so segregated, is that not the same thing people that varied in race once faced in america, that for the most part i would imagine is held at a level called stupid, silly, and racist. There is the vast biologic difference there though, so i guess that one should also be a state level thing. No matter how you word it, it comes down to some americans forceing thier views on everyone, nothing about haveing same-sex couples does anthing against hetero again...

Been gone awhile, so lets start with thos one:



Does denial of Gay marriage, within the Missouri Statute, make this a question of bigotry?

Is the denial of an Airline pilots license to a Bus Driver who cannot pass the pilots test bigotry?

In another response someone said that this creates a "seperate but equal" standard. How so?

"Different so Not handled in the same manner" is more like it. Such as the Bus Driver is not "flying" a bus, so his license is different.

Does dating constitute marriage? Why not? People who date can be in love. They are in a relationship. Or is it different, therefor treated differently.

You want a "catch all", and that "catch all" should be marriage? Why?

Marriage seems to me to be an extension of male/female "couplings", as "Pilot" licences seem to be an extension of "manned flight".

The Bus Driver and the Airline Pilot both hold "commercial transport licenses", yet one is quite different from the other as are the qualifications.

EDITED TO ADD:

If this argument is about the "abbreviation of rights", I have yet to see what rights, that a statute, that creates the qualifications for this specific license, has violated anyone's rights to participation.

If James Mgreevy wanted to Marry, he simply needed to find a female to marry him. Go to the Courthouse and make application. He did so, then declared himself Gay, as if that mattered in the first place. The statute makes no comment on sexual orientation, or even a lack thereof.

What other reason would there be? I'm not being facetious, I really want to know what you think.



No, but that doesn't map to same-sex marriages because there are very simple, well-reasoned practical reasons for this, namely: the bus driver has not proved that he has the necessary skills to fly a plane, and might very well get people killed if he attemted to fly a plane.



And after all these posts you have yet to explain what these prohibitive differences are.



Because "marriage" is how a couple's commitment to long-term, exclusive, monogamous romantic/sexual relationship is officially recognized in our society?



The right of a person to marry the one, single, unmarried, nonrelative consenting adult they wish to marry, and who wishes to marry them. THAT'S WHAT'S AT ISSUE HERE.



Redliner, why are you beating this dead horse? Will you not acknowledge that when someone writes in a political debate forum about gay people and marriage and gay peoples' rights being abbreviated, they are talking about gay people wishing to marry their same-sex partner? Will you please just lay this to rest, if only for the sake of argument?

I don't understand what you hope to gain by constantly pointing out that gay people have the right to marry people they do not wish to marry, but not the right to marry the person they wish to marry.

EDIT: phrasing, grammar, etc

But thats the point. The state doesnt recognize personal preference or 'love' as a requisite to marriage. The law is the law. Homosexuals are a secular group who want special privileges. They are no different than every other secular group out there. The law has to change in order to fit their wants.

And what is wrong with changing the law in this case? If extending the right to marry to homosexuals does no harm to anyone, then what is the reason to not extend it? The pilot/bus driver analogy doesn't fit, as a person can cause real harm to others if they do not get proper training. I have never seen anyone offer any valid reasons that homosexuals getting married does any harm to anyone. Until I see such reasons and some support that lends merit to them, I fail to see how not allowing gay marriages is anything but discrimination.

Homosexuals exist, they work, they pay taxes, they raise families, they live together, they have intimate relationships. They perform every single task that any heterosexual couple performs. What harm does it do to anybody in this country if they are allowed to have their relationship recognized by the government? If the answer is none, then their is no reason to not allow gay marriage. If anyone knows of any harm that will be done, please share it with the rest of us.

Exactly. That's what same-sex marriage proponents are struggling for: to get the law changed. Just like the suffragettes wanted to extend rights to an excluded "secular group" (not sure what you actually mean by that phrase)

Who said they want "love" or recognition of personal sexual preference to be codified into law? As far as I know, no one is asking for this. "Love" and "family" and "equality" are are REASONS or ARGUMENTS for extending existing marriage rights as-is, without modification or additional prerequisites, to same-sex couples.

