Same Sex Marriage and the U.S. Supreme Court

[Treznor]

If your part of a group, and the majority of the group make a decision-abide by it or find a new group.

All right.

Now, the majority has decided that all laws in our society should be in accordance with equal protection: if you grant certain rights to some, you must grant those rights to all, unless you have a good reason for making the distinction.

Why shouldn't the courts do their actual job and enforce the laws approved by the democratic process?

It's a nit-pick, I know, but the courts don't enforce laws, they interpret them according to the constitution and precedent set by higher courts.

[Muravyets]

Necrophilia!

I forgot that one. *adds to list*

[Parthenon]

If your part of a group, and the majority of the group make a decision-abide by it or find a new group.

All right.

Now, the majority has decided that all laws in our society should be in accordance with equal protection: if you grant certain rights to some, you must grant those rights to all, unless you have a good reason for making the distinction.

Why shouldn't the courts do their actual job and enforce the laws approved by the democratic process?

Homosexuals already HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS as heterosexuals in this instance. Whether you are a gay male or a straight male, you have the right to marry a woman, whether you are a gay woman or a straight woman, you have the right to marry a man.

[Dempublicents1]

If your part of a group, and the majority of the group make a decision-abide by it or find a new group.

All right.

Now, the majority has decided that all laws in our society should be in accordance with equal protection: if you grant certain rights to some, you must grant those rights to all, unless you have a good reason for making the distinction.

Why shouldn't the courts do their actual job and enforce the laws approved by the democratic process?

Homosexuals already HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS as heterosexuals in this instance. Whether you are a gay male or a straight male, you have the right to marry a woman, whether you are a gay woman or a straight woman, you have the right to marry a man.

Sort of like how blacks and whites had the same rights under anti-miscegenation laws. Whether you were black or white, you had the right to marry someone else who was the same ethnicity. Therefore, it was equal, right?

Seriously, this argument has been done - and rejected.

[Triniteras]

Homosexuals already HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS as heterosexuals in this instance. Whether you are a gay male or a straight male, you have the right to marry a woman, whether you are a gay woman or a straight woman, you have the right to marry a man.

Besides what Dempublicents1 has said, males who want to marry males being prevented from doing so harms the solidarity of the masses.

[Ravea]

If your part of a group, and the majority of the group make a decision-abide by it or find a new group.

All right.

Now, the majority has decided that all laws in our society should be in accordance with equal protection: if you grant certain rights to some, you must grant those rights to all, unless you have a good reason for making the distinction.

Why shouldn't the courts do their actual job and enforce the laws approved by the democratic process?

Homosexuals already HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS as heterosexuals in this instance. Whether you are a gay male or a straight male, you have the right to marry a woman, whether you are a gay woman or a straight woman, you have the right to marry a man.

You realize that that isn't really the point, right?

[Ifreann]

If your part of a group, and the majority of the group make a decision-abide by it or find a new group.

All right.

Now, the majority has decided that all laws in our society should be in accordance with equal protection: if you grant certain rights to some, you must grant those rights to all, unless you have a good reason for making the distinction.

Why shouldn't the courts do their actual job and enforce the laws approved by the democratic process?

Homosexuals already HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS as heterosexuals in this instance. Whether you are a gay male or a straight male, you have the right to marry a woman, whether you are a gay woman or a straight woman, you have the right to marry a man.

Lets imagine three people, Alice, Bob and Carol. They're all single. Bob could marry Alice. Bob could marry Carol. But Alice can't marry Carol. Bob has a right that Alice and Carol do not.

[Farnhamia Redux]

All right.

Now, the majority has decided that all laws in our society should be in accordance with equal protection: if you grant certain rights to some, you must grant those rights to all, unless you have a good reason for making the distinction.

Why shouldn't the courts do their actual job and enforce the laws approved by the democratic process?

Homosexuals already HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS as heterosexuals in this instance. Whether you are a gay male or a straight male, you have the right to marry a woman, whether you are a gay woman or a straight woman, you have the right to marry a man.

