Dumping gay marriage prop in California is getting intense

[Brittain33]

So, interestingly enough, is "gay marriage". You could (and presumably will) argue that legally it wouldn't be or isn't, but that's only on part of it. Socially and culturally, it would be (and, where it exists it is) a seperate institution for a long time, probably. Though that's more of a random observation than an argument. In any case, legally speaking the only real difference between marriage and civil unions should be the name.

Speaking socially, and again anecdotally, I have to disagree. This has not been my experience. Commitment ceremonies are seen as something different, like a gay couple throwing themselves a big party that others don't have to take seriously. I have found that my marriage has given my straight friends and some acquaintances a language for understanding and relating to my relationship that they didn't have before. You could see it in their eyes and their smiles, they saw us as doing what they did. And now they ask about when we're having children, and treat us like they would treat a straight married couple, talking about weddings and anniversaries and such. My coworkers threw me a shower before the wedding. If we'd been having a commitment ceremony, it would have been awkward and they wouldn't have known what to do. More to the point, we were never going to have a commitment ceremony before legal marriage, because it would have been awkward to us and seen as pushing the envelope for no compelling reason.

The people who don't accept it clam up, as always, and that's fine. What is different is that the people with good intentions felt they had to translate their feelings before, and were tourists in our world when talking about our relationship. Now I sense a palpable relief among them in that they can understand our relationship in terms they are familiar with, as opposed to long-term gay relationships, which is a language they were not raised to understand. If I said "mother-in-law" before, to some people it sounded like I was playing, or making things up, even though my partner and I had been together several years and she was a mother-in-law. Now it is clear as day.

I must state that I did not anticipate this before my marriage and it has been a wonderful surprise to encounter this reaction from friends, and more importantly, from family.

We have plenty of gay male friends, but few have taken the plunge, in part because they're not as ready to become part of that world.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So, interestingly enough, is "gay marriage". You could (and presumably will) argue that legally it wouldn't be or isn't, but that's only on part of it. Socially and culturally, it would be (and, where it exists it is) a seperate institution for a long time, probably. Though that's more of a random observation than an argument. In any case, legally speaking the only real difference between marriage and civil unions should be the name.

Speaking socially, and again anecdotally, I have to disagree. This has not been my experience. Commitment ceremonies are seen as something different, like a gay couple throwing themselves a big party that others don't have to take seriously. I have found that my marriage has given my straight friends and some acquaintances a language for understanding and relating to my relationship that they didn't have before. You could see it in their eyes and their smiles, they saw us as doing what they did. And now they ask about when we're having children, and treat us like they would treat a straight married couple, talking about weddings and anniversaries and such. My coworkers threw me a shower before the wedding. If we'd been having a commitment ceremony, it would have been awkward and they wouldn't have known what to do. More to the point, we were never going to have a commitment ceremony before legal marriage, because it would have been awkward to us and seen as pushing the envelope for no compelling reason.

The people who don't accept it clam up, as always, and that's fine. What is different is that the people with good intentions felt they had to translate their feelings before, and were tourists in our world when talking about our relationship. Now I sense a palpable relief among them in that they can understand our relationship in terms they are familiar with, as opposed to long-term gay relationships, which is a language they were not raised to understand. If I said "mother-in-law" before, to some people it sounded like I was playing, or making things up, even though my partner and I had been together several years and she was a mother-in-law. Now it is clear as day.

I must state that I did not anticipate this before my marriage and it has been a wonderful surprise to encounter this reaction from friends, and more importantly, from family.

We have plenty of gay male friends, but few have taken the plunge, in part because they're not as ready to become part of that world.

Interesting, actually (even if anecdotal evidence only goes so far).

[Brittain33]

Politics is a very good reason. Civil partnerships were passed over here without much of a fuss (less so than lowering the age of (male) homosexual consent) after all. You could argue that that's the result of a more liberal political culture or political culture never seriously infected by culture wars (the second one, in particular, is a valid point) but, nonetheless, if an attempt had been made to legalise "gay marriage" outright and if this language of rights and of evil had been used to justify it, things would have been just a little less civil, even if it would never have gotten so bad as it has in America.

