Certainly not to the non-religious, who also get married.

Agreed. My wife and I are both atheists and we got married. Religion played no role whatsoever in our decision to get married or our ceremony.

I certainly hope one day in the future people will be able to look back at this debate and simply shake their heads, like we do now when discussing the old laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages.

Same dance. Different tune.

I'm sure they will. The fact that lots of people already do gives me hope that the others are either afraid or just slow to catch up.

This is stupid. Marriage existed as a social construct well before religion - there's also this wonderful thing called the Establishment Clause, that renders this a secular country. No one is telling your church to call this marriage - but they are telling your church that they shouldn't be able to define it for the rest of us.

They will - the people defending this on religious grounds are like the segregationists of old, defending a dying construct with ad-hoc moral grounds ("its the way we've always done it".) I have no desire to force a church to conduct a gay marriage - but I don't think the church has a right to define what marriage is for me either. The battle is over - amongst people our age, gay marriage isn't an issue. Bluntly, as the old die, their prejudices will go with them.

I haven't read the thread, so I hope I am not repetitive with what others may be saying, but my beef with gay marriage is that it would be a marriage. In my mind, that is a religious term. Unfortunately, the politicians aeons ago decided to legalize the terms of marriage, which is why this all sorts of a mess.

I am against gay marriage as so called, but I am 100% for civil unions, which (in my version) would serve the same function and enjoy the same rights as marriage. I would say marriage is the religious coupling in whatever form the religion may have it, while the civil union would become the legal definition, with all legal, tax, and insurance rights and what not. Marriage--whether gay or straight--would have no legal rights tied to it, and civil unions would be for all forms of formally linked "couples", no matter their composition.

It's the only way I know to preserve the sanctity of marriage while giving everyone--gay or straight--the same marital rights under the law.

You keep saying this - why? Marriage existed before religion, shocking as this may be. I think the government should grant everyone civil unions - people can call whatever they want marriage, and there need not be any official definition.

If both groups, non-believers and gays are "sinners", and do not deserve the title marriage, why is it that people only attack and take issue with the gays?

Yeah, the fact is that the term "marriage" - whether the word itself was originally referring to a purely religious wedding or not (I honestly don't know and can't be bothered looking it up) - is now the term that people associate with the government-recognised civil union of two people.

Because people are hypocritical idiots?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

Dictionary makes a point of mentioning legal or religious.

So you essentially agree with me then. Strip marriage of the "legalities" and have a new definition to handle the official stuff like ownership issues, taxes, insurances, and what not.

Because those people don't consider themselves sinners on the same level as gay people, I would imagine. But you would have to ask them--I am not a member or supporter of the "Christian right thinks gays are sinners" group.

Yup, and I think that's what get's the Christian right riled up. Okay, let's change the name, at least in the officialese. And as Crap says, what you call it outside of the legal terms like "civil union", what you call it on your own is your own business.

Problem is they would fight something like that just as much as they fight against gay marriage. They would turn it around and say the usual "They are trying to take God out of the country" or something, and they would also argue doing that would "downgrade" their marriages.

All nonsense, of course, but nonetheless they'll fight the idea of "universal civil unions" and the taking of the term marriage out of legalities pretty damn hard.

Yup, that's one reason me and them don't see eye to eye too much.

So, basically, we are having an all out fight over gays getting married, just so they can call themselves married (or the conservatives don't want them to call themselves that)?

Whelp, that's two threads today where Hell Atlantic and I see eye to eye.

Erm. I would imagine there are also a number of legal rights (benefits, property, taxes, etc) that come along with being recognized as married by your state of residence.

Meh. Who cares.

Gay people? People who don't like discrimination?

As a resident of CA, I voted against the proposition banning gay marriage. I think the Government should deal with and treat individuals equally. The fact that the Republicans made a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage one of their first platform planks at the 2004 convention actually swayed me from registering as a Republican.

This ruling doesn't set well with me. I believe that the people have spoken, and it wasn't close. Add this to the fact that Civil Unions already accord same sex couples all of the same rights that married couples enjoy in the state. The people were clearly against the concept, and now a court has invalidated their will.

Now I'm in the weird situation that I may actually vote for the amendment to ban gay marriage, not so much in reversing my position as I'd be making a statement about judges making such rulings.

I'll also note that I doubt the amendment will pass, but it will definitely be on the ballot.

Nah.

