Why should I believe these MSM polls any more than all the other MSM polls - which were shown to be agenda-driven and biased?

The only difference is that The Goddess has found an issue on which she agrees with "progressives".

Meanwhile, The Rest of Us have swept Republicans into state legislatures where they are implementing defense-of-marriage legislation in state after state - with no discernible impact on their re-electability (and hardly a peep from local media who are hanging on for dear life and know what side their bread is buttered on...).

The only difference is that The Goddess has found an issue on which she agrees with "progressives".

And, with libertarians and actual conservatives.

For the uninitiated, Ben-David is an orthodox Jew who is a sure bet to pop up with a bit of gay-bashing on any post that even mentions gays. Here, he's being a little more careful.

As long as gays and lesbians in this country don't get full rights, they shouldn't pay full taxes.

And note, on the Daily Caller site, one guy supports his contention that gays shouldn't marry with some verse number from the bible. Ridiculous. Your belief, sans evidence, in god, does not allow you to deny a set of people rights.

Gay marriage hurts anyone else how?

If conservatives really want to stop gay marriage, make sure gay men find out that getting married correlates with gaining weight, children appearing in your house, and buying a 2100 sq ft ranch house in the suburbs. Oh, and wearing khakis Dockers pants. Everyone married wears Dockers.

Gay men will be struck dumb for about 3 seconds as they consider the horror, before they run screaming for the nearest dance club providing sanctuary.

Lesbians? Not so much. Upon hearing that same list of effect, they will smile broadly, order another carton of Hagen Daaz, and jump into their Suburu station wagon to go look for the ranch house.

In the end, it will matter only to voters who vote based on this issue and issues like it. Voters like me. I'd love to vote for a fiscally conservative candidate, but human-rights issues like gay marriage and open access to abortion are more important to me, and thus more likely to sway my vote.

You can have a lot of people who think gay marriage should be legal but not necessarily care enough to vote that way if they care about something else more. I have yet to find a candidate who embodies everything I want in a public official.

"I'd love to vote for a fiscally conservative candidate ..."

Hell, I'd love to FIND a fiscally conservative candidate. Enough of this piddling around with whether the budget requires a hatchet or a paring knife. Sissies. The thing needs a damn wood chipper.

If anybody, Democrat or Republican, thinks politics and getting elected is about much more than pandering to the widest swath of voters, well, we'd appreciate if you didn't vote.

True. But politicians also frequently try to do some of the stuff they pander about. So their panders are at least somewhat indicative of what they will attempt while in office. Except perhaps in the case of Mitt Romney, who appears to be 100% pure pander, which makes him harder to read.

Hell, I'd love to FIND a fiscally conservative candidate.

Mitch Daniels has a good track record in this area. He's my current favorite among the likely Republican presidential candidates. Gary Johnson is also appealing to me – solid libertarian track record and a popular former governor. Neither has a chance, unfortunately, given the sway of social conservatives in the Republican primaries.

I think the public is so jaded by the melting of the two parties into one that the solution won't be through legislation, but by common public acceptance. If there was to be any progress made, wouldn't you have expected it with Obama\Reid\Pelosi at the helm?

I'm for fiscal conservatives and social moderates. Gay marriage (as it is being put forth), I do not support (for non-religious reasons), but it certainly would NOT sway my vote for putting a fiscal conservative in office who supports gay marriage.

It irks me that many gays will not rally and support fiscal sanity because of their darling cause, gay marriage. I refuse to do the same. Perhaps that's in part, where some of my apathy stems from in supporting gay marriage. If they want to be given the benefits of marriage, they need to be putting back in - and stand with the rest of us against financial progressive nonsense.

I don't know. The population of homosexuals in America is supposedly around 3%. The population of evangelical Christians and other extremely devout people is supposedly around 25%. And while I am sure there are some straight people who place a great deal of emphasis on gay marital rights in the voting booth, I doubt supporting gay marriage is a make-or-break issue for the vast majority of straight voters. I suspect these folks are far more concerned about the job market, energy, the economy, abortion, etc.

I'm a libertarian type. I support gay marriage, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, etc. But these are minor issues to me when I enter the voting booth, when compared to those I mentioned above.

And in any case, homosexuals generally tend toward the liberal end of the spectrum, so I don't know that they'd ever come around (as a voting bloc) to supporting the GOP, even if the GOP did offer tacit support of gay marriage. One of my close friends is gay, and I've gone with him to gay bars and clubs, gone to ball games with his gay buddies, stuff like that. All the gay people I know are fairly radical environmentalists, pro-choice, pro-union, animal rights supporters, commonly vegetarians and pacifists, very urbanized, etc. They're just not a cultural fit in the GOP, and I really don't see them coming around to supporting an organization that defends things like the military and the NRA, and opposes abortion and public-sector labor unions.

I know, I know, there are supposedly conservative homosexuals (Log Cabin Republicans and whatever). But I've never met one.

