Dumping gay marriage prop in California is getting intense

[Brittain33]

These protests are so gay.  Like, people are holding massive protests and aren't even like collecting phone numbers and emails so you can actually organize an effective outreach campaign.

These protests are all being organized on Facebook, so that's not an issue at this point. It would good in the future to get organized beyond protest.

As for your criticism of the No on 8 campaign, you should note that most of these people felt the same way and are responding to how out of touch and ineffective that group was. This is a changing of the guard.

Now is not the time to do the outreach that is necessary. There's nothing to ask people to do--no action on the horizon. We can't fight the old battles. Outreach will come when there is some new action item, like a positive referendum (I never thought I'd live to see that taken seriously) where we can go out and ask for people's votes.

I don't think these protests will do anything to change policy. They are necessary for people who felt powerless and stymied up until now, and are considering their options for the future.

[Lunar]

These protests are so gay.  Like, people are holding massive protests and aren't even like collecting phone numbers and emails so you can actually organize an effective outreach campaign.

These protests are all being organized on Facebook, so that's not an issue at this point. It would good in the future to get organized beyond protest.

As for your criticism of the No on 8 campaign, you should note that most of these people felt the same way and are responding to how out of touch and ineffective that group was. This is a changing of the guard.

Now is not the time to do the outreach that is necessary. There's nothing to ask people to do--no action on the horizon. We can't fight the old battles. Outreach will come when there is some new action item, like a positive referendum (I never thought I'd live to see that taken seriously) where we can go out and ask for people's votes.

I don't think these protests will do anything to change policy. They are necessary for people who felt powerless and stymied up until now, and are considering their options for the future.

I felt like ranting because I did a bit of work for the campaign, haha.  I personally had to friend most of the No On 8's myspace friends and make sure that they weren't porn stars before I friended them   Anyway, the website in general seemed too focused on "events" - like marches and whatnot (where contact info was probably not collected..).  The fact that I saw 100+, poorly made, "scary" ads on Comedy Central about how my children are going to be fine without Prop 8 shows that in addition to me not having a life, their targeting was just awful.  My understanding was that they had to transform their message from "Yes for Equality" to be "No On 8" so they wanted to make sure that people knew to vote no, but it was only in the waning 4-5 days of the campaign that I saw good internet and TV ads.

The next big battle is coming up in 2010.  Why not start talking to people now?

And the fact is, people still engaged in this useless behavior before the proposition passed (putting up fliers in Berkeley[s classrooms, standing in front of my white, yuppie/student precinct, etc). 

I guess what makes me the most frustrated about it is that it shows how secluded people are and perhaps even their condescending attitude towards people who don't think like them.  I felt really bad for this guy in a nice sweater standing in the rain in San Francisco at 7 am outside a BART station handing out wet No On 8 fliers (I actually had a tear in my eye), but he needed to be organizing some neighbor-to-neighbor canvassing in Chinatown...

[Sbane]

These protests are so gay.  Like, people are holding massive protests and aren't even like collecting phone numbers and emails so you can actually organize an effective outreach campaign.

These protests are all being organized on Facebook, so that's not an issue at this point. It would good in the future to get organized beyond protest.

As for your criticism of the No on 8 campaign, you should note that most of these people felt the same way and are responding to how out of touch and ineffective that group was. This is a changing of the guard.

Now is not the time to do the outreach that is necessary. There's nothing to ask people to do--no action on the horizon. We can't fight the old battles. Outreach will come when there is some new action item, like a positive referendum (I never thought I'd live to see that taken seriously) where we can go out and ask for people's votes.

I don't think these protests will do anything to change policy. They are necessary for people who felt powerless and stymied up until now, and are considering their options for the future.