I would also note that Britain has a culture of using the word "partner" to refer to a spouse of the opposite sex, and, it seems, a greater prevalence of unmarried couples living together with no expectation of a wedding and no sense that they have missed out on something important.

In a sense, British society was better geared to a civil partnership solution than wedding-mad America is.

[Brittain33]

Interesting, actually (even if anecdotal evidence only goes so far).

What gets lost in this discussion in American politics is the fact that most people love weddings and are instinctively made happy by them. Lots of people will see a picture of two grizzled old men in tuxedos and think, that's not right, but when it's someone they know and a relationship they have observed, they empathize--and are happily warmed by their empathy.

[Earth]

...It bugs me to hear people trout out the Civil rights that were fought for in the 1960s on the behalf of Black Americans; it’s downright ridiculous and disrespecting to those people.

The phrase "civil rights" isn't exclusive to the black civil rights movement. We're talking about exactly that, granting civil rights, except this time, it's for gays.

I am not understanding what you are wanting?   People are still going to get married in Churches, and let’s be honest that's not going to happen for the gay couple even if you get to redefine marriage.

There are liberal churches that are willing to marry gay couples. Obviously not as many as traditional churches, but they exist. Legitimately founded christian churches, none the less. You're making it sound as if because gay rights have such opposition, it's not worth doing.

We are really debating over the way its "worded" more then anything else. Right now, Forty-one states currently have statutory Defense of Marriage Acts.  Three of those states have statutory language that pre-dates DOMA (enacted before 1996) defining marriage as between a man and a woman.  Twenty-seven states have defined marriage in their constitutions.  Arizona is the only state that has ever defeated a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman (2006).Here’s the big problem
with this forced way - most states have already said NO WAY.  Civil Unions reworked so
that they protect rights of same sex couples would be the best way.  This fight over
redefining marriage will get nowhere.

If anything, these states should've never legislated a definition for marriage, "only between a man and a woman". The point is, if civil unions don't offer the exact same protections as traditional marriage, then civil unions either need to be reformed, or the states should let gays marry. It's sad that the state feels they need to intervene, but because of ignorance, it's the only option left.

*Mandate Civil Unions be recognized in all 50 states.

* Mandate that under Civil Unions same sex couples are granted the same martial rights

as straight couples.

IS THIS NOT FAIR ENOUGH?

In theory, yes it's fair enough, but do you honestly think civil unions will get to that point? I don't think they will currently.

Nobody’s being bigoted towards homosexuals, but allowing same sex
marriages would undermine the marriage institution. Let’s be honest here, we all pretty
much know that marriage was intended between man and woman.

How does this "undermine" marriage at all? Will heterosexual couples be deprived of something if gays are allowed to marry? I don't believe they will. Will churches be forced to marry gays? No. Will communities suffer? I really don't think so. Whatever churches would marry gay couples, the choice is voluntary. Honestly, this resistance just sounds like an inflexible mindset to carry on tradition no matter what cost.

This attempt to redefine marriage and muddle the waters is not helping either side.  I don't want to hear the nonsense argument comparing it to African American civil rights.  To be frank about it... gay rights has come along alot faster in span of 20 years then AA rights did.  Whats being missed in all of this is the social importance in heterosexual marriage.  I believe that as a society we should keep "marriage" defined as between a man and woman.

Once again, explain how this "muddles the water". The only one comparing it to the african american civil rights movement is you, "civil rights" don't only refer to african american's fight against segregation.

Explain the "social importance" of marriage that excludes a certain section of people, where minorities of all types are losing out. There's nothing that would put heterosexual marriage into trouble by giving gays the right to marry. Society will not change in some massive way. In the end it doesn't matter what society believes marriage should entail, it becomes an issue once it becomes a part of the legal domain.

My argument for Civil Unions is about finding another way in the door without hitting those on the other side of that door in the process.

I'm arguing for nothing more than gay couples to obtain the exact same rights as heterosexual couples. If civil unions can in fact be reformed to mirror marriage exactly, so be it. But if it can't, then marriage is the only way. This is not about the religious aspect, mind you, just the legal area it covers.