Somehow, somewhere, there must be some secret council of GOPers, sitting around a table, saying, "Well, the Democrats have lost the House, have taken significant hits in the Senate, and have lost ground in state legislatures nationwide. The Republican Party is poised to regain power across the country. Does anyone have any new ideas on how to shoot ourselves in the collective foot?"

What Amy said!!!!!!!

Evangelicals are a bit of a powder keg for any party. Most could easily be Democrats, if it weren't for the issues abortion and gay marriage. They typically don't have much respect for the legitimacy of constraints on government.

Freebie wrote It irks me that many gays will not rally and support fiscal sanity because of their darling cause, gay marriage.

That's not quite true. See groups like Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud.

But, when they DO try to "rally and support" fiscal conservatism, stuff like this happens:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/cpac-speaker-condemns-cpac-for-allowing-gay-conservative-group.php

I was at CPAC 2010. And when that idiot Ryan Sorba said what he said about GOProud, it was awesome to see all the young conservatives there (CPAC draws a lot of young people) get furious.

"Must we really put out the cartoon of what gays and lesbians are as an attempt at humor?"

Yes, until I die.

Ah well, my gay buddy laughs at the joke.

It irks me that many gays will not rally and support fiscal sanity because of their darling cause, gay marriage.

Also, one person's darling cause is another person's make-or-break issue. Not everyone feels as strongly (or at all) about fiscal issues.

Your belief, sans evidence, in god, does not allow you to deny a set of people rights.

Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege that society endows with benefits because, overall, it benefits society as a whole to have people in committed relationships.

And the benefits society receives from straight people being in committed relationships, it will most likely receive from gay people being in committed relationships.

Hell, I'd love to FIND a fiscally conservative candidate.

Good luck finding one that will have enough clout once elected to actually shrink the government or do away with even some entitlement programs.

It's going to take electing one with a Reagan-like landslide to give him enough political capital to be able to shove actual reform through a Congress that can think only of the next election.

Mitch Daniels has a good track record in this area.

He also managed to limit collective bargaining by public employees with much less controversy and backlash than Scott Walker did.

But the party can't abandon its opposition to gay marriage without upsetting one of its core constituencies: evangelical white Protestants, who remain overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage

That's true, but look at California's recent voting record. Minorities are getting stronger as a voting bloc (mostly Latinos, I think). How in the world did Prop 8 pass in California? Could it be that the majority of Latinos or African-Americans or Mien also don't support gay marriage?

And the comparison of gay marriage rights to mixed racial marriage rights is similar but also worlds apart. Not so simple.

"And the comparison of gay marriage rights to mixed racial marriage rights is similar but also worlds apart. Not so simple."

Thank you!

The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law for reasons that escape me by the otherwise outstanding president Bill Clinton, is plainly unconstitutional. This is why Obama and Holder have announced that he will no longer defend it in court.

As a violation of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, it is no more constitutional than the idea of someone driving to another state, only to find that their perfectly valid driver's license does not allow them to drive outside the state.

That said, while I agree with Obama and Holder in principle, it is not their place to decide that DOMA is unconstitutional and no longer defend it in court. Theirs is to defend the law, whether they agree with it or not. The privilege of striking down laws that are unconstitutional is known as judicial review, and reserved for the courts, and no one else.

Conan: Marriage is not a right.

You are incorrect. From the SCOTUS ruling, Loving v. Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

If you disagree that marriage should be a right, that's fine with me. I don't agree, but I respect your right to have your opinion and support your right to voice it.

I will not support, however, your bid to have patent lies touted as "facts." Marriage is a right, whether you like it or not. SCOTUS has far more to say on the subject, than you will likely ever have. And without ambiguity, they have said marriage is a right.

Please tell me where in the constitution, it shows us marriage is a "right".

Loving vs. Virgina was an extremly complex case that had to do with racial discrimination - limiting blacks access to class status thereby, limiting them legitimate access to property, wealth creation, ownership of property, etc. Gays do not have those same limitations. So it was a constitutional issue for interracial marriages (because it indirectly limited those things). The other was, the offspring issue. Which until the MAJORITY of gays are getting married for purposes of raising a family - does not come into play as much as people would like to believe.

If raising a family was a leading issue for gays in their gay marriage debate (or the majority of gays wanted to get married - period) then I would likely overcome another one of my issues with gay marriage. But as it stands, it seems to be more about political posturing for progressive causes.

The movement lacks honesty for me at this point

A government that stuck to its Constitutionally enumerated powers would have nothing to say on the matter.

MarkD, it is not possible for our government to stick to its constitutionally enumerated powers. The constitution is a mere framework, and the framers themselves recognized the fact that they couldn't cover every possibility. That's why we have things like Constitutional provision to amend the Constitution, and the elastic clause. The framers themselves made these provisions in the Constitution because they recognized that the Constitution would need to be amended, and that Congress would need to claim for itself more powers that originally provided for.

Forgive my bluntness, Mark, but the suggestion that the government should stick to only its constitutionally enumerated powers suggests to me that you've never read the Constitution. If we were expected to stick only to the Constitution, then it simply wouldn't have lasted, and like the Articles of Confederation, it would have been thrown out and we'd have created still another document to serve in its place.