Also lederuvdapac, surely you don't think that you can make the very good reasons for legalizing same-sex marriage go away by calling same-sex marriage a "special priviledge"?

EDIT: grammar, missing words, etc

Special rights? Nope, there would be no special rights. Not only would gay people be allowed to marry people of the same sex, I assure you straight people would be allowed this also. There wouldn't be any sort of gay test. There, feel better? Homosexuals get no special rights.

Redliner, you can go on forever about modes of transportation, but that analogy will not make sense from you repeating it ad nauseum. The fact of the matter remains that while a bus driver attempting to pilot a plane will accidentally cause a repeat of 9/11, it doesn't affect me one way or another if you choose to marry a guy, a girl, a platypus, or a jar of mayonnaise.

That day when they started marrying same sex couple in San Francisco, the strangest thing happened -- I woke up and noticed.......nothing. My wife didn't suddenly decide to go sleep with other guys because the institution of marriage had been destroyed, and it doesn't matter anymore. I still had to go to work, still had to be there on time. On my way there I noticed that people still drove on red and stopped on green (I lived in San Antonio at the time). So nothing happened, aside from cultists getting their feelings hurt. Which always makes for a better day.

Nicely taken out of context again, you may keep taking my example out of context, "ad nauseum", and it still does not change the context.

The example shows that the Government may make differing licensing standards when two "relationships", have some of the same qualities, but are different in other key qualities.

You reference a "Gay test" in your post. Where does that fit? Jim Mgreevy took no such test and was able to "marry" the person he choose. Was he Gay then? Is he Gay now?, does it matter?

To say he did not "Marry" the one he chose to marry is a lie, unless you can prove an act of force created the marriage.

It seems to me that Redliner's objection is not that gay people should not have their relationships codified and recognised in law, just that there relationships should be called something other than "marriage", because marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. It seems we are allowed to invent a new institution that gives homosexuals of both genders (and anyone else?) the same rights, privileges and responsilibities as marriage, but we cannot call it "marriage".

On the one hand, I can see an argument that, since the legal privileges of these civil unions (or whatever they might be called) would be to all intents and purposes identical to those of marriage, there's no need to get hung up on the one word.

But then I thought, if they are identical in all but name, why not call them the same thing? A spade is still a spade, and still digs holes just as well, when it is called something else. So why not just call it a "spade" and be done with it?

In this analogy, Redliner, you seem to be saying that gays are allowed to dig holes - fine. They are allowed to use spades to do it - fine. So why force them to call what they do "landscape altitude remodelling" and what they use a "geomorphological adaptation instrument" just because they are gay?

I would challenge your assertion that courts "expect" men to be the providers. That is definitely not always the case. Gender has nothing to do with which party earns more or fulfills what role. If that were the case, how could courts handle stay-at-home dads and working women who support the family? I don't think it's a huge stretch for courts to handle the financial issues of gay couples. I think that is the least of the issues. The biggest issue seems to be the irrational bigotry and fear on the part of some heterosexuals.

Julian, excellent analogy. "Geomorphological adaptation instrument" - heh heh heh

I don't have time to read all the posts on this subject--which has turned into a thread on Bus driving pilots?--Uhm redliner?
I was listening to a radio show this morning and was listening to a democratic campaign manager talking about why he thinks the kerry campaign is in such dire straits that the mondale loss may seem merciful.
Kerry has the worst negatives of any presidental candidate ever. He has rarely broken close to 50% approval. He also stated that the infighting has now reached the abandon ship mentality and people are preparing to salvage what they can. Of course its hearsay, but seems on target to me.
One thing he mentioned is that he has studied the missouri vote and found it very interesting in that if you remove the republican strongholds from the equation that the result doesn't change. Democrats overwhelmingly supported the Amendment. Something along the lines of just under 70/30.
I must admit i found this shocking. While I realize that the midwest is sort of a more rational bible belt mentality l thought it would be closer. Democrats overwhelmingly supported this. Among African Americans it came out to 85% in terms of support.
This may be a real sleeper issue for bush that can easily override all the possible Iraq downside. If they actually push for the Constitutional Amendment they may be able to get it easier than many people think. I realize that missouri does not reflect the whole of the United States, but it is an alarming bit of news.