You realize that that isn't really the point, right?

Of course he does and he knows it's one of the oldest, stalest "arguments" against allowing same-sex marriage. I really haven't seen that one trotted out since ... I was last here on the Jolt Forums in '06.

[Muravyets]

Of course he does and he knows it's one of the oldest, stalest "arguments" against allowing same-sex marriage. I really haven't seen that one trotted out since ... I was last here on the Jolt Forums in '06.

You would have seen it more recently than that if you had been around for the last gay marriage thread Parthenon posted in. He got that same BS shot to pieces just last week. He must be an optimist.

[DMistan]

Now, the majority has decided that all laws in our society should be in accordance with equal protection: if you grant certain rights to some, you must grant those rights to all, unless you have a good reason for making the distinction.

Soheran,

The majority of the United States decided this when the 14th Amendment was enacted.

unless you have a good reason for making the distinction.

And what sort of test should we employ to determine if the reason is good?
Rational Basis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review
>>In modern constitutional law, the rational basis test applies not only to the federal government, but also to the state and local government (via the Fourteenth Amendment).<<

That exactly what we already do. That's exactly why this is an issue, because opposite-sex only marriage has passed review in a number of courts, and the question is whether or not it will pass in SCOTUS.


PS) Forgive me if there's some joke I'm not getting. I'm not good with subtle humor.

[Grave_n_idle]

Lets imagine three people, Alice, Bob and Carol. They're all single. Bob could marry Alice. Bob could marry Carol. But Alice can't marry Carol. Bob has a right that Alice and Carol do not.

Awesome. That gets more concise each time it comes up.

I wonder if it will eventually level out at "Alice, Bob, Carol", or if it will go all the way to "abc".


e.g.

Person X: "Homosexuals have the same rights waaah wah wah"

Person Y: "abc"

[Dempublicents1]

Rational Basis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review
>>In modern constitutional law, the rational basis test applies not only to the federal government, but also to the state and local government (via the Fourteenth Amendment).<<

From wiki:

Rational basis review, in U.S. constitutional law, is the lowest level of scrutiny applied by courts deciding constitutional issues through judicial review. The higher levels are typically referred to as intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. Although the default level of constitutional scrutiny, rational basis review does not apply in situations where a suspect or quasi-suspect classification is involved, or a fundamental right is implicated.

I would argue that the rational basis test is too low a level of scrutiny. I'd say that they should either use the same level of scrutiny they generally use for gender-based discrimination, which is a step above rational basis, or they should go with strict scrutiny.*

*I also think most gender-based discrimination should fall under strict scrutiny, but that has not been the case in the courts.

[Soheran]

AHH I WANT MY MULTI-QUOTE BACK!

Homosexuals already HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS as heterosexuals in this instance.

This is not a reasonable way to interpret equal protection, when it pertains to a matter like sexual orientation whose essential expression is in relationships with other people.

The majority of the United States decided this when the 14th Amendment was enacted.

Right.

And what sort of test should we employ to determine if the reason is good?
Rational basis?

Actually, I think sexual orientation should have strict scrutiny protection (as should sex), and would support the passage of an Equal Rights Amendment aiming at that objective.

But this is not the point.

That's exactly why this is an issue, because opposite-sex only marriage has passed review in a number of courts, and the question is whether or not it will pass in SCOTUS.

Yes. But Skibereen, and others of similar political views, for some reason believe that this decision should not be up to the courts, that they should be deprived of the power to interpret equal protection in this respect.

I think that's absurd. That's my argument.

[DMistan]

A contract dealing with joint possession is common place, as are Prenuptial Agreements, nullifying the property benefits of which you speak.

A prenup is something that people do - usually very rich people. It's also an expensive process - much more expensive than a marriage license.

700-800 dollars?
Yes, that is more expensive than a 50 dollar marriage license, but it is not so expensive as to be prohibitive, especially when considering the cost of the average wedding.