Why would the Framer's give two hoots about who marries who? The constitution is not set up to babysit or play arbiter on privately held, cultural contracts/arrangements/ceremonies. NEITHER would I want it/them to.

Meanwhile, The Rest of Us have swept Republicans into state legislatures where they are implementing defense-of-marriage legislation in state after state - with no discernible impact on their re-electability (and hardly a peep from local media who are hanging on for dear life and know what side their bread is buttered on...).

Posted by: Ben David

Yoi know what? I'm changing sides, traditional bible based marriage all the way. I cant wait to rape a few of those high school cheerleaders and only have to pay a small fine to their parents to keep them as sex slaves for as long as I want

In the end, it will matter only to voters who vote based on this issue and issues like it. Voters like me. I'd love to vote for a fiscally conservative candidate, but human-rights issues like gay marriage and open access to abortion are more important to me, and thus more likely to sway my vote.

Posted by: MonicaP

So what you are saying is whether or not a guy can marry another guy(because not getting married aint stoppin the ass play), or whether or not yet another unwanted child is born to piss poor people

These issues are of greater concern thenhether or not their is a function road syatem to supply you with food, or a police force to deter crime, or an army to defend us from those whould kill us all for the resorces this county holds.

Thats what you are saying?

But MarkD, then they couldn't keep people safe!

I've gone from nominal support for gay marriage to apathy to no. Ultimately I don't have much of a problem with "gay marriage" but I'm tired of the shaming politics behind it. I voted for it the last time in my state it was up for a vote. Today I would vote no with no real regret just based on the politics by a majority of its supporters.

I find it rather ironic and often hypocritical for gay marriage supporters to cry about wanting to be recognized as a partnership/family etc. while they have supported laws that have destroyed the nuclear family and demonized men as fathers.

Amy? I'm sorry I ever gave you the impression that I was mad at you. I haven't been here in a bit because I had two term papers and two tests this week. Plus one final exam next week, plus my group project, that I have to write a script for. But I see nothing that you've said in this thread (or anywhere else, for that matter) that would prompt me to be mad at you.

Lujlp, nice one!

I will not support, however, your bid to have patent lies touted as "facts."

Don't go into hysterics. I'm not bidding to have any lie, patent or unpatent, touted as a fact.

SCOTUS issued an "opinion" - that's what SCOTUS does. Because it's the top court in the land, those opinions become legal facts - but not actual facts.

Legal facts differ from country to country. Actual facts don't.

Marriage is a right, whether you like it or not.

"Marriage" is a social construct. It codified "possession" of a spouse and enshrined customs into law.

The fact that marriage is a universal rite and recognized in almost every society and codified into law indicates that it satisfies an innate need and yearning in human beings (gay or straight).

One has a right to assemble and share one's life, possessions, and future with someone without interference from outside parties. But legal recognition of marriage is a matter of law - especially in a debate about whether a particular marriage should be recognized by the law.

SCOTUS has far more to say on the subject, than you will likely ever have. And without ambiguity, they have said marriage is a right.

SCOTUS has a lot more to say on any subject than I ever will. SCOTUS has already been around for over 200 years. I probably won't last 100.

But keep in mind...

...SCOTUS also said slavery was legal and that slaves could not claim freedom even if living in an anti-slavery state (Dredd Scott v. Stanford, 1857).

...SCOTUS upheld racial segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896).

...SCOTUS upheld the "right" of governments to use eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another for nebulous economic development purposes (Kelo v. New London, 2005).

And SCOTUS was unambiguous in Loving, holding that restricting marriage on the basis of race was unconstitutional.

You'll pardon me if I don't worship at the altar of SCOTUS decisions.

=========================

In Loving v. Virginia, the court ruled that marriage was an individual choice and could not be restricted based on race - specifically the racial classifications encoded in the anti-miscegenation statutes.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Gay marriage advocates are trying to use the ruling in Loving, which was based on the 14th Amendment's ban on race-based discrimination, to argue that bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional.

And SCOTUS has, in the past, expanded the 14th Amendment beyond race. So, SCOTUS might do that again in this case.

The outcome of this debate will have far-reaching consequences and, so, the debate should not be taken lightly.

=========================

By the way Patrick, if you read the rest of my post, you'll see that I'm in favor of allowing gays to marry.

And I voted against Prop 8.

I just think your argument in favor of it is a bit disingenuous.

I also don't think gay marriage is a civil rights issue on the scale of Loving v. Virginia or Brown v. Board of Education.

The constitution doesn't grant rights. It limits government and enumerates some rights that we already have. One opposition to the Bill of Rights was the concern it would be perceived as the only list of rights.

As for where marriage is a right in the US Constitution; the tenth amendment. That's the one equally despised by extremists on all sides of the political spectrum.

I've never understood the conservative stance on gay marriage. If you believe in self-determination and that government should stay out of your life, doesn't it follow that conservatives should support gay marriage?

Thats what you are saying?