The thing to keep in mind here is that Democrats are still politicians at the end of the day. Therefore, expecting a Democratic politician in a conservative state to openly support gay marriage is a little unrealistic. If the majority of the people in the state favor the amendment, then you can bet most of the Democrats will fall in line because they don't want it to be a wedge issue (that they know they'll lose on) when the next election comes. And before we start throwing around the whole "flip-flop" term, it should be noted that Republicans would do the exact same thing in an equivalent position because they too are politicians and that is what politicians do.

Now when it comes to the country as a whole, it is at worst a 50/50 issue but more optimistically I think it is probably 60/40 in favor of gay marriage - but there is certainly enough support for gay marriage or civil unions or the fact that people don't want to write discrimination into the constitution that a constitutional amendment would never pass - ever. So I don't think it is really a sleeper issue, although if Bush forced Kerry to take a position on it he would probably energize his base quite a bit and get them out to vote.


That seems to be my conclusion as well Julian. Furthermore, I don't see what good that distinction is. Assuming for a second that homosexuals were granted all of the same rights traditionally associated with a marriage but it was called a "civil union" in legal terms instead of a "marriage" what difference would that really make? People would still call it a marriage, it would probably still appear in wedding announcements that way and I really don't think homosexuals would really care what it was called as long as they got the rights associated with it.

So that leaves me wondering, what difference does it make what we call it if you aren't opposed to the idea in the first place? Marriage wasn't always a religious institution, in fact it has only been for a few hundred years. The "its just not defined that way" argument is flawed as well. Are we supposed to freeze the definitions of words and concepts in stone forever just because of tradition? There are certainly words in our language today that have taken on new meaning with the times and old definitions have fallen out of use.

So that's your argument? Because a corrupt married politician claims to be gay, there's automatically no reason to allow any two people of the same sex marry each other? They're just supposed to marry someone of the opposite gender and shut up about being able to marry the person they wish to marry?

How is that a valid argument?

I see you do not agree with my assertion, Daffygirl, but I can tell you from personal experience and from speaking to many others who were in family court that there is an expectation that marriages are between a provider and a dependent. While the courts may make a finding out otherwise, they do operate from the basic presumption that marriage is such a relationship and that these roles are defined by ones sex. I am not saying the courts always does this. There are exceptions but those do not mitigate the point of my assertion.

If you think the bias is not there, you are simply mistaken. Also, you are dismissing a prime reason people in Missouri probably voted the way they do. They believe in 'traditional' marriage. There is much more of a hurdle to clear than acceptance of equal rights. You are challenging societal sex role definitions.

It has yet to be explained to me why, if the Supreme court decision in Loving v. Virginia which defined marriage as one of the basic rights of man was not intended to refer to the right to marry the person you love, that the court did not tell the Lovings that they were free to marry a person of their own race who they did not love.

It has yet to be explained to me what negative effect same sex marriage could possibly have on pre-existing marriages.

When I hear people twist the language around to deny the very reasons that people get married I have to wonder if they are simply playing semantic games or if the lack of understanding of human emotions is the very thing that enables them to be so needlessly cruel.

CJ, you've been in San Francicso too long! The country is 60 / 40 against gay marriage at best. More like 60 / 30 / 10 undecided. This is not a winning political issue outside the more liberal bastions. No, there should not be an amendment, but no, we should not discount the majority of Missourians and Americans' opinions on the issue.

I can't do the wizardry to post a table, but if you look here you will see current and historical polls. CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. March 5-7, 2004. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 asks the following:
"Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"
...and Americans answered 61% should NOT be valid, 33% should be, 6% no opinion. To be fair, this is down from 1996, when the NOT number was 68%. Various other polls are shown, with similar results.

But - you are right that there is no groundswell for a national Amendment, which is shown in various polls as well. On that score, it's somewhere between 60 / 40 for and 60 / 40 against an amendment.