[afleitch]

Interesting, actually (even if anecdotal evidence only goes so far).

What gets lost in this discussion in American politics is the fact that most people love weddings and are instinctively made happy by them. Lots of people will see a picture of two grizzled old men in tuxedos and think, that's not right, but when it's someone they know and a relationship they have observed, they empathize--and are happily warmed by their empathy.

I agree. What probably helped in Britain was that the first probable legal civil partnership was this;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4505270.stm

I don't think anyone with less than the coldest of hearts could have objected to their union considering the love and devotion of the couple in question. Yet we allow frivolous marriages and 'quickie divorces' by simple right of one being a man and the other a women. But no matter.

Let me give you a bit of a rundown of what happned in Britain. Civil Partnerships were legislated, in unison in Northern Ireland, In Scotland (under Scots Law) and in England and Wales - this was very important, considering that Scottish law was not adjusted to decriminalise homosexual acts until some 12 years after England and Wales. Northern Ireland followed 2 years later. Some credit, particularly in Northern Ireland has to go to the Conservative government as reluctant as mouthpieces like Mr Cashman are to admit it. But that's me sidestepping a little :)0

The Greens in the Scottish Parliament pushed for Civil Partnerships in Scotland prior to 2005, however this was 'rejected' by Parliament. I say rejected, not quite; it would have passed handsomely. It was deferred instead, using the Sewell prcedure to the Westminster Parliament. The Scottish Parliament chose not to legislate seperately and differently from England and Wales and instead proposed that Scottish legislation be in line with proposed legislation introduced in Westminster (although the enacting of the law would be seperate due to seperate legal systems)

Labour supported it, the Conservatives supported it (though some backbenchers tried to push though a shoddy amendment to do with 'spinsters' ) and the Lib Dems supported it. In fact, there was no official political opposition to it barring mad parties and a few Unionists. This reflected public opinion.

It had came to the attention of anyone who noticed that there were hundreds, even thousands of gay and lesbian couples in the UK. Many had been together for years or decades. And as old couples do, one partner would get sick, or pass away due to cancer, heart disease etc or just plain old age. And those whom they left behind often had to fight to have a share in their estate. For those watching their partners suffer with dementia, they had little rights unless they were fought or planned in advance over the management of their partners estate.

However as with all causes these days, it takes something a little more public than the priivate troubles and grief of many to highlight the absurdity and unfarness of law.

Then came Trevor Bentham. Trevor was the partner of Sir Nigel Hawthorne, an actor whom the public liked and the politicians liked even more. When Nigel Hawthorne died he left a healthy estate, but Trevor his partner of 22 years was faced with a massive tax bill and other difficulties that almost cost him the home they shared together. He faced costs and legal baggage that he would not have faced it he had been a woman married to Nigel for 22 days. The legal process was private, but the case highlighted the injustices. A 'register' offering some legal protection was introduced in 2002 and was the precursor to the now necessary and inevitable Civil Patnership legislation.

And Britain glanced over it's morning paper while eating soggy cornflakes and, in traditional but often forgotten national style, didn't bat an eyelid!

[Aizen]

Since gay marriage is banned, it only makes sense that fat people shouldn't marry either.

Argument 1:

Fat sex is just as gross as gay sex.

Argument 2:

Fat people will have fat children. It will ruin society.

Argument 3:

It will work out in the long run since it will motivate them to lose weight.

Argument 4: While homosexuality may be a sin (according to fundies), gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins

[Alcon]

Mike, we compared it to miscegenation, not the black civil rights struggle.  We were applying your logic and arguments to another scenario (racial civil rights or miscegenation) to see how it could be used to defend stuff you hate.  It was disputing your internal consistency, not equating the two scenarios.

[Alcon]

I personally think that it's stupid to resort to only talking about a hyperminority of the people who disagree with you.  How does it feel to be put in with homophobic bigots because you disagree with gay marriage?

There are jerks on both sides.  I don't see why you think it's more important to decry people who don't post here than respond to those who do, Mike, but whatever.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I personally think that it's stupid to resort to only talking about a hyperminority of the people who disagree with you.  How does it feel to be put in with homophobic bigots because you disagree with gay marriage?There are jerks on both sides.  I don't see why you think it's more important to decry people who don't post here than respond to those who do, Mike, but whatever.