I am saying that human rights matter more to me than a lot of the fiscal nose-picking that goes on over budget decisions. However, it has never been a real choice anyway. Democrats and Republicans both want to spend my money in asinine ways, so I might as well vote for the politician not being an asshat about the social issues that are important to me.

We're denying rights (yes, rights) and privileges to a large group of people based on a moral judgment we are making about their sexual practices. It's not about ass play, and it's disingenuous to suggest that it is. Hell, we could ban marriage for heteros if it were all about sex, because banning marriage sure wouldn't stop sex.

As a society, we are saying that because babies can't happen naturally for two men, that we should not extend the same rights to them and their children that we do to heteros. We've decided that some bizarre attachment to what happens naturally should supersede what happens anyway, since thanks to science and/or the help of a friend, these couples are having and raising families anyway, and we are leaving those families unprotected.

"And the benefits society receives from straight people being in committed relationships, it will most likely receive from gay people being in committed relationships."

Like what?

When your business partner approaches you to change the current existing agreements between you two and expects you to pay for the changes, your first question should be the universal and fundamental question. "What is in it for me?"

Are you telling me that gays in committed relationships blessed by legal marriage will pay more taxes to fix the pot holes in my neighborhood?

Actually, it will be the quite opposite. Now, my bloody tax dollar will be used in the court to determine who will get to keep the cats when the gays divorce.

I just don't see any benefits for me and the rest of the society except that the gays want to be literally "happy" at the expense of my tax dollars.

Conan: Legal facts differ from country to country. Actual facts don't.

Then I might venture to say, based on your definition, that very few rights are facts. Ironically, marriage itself may be one of those "facts" as I've never heard of a society that doesn't recognize marriage...although the restrictions do vary.

I'm fully aware of the context of Loving v. Virginia...however I consider the fact that it was about interracial marriage to be nothing more than a distraction and completely irrelevant to the discussion of gay marriage.

The fact is that the court did say that marriage is a right. They are "married" to that statement.

Yes, the case was about interracial marriage. It doesn't change the fact that SCOTUS spoke in an absolute.

Consider the Second Amendment. We still retain the right to keep and bear arms, although a militia is no longer necessary, nor does the right to keep and bear arms extend only to those of us who belong to a militia.

Yes, the declaration that marriage is a right was made to allow the Lovings interracial marriage to be deemed legal in Virginia. However, that marriage is a right is an affirmative declaration that is universal in application.

You may wish to paint an obscure distinction between "actual facts" and "legal facts." However, rights are bestowed, protected or enumerated by laws. You may believe, philosophically, you have a right to marry four wives. However, the government would disagree, not recognize your marriages beyond the first one, and probably throw you in prison. Tout your "right" to polygamy all you care to. Your "right" will exist only in theory as long as the U.S. laws against polygamy remain in place, making any assertions in that regard seem hollow.

Therefore, I would maintain that you don't have the right to marry four wives, and that's a fact.

Regarding the rulings you cite. Dred Scott has been struck down, mercifully so, by the Civil War Amendments. The separate but equal doctrine enumerated in Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in Brown v. the Board of Education.

To the best of my knowledge, Loving v. Virginia, including its positive affirmation that marriage is a right, has not been overturned, so I'll assert it as fact, thanks so very much.

Again, the universality behind the declaration that marriage is a right is not diluted because you wish to point out that it was applied to the question of interracial marriages.

And that's a fact, mon!

Are you telling me that gays in committed relationships blessed by legal marriage will pay more taxes to fix the pot holes in my neighborhood?

Are you telling me that if the government continues to not legally bless gay relationships, you government will somehow have enough money to fix the pot holes in your neighborhood ... when they don't have it now.

Gays make up decidedly less than 10% of the population (although it may not seem that way based on the furor over this issue).

Your argument seems to be that that 10% pays enough in taxes that giving them some tax relief is going to cause your municipality undue financial hardship.

Like what?

People in committed, legally-sanctioned relatioships "hath given hostages to fortune." They can't just pick up and leave (at least, not without legal and, sometimes, social consequences).

Committed couples tend to settle into their neighborhoods and become part of them.

Committed couples tend to buy houses (and pay property taxes, which are sometimes used to fix potholes).

Couples generally consider (and some even start) raising families together.

In general, couples are more likely to inject themselves in the community's safety, educational, commercial, and social circles.

Now, my bloody tax dollar will be used in the court to determine who will get to keep the cats when the gays divorce.

Yes, sometimes our tax dollars go to things we do not benefit from directly. My tax dollars fund schools that educate kids I don't have. Being part of a society works like that.

Your argument seems to be that that 10% pays enough in taxes that giving them some tax relief is going to cause your municipality undue financial hardship.

Further, even if the number is as high as 10%, not all gays will get married just because the option becomes available. The tax breaks this will generate are statistically insignificant.

There are very little (if any) tax breaks given to married couples these days who don't choose to have kids or don't own property (which they would get if they owned property anyway - one does not have to be married to own property).