As for me, I'm for the civil unions, but like Dick Cheney and (I think) John Kerry, I trust Missouri to do what's right for their state, and stay out of mine. If the states are competent to decide the legal marriage age, it seems logical that they can also determine the legal marriage sex. Barack Obama may have gay friends in the red states, but that doesn't mean that he has the right to redefine marriage there. At least while he's just an Illinois Senator

To me this is the most shocking bit of information I have seen. I take it that you are saying that 85% of African Americans supported the Missouri DOMA. If I read this right, then the effort to make this a "civil rights" issue is failing (perception wise), on those the most sensitive to civil rights issues.

That would not bode well for the argument that "the minorities" rights are being abbreviated. This in a state that the opposition outspent the supporters by a wide margin.

I disagree (of course!). The fact that the majority opinion opposes a minority view does not mean that the minority is not being discriminated against. Simply because one minority group does not agree that another minority group deserves equal rights does not mean that discrimination is not taking place.

A majority felt that women should not vote, a majority felt that interracial couples should not marry, a majority believe in a god of some sort. It doesn't mean that any of them are right, and it doesn't mean that the minorities in these cases should be denied rights.

It may not happen next week or next year, but sooner or later gays will achieve equal rights. It's an uphill battle, but is a battle worth fighting.

Redliner wrote:

Slim Responded:

I would get ready for a long uphill battle though:

70% of Republicans in Missouri voted in favor of DOMA.
70% of Democrats in Missouri voted in favor of DOMA.

Worse then that is that 85% of Blacks, a group that knows what "Civil Right" battles are all about are in favor of DOMA.

If you are to sell this as a "Civil Rights" battle, then surely the group that has battled for "rights" should come to your defense and assistance. Yet 85% of this group see's it differently.

Could you per say let two people with disability get married? At what level of disability would you say two people cannot within thier own ability do such? Are same sex couples different in that respect, are they disabled or are they capable people in america or americans? In the aspect that marriage is a product of human society, and in america for americans, why cant the party being denied enjoy such a privilage, i just dont get it. To maintain marriage is one thing that is brought up, i dont see how same sex marriage destroys marriage, i dont hear any points on it, does that mean its irrational then? Or some form of bigotry, i am sure the KKK feels strongly about its views and so on, so i guess if they all move to a state, slavery and or hangings should be ok. To say marriage is the social norm in america, for couples, then to say some humans cannot engage in that act, why dont you just come out and say its ok to commit acts of violence against them, is thier a difference?

I think i have won on my point of biology, its relation to nature and nurture of a life form, our ignorance of it and a lot in general, and its ability to naturally occur.
To say its not natural in a way is to argue with reality, but i guess fantasy is rather large in america and most the world and its history. I am glad that bad man could not get that amendment into americas constituition, that would in my eyes, been very dark to say the least, so instead its now an issue to decide at a state level, human rights and ability is now at state level, how nice. I guess the simple point of relitivity thier still wont be observed. I cant wait to come home to the land of the free

As long as one is female, and the other is male, the statute would not prohibit it. Of course, both would have to qualify as being not too closely related and both free to Marry.



Explain what this has to do with the disabled couple. Same Sex couples are, the same sex after all. Disabled people may be either sex. If two disabled people, of the same sex apply for a Marriage licence, they to would be refused.



So now it's a "privilege", and not a "right"?

But here's your argument. We should all have the right to "Marry" the one we want. That is a subjective argument as it may not be true. Ask Jim Mgreevy (but you'll have to take his word for it as no "love test" is known".

Maybe I didn't get to "Marry" the female that I wanted too. It may simply work that way. Maybe the one I "wanted to marry was already married". Was I discriminated against? Maybe she wanted to "marry" a Doctor, which I am not. Was I discriminated against? There are thousands of reasons why you can not always "marry the one you want", but you still can always "marry". Same is true for Homosexuals.



Slavery was abolished and Murder is a capital offense. But you already knew that. The problem, as I stated before could very well be the "marketing" of the issue. It is those kind of statements that take the debate from one of "well lets think about this issue", into the realm of, "Nope, it's not worth the thought". Marketing 101.



First, false premise. Everyone is free to "marry". Secondly you take a giant leap from denial of a privilege, for those who refuse to qualify for it, to beating the heads in of those who do not wish to qualify.

No one is saying we should "beat the tar" out of people who fail the "bar".



