Did you agree with Proposition 8? Do you think the votes of the people were more important than what some judge had to say about them? Do you think that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that homosexual have absolutely no right to forcefully insert (lol) themselves into a religious institution that clearly wants nothing to do with a group of people they believe to be deliberately sinful?

Do you believe that this judge is taking away our fucking FREEDOM to vote in this country to put a law into effect that the MAJORITY of the people want?

I say fuck that judge. He had no right to overturn a law that was put into place by the people. He had no rig-

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

W-what's that?

That's the 14th Amendment.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. That's the 14th Amendment. Using this amendment, the state can't give any rights to a group of people (i.e. the tax benefits that married couples receive) that another group of people are ineligible for, for a reason beyond their control.

What's that? You're saying the homosexuals ARE granted the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex, just like you are? Using that argument, you can go ahead and support interracial couples from being married. I'll wait.

I think those of you who oppose gay marriage should just come out and admit your bigotry, and/or irrational hatred for people who are different than you.

While I agree that it was great for Proposition 8 to finally be repealed, I don't think it's enough.
Same-sex marriage is still not legal on the federal level, and that's what really needs to be fixed.
[Okay, I realize that wasn't entirely your point, and I apologize].

@Aubrey: That would create a lot more problems with 10th Amendment fanboys than necessary, and I think we need to work on other individual states legalizing gay marriage before there are any attacks on the federal front.

@Anonymous - Pardon me if I'm wrong, but if it's not legal on the federal level, isn't it not valid on the state level?

@Aubrey: Proposition 8 is California only, and the reason it had so much hype is because it was going to set the standard for other states to follow suit.

Also, your statement is true the other way around. If something isn't specifically stated in the constitution, then it's left up to the state. You'll never find traffic laws, for instance, that exist at the federal level. Same thing with marriage issues. Since marriage and education aren't mentioned anywhere on the constitution, they're left up to the state.

@Anonymous - I know Prop 8 was just California. But I was told in my Ethics class that because it wasn't legal federally, that having it legal in one state does not make it valid in another. But I guess that brings up another question I was confused about:
If it's not illegal in certain states, then is it technically allowed? I mean, if there's nothing explicitly stating they can't get married, are they allowed?
I'm sorry, I don't know a lot about the workings of the government.

@Audrey: Basically, one or two things can happen if a state doesn't allow gay marriage. Either they recognize your marriage from another state and you get tax benefits in that state (assuming you live there) or they don't. Some married homosexuals just aren't recognized as married in parts of they country, but if a couple from Massachusetts has no plans to go to or live in Kentucky, then it's probably not so much of an issue.

If there's nothing stating they can't get married, then the court house that produces marriage documents will talk to the state government building or a state judge and they'll make a decision from there.

*AuBrey

@Anonymous - That's basically what I was talking about. I mean, that it's "legal" in one state, but not recognized in another. While it doesn't affect everyone (and then again, neither does gay marriage), it can be an issue when a couple is looking to move for whatever reason, and they aren't recognized.
But yes, I agree with your general premise, but it seems frustrating. The idea of a complete overhaul almost sounds better than these tiny baby steps we are taking toward equality, but I know that Obama doesn't have same-sex marriage high on his list of priorities.

I'm Audrey! :P lol

"I think those of you who oppose gay marriage should just come out and admit your bigotry, and/or irrational hatred for people who are different than you. "

It can also be a religious thing. The bible is against it, and Christians are told that's their holy book. It isn't bigotry to believe in your holy book. Is it irrational if ones deity claims it to be "one of the rules" so to speak? That seems quite rational to me.

People believe what they want to believe, and they'll try to proliferate that into the laws of their own country. Not as a negative thing, but as something to help the country. With the guidance of their deity. Some people are fanatical and just take things to the extremes, but I think in general it's not done out of harm, it's done out of wanting to help. I don't agree with it, but to come out and say people who oppose gay marriage are bigoted and have an irrational hatred just makes you sound like you have an irrational hatred, and are bigoted against them.

Anger doesn't make for a good debate; looking into an issue and examining the different pieces to it, and how they do and do not fit together does.

