Thank you! So on point - and damn the hypocrites for deciding what others do with their lives.

The mormons were the strongest advocates of getting this prop passed, spending millions of dollars.

I'm really gutted that this happened. In a way, this is like banning alcohol once more after prohibition ended. Such personal rights should not be toyed with. I'm deeply disappointed with how the African Americans voted on this. Overwhelmingly YES on prop 8.

You do realize the same thing has happened in Arizona and Florida, too? I'm honestly wondering what the hell happened. I think the blame partially sits with Obama for not having done more (at least in California), and with Governor Schwarznegger.

I'm wondering how far the religious right will push on this.

At least Amendment 48 in Colorado was killed BIG TIME. That should end such debates for a while, but it's disturbing that it could re-proposed every four years.

We had several constitutional amendments pass here in Nevada too. Nothing so cruel, but bad ideas all around. Amending the constitution is pretty serious business. I'm surprised that all it takes is a simple majority vote.

I don't have any objection to gay marriage. I merely observe that tolerance by many is strained when they are forced to have the topic taught to their children. "Gay marriage" has and is being taught in Lexington, MA against the wishes of some parents. Why would California be different?

Parents rip school over gay storybook: Lesson reignites clash in Lexington
By Tracy Jan, Globe Staff April 20, 2006

[edited] In a controversy with a familiar ring, parents of a Lexington second-grader are protesting that their son's teacher read a fairy tale about gay marriage to the class without warning parents first.

The teacher at Joseph Estabrook Elementary School used the children's book, "King & King," as part of a lesson about different types of weddings. A prince marries another prince instead of a princess in the book, which was on the American Library Association's list of the 10 most challenged books in 2004 because of its homosexual theme.

"My son is only 7 years old," said Lexington parent Robin Wirthlin, who complained to the school system last month and will meet with the superintendent next week. ''By presenting this kind of issue at such a young age, they're trying to indoctrinate our children. They're intentionally presenting this as a norm, and it's not a value that our family supports."

Another parent had objected to a "diversity book bag" that his son brought home from kindergarten. The bag included "Who's in a Family?," a book that depicted same-sex couples along with other types of families.

Lexington Superintendent of Schools Paul Ash said Estabrook has no legal obligation to notify parents about the book. ''We couldn't run a public school system if every parent who feels some topic is objectionable to them for moral or religious reasons decides their child should be removed," he said. ''Lexington is committed to teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal."

As a human being I'm both stunned and embarrassed by this.

To all gays everywhere - at this point, if I were you, I'd be ashamed to exercise any of the privileges the "straights" take for granted. Maybe time to come up with something that incorporates all the plusses of marriage, but that you've named yourselves and that works for you.

WHy did the teacher's union spend so much money fighting this? What on earth does it have to do with teachers, sans the few gay ones? Teachers unions are a blot on humanity, for any number of reasons. The fact that they politizie themselves in just one of the many reasons.

I don't know why you'd be suprised blacks voted so much for it. Of any voting "group", only the white evangelicals are more anti-gay.

"Teachers unions are a blot on humanity, for any number of reasons." So are house wives but we have left that out of the conversations till now.

In truth it depends on the union and the location. In mass it's the only reason teacher are not paid table scraps and forced to work nights, weekends and summers. They have had the right to strike removed and have not been give the boon of binding arbitration. Their work to rule deffense has been slaughtered by No Child and the MCAS. Why should duch a maven of inttelect care about the eveil working people. Well given you thrifty spending I'd guess your either home school or public. If you home school why would you have a chamce to interact with teachers to form your opinion. If you use public school just remeber after a ceratin point all of the even slightly qualified people leave. Your kids are now being taught by those people who couldn't get another job.

momof3, what planet are you currently inhabiting?

> I'll tell you why it passed:
> Because people behind it
> spread the lie...

Amy, that's just lame.

Isn't this the hour for your to rail about how 'we shouldn't leave this up to the voters'?

Puh-leeze. All, all, every-last-bit of your enthusiasm about this comes from a need to express condescension towards others, assigning their actions to the most reprehensible motives you can imagine. (And that includes all the Rosa Park-sy bluster we've seen from coddled poodle-people over this topic in recent months. Not just on the blogs, but one hundred and one feet from my polling place yesterday, where a little teenage frumpwoman implored me to go NO on 8 because "It's not fair!" That was all she had (except for a pouty look on her teenage face). She'd obviously never raised a family of her own, she'd obviously barely experienced a family of her own, she was barely old enough to have reflected on any of the injustices at work in America... But this is the one that chose to put her little pouting face behind.

In truth, the wording in this conflict has been so badly corrupted that I think you've already won the big fight, no matter when you claim you decisive victory. Note the name: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment."

But as so often happens in politics, this will be victory for the infantile, smug forces at work in the human heart, the sophistication (and bitterness) of the seventh grader. It's despicable.

Parting analysis--

> only deserving of
> partial rights.

Gays have always, always had the same rights to marriage as other people. By failing to acknowledge this, you hope to disguise the fundamental change to the institution that you want to make. To thoughtful voters this seems cowardly and oblivious, even if these faults don't register at a conscious level.

> Fuck you.

Thanks, I'd like to stay rub it in some more, but I gotta gota work

Lot's of fuzzy thinking on this issue:

Remember, a gay person has always had the same ability to get married as a straight. But, just like a straight, they had to marry someone of the opposite sex. The ability to marry a person of the same sex is thus a special privilege, isn't it?

Why no comment about the discrimination written into California domestic partnership law -- which is restricted to gays, and some straight people over the age of 62? If Prop. 8 had passed, then gays would have more rights than straights -- the right to marry OR choose a domestic partnership (with exactly the same rights and obligations as marriage). Couples of different sex can only choose marriage. Why should a lesbian woman and gay man not have the right to form a domestic partnership if they choose?

Marriage is a "fundamental right"? Then why do you need a license from the state to get married. To drive you also need a license -- and driving is a privilige. You need permission from the state to divorce.

The state restricts other people from marriage, as well. Under the rationale supporting gay marriage, why shouldn't two brothers, or a brother and sister, or Aunt and nephew be able to marry? Don't they have the same "fundamental right" to marry the person of their choice? Or does the state still have a reason to restrict those folks' ability to marry the person of their choice?

Not so simple as "hate" and "bigotry" is it?

Oops! should read "... if Prop. 8 had NOT passed, then gays would have more rights than straights..."

Interesting post at Reason about the high percentage of black people who supported the bans:

http://reason.com/blog/show/129925.html

I think this passed because too many parents live in absolute terror that their little ones are going to go out into the big world and encounter things like facts and opinions that have not been properly screened and vetted by mom and dad, and that might invite some awkward questions about their carefully constructed "reality".

Personally, I wouldn't think it would be too hard to explain why the morals and values you have been raising your kids to possess remain valid despite the fact that some people behave differently. But awkwardness IS a pretty devastating thing to go through just for the sake of giving your kids proper perspective...