You "naturally occurred" from a heterosexual coupling. That is the one and only objective (not subjective), point you forget.



Millions and Millions of others would jump at the chance too. Kinda tells ya something. Things are not nearly as "binding" here in the U.S of A as many would want us to believe.

You still did not bring any points on to why same sex marriage would destroy marriage, to add to that, same sex couples already exist and marriage is still there, you almost make it sound like people want to be homosexual or something, like all of them. Second, people that want to marry each other are what is being denied, not that someone can just walk up and say you have to marry me, that would be firmly against liberty and American values in terms of the constitution.
Second, if we say its ok to deny rights to people with no real base, as in same sex marriage, then its is saying ok to doing such acts as saying only men can work these jobs in this state, what is the difference? What does a love test have to do with anything, that is something subjective as much as such a ban is, what is being said here, is that love between the same sexes and want for marriage in that respect is being denied for what reasons. If majority vote is cool for such an issue, what lines does it have in respects to human rights and liberty? Fear exists in every humans brain, regardless of culture, but how it takes to being an emotion or feeling in that persons life is not guaranteed, i think the same can be said of "love". In that forms of humans being human is what is being denied here, what crime is being committed against others, what damage is being done, i still have no points to back an argument against, just rhetoric and circular arguments that make no real sense to the issue at hand. Anything negative that can be said of same sex marriage can be applied to its inverted other, and the difference that would exist is a like term that to me negates itself, a hetero couple will not be able to know the parts of a same sex couple, and again that is if all people on earth were the same in absolute fashion really.

Just to add on the edit, what does me being offsping of sexual reproduction have to do with banning same sex marriage?? could you maybe bring some points to that one, if any at all to anything?

Gay Marriage does not exist.

Marriage is an (and I have stated this many times before) extension of heterosexual couplings. Always has been. Because the majority of Americans understand this, and you don't is not exactly a winning argument. Because 71% of Missouri voters understand this, and want this "extension" to continue, does not in anyway alter my view that if homosexuals want to extend thir relationships and create a "tradition" then they should. But to call a relationship that, through its unique nature can and does create children, on par with a relationship that cannot. is one tough sell.

Here's the political reality as I see it. The "sales pitch" is that this is a civil rights issue. Yet the group most equated with "civil rights", African Americans don't buy it (85%), and neither did 70% of Democrats, or 70% of Republicans. I have not seen the Hispanic demographic, but I can't see it falling outside the boundaries of the other 3 demographics.

So then what is the marketing pitch:

1. Same Sex couples are no different then Mixed Sex Couples so they should share the institution. Another tough sell as the differences are obvious, that is after all, why one is mixed, and the other is the same.

2. Government should just get out of the "Marriage" business and make all unions "civil unions". Do you really believe there is any political will in the Nation that would tell the "Grandkids" that Grandma and Grandpa didn't deserve to be "married"? Can you say "death to a political party"?

It is a tough sell. Don't get me wrong, you do make some good arguments, but they don't sway enough people to make much of a difference.

Today 38 States have passed DOMA's in one form or another. That number could rise above 40 in the next year or two and possibly hit 43.

I do agree that the best chance for a "Gay Marriage" to be legalized is in the future, yet it would surprise me if this issue isn't DOA in the next 5 years (don't take that as a slap, it honestly was not intended to be), but the "cause" really isn't gaining much, if any steam.

I dont see any tough points to sell, but then agian maybe its my bias i am seeing. A hetero couple is declared different on the a point that its hetero, that difference will be equal then in a same sex couple, i mean in that a same sex and a hetero couple will be different in that respect, but its equal in that difference, that is all. Not every married hetero couple produces offspring and or stays married, sexual reproduction occurs outside of marriage rather often also, so its not some perfect system that some group of looked down upon or hated individuals are going to ruin. Again, same sex couples exist, no they are not married, but they exist, and marriage in america still exists. One person has red hair, another has blond, should one of the individuals get more rights in america, though they do have a difference. Difference in that respect could be a super subjective point that any state could start to play with in a varity of ways if you really think about it. In the end of my post here, i still dont see why same sex marriage is to be banned, i dont see any reason other then people just saying they dont like it, that is all i have still.