?

Iam homophobic bigot because I oppose redefining marriage?

Whatever dude..

     He was asking how it feels to be compared to them.

[MK]

I personally think that it's stupid to resort to only talking about a hyperminority of the people who disagree with you.  How does it feel to be put in with homophobic bigots because you disagree with gay marriage?There are jerks on both sides.  I don't see why you think it's more important to decry people who don't post here than respond to those who do, Mike, but whatever.

?

Iam homophobic bigot because I oppose redefining marriage?

Whatever dude..

     He was asking how it feels to be compared to them.

Not very good.

[Flying Dog]

I personally think that it's stupid to resort to only talking about a hyperminority of the people who disagree with you.  How does it feel to be put in with homophobic bigots because you disagree with gay marriage?

There are jerks on both sides.  I don't see why you think it's more important to decry people who don't post here than respond to those who do, Mike, but whatever.

The only ones who are acting like jerks are the pro same sex marriage people who want to stump out any descent. Nobody is being bigoted to gay people or atleast not on the level that blacks went through for almost 200 years.  If you ask me gay rights has come a long ing way in just a span of 20 years. If this was 1950 you wouldn't dare be acting like an ass protesting about gay rights, so enough already about gay civil  rights.  Homosexual people get treated just like everbody else from what I have saw in my small town of hartwell GA.  The issue is same sex marriage, and you know that the foundation of marriage was never intended for same sex couples. You talk about water fountains and No negro signs ... none of that is taking place when it comes to gay rights.  Have you seen any NO GAYS! or separate water fountains?   I don't Judge people by who they sleep with, its none of my business and I could care less.  For all you know I could be sleeping around with the same sex.   The progressive left are delusional. They have always been delusional, because their prime delusion is that they are smarter than the common man and thus deserve to tell him what to do and how to think. Thats whats going on here in this case.

Must be nice to live in a box that small....

[MK]

I personally think that it's stupid to resort to only talking about a hyperminority of the people who disagree with you.  How does it feel to be put in with homophobic bigots because you disagree with gay marriage?

There are jerks on both sides.  I don't see why you think it's more important to decry people who don't post here than respond to those who do, Mike, but whatever.

The only ones who are acting like jerks are the pro same sex marriage people who want to stump out any descent. Nobody is being bigoted to gay people or atleast not on the level that blacks went through for almost 200 years.  If you ask me gay rights has come a long ing way in just a span of 20 years. If this was 1950 you wouldn't dare be acting like an ass protesting about gay rights, so enough already about gay civil  rights.  Homosexual people get treated just like everbody else from what I have saw in my small town of hartwell GA.  The issue is same sex marriage, and you know that the foundation of marriage was never intended for same sex couples. You talk about water fountains and No negro signs ... none of that is taking place when it comes to gay rights.  Have you seen any NO GAYS! or separate water fountains?   I don't Judge people by who they sleep with, its none of my business and I could care less.  For all you know I could be sleeping around with the same sex.   The progressive left are delusional. They have always been delusional, because their prime delusion is that they are smarter than the common man and thus deserve to tell him what to do and how to think. Thats whats going on here in this case.

Must be nice to live in a box that small....

Yep. its nice and warm.

[Alcon]

The only ones who are acting like jerks are the pro same sex marriage people who want to stump out any descent. Nobody is being bigoted to gay people or atleast not on the level that blacks went through for almost 200 years.

Are you really serious?  Is "fag" not thrown around at your school?  I live in the secular North, and I hear it pretty often.  There is a sizable minority of the population here that is outwardly homophobic.  It's really not that way in rural Georgia?  Either way, it is in much of the U.S. that I've known.  Yes gays have it better than blacks ever did, and probably than gays ever did.  and?  Immoral is immoral, right?  If you had been back in the civil rights days, would you have been all, "at least they're not slaves anymore"?  no way.  You're appealing to moderation, which is a fallacy.

