According to the Washington Times, all 11 of the measures put directly to the voters to define marriage as one man & one woman are expected to pass. In some states, such as Utah and Arkansas, this is not surprising in the least.

However, it is also expected to pass in Ohio, Michigan, and Oregon.

Are these states overrun with "homophobes" (to quote another poster who characterized over 2 million Californians who passed THEIR marriage initiative resoundingly) as well? If so, then why aren't they solidly in the "red" camp?

Washington Time : Marriage amendments all expected to pass

The majority of Americans supported Racial divisions and segregation prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act. This, despite the fact that most would not consider themselves racist, and most certainly were not. They were simply comfortable, and were usually afraid due to ignorance and the natural fear of change.

I see the same problem in America today in regard to people's opinions on Gay Marriage. Most opposed to it, are not opposed to homosexuals, or even their being treated equally. They are opposed to chang and opposed to redefining a tradition. They are for the most part not homophones, but rather "changeaphobes".

People naturally feel most comfortable when nothing changes. Sometimes it takes a dramatic act, by individuals, leaders, government or more then likely all of the above for this type of change to occur.

As with the elimination of institutionalized racial divisions, eventually led to a dramatic reduction in people's fears and ignorance concerning other races, so will the eventual elimination of the same kind injustice against homosexuals eventually lead to the same improvements in societal education and strength.

This is the wording of Ohio's "gay marriage ban" (gay marriage ban in quotes because gay marriage is already illegal in Ohio, but religious conservatives were being kept up at night by visions of gays going to another state to demand to be treated like a real human being - hence this new and improved gay marriage ban):

Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

Okay, let me explain exactly what that means. That means no straight civil unions, no gay anything, and absolutely none, not one of the rights a married man and woman enjoy shall be granted upon anyone who does not have the Biblical textbook definition of marriage. So if someone wants to pass a law saying that gay couples can visit each other on their deathbeds - nope, sorry, that law intends to "approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effect of marriage. Sorry, you want a tax credit? Uh, it appears that you two have the same genitalia. Not sure exactly why that means anything, but it does mean that your devotion to one another won't be recognized in any remote way, shape, or form.

It is precisely of issues like this why I no longer respect America, in fact I actively hate it. This is not what America should be like. The land of the free? Whatever! Separation of church and state? Whatever! Apparently, homosexuals are so evil, such a big issue, that Ohioans can pass a law that makes them sub-human,, while school levies are poised to fail again for the umpteenth time. What the hell has happened to our priorities, to make Ohioans united against gay couple recognition, to make them so concerned over whether Jim can spend his lovers' last moments together, over whether Sarah and Janice can get insurance coverage together, but they couldn't care less about whether little Abby and Tim are in small enough classes so they can actually receive individual attention?!

I'm not going to comment about homophobes, as labels are really meaningless in this context. But I will say one thing; any person who cares so much about something, wants so badly to keep others from being happy at no personal expense to themselves isn't just about hate, it's outright evil. We have actively taken one religion's definition of marriage and made it into law - but not only that, we are penalizing and prohibiting anyone from ever ensuring that gays are seen as human beings. Because the bottom line is, this entire - whatever it is - is based upon the assumption that gays can choose to be gay. This is absurd on so many levels and I'll briefly debunk it later. But suppose we replaced gay with someone with blue and brown eyes, and wrote a law stating "no one with blue eyes is allowed to marry anyone with brown eyes." Of course, Ohio's law goes a lot further than that, but for simplicity's sake that's what I'll address hee. Because people cannot choose what color their eyes are, prohibiting people from marrying each other based on their eye color would immediately be recognized by any level-headed person as unfairly discriminatory. However, replace "different eye color" with "the same genitalia" and apparently everything changes, even though you cannot help having one any more than you can help having the other.

Handicapped people do not choose to be handicapped. People with brown hair don't choose to be born with brown hair. And people - no one- can choose who they are attracted to. The entire definition of attraction is simply an emotion that you are drawn to someone - how can you choose who you have a crush on?! This is stupid. Millions of girls don't wake up one day and "choose" to have an attraction to Johnny Depp. Guys don't decide during math class to be attracted to Carmen Electra.

The bottom line: If gay people do not choose to be gay, then discriminating against their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is nothing more than pure, unadulterated bigotry.

The Utah amendment is very similar in wording. Utah's "Don't Amend" alliance ran a very intense race to defeat this amendment saying, "It Goes Too Far." Unfortunately, despite opposition by all the Attorney General candidates, most Utahns will be voting for it. Great... can't wait till that is challenged (which it assuredly will be).

The problem is, you assume being gay is a not a choice. Many (like me) strongly disagree. There is not one shred of evidence to show that being gay is genetic. There is no "gay" gene. That can't be disputed. Some researchers are pointing to certain genetic areas, but nothing conclusive - or even close to conclusive exists (besides, they're busy trying to resolve how some identical twins have one gay and one straight sibling).