Or maybe this is really just about the fact that too many people don't know any homosexuals other than Elen and, consequently, are quite happy to continue to marginalize them.

Man, this "gays and straights are exactly equal under the law because both can marry someone of the opposite sex" line of argumentation has to be the lamest, most intellectually stunted, ridiculous reasoning I've heard in a while.

It's like banning snowplows and telling someone in Michigan that they're no worse off under the law than someone in Texas because they both have the option of not driving when its snowing.

It's actually way worse, at least in Michigan you're only screwed five months of the year, but that's the best analogy I could come up with my brain all befuddled by such strange ideas.

> has to be the lamest, most
> intellectually stunted

Care to refute it?

Here's a free rhetoical weapon: Wehn people use the word "intellectually", they're about to blow smoke up your ass. "Intellecually honest", "intellectually consistent", "intellectyually stunted", etc. The word has no purpose in the sentence except to pre-load the trebuchet with condescension.

> my brain all befuddled

You made it too easy.

You people are looking at this in the wrong light.
This ammends the constitution to define a marrige as between one man and one woman right?

Not a man/woman and their second third or forth man/woman right?

Just imagine how many stright peoples marriges can be invalidated by invoking this piece of shit legislation from a certian point of view?

Will it be interperated as "one" as in one at a time?
or as "one" the number?

The sweet, delicious irony of this is that a few short years ago, the homosexuals were comparing their plight to the blacks, and it was those same blacks, who elected a man who looks just like them to the highest office in the land has at the same time voted so forcefully to deny gays that which they think is their right.

MMMMM. Tasty.

Schism, anyone?

Crid, Jay and whoever else is in their boat --
Oh for Christ's sake. Talk about fuzzy thinking.

Gays most certainly would not have "greater rights than straights" if they had the right to marry. Hellooooo, in that event, straights, like gays, would also have the right to marry someone of the same sex, if they so chose. Straights and gays would then have the same goddamn right to marry the partners they love.

"Oh," you say, "but straights don't want to marry people of the same sex!" Well, hello, gays don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex. I fail to see the distinction you are making. (By the way, for what it's worth, I'm way straight. This is not a personal issue for me.)

And Crid, why are you so unnecessarily hostile and nasty? You may not agree with Amy in this instance, but don't you generally respect her? Why can't you disagree with her in a manner that's a trifle less obnoxious? I suppose I would defend to the death your right to free speech, but I certainly don't respect the way you express yourself sometimes.

By the way, on a related topic, I find it fascinating and depressing that the same folks that flocked in droves to vote for Obama also voted for Proposition 8. I'm waiting for the anti-Obama backlash -- I give it six months into his administration.

Finally, I'd like to say for the record that if another total stranger wearing an Obama t-shirt collars me in the street and demands to know if I'm happy, I'm going to slap him or her silly. Thank you. (Guess I'm feeling a little hostile and nasty too. Must be the massive stock market plunge today.)

Rome was not built in a day.

If the gay advocacy groups had put their efforts into a creating a civil union for gays that mimicked the benefits of marriage, it would have been the law of the land by now.

And 10 or 20 years down the line, after people get used to it, the argument could be made to streamline civil unions under the blanket label of marriage. (It's called "boiling the frog"; google it)

But instead they chose to attack marriage and to try to force other people to change their views. Divisive, instead of inclusive. And they lost. Thousands of years of strict tradition cannot be erased overnight.

If gays don't want straights interfering in their relationships, they need to stop being confrontational and interfering with heterosexual relationships.

Progress happens. Look back 10 years, and see how far things have come for gay acceptance. Or 20 years, to the "Aids 80s" when rampant paranoia reigned supreme.

Slow steady progress will always win.

I think there's also a significant backlash to the idea that gay marriage was imposed by fiat. It's the same reason why the abortion issue burns so hot 35 years later. In a republic, these things are supposed to be decided legislatively.

Unlike the Civil Rights Act, there was no legislative decision reached that homosexuals ought to be entitled to the benefits granted to heterosexual married couples.

I don't think they've adequately made their case that such benefits ought to be forthcoming. Marriage was never intended to be about legitimizing an emotional relationship. Marriage was created as an institution by religions and governments as a way of creating stable family units that would produce and raise offspring (that would become followers and/or taxpayers). I don't see how homosexual couples can produce offspring without outside assistance, so what's in it for government to extend the privilege of marriage to them.

I don't live in Cali, so I wasn't experiencing the campaign about this first-hand, but from what I could see, the anti-Prop 8 folks did a HORRIBLE job arguing their case from a PR standpoint. The ads for the campaign should have featured real gay couples talking about what marriage meant to them. Imagine an ad with a lesbian pastor and her wife talking about how they both dreamed of being able to get married since they were little girls, and how their parents, who first were unhappy when they came out of the closet, were upset that they eloped instead of having a big wedding. Or, say, a gay couple with their three kids adopted from foster care. Or...you get the idea. Instead, the campaign stuff that I saw seemed to avoid showing that, and then turned anti-Mormon. Now, I have my issues with the Mormon church and other organized religions, but the minute you as a pro-gay marriage advocate portray gay marriage as something pitted against religion, you lose.

The Reason post points out that gay marriage bans seem to enjoy stronger support among black voters than among other voters - in fact, a majority of white voters in California opposed Proposition 8. Another interesting tidbit (to me, at least) in light of the news that Ward Connerly opposed the proposition, mentioning the fact that his marriage to his white wife was illegal in some states when they got married as one of the major motivations behind his opposition.

Brian said "Marriage was created as an institution by religions and governments as a way of creating stable family units that would produce and raise offspring (that would become followers and/or taxpayers). I don't see how homosexual couples can produce offspring without outside assistance, so what's in it for government to extend the privilege of marriage to them."

Well, in that event, I guess we should outlaw marriage for sterile people and people who don't want kids and women past menopause and impotent guys and guys who lose their penises in tragic vacuum cleaner accidents, huh?

Amy said "Would it be unlibertarian of me to say that I'm daydreaming of you getting in a second slap-em-silly for me?"

Unlibertarian or not, I'll be glad to get in that second slap if I can.

Amy! I can get behind that last post of yours up there (can't quote it, have a new Imac and am still figuring Mac out). But, I say, why slap when you can ball that fist up and break a jaw!

What planet am I inhabiting why? Blacks as a whole hate gays. There are exceptions, but it's just as true as saying white religious nutters hate them. I live in a 95% minority neighborhood and am married to a minority, so I say that not just from researched opinions which you can google, but also from day to day life.

Teacher unions are crap. They keep the shitty teachers employed. They keep the molesters employed. My kids actually go private school on fin aid, if you must know. They've got great teachers, because they can fire the sucky ones. Public schools do not have that option. Again, you've yet to say why teachers unions should have opposed Prop 8. I can tell you why. It's because, like all unions, the dems promise to let them keep their power in return for bringing in the vote on all dem issues.

