Here it is in a nutshell. Marriage was created as a religous insitution. Government entities began taxing marriage centuries ago and therefore offered marriage certificates. To this day, if you have a religous ceremony, it is by custom that the priest, rabbi, etc. sign the religous document which you then take to the state to get your certificate.

You can may convince some state authorities to hand out certificates for homosexuals, or polygamists, which was the case in the past, as well as first cousins and girls at the age of twelve. (see Hawaii), but this does not mean you are married.

In other words, you cannot change the history of the origin of religion, try as you may. Whether it be communion, marriage, baptism, etc.

You can make up your own, just like a clubhouse or treehouse and create your own officiation. But you cannot change history or the will of God.

I think this has identified the rarely spoken, but ugly secret within the gay community – it’s probably just as notoriously racist, if not more in some areas, than in the greater white community at-large. I’m sorry, but as much as I disagree with Prop 8, I feel no urgency to support it with the same zeal as others in the white gay community state they need us. It’s an honest statement to say that the road to the greater black community is to start talking to the smaller, but critical gay black community.

Did you know there are two gay prides in the community? Did you know that communities are very much aligned by ethnicity so when there’s this “call for unity” when it comes to politics, the white majority gay community simply isn’t going to garner the same response from other minority communities until a clear and inclusive dialogue can happen with gay communities of color and gay community at large. Until the greater white community can face it’s racist tendencies, often classified as “inherent preferences” , you’ll never achieve the foot soldiers needed from other communities of color, particularly the black gay community, to talk effectively to the greater black communities regarding issues like Prop 8.

I’ve continually read that white gay leaders are “shocked” by the black communities response to Prop 8. Well I’m not at all. As with any other political issue, although it might seem there’s a natural proclivity for political alliance. However, those needed to evangelize the political message are still searching for fences to be mended.

AMAZING NO ON 8 VIDEO FROM PROTESTS IN WEST HOLLYWOOD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrVgkGej4Ck

(“Name withheld)….welcomes everyone to a NEW America! (Except for a certain 52% of Californians. You’re a #$%&ing bunch of intolerant self-righteous shit heads.)”

What a shame to read this. Intolerance is not acceptable on either side and if tolerance is expected, tolerance must be practiced. This is a difficult issue for a-lot of people in and out of the Gay community and some people may never agree.

Protest peacefully, March peacefully discuss in a civil matter and by all means vote, but to resort to this vitriol is beneath common decency and does a gross disservice to the Gay community.

After shaking my head in sadness, I removed this person as a “friend”

NDT, my example was not to be construed that Mormon’s should be denied their freedom of religion. And as you would argue, Mormons are NOT being discriminated against. They would be free to marry nonMormons like everyone else.

“(Name withheld) welcomes everyone to a NEW America! (Except for a certain 52% of Californians. You’re a #$%&ing bunch of intolerant self-righteous shit heads.)”

I have no patience for intolerance from either side and if tolerance is expected it must be practiced. This is a difficult issue for alot of people and some will never agree but if any strides are to be made this type of vitriol has got to stop. Protest peacefully, march peacefully, and definitely vote, these are positive ways to make change. But to name call with impunity has got to stop. It’s just embarrassing,sad and wrong and needs to be called out as such.

I didn’t know what to say but shook my head and deleted him as a “friend”

I fail to see how voting against a travesty of justice and supporting legal means to undo it makes one a leftist. If we must force gay marriage down the throats of the American public by force, I won’t protest. If we can get it through winning the support of “straight” people and/or the legislature, that would be better. But right now I don’t see any other solution.

And before you accuse me of leftism, keep in mind I voted for McCain.

And I will support a gay tax revolt. There’s nothing more conservative than protesting unfair taxes.

Wow. Just wow. I hope your children eventually learn otherwise.

Now, can you point out where the right to marry anyone to whom you are sexually attracted is EXPLICITLY outlined in the California and United States Constitutions? And remember, if you try to invoke “equal protection” as grounds for granting marriage, it must be granted to EVERYONE, since the Equal Protection Clause does not contain any exceptions saying it doesn’t apply based on age, blood relation, consent, number of spouses, or even species.

The thing is, law or no law, same sex marriage is always going to be a joke, and married same-sex couples are always going to be the objects of ridicule.

I disagree. I mean, not in California. Not if gay marriage is passed a reasonable way (i.e., democratically).

Pat, reasonable points as always. Well constructed example, I might have to start using it!

Unless those judges were forcing heterosexual Californians to marry persons of the same sex, I don’t really see how were the former deciding what was best for the latter. The law had no impact on heterosexuals’ personal lives, period. It shouldn’t be up to them to decide on such law or to feel self-righteously indignant by its existence in the first place.