Without any scientific evidence to support your argument, you resort to "well, if it's a choice, why wouldn't I be straight so my life would be easier?" type arguments. And that's fine and definitely exemplifies a strong persuasion that can't be understood. But the same would exist for an alcoholic. If it weren't a choice, nobody could ever make the choice not to have a drink on a day to day basis. But many recovering alcoholics make the choice not to have a drink one day at a time. Very commendable, but it's still a choice.

But the bottom line is, being gay is a choice. We've had this debate over and over and you continue to make this argument as if there were no other side to the argument. So, you label us people who oppose gay marriage as whatever vile terms you seem to get away with here on AD reguraly.

The world is filled with people who were homosexuals and aren't any longer. There is nothing uncommon or unique about that. Heck, there's even a Homosexuals Anonymous 12 step program. So, when you want to allow gay people to marry, they are demanding TWO sets of rights. They already have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. But they also want to be able to marry a member of their own.

So what happens later? A gay woman - for example, let's say her name is Anne Heche - marries another woman and gets all the benefits. Then, she wants a divorce so she can marry a man. Is she still gay? Can she keep her "other" set of rights? Personally, I see something wrong with this picture.

My point is, there is no way to tell if someone is truly gay while there is ample evidence to show a man and woman are a man and woman. And without being able to show this presumed lack of choice, we are affording them additional rights heterosexuals will not enjoy. Unless we are bi-sexuals or transsexuals, then I guess we'll want another set of rights for those as well.

But here's the bottom line. This issue is more complicated than bigotry, homophobia, racism, or whatever insulting term you want to use to make your point. You have valid points, but that doesn't mean us that oppose your point of view don't either. But the militant attitude displayed here only widens that divide.

I voted for the definition of marriage being between a man and woman here in Ohio for common sense reasons that has nothing to do with religion or some made up phobia. You may not like my decision or agree with it, and that's fine. But that doesn't make me a bigot.

Just as there is no scientific evidence to prove that being gay is not a choice there is no evidence to prove that it is a choice. The jury is out on this one. This, like the sefinition of life in the abortion issue, is why it is so hard to find a middle ground solution. You either individually believe that it is or isn't a choice when it comes to homosexuality. Similarly, you either believe that it is or is not a life when it comes to the unborn.

I believe that eventually, reason will win in this debate and a middle solution, like allowing civil unions, will resolve the issue, though I feel that all state marriage licenses should be called civil union, not marriage licenses.

I don't think it matters at all if being gay is a choice or not; I don't see it as pertinent to this discussion. Your attempt to use this to define 'two sets of rights' is merely a rhetorical and semantic division. A woman who marries a woman, then gets divorced and marries a man, is not using two sets of rights at all - she is exercising the right to marry the person of her choice. Just as a man might marry a blond, get divorced, and then marry a brunette. Or let's say I want to drink from both short and tall water fountains. Am I exercising two different sets of rights by going between the two types? Your saying these are two sets of rights, somehow distinct, doesn't make it so. The burden of proof is upon you to define how gay marriage would constitute a separate set of rights from heterosexual marriage. And even if it were so, and if, as you postulate, being gay is a choice, your argument still fails, because at that point (with gay marriage legalized), all people would have access to both of those sets of rights. In the end, legalizing gay marriage would grant everyone the same rights; not give 'extra' rights to homosexuals.

But, of course, none of this is germane to the question asked by bikerdad, which was merely:



To answer, I agree whole-heartedly with OverlandSailor. It is change these people fear, not homosexuality. People don't want change, mostly, and that makes the propagandist's job much easier, if he is trying to keep things the way they are. Most of the anti-gay marriage rhetoric out there relies heavily on fear and emotion, without regard to facts or common sense.

If it were illegal for brunette men to marry blondes, and you, a brunette man, happened to fall in love with a blonde woman, would it matter if it was a choice or not? Wouldn't you fight against such a law? Wouldn't you want the right to choose?

I do think that, by and large, people who are opposed to gay marriage are homophobes - but not because they are evil, or full of hate - rather, they are held in thrall by fear of what's different, fear of the unknown. For those who genuinely do not feel this fear, and yet vote to pass such a measure, I can only think it is because they have, instead of thinking critically and independently, merely followed the lead of whatever icons of belief or thought structure to which they adhere.

Let me try to keep this thread from jumping off the track too quickly by attempting to answer the question for debate directly.



I'd avoid using the word "homophobe," which should be reserved for those wicked individuals who actively harm non-heterosexuals. I would say, however, that these states -- that the entire United States -- is overrun with individuals who are blindly harming non-heterosexuals. The proper response is sorrow rather than anger.