I would say, offhand, the good teachers quit because they are so hobbled. You can't give kids bad grades, or punishment or discipline, and are at the mercy of how they treat you. Thus, we are left with the dregs that go along to get along, in large part. Sad.

. . . or people who want to adopt children rather than have their own biological ones --that would require "outside assistance", right? And maybe we should throw in any couples where the guy has a low sperm count or the woman needs fertility treatments to have kids -- more forbidden outside assistance to have the children required for a legitimate marriage.

. . . actually, now that I think of it, to be sure we're not encouraging any marriages that would be unable to bring new tax-payers into the world without any outside assistance, it might be best to abolish fertility clinics, sperm banks, etc. altogether.

. . . and what say y'all to a national registry for those who have their tubes tied or vasectomies, to ensure that they don't get married until they have those procedures reversed?

OK, I think I'm done now. But I don't promise.

Marriage was never intended to be about legitimizing an emotional relationship
-brian

Ant yet brian that(legitimizing an emotional relationship) is why a majority of people in first world countries get married.

And who was the jackass who mentioned thousands of years of tradition?

As I recall the "tradition" of marrige until the last century or so was usually arranged. Before that women were purched like peices of property, and going even further back men could by as many women as they could afford as wives or concubines.

So by all means lets go back to tradition

Gail:

it might be best to abolish fertility clinics, sperm banks, etc. altogether.

Stop it! I'm getting all excited!

STOP! No getting excited unless you plan to procreate with a suitable marital partner!

I have no problem with getting excited.

What I have a problem with is people who choose poorly, find out that they are not capable of conceiving naturally, and use medical science to (unintentionally) have a litter of six children.

If you and your chosen mate are incapable of reproducing without outside assistance, the universe is trying to tell you something.

And that something is "You are an evolutionary dead end."

I saw the anti mormon ads - and should they ever get enough power dont doubt for a second they will reinact prohibition, make any and all sex that does not lead to child making illegal, and craft all sorts of changes to make your life "better".

Did you know that when the chuch bought the property and store fronts surronding the temple in Utah they turned it into a giant out door promenade and promptly made swearing illegal? That was about ten yrs ago.

Cant round up child rapists but if you take the lords name in vain within 200 feet of church property you will get a fine and just might get arrested

Mormons, hm? Can't stand 'em. Their founder was a plain old liar who made up an "Egyptian alphabet" and "read" parts of the Book of the Dead into religious directive. Add one Rosetta Stone; presto! Fraud revealed.

Let's take it all the way back to the stone age. A man got a woman by hitting her on the head with a club. The smart ones counted the bumps on her head before he took her back to the cave. Too many bumps-move on to the next.

So technically, we are all decendend from the smart ones. Just a thought. Who's thinning the gene pool now?

Brian said: "If you and your chosen mate are incapable of reproducing without outside assistance, the universe is trying to tell you something. And that something is 'You are an evolutionary dead end.'"

Um, Brian? Ick. No, really, seriously -- ick.

I can't begin to tell you how many terrific couples I've known who had some trouble conceiving (and not because they made, er, "poor choices"), and with some assistance, gave birth to beautiful, intelligent children to whom they were thrilled to give loving homes and good educations. No doubt those kids will be wonderful additions to the tax rolls.

I frankly think the real problem is fertile dumbshits who procreate willy-nilly without wanting or caring for their children. The universe wants those idiots to reproduce, but not a couple who desperately want a child? Interesting choice on the universe's part, I must say.

Personally, there are limits I'd go to have biological children. (Actually, I don't plan to have kids.) But no way would I prevent a couple that can afford to pay for fertility treatments, and can afford to pay to bring up the resulting children, and that really wants those children, from getting help in conceiving.

You're probably going to give a hypothetical example of some 60 year old woman who wants to have kids against some dude's will, and make him or society pay for their upkeep. I'd agree that such a situation would be ridiculous -- but that's absolutely not the typical couple going to a fertility clinic. Please.

By the way, the universe apparently wants cancer patients to die. Do you favor allowing them treatment to avert that outcome? The universe doesn't want some dudes to be able to get an erection. Should they be able to receive Viagra?

Your argument is giving me a major headache. The universe may want it that way. But I'm still taking an Advil.

I frankly think the real problem is fertile dumbshits who procreate willy-nilly without wanting or caring for their children. The universe wants those idiots to reproduce, but not a couple who desperately want a child? Interesting choice on the universe's part, I must say.

It's fairly obvious that intellect is not a trait that the universe considers important to reproductive ability. The few random smart ones have given humanity a bunch of abilities to short-circuit evolution that biology hasn't come to terms with yet.

By the way, the universe apparently wants cancer patients to die. Do you favor allowing them treatment to avert that outcome? The universe doesn't want some dudes to be able to get an erection. Should they be able to receive Viagra?

The universe wants us all to die. That doesn't mean we have to listen.

Big differences here. First of all, these are things that are happening to people that are already alive. Fighting against the universe there is a bit different than risking bringing a multitude of children into the world. As a rule, if you can't reproduce naturally you're defective in some way. The likelihood of you producing defective children is high.

As far as the viagra goes, not on my dime. Getting laid isn't essential to life. For God's sake, you're old, haven't you had enough fun already?

Actually, the people I know who've conceived after fertility treatments have all had gorgeous, healthy kids. And plenty of people who have no problems conceiving have "defective" kids. Perfectly functioning ovaries and strong sperm don't equal perfect kids, nor is the reverse true.

The universe wants us all to die eventually, but it wants a few of us to die a lot younger than others. A little medical intervention can change all that, and allow the person to live and perhaps even reproduce. But gee, that's not the universe's plan.

FYI -- Not everyone with erectile dysfunction is old.

But all that is totally beside the point of this thread. (My apologies to the rest of you for the digression.) The point I was actually making with all of my examples was that many, many, many heterosexual couples marry without the ability and/or desire to produce biologically future taxpayers (with or without "outside assistance"). As a society, we clearly have no problem with that. That being the case, how on earth can you use that as a justification for denying homosexuals to marry?

Andrew Garland -

I merely observe that tolerance by many is strained when they are forced to have the topic taught to their children.

That topic? You mean the fact that there are gay people and in MA they have the same right as anyone else to marry their partners? That their children have the same right as other kids, to have parents who are married? Holy shit, the world is coming to an end!?!?

They aren't sitting there teaching them to suck cock and fuck ass, they are merely pointing out that there are a great number of types of families.

Jay R -

... if Prop. 8 had NOT passed, then gays would have more rights than straights...

Umm, no they wouldn't. As the bigoted morons are fond of saying in the other direction, straight people would also have the right to marry someone of the same gender.

But ultimately, they would merely have the same right that straight people have, the right to marry their partners.