Either way, no one here wants to stamp out dissent.  You're battling people who aren't here.  It's like me responding to you by claiming about virulent homophobes.  You already said you don't like being compared to those people.  So stop proxy-arguing with intolerable gay marriage proponents through us, please.  We're not those people, we don't agree with those people, full stop.

And, I don't know what's troubling you to understand this:  I'm trying to check your argument for logical consistency.  I'm trying to see whether it could defend things that you probably hate.  That does NOT mean I am equalizing them.  Not not not not not not.  It just means I'm showing parallels between the two situations to show why pro-gay marriage folks see your position as being immoral.  Then, I'm applying the justification for the position you're giving, and seeing whether it could be use to suborn things you dislike.

Example: If someone defends eating meat by saying "animals are dumb" it's fair to ask them why they won't eat dumb people.  If they respond "because they're people!", it's not logically consistent.  They're defining "why not eat people" with "because they're smarter," but not arbitrarily failing to hold up that standard in other cases.  I'm pointing out that parts of your argument may do the same, i.e., are potentially logically inconsistent.

Get what I'm doing now?  Can we agree not to proxy-battle people who don't post here?  That would be really, really cool

[Alcon]

By the by - I realize at least one gay marriage supporter here has probably already said something that implies we should stomp dissent.

Bet I can find a gay marriage opponent on here who's made a "fag-stomping" joke or some such.  Either way, they're jerks, or thoughtless, or a bit of both.  They're not us.  They're not a majority, and even if they were, that has no bearing on the fundamental quality of their beliefs.  It just makes them jerks, with opinions that should be evaluated separately of that fact.

Now, can we agree to stop that crap and move onto substantial discussion of this issue?

[Lunar]

[Alcon]

Nope.  In fact believe it or not you can lose your job by calling somebody a fag.  You won't lose your job if calling a black person a N- word ... I have seen it happen. People go out of their way to be respectful to homosexual people ( assuming they are open about being gay).

So, you never hear people using "gay" or other forms as a slur?

That's pretty incredible.  Maybe Washington is seethingly homophobic and rural Georgia is an unknown bastion of tolerance.

I've been on the cultural melting pot that is the Internet long enough to know using "gay" negatively is pretty universal, and homophobia is way not uncommon too.

How is my argument inconsistent?

The idea is to apply it to black civil rights and see if it would defend segregation/miscegenation/other ideas.  The idea isn't to say that opposing gay marriage is just as bad.  see what i'm saying?

It's like the analogy I provided:  If you can't explain why you're treating one situation differently from another, along logically salient grounds, it makes it seem like you're shoehorning justifications in to what you already believe.  Rationalization.  Everyone does that.  It's irrational.  It's honestly what most discussions eventually break down to.

That doesn't mean I'm equating gay marital rights to racial rights.  I believe in both.  But you believe in one, and apparently not the other.  So if your arguments again apply to one (gay marital rights), they shouldn't apply to the other (racial rights) or you're caught in that trap of arbitrary belief.

I have been repeatedly saying Marriage should stay defined as between man and woman, but while also saying I would like to see civil unions being more of the debate.  My reasons for no to same sex marriage is not really based on "god says its a sin" , but more on a societal - institutional standpoint.

So, you have evidence that gay marriage negatively impacts society, enough to justify maintaining what's otherwise pretty much "separate but equal" status?  If you want to remove religious justification, we can discuss on that plane.  You'll have to provide specifics.

[Alcon]

My argument couldn't be applied to the anti civil rights fight - because iam not arguing against homosexuality.  White folks who were anti civil rights, really thought blacks were 2nd class people back then.  I know your counter- argument to this will be " well you want  a separate but equal civil union" - Yes I strongly like the ideal of civil unions in this case, because both sides get their way in the end.  Its not a civil rights issue, you are basically asking to change a established institution to mean something else. That institution being marriage between a man and woman.

But you're actively ignoring that miscegenation was traditional at the time too, and established.  That's the kind of instance I was making a point of.  Your argument seems to boil down to, marriage is between a man and a woman, that's tradition, I don't want to change it.  There's two basic problems:

1. That could just as readily apply to any other civil rights issue -- tradition was obviously, at the time, in the hands of the status quo

2. Something being established does not make it better.  That's an appeal to tradition and, I'm sorry, it's a fallacetic argument.  You have to have more substance.