I felt like ranting because I did a bit of work for the campaign, haha.  I personally had to friend most of the No On 8's myspace friends and make sure that they weren't porn stars before I friended them   Anyway, the website in general seemed too focused on "events" - like marches and whatnot (where contact info was probably not collected..).  The fact that I saw 100+, poorly made, "scary" ads on Comedy Central about how my children are going to be fine without Prop 8 shows that in addition to me not having a life, their targeting was just awful.  My understanding was that they had to transform their message from "Yes for Equality" to be "No On 8" so they wanted to make sure that people knew to vote no, but it was only in the waning 4-5 days of the campaign that I saw good internet and TV ads.

The next big battle is coming up in 2010.  Why not start talking to people now?

And the fact is, people still engaged in this useless behavior before the proposition passed (putting up fliers in Berkeley[s classrooms, standing in front of my white, yuppie/student precinct, etc). 

I guess what makes me the most frustrated about it is that it shows how secluded people are and perhaps even their condescending attitude towards people who don't think like them.  I felt really bad for this guy in a nice sweater standing in the rain in San Francisco at 7 am outside a BART station handing out wet No On 8 fliers (I actually had a tear in my eye), but he needed to be organizing some neighbor-to-neighbor canvassing in Chinatown...

I don't understand why the no on 8 people just don't organize for 2010. They surely must know their chances of victory become better with each passing year, and they could take this time to organize as you suggest. Screaming "f*8k prop 8" on UC campuses is not going to get the job done. In addition they might be pissing of moderates who may be open to gay marriage but need more info/ personal contact. They can sue in court if they wish but acting like hooligans isn't helping anyone. Anyways if this and the governor's race happen in 2010, it is going to be a very interesting year.

[Brittain33]

I don't understand why the no on 8 people just don't organize for 2010. They surely must know their chances of victory become better with each passing year, and they could take this time to organize as you suggest. Screaming "f*8k prop 8" on UC campuses is not going to get the job done. In addition they might be pissing of moderates who may be open to gay marriage but need more info/ personal contact. They can sue in court if they wish but acting like hooligans isn't helping anyone. Anyways if this and the governor's race happen in 2010, it is going to be a very interesting year.

First of all, any random screaming that happens this week is going to be forgotten by 2009, much less 2010.

People are angry. It's a spontaneous reaction. I don't see anything wrong with that provided they get mobilized and do something constructive from here. That's what we have to see.

[Lincoln Republican]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMI0JQop07o

If they have been doing that, then they truly are low lifes.

Go to minute 2:30, disgusting.

Thank you for pointing that out.  I had not seen this incident previously.

The behavior of these protesters is truly appaling and hateful.

The cross has been a revered symbol of Christianity for over 2000 years, and to have these low lifes stomp on the very symbol of Christianity itself shows beyond doubt that these protesters have no respect for anything sacred, and that all they want to do is impose their own radical agenda on everyone else.

As I have stated previously, the radical gay movement has hijacked the civil rights movement, and has deceived countless people into believing that the gay marriage issue is a matter of equal rights, when in reality what it is is the gay movement attempting to subvert and debase the institution of marriage, which is an institution ordained of God, not an institution that was founded by man.

[Redefeatbush04]

I predict California gets gay marriage within the next 10 years, realistically within 6. 18-29 year olds voted against this 61-39 while the 65+ voted for prop 8 61-39. Everyone in between was about mixed. I think young people realize gays marrying does not effect them in any way whatsoever and if you look at the 18-24 vote they voted something like 64-36 no. The trend is definitely the younger you are, the more you are comfortable with gay rights. I see no reason why it should change.

As younger people marry and have families their views on what a real marriage and family is will form.

That's not the issue though. This is about rights that are extended from the state. I think it would be wrong to give gays the same rights as marriage but call it something different. That smacks of inequality. Also it's not as if churches are going to be forced to marry gays, and that probably won't even be an issue as there are already churches that perform gay marriages.

I've injected my opinion on this in threads before, but it seems appropriate to add it here as well.

Marriage affects two categories of activities that involve government. The broadest set of activities involve activities that I will call transferable rights. These are activities like power of attorney and inheritance that anyone could assign to another by filling out the appropriate paperwork. There are hundreds of these minor civil rights, and civil marriage bundles all of them into a single piece of paper, essentially cutting out the bureaucracy of assigning each of these separately.