Prop 8 is just hateful. But I read one of the books that you recommended in your column,Singled Out by Bella DePaulo. After reading that book I began thinking about marriage in different terms. Maybe government should stay out of it completely. Maybe a civil contract between a person and another person of their choosing; be it a relative, friend or life partner could be the only legally binding document recognized by employers and such for benefits etc...
I agree that while government still has a say in who is truly married, equal rights for those in the LGBT community is the best thing to work towards, and this issue is obviously far from over.
However, a truly progressive proposition might leave this tradition of government perks for those who can put a check next to the married box in the dust.
It would be funny if all those married mormons suddenly found that their marriage certs weren't worth the paper they were printed on. If all the sanctity were removed and suddenly one could hold a civil contract with anyone at all, marriage might seem more intimate, and less about the benies one could use to cover the cost of ones retirement.

Sorry, brian, I have a hard time believing that the universe is trying to tell Kevin Federline that he should produce enough offspring to take over California, which is what he seems on track to do.

As a rule, if you can't reproduce naturally you're defective in some way. The likelihood of you producing defective children is high.

The data do not significantly bear out your claim, dude. And the cases of large litters are so rare these days that you pretty much hear about all of them. Most couples who use fertility treatment successfully end up with one baby at a time, or occasionally twins.

Typically what "the universe" is trying to tell you when you have trouble getting knocked up is that you waited longer than women and men did in ages past to get pregnant, which is an artifact of the modern age. If you don't believe me, just ask Bristol Palin, who got pregnant and will give birth at an age typical of first-time mothers for most of history, but is being treated like an unmentionable hick for doing so. Note: My parents would not have been happy if I had gotten knocked up at 17. Most parents these days would not be. We lead far different lives from those of our ancestors. But there are consequences to that. When you look at tribes in which everyone marries and starts procreating very young - as in, before they turn 20 - there is virtually no infertility. There is also not a semblance of gender equality. We live in a society in which women are encouraged to get higher education and pursue high-pressure jobs, just like men. Which is wonderful for me. But the long lines you see at fertility clinics represent the tradeoff. Unless you think "the universe" is trying to tell us to go back to the days of teen marriage and parenthood as a rule, you might want to ditch or at least refine this argument.

(That having been said, STDs are a non-insignificant cause of infertility. I don't particularly care about other people's sex lives, but if you're a woman who hopes to have bio-kids one day, you REALLY need to take responsibility for guarding your reproductive system against disease to the greatest extent possible. I wish this would be shouted on billboards everywhere, because people seem to think that AIDS and unwanted pregnancy are the only dangers of unsafe sex.)

"Sorry, brian, I have a hard time believing that the universe is trying to tell Kevin Federline that he should produce enough offspring to take over California, which is what he seems on track to do." HA! Love it, marion.

Speaking of celebrities, apparently Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt got some "outide assistance" to conceive. Yet somehow their kids are about as genetically perfect as it's possible to be, despite the universe's decree that they not come into existence. Huh.

I'm not really crazy about any of the above-mentioned celebrities, but between Britney and Kevin versus Angelina and Brad, all in all, I think I'd rather let the latter couple reproduce, despite their genetic defects. At least they seem to be taking good care of their kids, real and adopted.

And any freaking day of the week, I'd rather see a loving gay couple adopt a child, rather than see the universe present another neglected to infant Britney Spears.

So there, universe.

Sad, but not totally unexpected. Oregon's version of Proposition 8 passed by 57 % in 2004.

Can't just blame the Jesus fuckers either. In his acceptance speech last night, Obama babbled on about "one America, gay & straight...". Out of the other side of his mouth, he stated many times during the campaign that he was against gay marriage. That sort of spineless pandering is even more offensive to me than ignorance from religious nutters.

Fuck you too, Amy.

> why are you so unnecessarily
> hostile and nasty?

A number of reasons!

#1. Because people deserve it, especially people who accuse others of "fuzzy thinking" while sarcastically saying "Helloooo", and things like that. You think you're a basically nice person. I think you're really snotty, and that the beneficence you imagine yourself to be sharing is actually childish posturing. You haven't really thought about this issue; you're not for real. You're in a much greater hurry to puff up your own (anonymous) ego on this blog than I could possibly be to hurt the feelings of strangers, but you've never been told so before. That happens a lot on the internet. People put transparently crazy shit on here and are surprised when others aren't impressed.

#2. Brutal childhood / unresolved "issues" (including Boy's Life, May 1968, and Road & Track, October 1974).

#3. More reasons later, that's enough for now.

> Straights and gays would then
> have the same goddamn right
> to marry the partners they love.

Nobody has the right to marry the partner they love. They have the right to marry an unmarried, unrelated, sane person of the opposite sex, within broad age-range and citizenship parameters, who will have them.

"But wait!", I hear you cry... "That's not what I meant!"

Well, we know what you meant, but we read what you said... And that's our best indication of the thinking that's behind this. You view complex human intimacy with the hokey melodrama of a Disney film. That's a poor foundation by which to compose civilization's most important bonds.

> I certainly don't respect
> the way you express yourself
> sometimes.

Who asked? And for the record: likewise, kitten.

And now, I'd like to invite all Amy's readers to reread PinkoPerforator's comment of November 5, 2008 4:02 PM, which is correct in all respects.

OK, just one little thing:

> Divisive, instead of inclusive.

I respect things that divide people. One reason I dislike politics so much is that people reflexively promise unity, as if we're supposed to be grateful. I like boundaries. It's an American thang.

OK, just another little thing:

> Slow steady progress
> will always win.

Not within every lifetime. But I'm certain that life for gay couples will continue improve as it has in recent decades, whether it includes "gay marriage" or not.

What is a PinkoPerforator, anyway?

> In a republic, these things
> are supposed to be decided
> legislatively.

That implies representative government, and Amy's made it clear that voters are not to be consulted....

> Imagine an ad with a lesbian
> pastor and her wife talking
> about how they both dreamed
> of being able to get married
> since they were little girls

Imagining now... Imagining... Imagining...

OK, I imagined it, and I'm repulsed. I've dreamt of owning a Ferrari since I was a little boy, but haven't earned one. Should everyone else in society make arrangements for me to get one anyway? (Testarossa; Thanks, guys!)

Marion, I don't seriously believe that you regard the precious daydreams of children as guiding principles for these policies. But at best, you're arguing for more emotionally manipulative media presentation.

Without a TV set, I've missed a lot of the messages that made the campaigns happen, but it's a safe bet that we've had more than enough cleverness from advertising people in recent times. (Kaus recently liked to this.)

> I guess we should outlaw
> marriage for sterile people
> and people who don't want
> kids

Heterosexual unions will always have overtones of genesis, whether fruitful or not. They're special. Nothing personal, it's a biology thing.

> OK, I think I'm done now.
> But I don't promise.

See, even this clumsy sarcasm betrays unfamiliarity with the topic.

> By the way, the universe
> apparently wants cancer
> patients to die.

This doesn't even rise to the level of teenage nihilism. It's not cleverly absurdist, it's not illuminating....