I'll assume you do.  Beyond "it's traditional," what is your substance?

Before you answer:  I'm not modifying the established institution by supporting gay marriage anyway -- marriage is still the same, more people are added to it.  Does having gay people marry denigrate your marriage?  If not, how is it modifying it undesirably?

Basically, my point is, unless you dispute:

1. That gay marriage doesn't really affect heterosexual marriage.

2. That gay marriage removes the dignity from heterosexual marriage.

Where's the beef here?

[Alcon]

And this is, in fact, different from some other issues that the Religious Right talk about....I think an argument can be made on abortion with completely non-religious arguments....I think it's a shame, though, that so few pro-lifers attempt to do that....it would make people take them far more seriously.

I strongly agree.  I think there's a great argument that defining life as we do is arbitrary, and we should err on the side of maintaining life, as we do everywhere else.  Gay marriage, I just don't see a good secular argument against and I must have heard a hundred.

That's why I'm bothering here, it's one of those "wtf grahhh" issues for me.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You know, for all the "this isn't like civil rights" etc etc

The arguments against gay marriage - weakens the institution, "won't somebody think of the children!!!???" arent' disimilar from the anti black/white marriage laws.

The same arguments about gays in the miltary - were used against blacks in favour of segregation of units. Breaking unit morale...

If it isn't a biblical issue - and your concern is for the institution.... what argument can you give apart from marriage was designed for a man and a woman.... (that would lead to some follow ups)? That suggests that institutional standards cannot change with society - when in fact there have already been marked changes in the nature of the institution.

[afleitch]

And another thing: You keep claiming that marriage is a defined institution meaning "between a man and a woman (bla bla bla)". Let me ask: WHO definied this institution. If you can't come up with any non-religious arguments, then they definitely should not be valid in political discussion. Churches, of course, should be able to grant marriage to whoever they want...and deny it accordingly....but the churches' decisions should have NO effect on government policy. There is such a thing as seperation of church and state...ever heard of it?

I agree, and I'm going to quote myself here

The first thing we need to do is throw the idea of a marriage 'tradition' right out of the window. The fact that so many people believe that marriage and family norms effectively created in the immediate post-war era (and fragmented a few decades later) are 'tradition' rather than an invention is always slightly amusing.

Marriage is whatever society wants it to be. Whether it's the marriage of one to another, or to several others, or to one or several others of the same race, or only to people of the same faith or to people of the same caste, or for adults, or for children, or for a child and an adult, or arranged, or forced, or for property, or for hereditary purposes, or to deflect attention from your sexuality, or for convenience..or even to the bloody sea.

Marriage has only been about 'love' for a blink of an eye in the human timescale and is only for love for the select few who have a comfortable exisitence free from heavy work, or from the kitchen or social pressures. Saying marriage between a man and woman only and in set terms is 'tradition' is nonsense. It is not for the government to uphold 'tradition' whether ancient or constructed and that fact that the government has allowed or disallowed some of the marriages above (to the best of it's legal capacity) proves that what constitutes a marriage has and can change.

Saying it's purely and exclusively religious is elitist - who's religion? Pagans and tribesfolk around the world probably look in horror at the western marriage tradition - probably in the same way as many here may be uncomfortable with Muslim or Hindu arranged marriages and 'child' brides which for many of them are culturally acceptable.

[Brittain33]

Nope.  In fact believe it or not you can lose your job by calling somebody a fag.  You won't lose your job if calling a black person a N- word ... I have seen it happen. People go out of their way to be respectful to homosexual people ( assuming they are open about being gay).

Where do you work where the racial slur is ok but "f****t" isn't? That blows my mind. It's completely atypical. Using racial slurs is out of the question anywhere there is any accountability, and if there is none, those places aren't going to be exactly welcoming of gays.

[Lincoln Republican]

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.