The frequency of divorce erodes the property argument and the expedient judicial process argument.

Not really. If anything, it backs up the need for such a judicial process.

I disagree. Your point was that marriage benefits society because without it the various break-ups and subsequent court cases would choke the judiciary. I offered the frequency of divorce hearings as evidence that an overwhelmed judiciary is a pre-existing condition.

A break-up can be just as simple.

Can be, but there's more legal room for bickering.

I just don't see that. Again, there's little data to support either claim. We'd have to try letting large numbers of people live together, with no "Common-law" marriage, for many decades, and get some data on that.

Actually, I'm glad you mentioned those precedents. Many of them contain "gender-specific language," especially in custody and alimony, in which the wife is preferred. Is this equitable?

(a) I'm not sure exactly how you got this from what I was talking about, but ok.

These posts are becoming epic.
I, too, have lost the origination point, and I don't really want to go back and find it... so.... I'll just continue.. Thanks for not making me go back and find it.

(b) Actually, there really isn't gender-specificity in either alimony or custody. In most custody cases decided by the courts, joint custody is awarded. It is uncontested cases in which the majority of children go to the mother. Alimony also can (and has) been awarded to spouses of either sex. Now, based on our society - in which women are expected to earn less money and to be the primary caregivers of children, one would expect women to get alimony and child custody more often. But that isn't an issue with the law, it's an issue with the norms of our society.

In legal precedent, as in past decisions of the judiciary, there is such language. And Judges will, correctly, base their decision on precedent. You're probably correct that Old out-of-date "societal norms" shaped that precedent. None-the-less, we all must live with those precedents, and suffer from decisions made from those precedents...
Unless we abolish the institution that carries those precedents.

I don't agree with mandatory wait times. But, even if I did, the state still can't force you to wait a year before you begin living your separate lives.

If I'm not mistaken, any relationship started in that separation time is adulterous. Furthermore, states may impose counseling, not simply a waiting period. They can and do force you to wait before your life begins again.

It's the dissolution of legal ties that takes that long. And the same thing could be true of any contract type. Like it or not, the government is responsible for enforcing contracts.

To the point of sitting all of us down in a shrink's office? C'mon, admit it, Divorce laws are getting intrusive! Outright intrusive.

Check this one out:
http://www.divorcereform.org/mipd04.html

Not entirely. My husband and I bought a house together before we were married. Now, if I had died prior to our marriage, my "share" of the house would have gone to my next-of-kin. She likely would have been taxed on it. Should she choose to get rid of her stake in the house - even by simply giving it to him - a refinancing would have been necessary. And so on...
This is not the same type of joint ownership that we have now, in which the house would be his - free and clear.

Exactly why joint ownership is nice, I agree. So you saying that marriage is just an inexpensive and expedient means to joint ownership? To that I say:
Well I guess that's a downside of my plan, the instantiation of joint ownership will cost a little bit more now. It will NOT cost more by orders of magnitude. But it won't be 50 bucks and a kiss either.

I don't see why we pander to those incapable of protecting their own assets.

It's not really a matter of pandering. It's a matter of protecting. Meanwhile, I don't know if you've ever been married, but it isn't really a matter of "protecting their own assets." My husband and I share our life and our assets. We both put money, time, and effort into them. Sure, there are a few things that are pretty unequivocally mine or his - ie. clothing, a few hobby items, sentimental gifts; but the vast majority of our assets are ours. Obviously, if we ended our relationship, we'd have to figure out how best to split those things upl

I get that. Sounds privately wonderful.

Is it the government's job to endorse monogamy? There are certain health issues that such an endorsement would help. But, I fear the Midas Touch of the government would ruin even something as simple as monogamy.

But there are no real guidelines without the legal structure of divorce. Thus, far more room for either party to contest (or to take advantage of the other person).

I agree that there is not as much precedent, but, I offer that some of the precedent to which you may object will be swept aside as well.