Why are they not all in the "red" camp? Well, the most virulent are, of course; there is no voter more loyal to the Republican Party than the Cultural Conservative. These people vote the way I expect them to vote. The "blue" voters who vote this way baffle and distress me. Perhaps some of them are religious enough to think that same-sex relationships are somehow not as good as opposite-sex relationships. Some may not be "comfortable" with same-sex marriages. These people are sadly, sadly mistaken. They are to be pitied.

It was illegal in Massachusetts as well, under common law doctrine. Creative judges found the right in the Massachusetts Constitution, even though somehow the right had remained hidden from the eyes of the finest legal minds of America for more than 2 centuries. The voters of Ohio, by almost 2 to 1, have decided that they aren't going to leave this up to creative judges.

As of this writing, Ohio's voters are not alone. The first figure is the % support for the state Constitutional amendments.

Arkansas: 81-19%

Georgia: 76-24%

Kentucky: 72-28%

Michigan: 67-33%

Mississippi: 90-10%

Montana: 71-29%

North Dakota: 81-19%

Ohio: 60-40%

Oklahoma: 80-20%

Oregon: 54-46%

Utah: 62-38%

Consolidated Info on Marriage Amendments at the Ballot

What do you say to the "virulent" who say that the homosexuals are "sadly, sadly mistaken. They are to be pitied."

I cannot communicate with them. Their view of the universe is so different from mine that I might as well be communicating with Martians. I wish them well, but they are as wrong as wrong can be.

My mind is not open on this issue. It is so obvious to me that it takes my breath away that it is even controversial.

Is that similar to the 12-step program for alcoholics where they have to admit they are alcoholics for the rest of their lives? If so, the HA 12 step program would require members to admit they are homosexuals for life.

Two sets of rights? Ask anyone supporting gay marriage. They would extend you the same right to marry any one person you saw fit. They would extend you the same rights they ask for!



I will attempt to simplify the idea of choice. Do you like broccoli? Why or why not? Do you prefer one vegetable over another? Why or why not? Do you love the woman you married? Why or why not? Would another woman meet your expectations (as expressed by the previous answer)? Why or why not? Do your own morals tell you that you must have control over another couple? Why or why not? Do you tell another straight person who they should or should not marry? Why or why not?

No, the states are not overrun with homophobes, nor is it 'simply' a fear of change.

The issue of gay marriage has the capacity to shake people at their core of discomfort. If gay marriage is ok, does it mean that gay people will be open? Will we have to see them holding hands on the street and kissing in public (ew yuck)? What does it mean for religion and the idea of a God created Adam and Eve, sex for procreation purposes, man above woman, gays teaching our children, gays adopting children? Basically it opens the door to how much heterosexuals will have to deal with something that has the potential to make them very uncomfortable by its very nature of acceptance. Fear of the unknown and what it could mean.

That said, its not very unlike many fights for equality which we have dealt with in the past- womens sufferage, anti-apartheid, interreligious and interacial marriages, womens rights to be educated and be in the professions, school integration, female pastors- all had the capacity to make people afraid because they did not know what it would be like and how much they would be forced to deal with outside of their 'comfort zone'.

Most people know a few homosexuals, thats how widespread homosexuality is, has alwasy been, its not new, its not a disease or an addiction that needs a 12 step program, (although I do not doubt there is one).
Most who oppose the practice or lifestyle do not dislike the people themselves, just do not want it in their face. That means its ok as long as you hide it, and that IS DISCRIMINATION based on discomfort or fear. This discrimination does not allow tax paying, contributing citizenry to live their life to the fullest, participate in and receive benefit of the things that all other citizens take for granted, in a country that proposes freedom for all- at this point in time, except Homosexual PEOPLE.
Homosexuals are the last in the country to realize their rights. I have no doubt that they will, in less than 10 years, but that does not reduce the pain of being less than NOW.



Many people have been 'sadly mistaken' in this country when they believed they could challenge the staus quo, from the Revolutionaries that broke from British rule, to the anti-slavers, to the women who decided they deserved a voice of representation, to the blacks from the back of the bus, into colleges and into the work force, for equal pay. They were all 'to be pitied' for their misconceptions that they deserved to be treated with dignity and respect, to live amongst the living with the same rights, not in some marginal 'otherworld'.
There is no issue here in that respect. What IS an issue is the same fear that made all the others a huge problem in their time, to finally be accepted once the populace came to the knowledge...that people are people, despite our initial predjudices, when we cannot understand because we see them as less than deserving for the most idiotic reasons, ie: skin color, different genetalia and now same sex preference.

DaytonRocker this is not the argument I used. I never used any variation of this argument. So please don't purposely misconstrue what I've said.
I don't need "scientific evidence" to support my argument. All I need is logic. I don't need some scientist to find a "gay" gene that makes individuals genetically predisposed towards being homosexual. Because the definition of homosexual is "being attracted to the same gender," all I have to say is that no one can choose who they are attracted to. Ta da! There goes your "it's a choice" argument.