> That sort of spineless
> pandering is even more
> offensive to me

Do you think it's possible to be against gay marriage without hating gays? You're doing an awful lot of Obama's thinking for him.

"maybe we should abolish all sperm banks..."

Could we??? That'd sure be a move in the right direction. I know I am going to get all sorts of flamed here, but some people weren't meant to have kids biologically. They need to accept that rather than spend tens of thousands trying to buy a pregnancy. It leads to a consumerist attitude towards kids. People think they can order gender, no genetic problems, even # of kids and due date. It's ridiculous, they aren't cars. There are no guarantees.

I'll admit, it took my 5 screws to get 4 kids, so it's possible my opinion would change if I were in that boat. I doubt it though. As wachy as I think the Catholic Church is, I admire them for their stand on ART.

"I'll admit, it took my 5 screws to get 4 kids, so it's possible my opinion would change if I were in that boat."

Yes. It's possible. Just like I've seen a lot of women change their mind about freedom of choice when they get pregnant or their teenage daughter does.

Condemning people who screech about having the rights to have kids, etc. and who then expect others to subsidize their choices or take care of the kids -- well, that I totally understand. But condemning people who want kids, want to take care of them, and are willing to -- yearning to! -- take full responsibility for the cost and upkeep and love and all the rest -- why do you care? In what way does it hurt you? And as far as society goes, if anything, doesn't it actually help society to allow such people to become parents?

And similarly: Crid, Brian, et al. -- in what way does allowing gays to marry hurt you, exactly? Or society? Why, exactly, should the right to marry be restricted to "an unmarried, unrelated, sane person of the opposite sex, within broad age-range and citizenship parameters, who will have them." Yeah, that's the right we by and large actually have, but WHY? It doesn't have shit to do with having kids. It has everything to do with totally pointless prejudice.

And Crid -- I said exactly what I meant and have no desire or reason to amend it to address your silly comment. Most people in our society today marry for love. Yeah, time was, in 1382, people married to beget male heirs and to have someone around to pull the plow, but gee, this isn't medieval Europe anymore, in case you haven't noticed. That being the case, I can't see a reason in the world why a gay person can't marry the person he or she loves.

On the "partners biologically fit to reproduce" equals "ease of conception" thing--

Remember the Austrian case where the father locked his daughter in the basement for 24 years and forced her to bear 7 of his children? OK, let me make it clear that I'm completely not blaming those kids, or the woman, none of whom were to blame for the heinous psycho father/grandfather's actions. BUT -- I think we can all agree that fathers and daughters should not produce offspring together, because (unlike people who receive fertility treatments), there's plenty of evidence that such offspring are extremely likely to have genetic problems.

However, apparently the "universe" felt differently -- it allowed that poor woman to conceive again and again, despite pretty adverse conditions and the high likelihood of potential genetic problems. I repeat -- ease of conception does not equate to genetic fitness. Defective brains are a much bigger risk to having "fit" offspring than ovaries that need a little boost.

All that said, I'd love to see more people adopt kids rather than go to extreme measures to have them biologically. But in no way would I condemn a couple for wanting to have their own.

The issue of gays marrying each other is nowhere near the top of my list. However, if I were allowed to vote on it, I'd vote 'No'. Civil unions 'Yes' but not marriage. I'd also tighten up the rules about some heterosexuals treating marriage like a quick ride on a roller coaster.

As to the repercussions if Gay marriage were allowed, Amy, I don't think you're looking at the evidence from elsewhere about how one domino affects another, which affects another, which....

Here in Canada there was a situation where 2 Lesbians wanted to rent a church hall for their marriage party. The church wasn't comfortable with this (which I feel is their right to be uncomfortable if they so choose). So the lesbians sued the church through our ridiculous "human rights" commission and won, forcing the church to pay reparations.

You can imagine the next step: forcing the gay lifestyle to be taught in schools and forcing churches to hold gay marriages in their facilities. I'm not arguing against gay marriage here but forcing a religious institution to go against its own beliefs is just wrong.

After gay marriage, you know what comes next, right? Multiple wives. Are you familiar with Bountiful, BC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bountiful,_British_Columbia

There's no direct connection between gay marriage and polygamy but there is a direct legal precedent connection. It's the slippery slope that people are afraid of. And while you can disagree with them, I believe that their voice at the voting booth is just as equal as yours.

Robert W --

I'm all for the separation of church and state. Therefore, with regard to this statement "forcing a religious institution to go against its own beliefs is just wrong" -- I agree with you, at least to a pretty fair extent. (If a church believes in human sacrifice, for example, we might want to restrain them.)

I don't think, for example, the Catholic church should be forced to marry gays. But civil marriage is another story. And, really, I do think it's possible to allow one-on-one gay marriages without starting a slippery slope to polygamy. (All of these arguments people are making about gay marriage used to be used about interracial marriage, including that one.)

As a lawyer, I'd be interested in seeing the Canadian case about the church hall and the lesbians to see what the court's justification was. Got a link?

Also speaking as a lawyer, by the way, if it's so inherent in our law that marriage should be only between men and women, why is it that consitutional amendments are required to make it absolutely clear that it's forbidden?

OK, I didn't find a link to the actual court case Robert W. mentioned (about the lesbians suing the church), but did find a newspaper article discussing it. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051129/tribunal_lesbiancouple_051129/20051129?hub=Canada

And frankly, I'm not nearly as troubled as Robert W.

What happened is this: The lesbian couple went together, in person, to book a Knights of Columbus hall for their marriage reception. The hall actually booked it and took the couple's deposit, then, much later, decided to cancel it, weeks after the couple had gone to the expense of sending out invites and making all of their arrangements.

The tribunal ruled that in fact the Knights of Columbus could have refused to host the couple's party, if it was contrary to K of C's "core religious beliefs." However, the tribunal ruled that the manner in which the K of C had booked and then cancelled the reception had cost the couple of money as well as "affronted the same-sex couple's dignity, feelings and self-respect" The tribunal stated "The Knights could have taken steps such as meeting with the complainants to explain the situation, formally apologizing, immediately offering to reimburse the complainants for any expenses they had incurred and, perhaps, offering assistance in finding another solution. There may have been other options they could have considered without infringing their core religious beliefs."

The tribunal ordered the K or C to reimburse the couple for the out-of-pocket expenses they'd incurred because of the cancellation, plus a whopping $1000 to each in damages for the inconvenience and embarrassment they'd suffered for the last minute cancellation.

Actually, speaking as a lawyer, that seems reasonable to me. The K of C could have refused to book the ceremony -- the lesbians made no attempt to hide what they were doing. It could have assisted the couple in finding another venue. But the K of C couldn't book the event and then just cancel abruptly at the last minute, leaving the couple in the lurch and out all of their expenses, and make no attempt to mitigate the couple's damages.

Why is marriage a "right"?

A right is something that the government can't stop *you* from doing. A gay or lesbian couple has every right to have a stable, permanant, monogomous relationship. They are free to make vows to that effect to each other in front of their assembled friends and family. They aren't *prevented* from taking any actions whatsoever.