The second category involves specific entitlement benefits. These benefits would not normally be accessible to an arbitrary individual, even if both persons wanted it to happen. For instance a person who is entitled to survivor benefits from a pension plan or family heath insurance coverage cannot not go to the clerk's office and designate an arbitrary person to be the recipient of these entitlements. However, marriage automatically creates that designation for many benefits.

I see no problem with extending activities in the first category to any couple that so desires. I think that civil union would ideally be just that - a one-stop process to identify a person to be the default for all the transferable powers of the kind I mentioned. Opposite sex marriage already has loopholes that have been exploited to gain entitlements from that second group. I don't think it makes sense to open more loopholes to gain entitlements by extending civil marriage to arbitrary couples.

Couldn't be said any better.

Marriage already has its problems, why create more with gay marriages.

Funny - I think he did a good job with what he said - I agree with what he said up until "arbitrary couples", which is the only part of his argument that distinguishes same-sex couples from opposite sex couples. Why don't you just pretend that one doesn't have a vagina or a penis and the couple will cease to be arbitrary. And don't even tell me that ability to reproduce is a factor. Hell they should be rewarded for not contributing to overpopulation. K now check this out for  "arbitrary couples", and I actually know someone who has done this. Lesbian couple and gay couple in virginia form two opposite sex marriages for benefits and get away with it. Smart right?

[Lunar]

They're frustrated, they're confused, and they feel like they've had their rights taken away from an ignorant majority. 

This is why framing things in absolutist terms is bad.  If something is the "right to life" versus "right to choose" or "sanctity of marriage versus right to marriage" then any time one side prevails then it's the greatest offense in history, and of course, compromise is impossible.

In this case, an effective compromise could be reached if everyone, heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, took a step back and asked themselves if anyone needs an official, government-enforced term called "marriage."  The natural compromise is for the churches to marry people and for the government to couple people with tax benefits/hospital visits/whatever.    I don't feel like debating it in this thread, but this is the natural compromise.

For these No On 8 folks, to be stoking their own anger and intellectually masturbating over the injustice of this, injustice of that, they'll end up creating more discrimination than Prop 8 ever did.  The angry rallies must stop.  Today there was a huge rally at San Francisco's city hall, as if Gavin Newsom will look out his office window and be like, ok, nevermind, I shouldn't have done that!

Seriously, the outlet of these angry rallies is counterproductive to No On 8's goals: which is to organize for 2010 and present themselves as a rational alternative to Yes On 8 - not a bunch of whiny, angry, white people.

California is a majority-minority state, and I'm soooo frustrated with No On 8's campaign.  They reveal a fundamental liberal disconnect with mainstream society, they reveal through their 500-600 of their ads I've seen, that they don't understand how people unlike themselves think. 

And again, if you're going to hold a mass rally, you need volunteers patrolling the crowd getting contact information.  That way you have a fundraising, volunteer, and message methodology for the next step.

Prop 8 is temporary, I'd bet any number of millions of dollars on that.  But how long it will be enforced remains in the hands of an inept liberal base that cannot connect with other viewpoints.

[muon2]

I predict California gets gay marriage within the next 10 years, realistically within 6. 18-29 year olds voted against this 61-39 while the 65+ voted for prop 8 61-39. Everyone in between was about mixed. I think young people realize gays marrying does not effect them in any way whatsoever and if you look at the 18-24 vote they voted something like 64-36 no. The trend is definitely the younger you are, the more you are comfortable with gay rights. I see no reason why it should change.

As younger people marry and have families their views on what a real marriage and family is will form.

That's not the issue though. This is about rights that are extended from the state. I think it would be wrong to give gays the same rights as marriage but call it something different. That smacks of inequality. Also it's not as if churches are going to be forced to marry gays, and that probably won't even be an issue as there are already churches that perform gay marriages.