RE: 10th amendment. Like what happened here in California with gay marriage? That was a gem. And for the record, I am not in favor of DOMA, either. It's none of the feds business.

...I consider the fact that it was about interracial marriage to be nothing more than a distraction and completely irrelevant to the discussion of gay marriage.

Of course you do. It fits your narrative better that way.

Again, the universality behind the declaration that marriage is a right is not diluted because you wish to point out that it was applied to the question of interracial marriages.

If "marriage" is a universal right, unhinderable by the state, then I do, in fact, have the right marry four wives. Or twenty. Or my goldfish.

The state may choose, however, to recognize only one marriage (and not the one to my goldfish) and confer benefits for only that one.

But what constitutes this "universal right?" Do I have to have a priest bless it? Do I need a rite for this right? Do I need to sign some papers? If not, then it's hardly distinguishable from shacking up (which I maintain I have a right to do).

Who defines what a "marriage" is? Islamic law says I can beat my wife with a thin rod. US law says I cannot.

Is it a woman's universal right to be beaten with a thin rod?

Islamic law says I can end my marriage simply by stating my desire to. US law requires paperwork and divestiture of assets. If marriage is a universal right, is divorce also one?

Marriage is a legal and socio-religious construct, no matter what nine people in robes say.

"Your argument seems to be that that 10% pays enough in taxes that giving them some tax relief is going to cause your municipality undue financial hardship."

I did not say that. I asked the fair question to you what do I get in return by changing the current agreement. Your answer implies to me either status quo or negative outcome to me. Then, why the hell should I agree to change the current agreement?

"They can't just pick up and leave (at least, not without legal and, sometimes, social consequences)."

That explains the 50% divorce rate in the U.S.

"Committed couples tend to settle into their neighborhoods and become part of them."

So? How are we going to fix the potholes?

"Committed couples tend to buy houses (and pay property taxes, which are sometimes used to fix potholes)."

Someone will buy the houses and pay the property taxes to fix the potholes. If committed couples do not buy, a landlord will buy and rent it to the committed couples.

"Couples generally consider (and some even start) raising families together."

They will do so with or without legal marriages. Are you telling me that legal marriages will encourage gay couples to produce and raise future taxpayers?

"In general, couples are more likely to inject themselves in the community's safety, educational, commercial, and social circles"

Good for them. They are doing this already without blessing of legal marriages. Then, why should we change anything?

"I am saying that human rights matter more to me than a lot of the fiscal nose-picking that goes on over budget decisions."

Please explain this to the Chinese soldier while he is handing out free cheese to you after we defaulted on the Treasury bonds they own. Also, make sure that U.S. flag is flying high at the cheese distribution center on that day.

Your answer implies to me either status quo or negative outcome to me.

My answer implies either status quo or positive outcome for society as a whole. Alteration of the "agreement" does not depend upon your individual outcome at all.

You infer negative outcome ... because you want a negative outcome.

That explains the 50% divorce rate in the U.S.

No-fault divorce and the need of one spouse to "find myself" explains the 50% divorce rate in the U.S.

And that rate has been falling lately (last I read).

[Non-married couples] will [start and raise families together] with or without legal marriages.

No, they will have children together. Then one of them will be free to leave (and one of them frequently does).

Absent the ability to collect child support (an additional state bureaucracy) this means the state is on the hook to make sure the child has at least the basics for survival.

And studies have shown that single-parent children (especially of a poor single parent) are more likely to drop out of school and turn to crime.

Someone will buy the houses and pay the property taxes to fix the potholes. If committed couples do not buy, a landlord will buy and rent it to the committed couples.

The landlord will rent it to whomever can pay the rent.

And renters are free to leave with only a 30-day notice. Sometimes less.

Rental properties generally do not get the same level of care (from the tenant or from the landlord) that owner-occupied housing does.

So? How are we going to fix the potholes?

By denying gay people the right to get married. Duh.

Oh, wait. We already do that and we still have potholes.

It would seem your argument is a silly one. But then, your arguments usually are, chang.

Granting or denying gay people the right to legally marry is not going to materially affect the tax base of fix the potholes in your neighborhood.

What's in it for you? Nothing. But there's nothing in it for you in the status quo either.

Please explain this to the Chinese soldier while he is handing out free cheese to you after we defaulted on the Treasury bonds they own.

Please show me anyone in a position of power making more than a token gesture to reduce the deficit and I will consider your drama-queen response seriously.

Then, why should we change anything?

So, if allowing gays to marry doesn't result in any net positive or net negative, why NOT do it?

"Granting or denying gay people the right to legally marry is not going to materially affect the tax base of fix the potholes in your neighborhood."

Thank you. That was my point all along.

Then why should I change the current agreement?

If I (a stranger) asked you sign a document, which will benefit me but will have a zero impact on you, would you sign the document?

If the answer is yes, please let me know of your address. So, I can send you some information about multilevel marketing. It will cost you nothing but I will make a load of money.

Way to miss the point there, chang.