I have already explained with impeccable logic why homosexuals do not choose who they are attracted do, because no one does. When did you make the choice to be attracted to your wife, DaytonRocker? What was the exact date, time, and location when you said "I'm going to be attracted to you" and from thereon, an attraction was magically formed out of no where because you made the choice to feel attraction for this woman?

And I'm sorry if I'm assuming that you're married and you're not, but either way, the logic stands.



No DR, what I actually did was look at the evidence. I asked myself when I made the choice to become attracted to anyone I've ever been attracted to. And guess what? I couldn't answer that, because anyone I've ever liked I have never consciously made the decision to be attracted to them. Maybe you think people who don't have complete control over who they are attracted to are anomalies, but I think you'd be in the minority. Why can't you admit that people cannot choose who they are attracted to? Because saying that homosexuality is a choice - even saying "the jury is still out" - is to completely ignore all of the logical evidence against it being a "choice."

Are you telling me, all of you, that in one second you can make yourself be attracted to a man, the next second a woman, and minute later be attracted to ceiling fans? Because that is what you're arguing. You're arguing that homosexuals - anyone, really, since we all know that homosexuals are really heterosexuals who are making the choice to be attracted to someone of the same gender - can choose who they are attracted to, and this is pure absurdity.

But I'm beating a dead horse. Americans have already made up their minds about these amendments. There's really nothing left for me to do now but move to a better country - like Iran. At least I know what I'm getting in terms of religious bigotry there. Here, they like to be coy about it and shroud in up in feel-good terms like "protecting the children." I'd admire a country that is upfront about it's intentions and conditions anyday over one that isn't.



If I responded to this, I'd probably be reprimanded for personally attacking you, even though you've left yourself wide open on this one. In any case, I think you know what I think you are and I'm not going to spell it out.

I despise the term homophobe. It is nothing more than name calling. 70% of the American populace are not homophobes. Not anymore than I am a broccoliophobe.

This issue will be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court.

The 14th Amendment Section 1:



When applying the 14th the argument whether homosexuals are born or made is moot. However the 14th does protect against gender discrimination. These new amendments deprive a male from being able to marry another male while not preventing females from marrying males, Similarly they prevent females from marrying females while allowing males that right. Similar state laws preventing interacial marriages did not pass the 14th Amendment test.

A lot will depend on the makeup of the USSC.

The term "right" is used here pretty freely.

Marriage can be viewed as a set of benefits given for pursuing a behavior that the government wants to encourage. Government has a vested interest in people getting married not because it keeps people happy, but because children raised in a married household are less likely to be dependant on government or to turn to crime.

So marriage can be seen as a government handout in much the same way as a tax credit for buying an alternative energy car is a handout.

Why are gas guzzler lovers "discriminated" against? The answer is because they do not pursue an activity that the government deems to be beneficial to society.

Gay marriage provides no benefits to the government. It does not reduce crime, it does not reduce welfare.

Are these states overrun with "homophobes" (to quote another poster who characterized over 2 million Californians who passed THEIR marriage initiative resoundingly) as well? If so, then why aren't they solidly in the "red" camp?

No, opposers of gay marriage are not all homophobes (although I am sure homophobes oppose gay marriage). Marriage serves a function in society, that function is providing a stable environment for children. Gay marriage does not fit into this "traditional" definition of marriage. That is why many oppose it. They see no benefit to themselves or to society. That is not to say that gay individuals would not see benefits. However, giving benefits to individuals is not a right.

So we are now in the business of only doing things that are "good for the government"? I'd love to hear how marriage itself is good for the government. I'd love to hear how any number of things is "good for the government".

And I'm sick of the whole "traditional" argument. Who decides which definition of traditional we use today? 50 years ago, it was traditional for interracial relationships to be illegal. Thankfully, today it is not. Thankfully people were wise enough to realize that it doesn't necessarily matter if IR relationships/marraige is "good for the government". What matters is democracy and the will of the people - ALL of the people...not just those who happen to agree with a small set of "ideals".

So much for "of the people, by the people, for the people". Last time I checked, gays were people. The government, by virtue of this being a democracy, has a duty to represent ALL people, not just those who are "beneficial" to them. They're really good at helping those who help them...but that's NOT what democracy is about.

That's a very interesting take on the subject, Amlord. Thanks for a breath of fresh air from the "they're gay, they're wrong cause the Bible said so, end of story" arguments. And if you're going to take this line that "the government does it for the children" then how come we don't have laws against any unmarried individual from having a child? How come pregnant women are allowed to smoke?