I've injected my opinion on this in threads before, but it seems appropriate to add it here as well.

Marriage affects two categories of activities that involve government. The broadest set of activities involve activities that I will call transferable rights. These are activities like power of attorney and inheritance that anyone could assign to another by filling out the appropriate paperwork. There are hundreds of these minor civil rights, and civil marriage bundles all of them into a single piece of paper, essentially cutting out the bureaucracy of assigning each of these separately.

The second category involves specific entitlement benefits. These benefits would not normally be accessible to an arbitrary individual, even if both persons wanted it to happen. For instance a person who is entitled to survivor benefits from a pension plan or family heath insurance coverage cannot not go to the clerk's office and designate an arbitrary person to be the recipient of these entitlements. However, marriage automatically creates that designation for many benefits.

I see no problem with extending activities in the first category to any couple that so desires. I think that civil union would ideally be just that - a one-stop process to identify a person to be the default for all the transferable powers of the kind I mentioned. Opposite sex marriage already has loopholes that have been exploited to gain entitlements from that second group. I don't think it makes sense to open more loopholes to gain entitlements by extending civil marriage to arbitrary couples.

Couldn't be said any better.

Marriage already has its problems, why create more with gay marriages.

Funny - I think he did a good job with what he said - I agree with what he said up until "arbitrary couples", which is the only part of his argument that distinguishes same-sex couples from opposite sex couples. Why don't you just pretend that one doesn't have a vagina or a penis and the couple will cease to be arbitrary. And don't even tell me that ability to reproduce is a factor. Hell they should be rewarded for not contributing to overpopulation. K now check this out for  "arbitrary couples", and I actually know someone who has done this. Lesbian couple and gay couple in virginia form two opposite sex marriages for benefits and get away with it. Smart right?

That's a fair accusation. I agree that my use of the word arbitrary at the end carries connotations that draw away from my point. I think you did understand where I was going, and I agree that opposite sex marriage as defined in many states add an unnecessary state mandate with respect to entitlement benefits. Just because the state has perhaps overreached in extending those benefits to any couple that marries, does not for me justify compounding the situation by increasing the size of the benefited class. I would rather see an effort to clean up state law to clarify when mandated benefits are truly intended.

[Lincoln Republican]

Massive protests at UC San Diego today.

Proposition 8 passed with 52.2% of the vote, let me do some quick math, check, check, check......calculate, calculate, calculate......yup, that amounts to a majority of the votes cast, sure enough.

It seems to me there was another issue on the ballot the same day that ended up with almost the same results, hmmm, let me think, oh yes, I remember now, the issue of who voters want for President.

Let me check the Presidential results, popular vote that is, check, check, check......Obama 52.7% of the vote.  Wow, can you believe it, almost the same as the proposition 8 results.  Wait a minute, I am checking all the networks, checking election websites, check, check, check......click, click, click.  Oh wait, I don't see any reports of any idiot protesters running around protesting the Presidential election results.  Hmmm. 

As StatesRights said earlier in this thread, and I quote him directly,  It's only Democracy when it makes you happy, duh.   

How true, how true.
   

[Brittain33]

Winfield, is there anything that should not be subject to pure majority rule, in your view?

If the voters of the state of California voted to tax left-handed people at a higher rate, would it be foolish of people to complain, because it's democracy at work?

Are you familiar with the idea of minority rights and suspect classes? If there were no 14th amendment, would you be ok with a majority racial group within a state voting that the minority racial group had no right to vote?

(Please don't answer with pieties about hijacking the civil rights movement for gay rights; I am making the argument about minority rights in general, which one either thinks should be subject to all votes of the majority, or not.)

[??????????]

Sexual orientation doesn't equal Race or Religion, sorry.

[Brittain33]

Sexual orientation doesn't equal Race or Religion, sorry.

The California Supreme Court disagrees with you, finding they are equivalent "suspect classes" in the legal sense. Certainly a majority of people agree with you, or at least agree with the sense of what you're saying, since not even most gay people would say that discrimination against gays is "equal" to what was committed in the name of race.