And...were I to get involved in it, multilevel marketing would cost me. I'd have to actually sell products for it to benefit you. And that would cost me time, effort, and friends.

Conan: Of course you do. It fits your narrative better that way.

I have this visual of you sticking your tongue out, with your thumbs in your ears, wiggling your fingers.

It isn't that it fits my narrative, Conan. It's the fact that SCOTUS made the unqualified statement that marriage is a right. I intend to hold them to that.

Just as I intend to hold the government to the standard that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon, just because militias are no longer necessary. There's no disputing that they granted the right to keep and bear arms because they deemed a "well-regulated militia" to be a necessity. However, the Second Amendment doesn't say that only those who belong to militias will be allowed to keep and bear arms, nor does it say that our right will not be infringed upon for only as long as we need militias. While the "necessity" of a militia is the rationale behind the right to bear arms, the Constitution does not phrase it in such a way so as to make one dependent upon the other. Thus we retain the right of gun ownership, even if militias are no longer necessary.

Do you not understand, or are you going to continue to nanny-nanny-boo-boo your way through this discussion because you don't have an answer beyond the petty, disingenuous and infantile? Or is it just because you've been proven wrong? You did say that marriage is not a right. Obviously, that is just not true. I find your semantics above to be only moderately entertaining, but completely unconvincing.

I went to great lengths to explain to you that I look to their statement that marriage is a right as an unconditional statement, because that's how they phrased it. Yes, they felt the need to invoke marriage as a right to strike down the miscegenation laws in Virginia. However, they did not phrase it in such a way so as to restrict its application. They could have just as easily said, that it is the right of citizens to marry interracially if they so choose. But they didn't.

And you cannot marry your goldfish...break it to her gently. SCOTUS ruled that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," not goldfish. So you might claim you have the right to marry your goldfish as man has the right to marry. Unfortunately, your goldfish does not have the right to marry you. It's a basic civil right of man, not of goldfish.

I don't believe their decree that marriage is a basic civil right was an accident. Rumor has it that there's been a few lawyers in SCOTUS, if you can believe that. So, they might be aware that their words need to be chosen carefully.

Persoanly I think we need to recognise that marrige is a religous rite, and as such has no bearing on civil matters.

No marrige should have ANY legal standing what so ever.

You want lagal standing? Make a pre nup, file it and a civil partnership licenece with the state and when you get divorced you dont get to go to court - you go to a mediator who give each of you everything you worked out in your pre nup.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Imagine a world where people acctually had to sit down and have a real conversation about their future and their expectaions

Conan: What's in it for you? Nothing.

You could argue that allowing for stable, committed relationships benefits all of us. Consider the alternative...if there were NO marriage.

It irks me that many gays will not rally and support fiscal sanity because of their darling cause, gay marriage.

Irksome? It's how you speak truth to rascist, homophobic Tea Party power, doncha know.

Ironically, it reminds me of our local city budget soap-opera. The previous mayor made it clear that city pension contracts with public unions were untenable for future budgets. Employee contributions to pensions were necessary, etc. Gotta cut back, folks.

Of course, one way for the local liberal/progressive humorists to fight the Tea Party power was to point out that the mayor had never been married. Because, you know, if someone doesn't agree with you on economic matters, then they must be queer, I guess? So the same folks worried about Prop Hate, draw the cartoons of the mayor on same-sex romantic dinner dates. I guess it's sorta funny, but I doubt a conservative could get away with it.

"And...were I to get involved in it, multilevel marketing would cost me. I'd have to actually sell products for it to benefit you. And that would cost me time, effort, and friends."

Not the way I do it. All I need is your agreement that I can use your name as a part of my marketing scam to enrich me.

It will not cost you nothing "financially". I do not care and need your time, effort and friends.

Did I miss anything? I thought we were talking about our financial issue, tax money, here.

"And you cannot marry your goldfish...break it to her gently. SCOTUS ruled that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," not goldfish."

Perhaps.

Now I realize that Mormons were heroes, who bravely demanded their "rights" guaranteed by SCOTUS.

I feel bad all the Mormons, who went to jail just because they demanded their fundamental "rights".

Or is it just because you've been proven wrong?

At the risk of sinking to your level, Patrick, I'll answer yet another of your "I know you are, but what am I?" posts. You're almost as bad as chang.

You haven't "proven" anyone wrong. You keep reiterating that the US Supreme Court ruled marriage is a right. That has great bearing on the US legal system, but doesn't mean squat otherwise. And it's subject to being overturned in subsequent rulings by the US Supreme Court (as was Plessy, as was Bowers v. Hardwick, as was ...).

The US Supreme Court has, in past rulings, upheld slavery, segregation, government regulation of private sexual relations between consenting adults, and unrestricted government seizure of private property. It's not an infallible body.

And the fact that in the Loving ruling the Supreme Court made numerous references to race indicates that they were thinking of marriage in terms of race when making the ruling.

In addition, at that time (1967) "marriage" was understood to refer to a man and a woman marrying, not two men or two women. Gay marriage is a newer issue. Keep in mind the Stonewall Riots would not happen until almost 2 years later.