The bottom line is, children are raised in all kinds of circumstances. Just because two people are married does not make them fit to make children. And if the sole purpose of the government being involved in marriage is so that children are raised in stable environments, why are post-menopausal women allowed to marry? Why are people who cannot reproduce because of illness or surgery allowed to marry? Obviously, they are allowed to marry because the purpose of marriage is not children, but happiness.

And how is allowing gays to marry going to keep heterosexual married couples from raising and supporting children?



Neither does two people who don't intend to have children marrying. Neither does allowing a man who has had a vasectomy marrying. Neither does allowing a woman who has had her ovaries removed marrying. Do you think we should outlaw all marriages in which the couple does not have kids, because "it provides no benefit to the government?"

Btw, marriage may not be defined by all as a "right," but there sure is a right in America to not be discriminated against for reasons you can't control.

That is not the only function of marriage, Amlord. I have been with my partner for seven years, and we recently, as you know, decided to get married. For personal reasons, we do not intend to have children, but it does not mean that our marriage is without purpose.

Each individual is going to have a different reason for making the choice to get married, and it's absolutely ridiculous to assume that providing a stable environment for children is the only reason for the government to promote marriage. It's certainly one of them, but what about promoting monogamy, protecting property rights, and encouraging stable households in general?

Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time, and it's never going to go away. The heterosexuals who are against gay marriage don't want to see the government promote a set of behaviors that they feel is morally or physiologically wrong. They would rather push the degenerates to the fringes of society, but as the population grows, the homosexual population grows along with it, and they're not going to keep hiding out.

Heterosexuals are going to have to learn to deal with homosexuals, and I would think that they would want to embrace the idea that homosexuals want to be involved in monogamous life long relationships.

From Loving v. Virginia



Marriage is a right. Discrimination, based on gender, is unconstitutional. The ERA was unneccesary.

Personally I believe the best solution would be for the state to get out of the business of marriage completely and simply recognize civil unions. Let marriage be between the couple and their God. Currently I am legally married according to the state of Texas and this legal marriage must be recognized in all states. I was also married in the Roman Catholic Church.

So that’s why they get a tax break for owning one?


And the right for me to bear arms benefits the government? This logic takes the meaning out of “A government for the people…” and is a dangerous premise to base any social legislation.

I believe every state that passed the gay marriage amendment was won by Bush with the exception of Oregon (which had the narrowest amendment margin). This tells me we’re a bit too conservative to give equal rights to our brothers, sisters, and cousins who have chosen a life style that is different than the established norm. What a shame.

I agree with Hugo and have stated in other threads that this is a federal issue for numerous reasons. These amendments will be challenged in the highest court and with Bush now set to possibly replace one to three Supreme Court justices I fully expect us to return to the dark age.

So, I can marry my dad for benefits even while we live 500 miles apart (technically, you don't even have to live together - let alone sleep together) and I can have 14 wives if I want? That's a pretty open-ended interpretation.

Look, I'm not going to take on this entire board again with a very unpopular view. Last time, I was compared to Hitler, called every -phobe in the book, strikes were flying, and I have to stay away from some members of AD to avoid personal conflict because of this very subject.

And why? Because I disagree. Simply on it's merits. But look at Suzy's post. I know what she thinks of me for my view (even though I've never suggested my view was based on religion or simple bigotry) and without spelling it out, she vindicates it. I respect her right to her opinion, but she - along with many others here - has no respect for mine because they think they KNOW they are right when this issue is not as black and white as you pretend it to be.

So, the topic of this debate is about the marriage amendments failing miserably and I offer my view of why. And it leads straight to the Hitler-esqe watering hole.

Nuh-uh. Not going there. If you think I'm wrong, that's your problem - not mine. But the majority of your fellow citizens believe you are wrong and I doubt they are all as evil as you make me out to be.

I believe that marriage is one man and one woman to provide the best foundation we can for conceiving and raising our children. My belief has nothing to do with bigotry, hatred, fear, blah blah blah.

Are these states overrun with "homophobes" (to quote another poster who characterized over 2 million Californians who passed THEIR marriage initiative resoundingly) as well?

No, I'd have to agree with the idea that this is at least as much to do with inertia and ignorance than active dislike (though that undoubtedly does exist).

As for the nature vs. nutrue argument, I'd say that this is something of a red herring.

For someone who thinks homosexuality is wrong, sinful or deviant behaviour, it doesn't matter why someone practices it. We may one day find a gene for child abuse, but that is unlikely to make child abuse acceptable in our culture, since almost nobody outside child abusers themselves thinks it is acceptable.

Conversely, for someone else who sees nothing wrong with homosexuality, what does it matter whether it is set in stone at birth or a lifestyle decision people make the same way they choose a hairstyle or a pair of trousers?

It seems to me that this is the 500-pound gorilla nobody talks about in debates about gay marriage. Opponents tend not to think it's wrong because gay people are perfectly wonderful people that don't happen to qualify for marriage. And proponents do not typically believe homosexuality is reprehensible behaviour that is simply irrelevant to whether or not someone could be married (nobody says convicted murderers can't get married either, on either side of the debate).