The first thing we need to do is throw the idea of a marriage 'tradition' right out of the window. The fact that so many people believe that marriage and family norms effectively created in the immediate post-war era (and fragmented a few decades later) are 'tradition' rather than an invention is always slightly amusing.

Marriage is whatever society wants it to be. Whether it's the marriage of one to another, or to several others, or to one or several others of the same race, or only to people of the same faith or to people of the same caste, or for adults, or for children, or for a child and an adult, or arranged, or forced, or for property, or for hereditary purposes, or to deflect attention from your sexuality, or for convenience..or even to the bloody sea.

Marriage has only been about 'love' for a blink of an eye in the human timescale and is only for love for the select few who have a comfortable exisitence free from heavy work, or from the kitchen or social pressures. Saying marriage between a man and woman only and in set terms is 'tradition' is nonsense. It is not for the government to uphold 'tradition' whether ancient or constructed and that fact that the government has allowed or disallowed some of the marriages above (to the best of it's legal capacity) proves that what constitutes a marriage has and can change.

Saying it's purely and exclusively religious is elitist - who's religion? Pagans and tribesfolk around the world probably look in horror at the western marriage tradition - probably in the same way as many here may be uncomfortable with Muslim or Hindu arranged marriages and 'child' brides which for many of them are culturally acceptable.

Now I'm not a fan of 'cultural relativism', however can we hold up our heterosexual one man, one woman marriage as an ideal? Particularly when divorce rates are high, partners cheat and many people get married more than once. It is, quite frankly, a rather 'cheap' ideal. Unless it is based on love and commitment alone. That's what gay people want to sure. And sure, many will divroce and cheat and do what everyone else does, but the strong marriages based on love will survive as they always do.

And in a free and democratic vote, a majority of Californian society voting want it to be a union between one man and one woman.

So give it a rest and get over it.

[Alcon]

And in a free and democratic vote, a majority of Californian society voting want it to be a union between one man and one woman.

So give it a rest and get over it.

Is there any way we can express that we disagree with them without not "getting over it"?  Do you "get over" losses your moral sense suffers, or do you act to change them, even if a vote just struck them down?  Even if you choose not to, what is wrong with working for your moral beliefs even after a democracy has turned them down -- in hopes that they won't in next instance?

You haven't answered any of these questions.

[Sbane]

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.

The first thing we need to do is throw the idea of a marriage 'tradition' right out of the window. The fact that so many people believe that marriage and family norms effectively created in the immediate post-war era (and fragmented a few decades later) are 'tradition' rather than an invention is always slightly amusing.

Marriage is whatever society wants it to be. Whether it's the marriage of one to another, or to several others, or to one or several others of the same race, or only to people of the same faith or to people of the same caste, or for adults, or for children, or for a child and an adult, or arranged, or forced, or for property, or for hereditary purposes, or to deflect attention from your sexuality, or for convenience..or even to the bloody sea.

Marriage has only been about 'love' for a blink of an eye in the human timescale and is only for love for the select few who have a comfortable exisitence free from heavy work, or from the kitchen or social pressures. Saying marriage between a man and woman only and in set terms is 'tradition' is nonsense. It is not for the government to uphold 'tradition' whether ancient or constructed and that fact that the government has allowed or disallowed some of the marriages above (to the best of it's legal capacity) proves that what constitutes a marriage has and can change.

Saying it's purely and exclusively religious is elitist - who's religion? Pagans and tribesfolk around the world probably look in horror at the western marriage tradition - probably in the same way as many here may be uncomfortable with Muslim or Hindu arranged marriages and 'child' brides which for many of them are culturally acceptable.

Now I'm not a fan of 'cultural relativism', however can we hold up our heterosexual one man, one woman marriage as an ideal? Particularly when divorce rates are high, partners cheat and many people get married more than once. It is, quite frankly, a rather 'cheap' ideal. Unless it is based on love and commitment alone. That's what gay people want to sure. And sure, many will divroce and cheat and do what everyone else does, but the strong marriages based on love will survive as they always do.

And in a free and democratic vote, a majority of Californian society voting want it to be a union between one man and one woman.

So give it a rest and get over it.

And this is exactly what I will tell you when very shortly California changes its mind, you idiot.