They don't equal each other, but then race doesn't equal religion, and neither of them is equal to gender, and yet all of them enjoy federal protection and are considered suspect classes for the purpose of laws that discriminate on those bases. Using "discriminate" in the neutral sense.

[Lunar]

It seems weird to differentiate sexual orientation from both race AND religion - considering you are simultaneously choosing something that is genetic and something that is choice.

I wish gay marriage campaign staffers could learn how to talk so that people who don't like gay marriage or even homosexuality could still relate to the gay marriage position.  Right now the debate is phrased in terms that fundamentally slant in favor of the traditionalists.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I wish gay marriage campaign staffers could learn how to talk so that people who don't like gay marriage or even homosexuality could still relate to the gay marriage position.  Right now the debate is phrased in terms that fundamentally slant in favor of the traditionalists.

     The other side has the same problem. However, they are also in the majority, so they don't have to care about what gay rights activists think, outside of places like New England.

[Lunar]

I wish gay marriage campaign staffers could learn how to talk so that people who don't like gay marriage or even homosexuality could still relate to the gay marriage position.  Right now the debate is phrased in terms that fundamentally slant in favor of the traditionalists.

     The other side has the same problem. However, they are also in the majority, so they don't have to care about what gay rights activists think, outside of places like New England.

No, the Yes people know exactly how to talk to people.  They frame the debate in terms of what's best for your children and use minority ministers and imagery to break into the Democratic base.

[Brittain33]

I wish gay marriage campaign staffers could learn how to talk so that people who don't like gay marriage or even homosexuality could still relate to the gay marriage position.  Right now the debate is phrased in terms that fundamentally slant in favor of the traditionalists.

Oh, absolutely. What would you instruct them to say?

This is not something that people know how to do, instinctively. I hope most people get the message that saying "we're the next battle of the civil rights movement!" is counterproductive. However, while most gay people do have experience with dealing with opposition within our own families, we find it too easy, and often simply appropriate, not to engage strangers.

I have my thoughts about the way to structure this so that people can understand why that even if they are uncomfortable with gay marriage, the government should not be in a position of taking rights away from people raising families, and how dangerous it is to divide people by having the majority vote to take away those rights. However, I've never had to deal with it, and I see problems with that approach.

I would be very interested to hear what you think is an appropriate angle that would resonate with people who are uncomfortable with same-sex marriage and who have religious views that must be accommodated and respected. I can think of many reactive responses--that churches will continue to define marriage as they choose, the same way the anti-discrimination laws don't force Catholic priests to marry interfaith couples--but that's not a positive statement.

[Brittain33]

     The other side has the same problem. However, they are also in the majority, so they don't have to care about what gay rights activists think, outside of places like New England.

They're in the majority in a huge majority of states right now. However, 52% in California fighting against an incompetent opposition means that they will have to do more than just show up if they want to win referenda in the remaining states (by definition, the most liberal) in the future, particularly since they are swimming against the generational tide.

I'm under no illusions about public opinion right now, but we are moving past the point where people can count on votes to ban gay marriage in all 50 states just by getting it on the ballot. It's the beginning of the end. We've got many decades to go.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I wish gay marriage campaign staffers could learn how to talk so that people who don't like gay marriage or even homosexuality could still relate to the gay marriage position.  Right now the debate is phrased in terms that fundamentally slant in favor of the traditionalists.

     The other side has the same problem. However, they are also in the majority, so they don't have to care about what gay rights activists think, outside of places like New England.

No, the Yes people know exactly how to talk to people.  They frame the debate in terms of what's best for your children and use minority ministers and imagery to break into the Democratic base.

     They know how to talk to people who already share the same ideas, even if just unconsciously. They don't care about trying to appeal to social progressives like myself.

     Fact is there's definitely a secular argument to be made against gay marriage; it's just that opponents of gay marriage rarely try to make it.

     The other side has the same problem. However, they are also in the majority, so they don't have to care about what gay rights activists think, outside of places like New England.