They simply are not entitled to the legal status of marriage, with the benefits that status entails. That is not a right that is being denied, that is a *benefit* for which they do not qualify. They aren't prevented from doing anything, they simply aren't being *given* something by the government. Claiming that denying those benefits to homosexual couples is a violation of their rights is logically the same as claiming that denying social security benefits to people under the age of 65 is a violation of rights. Are Bill Gates' rights being violated because he doesn't qualify for welfare benefits? Are my rights being violated because I don't qualify for the earned income tax credit? No.

Every society has a strong incentive to promote stable child-rearing couples. It is that simple. If you don't believe that is true, look at the effects of the breakdown of the inner city family.

Amy often uses the argument that there are many other factors at work that cheapen marriage and work to break down stable, child rearing couples. Very, very true. However, that doesn't mean that nothing should be done to defend the institution of marriage. That's like claiming that since we are having a hard time curing someone's drug resistant TB, we shouldn't even bother to treat any other conditions that person may have. It isn't an either/or...we can work to strengthen marriage in different ways simultaneously.

Personally, if a majority of my fellow citizens voted to allow gay marriage, it wouldn't bother me. I *am* seriously bothered by a handfull of individuals overturning the express will of the electorate to create a new right where none existed before. If a constitutional amendment is needed to put those "men in black" in their place, so be it.

"Thank you! So on point - and damn the hypocrites for deciding what others do with their lives."

I'm curious...do you really believe that the majority of people opposed to gay marriage want to prevent gays from having monogamous relationships? How is denying someone legal benefits the same as deciding what they can and can't do with their lives? If there was a movement to criminalize sodomy, you would have a point. That would be a violation of rights, without a doubt. That wasn't what the initiative was about though.

Robert -

You can imagine the next step: forcing the gay lifestyle to be taught in schools...

You mean like teaching kids that queers are human being too, and a part of our society? Don't like it, teach them at home or send them to religious school. It's not like the schools are going to teach kids to fuck ass or how to suck a mean cock. Merely acknowledging that there are folks who make a family with a member of the same sex, is not teaching the "gay lifestyle."

A tip, if you want adults to take you seriously, don't use that absurd phrase. There is no such thing as a gay lifestyle. The only thing that all, or even most gays have in common, is that they are gay.

...and forcing churches to hold gay marriages in their facilities.

Never going to happen in the U.S., without a constitutional amendment. Churches aren't required to marry anyone they don't want to. Some sects won't even marry anyone not of that sect.

I'm not arguing against gay marriage here but forcing a religious institution to go against its own beliefs is just wrong.

You're right, you're not arguing against gay marriage here, you're arguing against notions that have nothing to do with gay marriage.

Hey Amy --

When did your libertarian blog become overrun with paranoid right-wing nutjobs that believe in letting the "universe" work its cosmic will?

Duwayne - you're awesome. Every time I read a comment that says something utterly stupid like "forcing schools to teach the gay lifestyle", there you are, mopping up.

Schools (and people, for that matter) don't have an obligation to ensure that your carefully constructed version of reality isn't blown to bits. If you teach your kids about Santa Claus, don't be pissed because they go to school and find out the truth. When your child encounters things contrary to your beliefs (and they will, poor little dears), tell the child, "Yes, there are all kinds of people who do all kinds of things. In our family, we believe that X, Y & Z is wrong. We don't do those things and we wish that no one ever did." Or something along those lines. Wait, but then they might not believe you! Or they might think that homosexuality, eating meat, cursing, worshiping the flying spaghetti monster, etc. is normal! Boo-fucking-hoo. They're your kids, you teach them what is right, and if other people disagree that's too fucking bad. Such is life.

Here's the crux of it: "they're simply being denied rights that they don't qualify for". The right to equal treatment under the law is the right that I, and others, are saying is being taken away. There is a tax credit for children. Reproduction is already encouraged by the government. If homosexuals don't have kids, they don't get the credit. I believe that the benefits marriage brings are intended to support stable family units. Homosexuals can, and do, make up stable family units. So, what is the problem?

Crid - If Suzy across the street was getting a Ferrari from the gov't, I'd say you should get one too. But she makes that car look so much better than you do... She's inherently special. No Ferrari for you.

Pinko is right that slow progress would probably be more effective. Coddling the homophobes and sneaking stuff in bit by bit might just work. But it's repugnant. In a case like this, which I think is blatant discrimination, slow and steady isn't very feasible. Many of the rights we now take for granted (any women voters?) were won only after confrontation. Tell me I can't vote, or own property, or marry a man knowing I won't make babies, and I'll be pretty confrontational. There, there, calm down, no one likes an angry woman. Could you be more condescending, Pinko? Sure, you don't agree, but these people feel, and rightly so, that their rights as equal citizens are being trampled. They are being actively denied rights that people exactly like them have. The ONLY difference is their sexual orientation. The arguments about reproduction, family stability, and religious rights are all complete bullshit. Bullshit masquerading as legitimate reasons to discriminate, that could easily be worked into law, if so very scary.

Yes MikeMangum explain how exacly hetero sexual people quilify for government benifits that homosexual people cant?

FYI if we were having this conversation face to face I'd have broken your nose for comparing sexual orientation to a disease that needs to be wiped out

Gail, you have some fuzzy ideas about "the universe" of natural selection, in that you're not making the discrimination as to the availability of technological measures w/r/t reproduction. I'm just sensitive to this because most people have no idea what "natural selection" and "cause and effect" are.

It remains that if technology is used to extend a genetic trait's timeline in the gene pool, those traits can affect others down the line. Assisting hemophiliacs produces more people who will bleed to death if punctured, period. In poverty issues, simply feeding people who have no means to feed themselves produces more people with no means to feed themselves, period. "Consequences" doesn't end with the person in view, and whatever personal anguish one might feel at someone's lack doesn't change that at all, regardless of what one believes about the "rightness" of the idea or cause.

-----

There is irony here, in that the ban might hold thoughtful and useful people like Elton John, George Takei and Bruno Tonioli back. If you subscribe to similar ideas, they will avoid you and your neighborhood with its abuse, and take what they have to offer elsewhere. You will be the poorer for that, as you remain fascinated with Britney, and cheer things like the "amicable" divorce of people wearing crosses.

I'm still not sure the logic behind banning gay marriage. Part of it is the why do you care aspect. How does allowing gay marriage affect you (being straight) that you would go to these lengths to stop it? The definition of marriage varies by state so if your state uses the words "husband" and "wife" legally speaking so long as one of claims to be the husband and one the wife they can legally be married.

As far as a threat to marriage as a principle, how? How could two men or two women being married threaten you hetero marriage.

Crid: So your not into two girls kissing, hey to each his own. Should we ban everything that you or any one of us find offensive or disgusting, just based on it being personally offensive?

