What is good enough?

Equal rights under the constitution are not a suitable subject for a poll. This is not a case where the majority get to vote on the rights of a distinct minority. If gays, Jews, blacks, Irish, communists and methodists do not all have the same rights then no one has them.

In this instance, Gays are looking to be accorded the same rights as everyone else to marry the person of their choosing and then, hopefully, be left alone to live their lives in peace. All the polls in the world will not change one simple fact, often forgotten in this debate: human rights are not subject to a vote. That concept is the antithesis of what our Constitution stands for: that the rights of the few may not be abridged by the will of the many.

States may pass laws forbidding gay marriage, as they once attempted to forbid marriage between races. But, it is all going to come down to the question of whether those laws pass the constitutional sniff test. My guess is they will not and states will be compelled to permit gays and lesbians to marry without concern for the religious aspects that the religious right is attempting to foist on others.

I am not gay, but I can imagine how silly it would seem to be gay and to have some moron tell me that I can do everything they can do, by marrying a woman. What kind of an answer is that? A stupid one, though expected of the right wing homophobes who whine about government interference in their lives, yet expect government interference in the lives of those with whom they disagree.

This is neither a civil rights nor an equal rights issue as gay people have identical rights as heterosexual people now. Please read earlier posts for the rationale for that opinion.

I disagree with that position, Fox. Claiming that the right to marry people of the opposite sex is an equal right to being able to marry the person you want to, regardless of gender, is fallacious.

Cycloptichorn

I have heard there are plenty of Scotsmen waiting to marry their sheep. Is that going to be allowed as well?

This = appealing to extremes, a logical fallacy as well, McG. You know that.

Cycloptichorn

Foxy,

This is a ridiculous claim that has been debunked repeatedly. Read the responses to your earlier post to see how.

Nobody has debunked it that I can see. The plain truth is that any unmarried adult of legal age is free to many any one other consenting unmarried adult of legal age of the opposite sex. The fact that the person does not wish to marry someone of the opposite sex or can't find anyone who wants to marry him/her is immaterial. Everybody has the exact equal right to do so. Dispute that if you can.

Noone's disputing that that is the situation, Fox.

But the gay marriage advocates are fighting to expand your rights, to be able to marry ANYONE, not just someone of the opposite sex. That right, and the one which you listed, are not the same thing.

You are straw-manning the argument on the side of the pro-marriage group here.

Cycloptichorn

Then by your way of thinking, a law that required all marriages to be between different races would be fair and just?

I know of no U.S. law suggesting such a thing. The law addresses neither human ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, or emotion. It provides a distinct definition of what marriage is.

Again, the logical solution is to create a new law that provides the requested benefits for those who for whatever reason do not wish to or cannot marry. Just call it something other than marriage and all reasonable people should be happy.

The existing law addresses sex and applies a benefit based on sex.

Oh? Do you have an example of that Mesquite? I was under the impression that lack of sex was grounds for annulment if one or both want it, but I am unaware that having sex is required by law in order to be considered married. There's certainly nothing like that on my marriage license.

Oh, and to the best of my knowledge, being gay does not change one's sex.

The gov't is trying to restrict rights concerning personal life.
Being gay does not affect your driving ablility, your tendancy to commit crimes, your effectivness or efficiency on the job anymore than being straight does...basically the only one being gay affects is you. This is a matter of equal rights. Restricting gay marriage rights is like the gov't restricting you from doing something in your own home that doesn't in any way affect anyone else because you happen to be Irish.
What a crock.

Well the way I see it the government isn't doing anything in the matter of marriage. I'm seeing people wanting to change a 200+ year old tradition that is vitally important to a substantial majority of Americans.

Now this can be handled coercively leaving ill will and hard feelings that extend into the next century. Or there can be a compromise allowing win win for everybody and going a long way to mending hard feelings and achieving harmony where prejudice and bigotry now exists.

I favor the second option.

When a tradition is found to be limiting the rights of people for no good reason, it SHOULD be changed. The fact that people are afraid of change has more to do with the fight against gay marriage than any logical argument.

Cycloptichorn

By compromise you mean like only restricting the first two rows of bus seats, or only restricting women from voting in presidential races?

Foxfyre-a while back, People wanted to change a 200 year old tradition called slavery and that was vitally important to a substantial number of Americans. Now, of course, even the dinosaurs among us recognize that slavery was wrong on its face. The same will happen when gays are permitted to marry.

This issue is nothing if it is not an equal rights issue. The supreme court of massachusetts recognized it as such and soon, many other courts will follow suit.

Sorry but your argument about everyone being allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex is just stupid-the great bulk of us want to marry outside our own gender. But for those who do not, a second-inferior-class is set up and that just isn't right.

If you have ill will and hard feelings as a result of gays marrying, whose problem is that. Grow up and move on to an issue that actually matters.

Okay Cyclop, you are obviously one who is an all or nothing person who doesn't believe in win-win solutions. That's okay. You have lots of company apparently. I don't have any more ways to explain what I see as the best national policy so I'll bow out for now. I would agree with you all if equal rights did not exist as they are. But they do.

That's cool. I don't think there is a win-win in this one, because one side of the argument is based upon fear and bigotry, and the other logic and reason.

I will leave you as well with the following words:

Separate is rarely equal.

Cycloptichorn