If so, then why aren't they solidly in the "red" camp?
They might well be - there are over 40 million Californians, aren't there. Of which at least 30 million must be eligible to vote. Is it not concievable that 2 million people from that many might be "solidly red" while the state as a whole is pretty much blue?
Frankly, I think this illustrates something I've thought for some time about all kind of public plebescites (on all issues, not just this one). There should be a pre-set quorum of, say, 40% of the possible vote. If not enough people vote to reach that level, no decision gets made (because it can't be an important enough issue for the voters if only 2 million out of 30 bother to support a particular motion).

If you're going to base your arguments on children, then it might be a good idea to start denying marriage to those who can't or won't conceive for whatever reason. Us non-breeders can get along by going through an incredibly bureaucratic process of preparing separate contracts to attempt to insufficiently protect ourselves and our property rather than participating in the very streamlined process of marriage.

What's wrong with this picture?

Conservatives (Libertarians excluded) continue to baffle me on this, because the reasoning seems to go against everything that they supposedly stand for. I thought conservatives were about reducing bureaucracy, promoting monogamy, protecting property rights, etc?

The reason that religion becomes the focus from a lot of liberals is because it's the only aspect of the issue that seems to actually correspond with what conservatives are supposed to be about.

This topic tends to get people heated rather quickly. I personally think that marriage arrangements are between the people involved and that others should keep their noses out of it. I have no problems with "gay" marriage, bigamy, polygyny, polyandry, or any other form of marriage. While many people here seem to think that it is only natural for marriage to be between a man and a woman, people in other parts of the world do things very differently. Brothers marry the same woman in Tibet (or at least they could before China stuck their nose in it). Many Native American societies allowed marriage between those of the same sex when one of those members had adopted the public role of the opposite sex (so called "manly-hearted women" and other niche social roles). In these societies it is perfectly acceptable. Marriage is a cultural construction, a social rule, and like all cultural constructions and social rules different societies interpret it in different ways.

I know this seems like I'm wondering off topic, but I'm attacking the point from a new angle. America prides itself on being a free society, on freedoms, choice, individualism. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Why does America allow divorce, when other countries make it extremely hard to divorce? Because most Americans would agree that people have the right to pursue happiness. How can you pursue happiness if you are trapped in a relationship you hate?
Turn the coin around... How can you pursue happiness if you can't pursue the person you love. By limiting marriage, as we have (not just on the "gay" issue but also by limiting marriage to two people, which goes against the religious beliefs of some people) we are limiting the pursuit of happiness.

One person mentioned that people feel uncomfortable, because if "gay" marriage was okay, then it would be okay for same-sex couples to hold hands in public. News flash: they already do hold hands in public. And, so what... maybe I don't want to see two overweight people kiss or makeout in public, but just because it makes me uncomfortable doesn't mean there should be an infringement on their right to do it. Some people are uncomfortable with interracial relationships, again this does not make it okay to infringe on their rights to those relationships.

I must say that the vote in these states saddens me. I would like to think we live in a free society, where the pursuit of happiness is important, but obviously that is not true. (And please God, don't let anyone on the USSC retire or die before W leaves office.)

We shouldn't drag this further off topic here.

It seems obvious that the traditional definition of marriage is still alive in the US, for better or for worse.

It is also apparent that Americans have perceived this issue as driven by activist judges. They are rebelling against judges who put aside the will of the people (Louisiana comes to mind).

Perhaps it is simply a rebellion against judges.

Ahem... I believe I posted a while back demonstrating rather solidly that homosexual couples provide a solid foundation for families and that children raised in such an environment enjoy many of the same benefits of children raised in a heterosexual marriage.

If the childrearing/socializing elements of marriage are not a benefit being pursued by government, then it stands to reason that the government should get out of marriage altogether.

Here is something I quoted in this post three months back:



There is more from that study, and all the citations in the post linked to above.



It has nothing to do with evidence either; and that is where I question your beliefs.

You cannot drag the topic further off Amlord, simply because this is the basis and the fundamental flaw against the gay marriage argument.

Lets put it simply To Hell with the Will of the People.
Thats why there are protections intentionally designed into our system of democracy--To protect against the Will of the People.

But I guess as a Republican you have a better understanding of why the government and the Will of the People trump individual rights.
However republican i wonder if you would be so content in your faith in the will of the people when it comes to being denied something you personally believe in. As long as it had support of the will of the people.