@Emily:

Essentially, agree with you that being against gay marriage does not require blind hatred/bigotry, but can be due to logical justification. I am against gay marriage for the reason that it is an oxymoron, and offense to the dictionary. It's akin to having a "one month anniversary." (I always want to punch people that have "month" anniversaries.)


@ Anonymous

As for the Constitutional argument, funny, this doesn't seem to be the same argument you make when arguing in favor of government issued healthcare, which is yet another unconstitutional social service.

@Kein mitleid: I think one-month anniversaries are cute. But I think it's a bit much when people do the two/three/etc. month anniversaries. I always viewed it as One Month, (six if you're so inclined) and then a yearly thing after that.

@Jessica: I believe Kein mitleid was supporting his statement regarding gay marriage as an oxymoron, considering 'anniversaries' are defined as the yearly recurrence of the date of a past event, annual. A one month [or any other number of months, for that matter] anniversary would not make sense.

@Jen: Yes...I understood that. I wasn't questioning his logic. I was giving my opinion on the matter.

@Jessica: My apologies, it appeared you weren't grasping his concept- the relation between one month anniversaries and gay marriage. /shrug/ Didn't seem relevant.

@Jen: I don't really see how it seemed like I didn't get it.
He said he "always wants to punch people that have "month" anniversaries." at the end, I was responding to that.

I'm not dense enough to not know what "akin" means.

@Jessica: I don't believe I stated that you were "dense." Apparently, I wasn't the only one who thought you didn't get it considering he replied to you as well, stating about the same. It seemed as though you were commenting on the fact he didn't agree with month anniversaries because he didn't seem to think they were cute, not because his idea of gay marriage is an oxymoron-as are 'month' anniversaries.

@Jessica: The notion of anniversary (prefix "anno") means by the year. Therefore, a "one month anniversary" is a contradiction in terms, which is precisely my quarrel with "gay marriage."

@kein mitleid: How do you figure? I never once supported government issued health care if it's forced on people. Otherwise, raising taxes for a public OPTION is nowhere even in the same ball park as unconstitutional.

@Anonymous: The raising of taxes for a public option is forcing individuals to pay in an unconstitutional manner. You know the whole right to life, liberty, property thing? (Fourth and thirteenth amendments?) To believe that mandatory taxation is not indentured servitude, that it is not unjust seizure of assets, that it does not violate a persons constitutional rights, well, then neither does Prop 8 violate the constitution.

@kein mitleid: The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

I really don't know what the health care bill has to do with my support for gay marriage; you're grasping at all kinds of straws to find flaws in my argument that you brought up some random, poorly constructed strawman that had nothing to do with the thread. Provide an argument relevant to the discussion, not an anti-health care argument that was quite incorrect in the first place.

@Anonymous: common Defence and general Welfare of the United States is in regards to the status of the nation as a sovereign entity, and not individual rights, i.e. the right to provide protection for the United States in the case of protection of property, which is indeed constitutional. The notion that taxation for social services which one tends to demand as a right, when it clearly is a privilege is absurdism.

As for the gay marriage issue, your argument was that the constitutionality of Prop 8 was in question, and therefore, I was pointing out the big-time irony that you would choose to use the Constitution as an argument against Prop 8 when clearly you are "picking and choosing" when to apply Constitutional Law.

@kein mitleid: Er, no, the General Welfare clause is... you know what, I'm not going to sit here and explain it to you. You can read about it here, and you can check Wiki's own sources if you're going to make the "WIKIPEDIA IS A BAD SOURCE" claim.

I'm pretty sure I also used the Constitution back when I was arguing about health care, and even mentioned both the General Welfare clause as well as the 16 Amendment. Is it really me that's the one picking and choosing? You're picking and choosing points in an argument that I made that I made months ago that, again, has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

@Emily: "It can also be a religious thing. The bible is against it, and Christians are told that's their holy book. It isn't bigotry to believe in your holy book. Is it irrational if ones deity claims it to be "one of the rules" so to speak? That seems quite rational to me."

That's the problem, if this is being opposed purely for religious reasons, then I could make a few arguments. Either ban divorce or take any government incentives out of it completely. Otherwise, there's no reason to oppose it aside from bigotry.