Natural selection doesn't give to micro shits about how those being selected feel about the situation. Natural selection is a facet of the environment so if the environment changes then the selection criteria would change.

So if being left handed (or any other observable difference) gets you burned at the stake prior to having children that trait would be reduced, not likely to be eliminated though. Using natural selection to approach the gay issue is eugenics which conservatives shit purple over when applied in such a way as to suggest abortion, note being called monsters on earlier thread. They want to change the environment (that's what medical intervention is on some level) to allow life where nature would say otherwise, dialysis, environmental sterility, special diets etc. However changing the environment (political one at that) to make the lives of gay American more pleasant (which would likely reduce suicide rates among gay teens) is some how horrid?

So when is changing the environment to promote life ok and when isn't it?

Amy,

You're a sport. Maybe you'll be the first to actually address the issue of incest -- another traditional societal mating taboo. Under the California Supreme Court's analysis, the right of a person to marry the person of their choice is "fundamental." With contraceptive and abortion rights in place, the concern of having genetically "challenged" children of the union is mooted. A brother and sister can adopt, use surrogacy, etc., just like a gay couple who cannot reproduce "naturally," if they want children.

And, taking the "fundamental" right one step further, why shouldn't two brothers be allowed to simultaneously marry one sister and each other? After all, they can all have outside sexual activity of their choice, with no incestuous sex involved. So, what business is it of the state to dictate what domestic arrangement those siblings collectively find the most "natural" or desirable for them? Who better to look out for you in a time of emergency than your own sibling (or aunt, uncle, etc.)?

With gay marriage, are we necessarily "in for a penny, in for a pound" as to all forms of "marital" relationships? If not, why not?

Finally, what are your thoughts about the discrimination written into California's existing, exactly-the-same-as-marriage domestic partnership law, which is generally limited to same-sex couples only? Why no protest that heterosexual couples are being denied equal access to the benefits of the DP law, if they should prefer that to "marriage"?

I look forward to your thoughtful comments -- or the thoughtful reply of anyone else with the guts to respond.

"Who better to look out for you in a time of emergency than your own sibling (or aunt, uncle, etc.)?" Well if you prefer to have a blood relative vs a spouse look out for you you can list them as next of kin. Listing a non spouse or blood relative allows for far easier challenge to your decision. As an example your in a coma from an MVA if you list your buddy Steve (your both straight and he's your best friend) as next of kin and your wishes as put forward by Steve conflict with your blood relatives wishes courts tend to side with family. So if you don't want to be on life support forever and relatives are Bible thumpers you get to stay on life support against your wishes. Now you a a straight person can later in life find a spouse to make sure your wishes are met with a greater say in court. A gay couple is banned from that for life.

"And, taking the "fundamental" right one step further, why shouldn't two brothers be allowed to simultaneously marry one sister and each other?" Polygamy is banned by federal law so a totally moot point. California allowing gay marriage would not in any way affect this.

"Why no protest that heterosexual couples are being denied equal access to the benefits of the DP law, if they should prefer that to "marriage"?" These are allowed for hetero couples. There is no language in the California civil code that states that DP are gender specific. If I'm wrong please point me to the section where DPs are defined for same sex only.

The incest angle is a bit trickier to combat.

"Um, MikeMangum, why shouldn't gays and lesbians be allowed to marry? In a state-certified way if straight people are?"

I hadn't (yet) argued whether they should or should not be allowed to marry, because frankly I think that gay marriage would be at most a fairly small chink in the armor of marriage. I do have a very strong problem with the idea that it is somehow a "right" that is being denied.

"Don't give religious reasons: separation of church and state.

Does it make you uncomfortable? Too bad. People wearing flipflops when they are not showering makes me uncomfortable, too, but I'm not trying to legislate against it."

My reason has nothing to do with religion...my primary reason has to do with democracy and our society's view of rights. A majority of people do not support it and made that explicit at the ballot box, but a handful of judges overturned the will of the people with language that talked of a non-existent right. For me, the issue is not any more or any less important than if an initiative had passed mandating lower taxes but courts threw out the initiative as unconstitutional.

My fight is not so much against gay marriage as it is against the view that we are owed positive rights and not just negative ones. Our society's view of rights has always been, until the 60s, that rights were things that you could do that the government could not morally or legally prevent you from doing or punish you for doing. In other words, freedom. The view of rights is slowly changing to not just things that the government can't prevent you from doing, but also things that the government must actively do for you. That is incredibly dangerous, because negative rights and positive rights are in opposition to each other, and promoting positive rights reduces freedom. I would have thought you would understand the difference between positive and negative rights. My reaction is to the equation of gay marriage as a right.

If the people of California had voted to allow gay marriage, my reaction would have been at most a shrug, if I had had any reaction at all. If the US Congress voted to increase the age at which people first qualify for social security benefits to 75, I would think it is bad policy, and unfair to those who are close to retirement age and planned their retirements around the current qualifying age, but I would NOT make wild claims about people's rights being violated. There is a very distinct difference.

"Yes MikeMangum explain how exacly hetero sexual people quilify for government benifits that homosexual people cant?"

The same way that poor people can qualify for government benefits for which middle class people do not. The same way that people with differing incomes pay different tax rates. The same way that people who engage in all sorts of behaviors that the government wants to promote get tax breaks and tax credits that are not available to those people who don't engage in those behaviors. For instance, the government wants people to buy hybrids, so they give sizable tax credits to people who do so...is that a violation of the rights of people who don't buy hybrids? They aren't being the same, after all. Government treats citizens differently by giving varying benefits based on a plethora of criteria. I challenge you to explain to me how my "rights" are being violated because other people are getting benefits for which I don't qualify...and the list of benefits for which I don't qualify is very, very long.

To put it in simple terms, you may disagree with the fairness of a particular policy without having to show that someone's rights are being violated. Bringing the whole concept of rights into the picture is nothing more than an attempt to put those who oppose your views on the defensive and close off the topic from discussion. It is a fundamentally dishonest tactic.

"FYI if we were having this conversation face to face I'd have broken your nose for comparing sexual orientation to a disease that needs to be wiped out"

Ahh, the face of tolerance (and optimism!). And no, I was not comparing sexual orientation to a "disease that needs to be wiped out", I was using an analogy to illustrate how one threat to the institution of marriage does not invalidate attempts to address what some might consider a different threat, which has been one of Amy's primary arguments. I have no issue with homosexuality, and would strongly fight against attempts to curtail homosexual's rights (real rights) by criminalizing sodomy, for instance, or banning public displays of affection between homosexuals if those same rules did not apply to heterosexuals.

The primary threat to marriage, in my opinion, is the view that marriage is about the 2 people who are getting married, as opposed to the family that is the result. Marriage will only survive as an institution if it is considered to be about the family, and marriage as an institution is incredibly important to society.

"is the view that marriage is about the 2 people who are getting married, as opposed to the family that is the result." Sure I agree completely I'm not sure why gays do not fall into this category.