Patrick, you desperately want this to apply to gay marriage and the issue to be black and white. But it's not. It's too simple to argue that people should have the right to marry the person they love (the romantic in me says it should be that simple). But reducing it to a simplistic argument ignores the legal ramifications of reflexively redefining marriage to arbitrarily suit a situation.

Marriage is not a right, at least not in terms of legal sanctions and legally-bestowed benefits. Worldwide, different religions and legal system approach marriage differently.

Arranged marriages are common in some cultures. Does this abrogate the right to marry in not allowing someone to choose their spouse?

Polygamy is common in other cultures. Is it a woman's basic civil right to be part of a harem? Or a man's to have multiple wives?

The benefits and privileges of marriage granted by the US tax and legal system should be extended to gay people who marry someone of the same sex.

But this isn't a civil rights issue in the sense of people being denied the vote for their own government or the right to come and go in public spaces.

This is an argument about what the law should recognize as a legally-sanctioned marriage - and whether society has a vested interest to keep this particular restriction on marriages (it doesn't).

This issue is better settled at the ballot box and the legislature than in the courts. Legal decisions carry the power of precedence, often with unintended consequences. Legislation can be tweaked repeatedly to meet the needs of the times and mitigate unintended consequences.

In another sense, this issue is a referendum on whether society has a right to determine what types of marriages it will sanction. Let's hope society at least keeps the power to determine what types of marriages it will sanction ... or someday I might be able to marry my goldfish.

Speaking of the Supreme Court, here's a little levity in the middle of what has become a fairly heated debate:

Five Awesomely Sarcastic Supreme Court Decisions

http://www.cracked.com/article_19147_5-awesomely-sarcastic-supreme-court-decisions.html

In addition, at that time (1967) "marriage" was understood to refer to a man and a woman marrying

Acctually it was understood as a man and a woman of the same race marrying

Chang asks, "what's in it for me". How about a more just society? That's got to be worth something, yeah?

Conan, off topic but, where is "hath given hostages to fortune" from? That's brilliant. I've never heard that particular turn of a phrase before.

Conan: You haven't "proven" anyone wrong. You keep reiterating that the US Supreme Court ruled marriage is a right. That has great bearing on the US legal system, but doesn't mean squat otherwise.

Ah, yes. The trademark snobbery. Do you give yourself nosebleeds on the high horse? Spare me the pretense of being so lofty and high-minded in this exchange while I'm being so awful that you have to lower yourself to talk to me. You're acting like an elitist prig. If discussing things with me were truly so far beneath you, you would simply not do it, Mr. Holier-than-thou.

It's not hard to shun someone on this board, you know. There are people on this board that I do not reply and never will and they know who they are. I think it's more honest to ignore them than "Harrumph-harrumph" my way through discussions with them.

You said marriage is not a right. I have pointed out that SCOTUS says it is. And you come back with this fabulous dismissal, actually attempting to minimize the laws that govern us all:

You haven't "proven" anyone wrong. You keep reiterating that the US Supreme Court ruled marriage is a right. That has great bearing on the US legal system, but doesn't mean squat otherwise.

It doesn't mean squat otherwise? Are you not a U.S. citizen? Or perhaps you're a dual citizen and have somewhere else to go where these trivial U.S. laws don't affect you.

Where is this "otherwise" that affords you sanctuary to thumb your nose at U.S. law. You keep bringing up the fact that SCOTUS ruling is subject to be overturned. But until it is, I am stuck with it. And if your citizenship is exclusively in the U.S., so are you.

(By the way, amending the Constitution is also a way to strike down SCOTUS rulings, however that is extremely involved and difficult process, and very seldom succeeds.)

And your repeated attempts to trivialize it as meaningless outside of U.S. law is positively laughable in its absurdity. I'm a U.S. citizen myself and have no plans to leave the country. I don't know of any "otherwise." I am governed by U.S. law and at the moment, have no refuge from it. It would seem to me that you would minimize something that is, in fact, very big and very influential.

It sounds like, "The sun is the source of all life on this planet, but it doesn't mean squat otherwise!" Unless you have another solar system that would take you in, and support life as we know it, the sun is going to be pretty damned important to you, curse the sun with its tyranny!

But the party can't abandon its opposition to gay marriage without upsetting one of its core constituencies: evangelical white Protestants, who remain overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage.

It would be nice if these "evangelical white protestants" would realize that they're the keepers of their own morality and stop demanding that the government uphold their convictions as law. If it were up to them, the U.S. would have Christianity as its national religion, and probably not stop there. They would eventually get around to banning all denominations they don't like.

Chang asks, "what's in it for me". How about a more just society? That's got to be worth something, yeah?

The nineteenth Amendment didn't give anything to me that I didn't already have, so fuck Chang and her right to vote.

We've decided that marriage is good for society. Whether or not it actually is is another debate. Thus more people who are committed to one another, being able to enter into a marital contract would seem to be a an even better thing.

Conan, off topic but, where is "hath given hostages to fortune" from?