Just consider it,


A Clean Slate

[DMistan]

Actually, I think sexual orientation should have strict scrutiny protection (as should sex), and would support the passage of an Equal Rights Amendment aiming at that objective.

Can't do it. If you did, the same test would be applicable to many other special programs. I think, for one thing, it would be the end of affirmative action.

Yes. But Skibereen, and others of similar political views, for some reason believe that this decision should not be up to the courts, that they should be deprived of the power to interpret equal protection in this respect.

I think that's absurd. That's my argument.

I can understand your objection.

Pardon the intrusion.

Uhm, which way is out? Is that "stage left?" Right.

[Soheran]

Can't do it. If you did, the same test would be applicable to many other special programs. I think, for one thing, it would be the end of affirmative action.

We are getting slightly off-topic here, but for the record, race (the category that concerns most affirmative action programs) already has strict scrutiny protection.

Of course, affirmative action has also been in for a judicial beating recently, so....

[DMistan]

Can't do it. If you did, the same test would be applicable to many other special programs. I think, for one thing, it would be the end of affirmative action.

We are getting slightly off-topic here, but for the record, race (the category that concerns most affirmative action programs) already has strict scrutiny protection.

Of course, affirmative action has also been in for a judicial beating recently, so....

You're correct, of course. I was thinking of Ricci v. DeStefano, where, correct me if I am wrong, the District Court found that Strict Scrutiny did not apply.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Can't do it. If you did, the same test would be applicable to many other special programs. I think, for one thing, it would be the end of affirmative action.

We are getting slightly off-topic here, but for the record, race (the category that concerns most affirmative action programs) already has strict scrutiny protection.

Of course, affirmative action has also been in for a judicial beating recently, so....

You're correct, of course. I was thinking of Ricci v. DeStefano, where, correct me if I am wrong, the District Court found that Strict Scrutiny did not apply.

Not surprisingly, you appear to be wrong. Please feel free to quote the relevant portion of the District Court's opinion. The reasoning of the District Court was that there was no racial categorization -- not that the racial categorization wasn't subject to strict scrutiny. Moreover, Ricci v. DeStefano doesn't really involve affirmative action.

Regardless, race classifications of any kind have been consistently subjected to strict scrutiny by SCOTUS -- including in affirmative action cases.

[The Cat-Tribe]

*snipped sophistry and quibbling*

Although you appear to be arguing from more than one inconsistent position at the same time, the bottom line position you seem to be taking is that marriage isn't a right. That may be a convenient position for one that is trying to deny same-sex marriage, but it is a position contrary to legal precedent, tradition (which you trumpted earlier), and American (even world) values.

The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights lists the right to marry as a fundamental right.

SCOTUS has repeatedly held that the right to marry is a fundamental right. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (saying that "[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men", marriage "is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'," and marriage is a "fundamental freedom"); see also Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374,383 (1978) ("[Our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance..."); Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639 -640 (1974) ("This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment");Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

You may argue that these precedents and traditions are wrong and that government should have nothing to do with marriage. But be clear that, in doing so, you are arguing for a massive change in the status quo and you bear a heavy burden of proof.

[DMistan]

Not surprisingly, you appear to be wrong [in asserting that strict scrutiny did not apply in Ricci v. DeStefano]

Off topic.

Please don't veer the thread off topic any further?

Please feel free to quote the relevant portion of the District Court's opinion.

No. I will not veer the thread off topic any further. Soheran and I unintentionally veered slightly off topic.
You are INTENTIONALLY veering the thread off topic because you want some sort of internet victory.

tell ya what. here's the internet victory and a cookie.

Now please abide by the forum rules? Hijacking threads is against the rules.

EDIT: I forgot to add that Flame is against the rules, as in
>>"Not surprisingly, you appear to be wrong "<<

as this is obviously flame, or at least flame-baiting.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Not surprisingly, you appear to be wrong [in asserting that strict scrutiny did not apply in Ricci v. DeStefano]

Off topic.

Please don't veer the thread off topic any further?