The court agrees with you - they just think the people spoke in 1879.

on what points did i make do you agree with me on this topic, out of curiosity?

i expected to be in the clear minority, which turned out to be correct, but i'm surprised to see we feel the same way about this, you of all people LOL.

I really thought your initial post in this thread was being satirical. I was a lot less sure of the second post, but still hopeful.

Now that I realize they were not, well... yeah.

I'm quite sure that when Loving v. Virginia was decided, a majority of people in the state of Virginia were against whites and blacks marrying. I'm not sure what role the will of the people should have when laws violate the Constitution.

Seriously dude - why don't go to Hicksville, USA, and you can spend time discussing how things were better in the good ol' days when those minorities and women knew their place, and men were men. You come across as a complete idiot here, and you weren't exactly working of high expectations.

I believe there actually is a town called Hicksville not very far from where Hell Atlantic lives.

Not especially. Laws have always been about a society, or at least the majority in a society, deciding what behaviors are acceptable and/or unacceptable. A majority of people in California decided that they didn't want a same-sex union to have equal status with heterosexual marriage, and yet a court violated the will of the people saying they cannot pass laws that violate perceived rights of people because of their sexual proclivities. And yet, American society certainly does. Pedophiles have it a lot worse than gays ever did -- they are basically marked as sex offenders for the rest of their lives -- don't know of any gays that have to register as gays when they move to a new community. Adultery is ironclad grounds for a divorce. People caught having sex with animals are charged with crimes.

What is to keep pedophiles from following the same game plan homosexuals used to fight for their "rights"? You might laugh, but 40 years ago, this same discussion about state recognizition of same-sex marriage would be equally "ludicrous."

The difference is that homosexual couples are beyond the age of consent. Pedophiles prey on children too young to consent and animals are not capable of consensual sex. Adultery isn't illegal, but would presumably be grounds for a divorce of a homosexual marriage as well.

The people don't get to make laws that violate the Constitution.

OMG! They're gonna let queers marry!!! What's next, dogs??

Agreed with Chief on all counts.

Wasn't that the purpose of a civil union?

The courts have a duty to overturn unconstitutional laws, whether the laws were passed by the legislature or by voters. That's a fundamental part of their job, and there's no point in having a constitution if the courts don't do it.

Marriage is granted under the age of consent.

And if laws cannot be made that violate the constitution, then why is Polygamy illegal? Especially if it is amongst people who are adults and beyond the age of consent?

Because it's generally part of religion

Actually there has been a lot of discussion (at least in law school discussions and law review articles) that based on the court's precedents (not even counting anything about homosexuality) that a ban on polygamy probably wouldn't be able to stand anymore.

Interesting. Is that the next fight, once the this fight is next? Do you see this becoming a big issue in the presidential race over the appointment of judges?

Age of consent is an arbitrary age selected by adults for children...so can that be considered constitutional? And anyone who thinks animals are not capable of consent have obviously never tried to give a dog a bath that didn't want one. :)

And if the Supreme Court is the end-all and be-all that some here like to make the case -- the High Court at one time upheld the Constitutionality of certain people being the property of other people...so what happened with that?

No. Mostly because most people don't care about polygamy (except when they unearth a cult and they express horror at the 14 and 15 year olds that have been forced into a plural marriage).

I don't think America is ready to sanction polygamous marriages, Imran, just my own opinion.

That's the point...doesn't matter what the people want or are ready for...right now, it's all about what the courts decide.

I thought what Isiddiqui was saying was that if a court overturned a law against polygamy, that nobody would really care. I don't think that's correct.

Maybe he was saying something else, though.

I think you underestimate the conservative attitude towards having more than one wife in the United States of America.

The way I read hist comment is that most people don't really think about polygamy, there aren't many people trying to push for legal polygamy, so while most people might be against it, it's not really an issue they care that much about. As in, they don't spend any real amount of time paying attention to it, except when a large polygamist group is raided and on the news everyday.

They'll care about it, probably care about it a lot, just at the point that it looks like it may become legal, if that ever happens.

You mean its all about what the Constitution mandates :).


What I meant is that most people don't care enough about it to challenge the illegality of polygamy (the chances of it becoming the "next fight"). Most of the people who get busted for polygamy are usually guilty of having someone underage get married, so that usually trumps the polygamy stuff.

Though I do think one way a court could easily strike down polygamy without bringing a lot of other stuff into it is by invoking a Brown v. Board standard, which is polygamous marriage is inherantly unequal.

(Not that I'd agree, but it could work as an argument).

They stick to having women on the side