BTW, I would love to see how Western Christians would react if India, China and Saudi Arabia were suddely to put the rights of their own Christian small minorities into question with the respective Hindu, Atheist-Buddhist, and Islamic majorities deciding by vote which rights the Christians shall hold.

I understand John’s anger regarding this issue. We just witnessed a state voting to strip privileges away from a significant population in California. And in the process, we saw a group OUTSIDE the state who poured millions of dollars to help in that regard. If you think John is being unreasonable, imagine the following scenario.

Suppose a vote was held in which Mormons (or any religious, ethnic group, etc.) were stripped of the privilege in the following manner: No person is allowed to marry someone of the Mormon faith. Persons of the Mormon faith will still have “equality” and no rights taken away from them because

- Everyone, even Mormons, are allowed to marry someone who is not Mormon. Kind of like saying that gays are allowed to marry someone of opposite sex.

- Anyone can have a monogamous relationship with a Mormon. Just get whatever scraps you can from a few states and/or pay thousands of dollars trying to attain those scraps.

- If a Mormon couple wants to adopt children, they can move to a state that allows Mormons to adopt children.

- Obviously a Mormon who wants to marry would have to convert (just like a gay person would have to “convert” to straight in order to marry someone of the opposite sex). So a Mormon has to decide if marriage is more important and convert. Perhaps they can try to hide from their spouse that they are still secretly Mormon.

- Or just remain a Mormon. You can still choose to have relationships. Heck, it’s only a piece of paper.

- They can try to have voters of their state “allow” them to have civil unions that give some of the benefits of marriage (although none of the federal benefits). And don’t call it marriage. Because Mormons have only been around for 200 years, they shouldn’t “steal” marriage from people of other faiths. They can come up with a new term.

The above may sound ridiculous, but this is EXACTLY what has been said about homosexuals.

Now some Mormons, after this defeat, will try to reason with the population and seek to have this overturned through the legislative process. In the meantime, they will try to educate others, explain why it is beneficial to society to have their marriage privileges restored, and try to understand those who just stripped their privileges, and all that. For the most part, you are going to see actions and behavior that will make John’s look extremely tame by comparison. And the first place they will head to is the courts. They might even spend more than $20 million worrying about their own privileges than making sure they can take away others.

Obviously, this issue is important to John. And the defeat is still fresh. I don’t think this makes John a gay leftie, when since, as far as I know, none of his views have changed.

And California’s DP laws (and CT’s until their court went nuts) are exactly the way do to it.

First of all: even under slavery, heterosexual black couples were mostly granted the privilege of marriage. I don’t know how formal it was (how much State legislation was involved). My point here is that Loving was not a decision that let African-American heterosexual couples marry: they already could.

Loving said, in effect, that in deciding which couples to give marriage licenses to and which to withhold them from (see NDT’s #78), the State of Virginia could not look at the couple’s alleged racial difference. If a couple had mixed racial status, the mixed status could not be used to deny it a marriage license, or to refuse recognition of another State’s grant.

The Loving decision used the language of marriage as a “basic civil right” and “fundamental freedom”. As I noted earlier, that is confused language, and thus unfortunate. In a proper political system, forcing third parties to give you (or some association you’ve made) special deference, even forms of financial support like tax breaks, can never be a fundamental right. If it were, then we’d have to marry the incestuous, the underaged, and so forth.

It is worth noting, however, that when SCOTUS used its imprecise and misguided language in Loving, it was talking about heterosexual marriage with the traditional exclusions of the incestuous, the underaged, the insane – and gays. So, no, we are not included in the Loving decision. Not until the U.S. Supreme Court says it has found it in the U.S. Constitution.

Loving said: “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.” The issue is clearly race and the Fourteenth Amendment.

And as I said at #57, the Loving decision somehow managed not to happen in a vacuum. It somehow, coincidentally(?) managed to happen *after* a national majority had painstakingly built in support of the Civil Rights movement. If you want a court decision to work out well for you and everyone: show some patience and mind your public support.

In short, because marriage is so good for an ordered society that even the society’s gay members ought to enter into it. With each other, that is; NOT creating unhappiness and instability by entering into heterosexual marriages that they would be profoundly unsuited for.

Notice my argument structure: I’m talking about why gay marriage is good for society. Marriage is usually also good for the individuals involved and that is what induces them to enter into it.

Long story short, denying State marriage licenses to gay couples is dumb/bad policy. But, if that’s how the people vote, they have a right to do it.

All gays had to do was wait 10 more years or even as little as five, patiently building public support, and it would have been possible to reverse Prop 22 at the ballot box. It may yet be possible to reverse Prop 8 at the ballot box, and that’s what we should be thinking about accomplishing. Not also this dictate-through-the-courts bullshit. Remember, once more, that with State marriage licenses, we are not talking about rights, but about privileges.