They're in the majority in a huge majority of states right now. However, 52% in California fighting against an incompetent opposition means that they will have to do more than just show up if they want to win referenda in the remaining states (by definition, the most liberal) in the future, particularly since they are swimming against the generational tide.

I'm under no illusions about public opinion right now, but we are moving past the point where people can count on votes to ban gay marriage in all 50 states just by getting it on the ballot. It's the beginning of the end. We've got many decades to go.

     Naturally. The trend of history has always been that people become more accepting of different viewpoints. The idea that a country like our own could even exist would have been unthinkable a thousands years ago.

[Lunar]

I wish gay marriage campaign staffers could learn how to talk so that people who don't like gay marriage or even homosexuality could still relate to the gay marriage position.  Right now the debate is phrased in terms that fundamentally slant in favor of the traditionalists.

Oh, absolutely. What would you instruct them to say?

They had some good messages, they just didn't run them very much.  They need to feature minority preachers and ministers (Asian, Hispanic, Latino) front and center denouncing Prop 8/Prop whatever.  Even if the majority of these preachers are against gay marriage, you need to broadcast that someone like that supports gay marriage.

To address the Children issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opx-v_OhFnQ

To be tricky and make the opponents to gay marriage look bad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU4udzEbcdQ

For Hispanics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMQf0kumpZQ

And in general, this should be their #1 message:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6dBUCi32c8
ironically, they first ran this ad but abandoned it in favor of crappy dark-n-scary ads

AND DO NOT RUN ADS LIKE THIS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE


They also need a message where two medium-but-not-too-hot Lesbians explain why the term "marriage" is important to them.  The No On 8 campaign was too concerned with being politically correct regarding homosexuality.  Never should you feature two guys, especially two minority guys - the public as a whole is chill with lesbians but not with butt buddies   And never should you feature old gay people!!

[Lincoln Republican]

Winfield, is there anything that should not be subject to pure majority rule, in your view?

If the voters of the state of California voted to tax left-handed people at a higher rate, would it be foolish of people to complain, because it's democracy at work?

Are you familiar with the idea of minority rights and suspect classes? If there were no 14th amendment, would you be ok with a majority racial group within a state voting that the minority racial group had no right to vote?

(Please don't answer with pieties about hijacking the civil rights movement for gay rights; I am making the argument about minority rights in general, which one either thinks should be subject to all votes of the majority, or not.)

The examples you are using are, to be polite, ridiculous, in relation to the same sex marriage issue.

Obviously I fully support racial equality and obviously I fully support minority rights.

I really wish proponents of same sex marriage would stop equating same sex marriage with minority rights or with racial equality.

It is like comparing apples and oranges.

Extending marriage to same sex couples is nothing at all like extending the vote to blacks, for example.  Voting is a right.  Marriage is not a right, nor has it ever been meant to be a right in the sense that voting is a right.  Marriage is an institution, a union of one man and one woman.  The same sex marriage issue  has been exploited by the radical gay movement  and has been used as a political football by them.

Let me be clear, same sex marriage has nothing at all to do with minority rights or with equality.

[Lunar]

Well, you know, every time any group wants anything, it suddenly becomes a right for political rhetoric purposes.

I was strongly against Prop 8, but the discourse of discussion has become a toilet bowl.

[Alcon]

The examples you are using are, to be polite, ridiculous, in relation to the same sex marriage issue.

Obviously I fully support racial equality and obviously I fully support minority rights.

I really wish proponents of same sex marriage would stop equating same sex marriage with minority rights or with racial equality.

It is like comparing apples and oranges.

Extending marriage to same sex couples is nothing at all like extending the vote to blacks, for example.  Voting is a right.  Marriage is not a right, nor has it ever been meant to be a right in the sense that voting is a right.  Marriage is an institution, a union of one man and one woman.  The same sex marriage issue  has been exploited by the radical gay movement  and has been used as a political football by them.