As a citizen of Ohio i am deeply ashamed that the voters banned same-sex marriage. I feel that it is despicable. All that this amendment is doing is putting America back fifty years. We are moving back into the civil liberties area just instead of fighting for civil rights it is homosexual rights? Is there a difference? Should one be treated with more respect than the other? In the 1950s it was almost unheard of to hear that an african-american and a caucasian person got married now we don't think a thing about it. i think that this will eventually happen to America. It we just take awhile or until the judicial system can overturn these amendments.
The people who put this issue on the ballot were not stupid. i went to their website and they knew that the leaders each state's congress would have voted the issue down. That is why they put it up to the people. It wasn't so that they could decided, it was because they knew that the people would vote it down. Let's face it the conservatives are scared. they are afraid that the way of life they know will be changed forever. I say that they should get over it and stop infringing on people's rights. This is an abomination to Constitution. We should do everything in our power to repeal these laws. The ban on same-sex marriage it nothing more than a proclamation that religion is partaking in our legal system. Everyone know's that no major religion looks kindly upon homosexual activities which, is all the more reason that this issue should not have been up to the people. The average person cannot be impartial on issues. That's why we have JUDGES! they get paid to see both sides of an issue, we however do not. as i stated before his was nothing but the conservatives way to squeeze the people that don't conform to society out.

No they are not overrun with "homophobes", I think it is obvious that the "case" for gay marriage is weak. Some will say that these failed because religious values outweighed the "common good", others want to call it gender discrimination, but look at the numbers, in most States the "pro gay marriage" side couldn't muster 25% of the vote, that means that 75% or 3/4 of the vote went against them.

The votes fail because the case simply not been made. The religous "right" might have played a part in the failure, but don't discount the "Black" vote. By a wide margin they vote against this as do most other demographics.

Even a State known to be very progressive (Oregon) passed a DOMA.

bummer, I had another reply earlier, but it got hosed by a Windows mediaplayer page jump. Grrrrrrr....

The argument that the 14th Amendment provides protection based on "gender" is erroneous for two reasons. First, when the 14th Amendment was written, the concept of "gender" was wholly confined to grammar. It had no bearing whatsoever on biological sex, and even less on sexual preferences. Thus, to impute such a construction to the 14th Amendment is spurious. Second, even more damning to such an argument, is the amendment extending the right to vote to women. IF the 14th Amendment extended equal protection based on "gender", as understood to include biological sex, then the sufferage amendment would have been unnecessary, as would be the Equal Rights Amendment.

Those advocating the dismissal in a court of these state Constitutional amendments always like to mention that our Constitution was set up in order to insure that the majority does not lord it over the minority. This is true, but that is only half of the story. It is also set up to insure, in fact, our country itself springs from the notion, that the minority does not lord it over the majority. This concept is found in the structure of our government. Is the President superior to the Congress? No.

There is nothing between the two parties of legal marriage that cannot be duplicated otherwise by contract, so what are the gay "marriage" (I use scare quotes because what they want is not marriage) advocates seeking? They are seeking to compel third parties to extend approval of their behavior, and furthermore, benefits. Gee, one would think that in a democracy the third parties should have some say in that, don't you? Not according to gay activists, who, having been roundly and soundly defeated by those third parties at the polls, are looking to the courts.

Rather than asking why heterosexuals are so resistant to extending that approval, perhaps y'all should be asking why homosexuals are so desperate to gain it?

ADDED IN EDIT:

Why? Seriously, there's no legal difference between a civil marriage and a civil union. Its nothing more than using semantics as a means of getting something through. You can call them french fries, I can call them freedom fries, and Bernard can call them pomme frites, while Jeeves calls them chips, but they're all just deep fried potatoes.

Julian, FYI the population of California is approx 35million, of which about 25million are eligible to vote. Of those who considered it worth their time, more than 70% voted to restrict marriage to a man and a woman.

Quarkhead, nice try. Anybody who advocates change must justify the change, not the other way around. Hugo's 14th Amendment position is obliterated by historical fact.

Incidentally, your argument about slavery and the Civil Rights Act being defeated in a vote, well, gee... do we have a emoticon for a steaming pile of doggy-doo? The Civil Rights Act was passed by a vote (by Republicans, incidentally). Duh. Slavery had already been defeated in numerous votes, and one of the reasons the Confederacy attempted to break away was because they were unwilling to face a situation where it was put to a nationwide vote in a demographic situation that was deteriorating for them.

I understand what you're saying, but it strikes me that it sure was a good thing the Civil Rights Act wasn't on the ballot in the states. How long would that have taken to pass?

The case has not just been made, it is patently obvious to anyone who can read and understand the Constitution of the United States. Hugo has supplied ample and easy to understand documentation in this matter. The fact is, there does not need to be a case for gay marriage. Since proscribing it is a restrictive act, the case must be made against it, not for it. And it is here where people end up with the homophobe comments, and the whole works - because the only reasons, the only case, to be made against gay marriage has to do with the belief that homosexuality is wrong or bad.

Amlord's 'benefit to society' is an argument of tissue paper. Why?

