The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Fair enough.

Change the law through the democratic process so that it reflects the will of the people.

There will be some places where the will of the people is to allow it and others where it is not. In time, perhaps the will of the people everywhere may be to allow it.

In the meantime, gay couples who want to be legally married will move to those places that allow it.

Finn, this is arrant nonsense. Civil rights didn't come to the South because the majority were in favor of it. Common sense and common decency demands that people who are doing nothing that affects others rights should have those same full rights for themselves.

While care needs to be taken to prevent a tyranny of the majority, our system of government is based on the premise that the majority should, generally, rule. A system of government based on the decrees of a handful of judges, no matter how wise they may be, is not democracy.

Judical activism in the realm of the civil rights of African-Americans during the 60's went hand in hand with legislative efforts, and was sustainable because the majority of Americans supported it.

That's a crock and you know it. The South was adamantly opposed. What happened to these "rights" that southern Whites supposedly have under the conditions you have set out here. Southern states were dragged kicking and screaming into humanity, some, many still haven't arrived.

Same deal with those that would deny full civil rights to gays & lesbians.

As for "judicial activism", if the Warren court had not got involved, Blacks would almost certainly have suffered for many many more years in the land of the free.

The plight of gay couples, such as it may be, is not regionalized nor the product of a historically systemic process of subjugation and exploitation.

What planet did you emigrate from?

Foxfyre wrote:

littlek wrote:

Which is why some were moved to change the law.

Yes, but how to change the law is the issue isn't it? The majority of Americans believe that traditional marriage has its purposes and do not wish to change the definition that would make it quite different from what it is.

If the majority of the pro-gay-marriage group could accept that, then I believe the majority of Americans would be willing to work harder toward finding a workable way for everybody who cannot or don't want to marry under the existing laws to have the legal benefits they need.

That is a master-slave mentality.
"If only 'they' would do as we say, then 'we' may consider giving them some crumbs."
One day those people will have their power back. You can't stop it. They will fight until they may enjoy the same rights and priveledges as they see others enjoying.

What is the vested interest for you personally, that you do not want others to have what you enjoy?

There's no excuse for discrimination.
It would be laughable if it weren't so serious for real human beings.

flushd wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

littlek wrote:

Which is why some were moved to change the law.

Yes, but how to change the law is the issue isn't it? The majority of Americans believe that traditional marriage has its purposes and do not wish to change the definition that would make it quite different from what it is.

If the majority of the pro-gay-marriage group could accept that, then I believe the majority of Americans would be willing to work harder toward finding a workable way for everybody who cannot or don't want to marry under the existing laws to have the legal benefits they need.

That is a master-slave mentality.
"If only 'they' would do as we say, then 'we' may consider giving them some crumbs."
One day those people will have their power back. You can't stop it. They will fight until they may enjoy the same rights and priveledges as they see others enjoying.

What is the vested interest for you personally, that you do not want others to have what you enjoy?

There's no excuse for discrimination.
It would be laughable if it weren't so serious for real human beings.

Okay, I'll ask you the same question that I've asked everybody else and nobody wishes to deal with it:

How can a law that treats everybody exactly the same regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, size, weight, political affiliations, gender, sexual orientation etc. etc. etc. be discriminatory or violate anybody's civil rights?

Because it doesn't treat everyone the same when it comes to sexual orientation. It gives special privledges to heterosexuals.

If it treated everyone the same then: anyone could marry whoever they chose
Everyone would receive the same legal benefits from a marriage
etc.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Fair enough.

Change the law through the democratic process so that it reflects the will of the people.

There will be some places where the will of the people is to allow it and others where it is not. In time, perhaps the will of the people everywhere may be to allow it.

In the meantime, gay couples who want to be legally married will move to those places that allow it.

Finn, this is arrant nonsense. Civil rights didn't come to the South because the majority were in favor of it. Common sense and common decency demands that people who are doing nothing that affects others rights should have those same full rights for themselves.

You seem to have bounced around my post. This is not a logical placement of your comment.

While care needs to be taken to prevent a tyranny of the majority, our system of government is based on the premise that the majority should, generally, rule. A system of government based on the decrees of a handful of judges, no matter how wise they may be, is not democracy.

Judical activism in the realm of the civil rights of African-Americans during the 60's went hand in hand with legislative efforts, and was sustainable because the majority of Americans supported it.

That's a crock and you know it. The South was adamantly opposed. What happened to these "rights" that southern Whites supposedly have under the conditions you have set out here. Southern states were dragged kicking and screaming into humanity, some, many still haven't arrived.

And I know it? Not at all.

You are straining to defend a specious comparison between African American civil rights and Gay civil rights.

The South was opposed to black civil rights, but the South didn't represent the majority in America. The will of the American people was to provide blacks with equal rights, despite what a minority of Southerners might have felt. If the majority of Americans had not yet reached the enlightened stage of understanding that black Americans deserve the same civil rights as white Americans, it would not have happened.

Whether or not it is enlightened to believe that Gay Americans deserve the same civil rights as Straight Americans, the majority of Americans have not come to the conclusion that it is.

Some Southern states have not arrived at humanity? What a perfectly assanine comment.
Same deal with those that would deny full civil rights to gays & lesbians.

As for "judicial activism", if the Warren court had not got involved, Blacks would almost certainly have suffered for many many more years in the land of the free.[/b]

Nonsense, pure and simple. You are blithely ignoring the considerable influence of LBJ and the congress (influenced by him).

The plight of gay couples, such as it may be, is not regionalized nor the product of a historically systemic process of subjugation and exploitation.

What planet did you emigrate from?

This is supposed to be an intelligent comment?

Finn - the general population here in america are overwhelmingly not lawyers, judges or legislaters.