"Every society has a strong incentive to promote stable child-rearing couples." Right so again why can gays not rear children?

As far as the rights vs benifits ok fair point from that angle. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why retirement is at 65 or why Gates doesn't collect welfare. I don't see how this applies to gay marriage, there is no reason to deny them the benifits.

As far as the incest argument Jay R. Once siblings are married there is no way for the state to prevent them from having children naturally. In order for that argument to work you would have to force either abortions or castrations on married siblings as a condition of marriage. Preventing incetous marriages is in the states best interest how is it the same for gay marriages.

Vlad, thanks for trying, but you are wrong about California DP law -- even while admitting that you have not done ANY research on the subject. Start with Wikipedia. You will confirm that only same-sex couples (and some opposite-sex couples over the age of 62) who are not too closely related by blood are eligible to be domestic partners.

Further, your dodging the issue of polygamy / polyandry by referring to the existing federal prohibition is like my arguing that discussion of same-sex marriage in California is now moot due to the existing California and federal laws!

Your only argument about incest is that the state can't be sure no children of the union will result. But what about gay (or straight, for that matter) brothers or lesbian sisters who want to get married to each other? Or straight siblings who are over the age of 62 or who can prove one or the other is sterile? No children can possibly result from their coupling. I therefore take it that you would defend their "fundamental" right to marry the persons of their choice, right? You are willing to claim that these other prohibitions on marriage are a denial of equal rights, correct?

Those in favor of gay marriage are hypocrites if they fail to acknowledge that the California Supreme Court's In Re Marriage Cases analysis should equally apply to incestuous, polygamous and polyandrous marriages as well.

And of course, now that Prop. 8 has passed, the only remaining impact the Court's decision can have is on these other, non-traditional and (previously) taboo relationships. How interesting, indeed!

In all your examples, mike, you could reap those benefits if you did x or y. If you WERE poor, you could get aid. If you WERE 65, you could get retirement benefits. These are all things you can actually do. Gays can't be straight. They are excluded based on a thing they can't change. In your incest scenario, the person could have any other partner of the opposite sex. They only want the one person though. I want the right to marry this one person, come hell or high water. What if they're already married? What if they DNR want you? What if they're dead? Incest cases are about one partner whose very genes exclude them. Gay marriage is about an entire half of the population being excluded from you. I can't marry ANY female. Which is a huge problem if I only like females.

"So when is changing the environment to promote life ok and when isn't it?"

Thank you, Vlad!

As you might be able to tell from Colorado's referendum asking to define a "person" as existing from conception forward, a lot of people haven't thought about the fundamentals of life before they get asked to vote on it.

So please, think about Vlad's question now and at length.

Technology can grow your baby in someone else. Technology can kill your baby in utero, in a variety of ways.

It's going to be possible to call for genetic evaluation and engineering of your own baby. Technology will just be extending your own ability to select a proper mate. It will be a matter of degree, in that respect. You'll still be drawing straws, in that reading genetic code isn't expected to be definitive, but you'll see a bunch more straws before you pick one.

This will be very popular. Given a choice, who would opt for a deformed child? Absent expertise, Congress may enact a law forbidding genetic manipulation of fetal development, but if you don't know what that means, or the alternative is a dire prediction, how can it be prohibited? Do you then force an invalid on some young couple?

Since lots of people are pushing for national health care (somehow assuming that government is the solution to high prices), someone will notice the expense of genetic diseases, and ask, "Why should I pay for the health care of a person conceived without the bare minimum of safeguards against disease?"

Better think about this first. It's coming.

"In all your examples, mike, you could reap those benefits if you did x or y. If you WERE poor, you could get aid. If you WERE 65, you could get retirement benefits. These are all things you can actually do. Gays can't be straight."

No, gays can't be straight...but a man of any sexual orientation can marry a woman of any sexual orientation.

How can I change my age to 65? What behavior can I engage in to suddenly qualify for social security benefits in my mid 30's? I guess I *could* change my gender to qualify for the government paying for a divorce lawyer if I needed one, but I'm not complaining that males "rights" are being violated because the government provides benefits to women that aren't available to men. I might argue that its unfair....but then again, I would argue that it is unfair that the baby boomers are selfishly placing an enormous financial burden on later generations through support for ever increasing entitlements for themselves. You won't see me go on about how my rights are being violated.

Nobody is explaining to me how state recognition of marriage (and the benefits that accrue) is a right. What actions or behaviors are gays being prevented from, or punished for, engaging in? Every homosexual is free to form a monogamous, committed relationship with the person of their choice.

If you want to argue that it is *unfair* that their is not state recognition of gay marriage, that's a whole different ball of wax than arguing that their rights are being violated.

You can't change your age, but you can attain that age over time and qualify for those benefits. At no time can gays attain straight sexual orientation, and that is what the law says they need to have what everyone else does.

This has been addressed. No one has the *right* to marriage. They have the right to equal treatment under the law, without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, orientation, etc. If straight people can marry under the law, so should gays. They ONLY reason right now that they can't is sexual orientation. That's discrimination, and it's illegal.

"This has been addressed. No one has the *right* to marriage. They have the right to equal treatment under the law, without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, orientation, etc. If straight people can marry under the law, so should gays. They ONLY reason right now that they can't is sexual orientation. That's discrimination, and it's illegal."

Now we are getting somewhere. But you are still making a fundamental mistake. Gays are NOT being treated differently under the law based on sexual orientation. There is no statute, in any state, that says that 2 heterosexual males can marry each but that 2 homosexual males can't. There is no statute, in any state, that says that a homosexual female cannot marry a male but a heterosexual female can.

Yes, it is very obvious that homosexuals are going to have significantly less desire to marry someone of the opposite sex, and heterosexuals are going to have significantly less desire to marry someone of the same sex, but they are allowed to do the exact same thing: marry someone of the opposite sex but not someone of the same sex.

Homosexuals are, in fact, treated exactly the same under the law. You could make a strong argument that you don't believe it is fair, but claiming they are being discriminated against under the law is not accurate.

"Could you be more condescending, Pinko?"

Sure I can.

"Sure, you don't agree, but these people
feel, and rightly so"

Yes, they feel it. but I am not sure about the "rightly so" part...

"that their rights as equal citizens are
being trampled. They are being actively
denied rights that people exactly like
them have. The ONLY difference is their
sexual orientation."

Um, the law says that a man and a woman of proper age (and who are not married to anyone else) can get married. There is no litmus test for sexual orientation. And 2 heterosexual men cannot marry, just as 2 heterosexual women cannot marry.

"The arguments about reproduction, family
stability, and religious rights are all
complete bullshit. Bullshit masquerading
as legitimate reasons to discriminate,
that could easily be worked into law, if
so very scary."

Facts are not "bullshit" just because they contradict your worldview.

What about polygymy? If the genders of the participants is no longer important why should the number matter?

Who are you to tell people they can't have more than one marriage partner at a time? You are just forcing your beliefs on them. Isn't that unfair?