I got it from Voltaire, but I think he got it from Francis Bacon.

If Voltaire used it, he did indeed get it from Bacon: "He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune; for they are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or mischief."

"You could argue that allowing for stable, committed relationships benefits all of us. Consider the alternative...if there were NO marriage."

You might think that you are marching with Martin Luther King for the justice. But I picture you marching with early Mormons for justice.

Many early Mormons fought for their "rights" and fought against the injustice imposed upon by the cruel and uncaring society but eventually the Humanity showed them their argument is nothing but self serving bullshit.

You remind me of Simpson episode, where Homer was singing "Uptown Girls" with hippies to legalize pot. Don't waste your time reading Voltaire. Read Don Quixote instead.

Chang: You might think that you are marching with Martin Luther King for the justice. But I picture you marching with early Mormons for justice.

How nice. I picture you in a straitjacket in a rubberized room. How you picture me or what causes you think I sanction could not concern me less.

Anyway, your withholding support for gay marriage because you don't think it does anything for you is quite selfish. Had men been asking themselves in the early 1900s what extending suffrage to women would do for them, you wouldn't be able to vote today.

"Anyway, your withholding support for gay marriage because you don't think it does anything for you is quite selfish."

Actually, I am against gay marriages for both of us.

If you want to win a chess game, you must anticipate your opponent's next three moves not just one.

Once SCOTUS declares the gay marriages are fundamental "rights" as interracial marriages, the Mormons will file a lawsuit to legalize their practice by using the exact same argument. The SCOTUS should grant the same treatment to Mormon marriages as well as they should not cherry pick the recipients of fundamental "rights"

That is what I am afraid of.

Do you want to live in a society where one man can marry 20 woman or 20 man? Most likely, you and I will spend most of weekends watching reruns of Seinfeld.

Be careful what you wish for.

Very simply: if marriage is a right, then the government has no Constitutional authority to license or regulate it outside of Constitutionally-defined boundaries (i.e. in the case of convicted felons).

Since government has assigned itself the authority to regulate, license, and tax marriage, it is not a right, but a privilege.

Extending this privilege to a group of people who do not satisfy the government's reason for taking this control (procreation) is a non sequitur.

If you want gays to be able to marry for some superficial reason, then take government out of the marriage business entirely. Otherwise, the government doesn't gain much (except for license fees) from allowing it.

Chang, you ignorant slut.

Giving women the unrestricted right to vote is what has led to the descent into socialist hell we have experienced in this nation. On balance, women feel before they think, and will vote security over liberty every single time. The women who will vote liberty first are rare.

When men asked themselves "What do I get from supporting women's suffrage" the only answer they got back was "it'll shut the bitch up and I'll get laid again."

Second worst amendment to the Constitution, if you ask me. The 16th is the worst, of course.

Time to not indulge Chang. As she is a pseudo-intellectual who imagines herself quite clever, she's sure to crow victory over this. Whatever gets her through the day without having to realize she's an idiot.

The Mormon Church, by the way, has denounced polygamy and now officially excommunicates any member who attempts such a thing. Also, the fundamental right to marry multiple partners could not be respectful of equality until women are also allowed to take multiple partners. So, a woman who's someone's third concurrent wife, would also be allowed to have four husbands of her own.

With that, polygamy has no chance of getting attaining legal sanction, whether gay marriage goes through or not. If you want to win a chess game, dumbass, you have to actually know how each piece can actually move.

"With that, polygamy has no chance of getting attaining legal sanction, whether gay marriage goes through or not."

Your argument has a hole in it. You are arguing that since the Mormons (the true Mormons, who did not sell their soul to avoid going to jail) do not allow women to take multiple partners, polygyny, polygamy cannot be legalized.

However, polygamy involves polygyny, polyandry and group marriage. Even if SCOTUS shot down Mormons' request due to polygyny, there will be a plenty of other groups to step in to force the hand of SCOTUS to legalize union involving multiple partners based on the decision Patrick v. United States. Beside, how long do you think it will take the Mormons to adopt a new policy to allow women to take multiple partners?

The bottom line is that eventually you and I will be spending plenty of lonely nights with blow up dolls while a few chosen ones are having a party.

But let's look at the bright side. Maybe you and I can start multilevel marketing business selling blow up dolls to people like Brian or Conan.

"Giving women the unrestricted right to vote is what has led to the descent into socialist hell we have experienced in this nation. On balance, women feel before they think, and will vote security over liberty every single time. The women who will vote liberty first are rare."

According to Patrick, I am not smart enough to respond to this.

Ladies, it is time for Brian to be spanked.

Beside, how long do you think it will take the Mormons to adopt a new policy to allow women to take multiple partners?

Never. You'd kow that if you had any idea of how the church was structured

lujlp: Never. You'd kow that if you had any idea of how the church was structured

How true. I'm glad I actually looked. The Mormon church has very clearly defined roles for the genders. Although every male is considered a priest in the Mormon Church, women cannot enter the priesthood in the Mormon Church, and never will be able to.