Please feel free to quote the relevant portion of the District Court's opinion.

No. I will not veer the thread off topic any further. Soheran and I unintentionally veered slightly off topic.
You are INTENTIONALLY veering the thread off topic because you want some sort of internet victory.

tell ya what. here's the internet victory and a cookie.

Now please abide by the forum rules? Hijacking threads is against the rules.

First, you would be more persuasive if you didn't keep claiming that everyone else is violating the rules, instead of responding to arguments. If a post violates the rules, report it to the Mods. I am not worried that I would be found guilty of hijacking.

Second, you said "correct me if I am wrong." You were wrong. I corrected you. You're welcome.

Third, you had made a bizarre and erroneous argument about application of the Equal Protection Clause based on the mistaken assumption that affirmative action programs aren't subject to strict scrutiny. When corrected on that point, you brought up Ricci. My post further rebutting your assumption was at least as relevant to this thread as your original argument.

[Greed and Death]

*snipped sophistry and quibbling*

Although you appear to be arguing from more than one inconsistent position at the same time, the bottom line position you seem to be taking is that marriage isn't a right. That may be a convenient position for one that is trying to deny same-sex marriage, but it is a position contrary to legal precedent, tradition (which you trumpted earlier), and American (even world) values.

The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights lists the right to marry as a fundamental right.

SCOTUS has repeatedly held that the right to marry is a fundamental right. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (saying that "[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men", marriage "is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'," and marriage is a "fundamental freedom"); see also Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374,383 (1978) ("[Our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance..."); Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639 -640 (1974) ("This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment");Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

You may argue that these precedents and traditions are wrong and that government should have nothing to do with marriage. But be clear that, in doing so, you are arguing for a massive change in the status quo and you bear a heavy burden of proof.

You've brought up all this case law before and the California court voted 6 to 1 against your opinion.
The California case is a dangerous one to bring Scotus as the label and not the rights associated with the label are whats being denied.
I think it would be far better to find a couple living together in Texas have them attempt to get married then sue when they are denied.

[The Cat-Tribe]

*snipped sophistry and quibbling*

Although you appear to be arguing from more than one inconsistent position at the same time, the bottom line position you seem to be taking is that marriage isn't a right. That may be a convenient position for one that is trying to deny same-sex marriage, but it is a position contrary to legal precedent, tradition (which you trumpted earlier), and American (even world) values.

The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights lists the right to marry as a fundamental right.

SCOTUS has repeatedly held that the right to marry is a fundamental right. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (saying that "[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men", marriage "is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'," and marriage is a "fundamental freedom"); see also Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374,383 (1978) ("[Our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance..."); Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639 -640 (1974) ("This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment");Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

You may argue that these precedents and traditions are wrong and that government should have nothing to do with marriage. But be clear that, in doing so, you are arguing for a massive change in the status quo and you bear a heavy burden of proof.

You've brought up all this case law before and the California court voted 6 to 1 against your opinion.
The California case is a dangerous one to bring Scotus as the label and not the rights associated with the label are whats being denied.
I think it would be far better to find a couple living together in Texas have them attempt to get married then sue when they are denied.

Um. Actually, the California Supreme Court didn't address the issue of a federal constitutional right in their opinions.

Regardless, DMistan has questioned whether the right to marry even exists. I am saying that is foolish bullshit. Whether Prop. 8 was constitutionally passed under the California Constitution is an entirely different question.

And, for the record, I never predicted the California Supreme Court would overturn Prop. 8. I wished they would and think they should have, but I expected they would not.

[Soheran]

You've brought up all this case law before and the California court voted 6 to 1 against your opinion.

I haven't been following the discussion between TCT and DMistan and I'm not entirely sure what specific issue is in dispute here, but I don't think you're interpreting the court's decision correctly.

First, the opinion actually made a distinction between the "right to marry" that TCT appears to be discussing and the right to possess the particular terminological designation of "marriage." Prop. 8 was actually interpreted to not affect the former right at all, except insofar as its fulfillment implies the latter right. Most of the content (the specific rights and benefits) of the institution of civil marriage is still a right for all couples.

