Then, Jody, explain why it is constitutional to deny that “birthright” to those who want to marry children, animals, multiple people, and their blood relatives.

Recall, we’re talking about state recognition of marriage here, not the freedom to marry.

And please, make an actual argument instead of merely repeating that marriage is a civil right.

Dan, it’s not the constitution that adjudicates. It’s the processes set up by the constitution that adjudicate. Our rights were there before the constitution and will remain long after it is gone. You did read John Adams right?

>I guess that means that you believe both Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson to be correctly decided

No, I believe they were wrongly decided. And through the process set up with our constitution, in time, we figured that out and changed things accordingly. The constitution doesn’t guarantee perfection Dan, merely a process by which a more perfect union can be achieved.

I actually know that you know this. The jerky phrasing and intent of your question is beneath the good man I know you to be.

>And in the current day, you join me in finding the constitution confers an individual right to own an handgun.

Actually, I do believe that. Can that right be restricted ways we’ve restricted libel and slander from the protection by the First Amendment? Probably. Yet with all the myriad restrictive laws and competing interests, that’s another discussion entirely.

>It’s why the libertarian argument that the state should get out of the marriage business is so compelling.

Again, I agree. Civil Unions — or whatever — for couples, straight or gay. The churches can award “marriages” by whatever rites, standards and requirements appropriate to the dictates of their particular superstitions.

For the moment though, we’re living in a land where the civil government is involved in Marriage. Hence the arguments, protests and battles will continue.

A “right” mean the freedom to do something. It doesn’t mean the ability to allow the state to accord a certain privilege.

It’s why the libertarian argument that the state should get out of the marriage business is so compelling.

Well, if I took the position that history defined marriage then sure, given that polygamy, polyandry, underage and even incest was a normal for the institution since it began. Thankfully, we now look at things as the competing and conflicting series of facts, issues, and harm that they actually happen to be.

If by “yourself” you mean you, ND30, then I think you’d have a point.

And if you scroll up, you’ll see that I never said the SCOTUS found for Same-Sex marriage. I said that Dan factually incorrect — Marriage was found to be a Civil Right. The argument occurring now, with State Court decisions, the protests, even the Baker ruling, is does that Right to same sex couples as well.

You can state that it doesn’t, and cite Baker in your claim. That doesn’t change the fact that, thirty years and Bowers later, the issue is far from settled.

You may wish to educate yourself before making such statements, Jody.

By the way, Jody, this is the same court and same set of justices who wrote Loving. Why, if as you claim, they stated in Loving that same-sex marriage should be allowed and that bans on it were unconstitutional, did they fully uphold and endorse bans on it a scant five years later?

Thanks in advance for your reply.

AE, when arguing that “every court since” has affirmed something and the erroneous findings of State courts, don’t cite a 1971 Minnesota State Supreme Court decision. Undermines your argument right off the top.

Dan, I do get your point: marriage is a privilege and we have to ask the majority really really nicely if we can have one.

[No, Jody, that's not my point. Go read my posts and consider their meaning free of your jargon. Do you understand what I mean by social change? Do you want to provide some examples of state recognition of same-sex marriage aside from recent court decisions? --Dan]

The fact is though that Marriage is a Civil Right. That’s what Loving was all about. To state that Marriage is not a Civil Right is to be in error. You may disagree with that finding, but say as you did to Hunter, that Marriage isn’t a Right is to be factually wrong.

It’s because it is a Right that I don’t find the rest of your argument germane. I understand the sentiment behind it. I understand your belief. But in regards to Civil Rights it just doesn’t apply. You don’t “ask” for Civil Rights. They’re yours by birthright.

[Give me a break, Jody, and study the meaning of the term "right" and "civil right." If you find a man whom you wish to marry and who wishes to marry you, even under a Prop 8 regime, you can do so. The state just won't grant the privileges to your marriage it does to straight marriages. Indeed, it will grant those privileges under California law, save to call your union marriage. As long as you're free to do something, you have the right. I have no clue when you came up with the notion of state recognition of marriage as a birthright, reading a Hallmark card or something. And go read Loving and note the the choice the Lovings had, to leave Virginia or to go to jail. When's the last time you heard a state threatening to arrest a gay couple for calling themselves married?

You're not arguing with me, you're offering slogans. -Dan]

Tow things should be fought for and neither of them usually are. Firstly, people should be demanding that the state stop defining their relationships for them. marry in a church if you want but don’t get the government to confer that religious endorsement for you. It’ll just end up pissing people off…as it has. Second, equality should truly be asked for in an equitable way. The government should get out of the marriage business and instead of conferring marriage licenses to anyone, they should be issuing licenses of domestic contract or partnership or whatever you want to call it.

Why do people clamour so for the state to define their relationship? I’m never getting married but heck, I’m spending my life with some one.

Dan, this idea has merit. I do think that the ‘No on 8′ crowd is never going to have a better window of a friendly government agency approving the language of the ammendment. Your thoughts on this mirror my thoughs with the Ohio DOMA. Namely that Ohio’s DOMA pulled the decision away from the courts and government, and locked it in the hands of the people. I voted for OH-DOMA to protect my state from trigger happy judges. I’d vote for its revocation since it would again be a choice of society, not goons in black robes.

4 of seven on the Supreme Court or 52% of 100%. Um… 52%.

Look, I can use your juvenile arguements better than you can.

Dimwit.