MAN + WOMAN + LOVE (no children): net good for society. These people are monogamous. Married people are less likely to engage in crime or violence.

MAN + WOMAN + LOVE + CHILDREN: net good for society. Children benefit from being raised in a loving household.

MAN + MAN + LOVE (no children): Net benefit. These people are monogamous. Married people are less likely to engage in crime or violence.

MAN + MAN + LOVE + ADOPTED CHILDREN: Net benefit to society. Children benefit from being raised in a loving household.

WOMAN + WOMAN + LOVE - well, you get the picture. There is no scenario where two married people do not benefit the well-being of society.

There is no evidence that people brought up in loving gay families are any less well adjusted than anyone else.

And I'll answer the qestion again. Yes, in a sense, they are. But I do not intend the word as a pejorative. They are homophobic in the sense that the are afraid of what homosexuality represents. I wouldn't really use the word in addressing someone, but to answer the debate question, yes, in a sense. People are afraid of change, and if you had put slavery or the CRA up for a vote it would have been defeated. Such a defeat would not mean the cause was wrong, just that people weren't ready to take the brave step of having the responsibility for such change on their own shoulders.

It is unfortunate that this has happened. It stills ends a message to the rest of the world that the US is stillmired in it's inability to seperate chrch and state. History has shown us that governments unable to do so become unstable.
Send your gays to Canada. We welcome them. I work with so many gays I've lost count. Same as you and me...no difference at all (okay the men dress better for sure!).
If they want to get married, why should I give a flying patootey. My marriage to my wife won't change because of it.

I'm trying to propose a Utah Constitutional Amendment banning divorce. As you can imagine, I'm having quite a difficult time finding support. And yet, I'm using the exact same arguments:

"A marriage between a man and a woman is beneficial for the stability and well-being of a family."

"Divorce is ruining the sanctity of marriage."

And yet, I get looks of bewilderment from people when I tell them of this proposal. Divorce is a choice. If we are to ban gay marriage because it is a choice, then we should also ban straight marriage. After all, this would presume that heterosexuals chose to be straight.

I guess if homosexual teenagers kill themselves because they do not feel welcome by society, we can now point to pretty good evidence as to why. I guess if homosexuals are promiscuous, we can argue that... what's the point in establishing a life with somebody if the partner dies, their entire estate immediately goes to their family, not the devoted partner? I guess love should be enough. But how sad that people can be wantonly disregarded as having a relationship with someone simply because it is not legally allowed.

We live in a republic which was designed to prevent a tyrannical majority from suppressing the rights of a minority group. Interesting how often that concept fails.

*edited to correct spelling*

Bikerdad, you have apparently been in a coma for the last 30 odd years as the USSC has frequently interpreted the 14th as barring gender based discrimination.

From http:wps.prenhall.com

Gender Equality and the Fourteenth Amendment



The intelligent thing would be for the states to get out of the business of marriage with all that sanctity stuff and issue civil unions only. If you wish to get married in church go ahead and do so.

The two concluding paragraphs from the USSC decision in Lawrence v. Texas.

(

Prohibition against gay marriage does not hold up under the due process clause either. I would not label the opponents homophones, I would label them authoritarians.

Great! So if there's no difference then we can stop all this non-sense about banning gay-marriage and just let them marry. Because there is no legal difference, and if it's just semantics, then it shouldn't matter if we call it marriage.

Sometimes this whole gay-marriage thing seems to be just a label issue. Telling homosexuals they can have a Civil Union, while saying heterosexuals can get married is just creating a useless "Us and Them" feeling. Because heterosexuals deny homosexuals the right to have a certain label makes it seem like there's an infiriority in having a Civil Union.

When I was younger I always thought that marriage was defined as two people who loved each other and wanted to spend their lives together, and could be defined by any two people. Maybe I was young and idealistic all those years ago. But back in 2000, a lot of things were different.

Are these states overrun with "homophobes" (to quote another poster who characterized over 2 million Californians who passed THEIR marriage initiative resoundingly) as well? If so, then why aren't they solidly in the "red" camp?

I'll try to state this succinctly. These states are overrun with as many homophobes as there were racists when anti-miscegenation laws were in effect. This is not to say that anti-miscegenation folks were racists; it is fair to say that all racists were (are) anti-miscegenation.

These laws/amendments reflect an attitude that permitting marriage apart from one man and one woman (who are consenting adults, over some age threshold) would be too radical a measure. This is no different than mixed race marriages. The Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967 forced all States to recognize these marriages despite laws/amendments on the books in many States at the time. California was the first state to overturn anti-miscegenation in 1948; it took 20 years for the Supreme Court to follow suit. All I can say is patience.

As Dick Morris said tonight, this election "has resolved this issue. Even if activists judges act on it, they will be reversed on appeal".

Neither the Democrats, nor the Republicans will embrace the issue.