Second, the opinion did in no sense end the general constitutional right to marriage. It merely interpreted Prop. 8 as mandating a specific exception to a particular aspect of its scope, namely, the right of same-sex couples to be officially designated as "married."

Third, the court decision addressed a case where a constitutional amendment had altered the rights protected under the California Constitution (and was primarily concerned with the legitimacy of such an amendment, not with the question of a constitutional right to marriage). No such amendment has altered the rights protected under the federal constitution with respect to marriage and equal protection.

To sum up: the California Supreme Court's decision has no bearing at all on anything TCT said in the post you quoted. Not legally (because it was not ruling on the federal constitution), and not even theoretically or logically, because its arguments and conclusions concern entirely separate issues.

The California case is a dangerous one to bring Scotus as the label and not the rights associated with the label are whats being denied.

I agree that it's a dangerous step to take; this Supreme Court seems too conservative to strike down a same-sex marriage ban. So do numerous LGBT rights organizations. Better to wait until a stronger national consensus is generated, and maybe until some of those conservative justices retire.

[Capitalistliberals]

Hi there. I'd like to take this up.

If I were to argue against same-sex marriage, I'd start by asking why the state is involved in marriage at all. Why does the state recognize anyone's marriage? Why is marriage not a personal commitment between two persons?

I'd demonstrate that the history of marriage in our society revolves around reproduction, and the protection of women and children, specifically women with small children.

The main weakness of this position is not religion, but rather the extent to which government has become involved in marriage, and the fact that married life is no longer the sole destination of women. The argument hangs on an archaic definition of marriage pivoting on heredity.

I would have to prove that either

A) Women and Children still need the protection from potentially abusive spouses and all benefits of marriage are solely designed to help the young families of our society. Hopefully, a court would not tolerate rhetorical devices, but in a public debate I could make the crowd weep with tales of the needs of young women with small children.

B) That the expansion of the definition from this basic starting point would be a unacceptable growth of the role of the federal government in our private lives. Again, hopefully, a court would not tolerate rhetorical devices, but in a public debate I could make the crowd shiver with warnings of draconian intrusion by the government.

If all else failed, I'd play the states rights card, and then at least it would be fought state to state and would hinge on public debates which I'm sorry to say have far more loose criteria.

That's how I'd do it.

There's always the Atom-Bomb of "Why not abolish state recognition of marriage altogether." This won't get support from the social conservatives, however, the libertarians would jump on the band wagon. Since abolishing state recognition of marriage all together eliminates major sources of stipends and subsidies, that argument wouldn't fair well in public debate. Like most Libertarian positions, it would publicly flop, even if the argument was based on sound principles.

BTW, Nice to meet you!

i need to stop sleeping lol 2 new pages already so ill start from my challenge of a reason why homosexuality is wrong and move from there

alright i agree more or less with your argument on the recognition of marriage, as i myself am a libertarian although i agree with the principle for different reasons. first let me make it clear that stipends and subsidies are not the only reason we libertarians fight. I classify myself as an old-school hayek libertarian, i.e. my arguments have nothing to do with government stipends in the home but rather that 2 things must happen first that the centeral bank or fed must be done away with and second no business that isnt an inherent human right(ask later in a message if u want to kno what i mean) is subsidized. now that you have some background lets begin. marriage should be done away with for 2 reasons first to get rid of the negative stereotype on divorce(people change, circumstances change its not a bad thing it just happens) and second that marriage is an unnecessary infringement on individual liberty(gov. doesnt belong in my house). so to answer your response i agree if we could turn to the alternative of no gov. marriage that would be a far better response to the situation but absent that possibility = rights for gays is a necessity for any new age society. while marriage exists there is no compelling reason absent the bible for there to be a ban on gay marriage. further to believe that your religion should control others is theocratic and thus does not belong.

Sry for the rant and nice to meet you to