Let me be clear, same sex marriage has nothing at all to do with minority rights or with equality.

Miscegenation laws, then?  What about that?  It's not a right, after all.  Would that morally justify laws against that?

The reason you get so many comparisons is that many supporters of gay marriage see the differentiation between minority rights and gay rights as tenuous.  You're entitled to disagree.  But there is, essentially, a logically consistent argument for almost everything.  The fact that you can point to a few distinctions doesn't necessarily mean that the parallels are wholly invalid.  As I'm sure you're aware, advocates for anti-miscegenation laws probably did roughly the same thing.  (I'm not going for guilt by association there, so please don't assume I am.)

I don't really think marriage is a right, per se, but this offends my moral sense for other reasons...

[Lincoln Republican]

The examples you are using are, to be polite, ridiculous, in relation to the same sex marriage issue.

Obviously I fully support racial equality and obviously I fully support minority rights.

I really wish proponents of same sex marriage would stop equating same sex marriage with minority rights or with racial equality.

It is like comparing apples and oranges.

Extending marriage to same sex couples is nothing at all like extending the vote to blacks, for example.  Voting is a right.  Marriage is not a right, nor has it ever been meant to be a right in the sense that voting is a right.  Marriage is an institution, a union of one man and one woman.  The same sex marriage issue  has been exploited by the radical gay movement  and has been used as a political football by them.

Let me be clear, same sex marriage has nothing at all to do with minority rights or with equality.

Miscegenation laws, then?  What about that?  It's not a right, after all.  Would that morally justify laws against that?

The reason you get so many comparisons is that many supporters of gay marriage see the differentiation between minority rights and gay rights as tenuous.  You're entitled to disagree.  But there is, essentially, a logically consistent argument for almost everything.  The fact that you can point to a few distinctions doesn't necessarily mean that the parallels are wholly invalid.  As I'm sure you're aware, advocates for anti-miscegenation laws probably did roughly the same thing.  (I'm not going for guilt by association there, so please don't assume I am.)

I don't really think marriage is a right, per se, but this offends my moral sense for other reasons...

Clearly, there can be no justification for anti-miscegenation laws, morally or otherwise.  But anti-miscegenation laws were based on race, whereas, obviously, anti-same sex marriage legislation or initiatives, if you want to call them that, are not based on race, nor are they based on minority rights.   

So I do not agree that same sex marriage and anti-miscegenation laws are related, tenuously or otherwise.

The gay movement is always trying to relate same sex marriage to racial or minority causes of the past, but the relationship is simply not realistic and is certainly not accurate. 

[Lunar]

... neither does sexual orientation either.  A gay guy has the same rights as me, both of us have full rights to marry my girlfriend or any other girl we choose.  I can't marry any male and neither can he, thus we have the same rights!

[Alcon]

Clearly, there can be no justification for anti-miscegenation laws, morally or otherwise.  But anti-miscegenation laws were based on race, whereas, obviously, anti-same sex marriage legislation or initiatives, if you want to call them that, are not based on race, nor are they based on minority rights.   

So I do not agree that same sex marriage and anti-miscegenation laws are related, tenuously or otherwise.

The gay movement is always trying to relate same sex marriage to racial or minority causes of the past, but the relationship is simply not realistic and is certainly not accurate. 

You didn't really answer my question.  Here are some of the parallels:

1. Anti-miscegenation laws allowed everyone to do the same thing:  Marry someone of their own race.

2. They were oftentimes supported with Biblical quotations.

3. It was argued that eliminating them would destroy the tradition and sanctity of Biblical marriage.

4. It was considered to be against tradition, moral family values, etc.

What is "tenuous" about that all?  There are folks who would have supported those laws using the exact same logic you're using now to oppose gay marriage.  Are you entirely so sure that it's not your differentiations that are "tenuous"?  I think it's impressive that almost all folks who see opposing gay marriage as a black-and-white issue can simultaneously be on the polar opposite side of the miscegenation issue (at least in retrospect) despite the abundant parallels.