The Numbers

This is not a matter of majority rules. This is a matter of constitutionality. Do the states have the right to deny the ability to marry based on the sex on the participants? If that is so, then why can they not deny marriage on the basis of race, religion or political belief? At the core of this argument we need to find whether or not sexual orientation is a freedom protected by the consititution. I personally believe it is, it does need to be specifically enumerated. It is arguably under all three inalienable rights so proclaimed: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This is not a matter of mob rule or is this a matter of what some liberal court judge rules.

If the people voted and reject it, so be it. This is a Republic.

This is what the Constitution was founded on, not radical judges ignoring the people.

GTA, by that measure if the people voted to have a national religion we should have one. yes we are a republic, actually a democratic republic, all that means is that the people are represented by those elected by them. The constitution is in place to hlep prevent the ascention of government over the people. The majority is not always right. Nearly every progress made as a society has been made over the majority. Being gay is not a crime, nor should it be. the government should not be in the business of deciding who should and should not be married once necessary issues of protection: consent, age and blood relationship are addressed. Exactly what is put in danger by allowing same sex marriage?

^^Do the states have the right to deny the ability to marry based on the sex on the participants?^^

They don't.

All men, homosexual and heterosexual, may marry women, homosexual and heterosexual.
No man, neither heterosexual, nor homosexual, may marry another man.

All women, homosexual and heterosexual, may marry men, homosexual and heterosexual.
No woman, neither heterosexual, nor homosexual, may marry another woman.

The heterosexual man has no more, nor less, Right to marry than the man claiming to be homosexual, and vice versa.
The heterosexual woman has no more, nor less, Right to marry than the woman claiming to be homosexual, and vice versa.

There is no inequality in marriage law. No one is prohibited from marrying. No one is barred from marrying.

Nothing is stopping a homosexual man from marrying a heterosexual woman.
Nothing is stopping a homosexual man from marrying a homosexual woman.

Nothing is stopping a heterosexual man from marrying a heterosexual woman.
Nothing is stopping a heterosexual man from marrying a homosexual woman.

Nothing is stopping a homosexual woman from marrying a homosexual man.
Nothing is stopping a homosexual woman from marrying a heterosexual man.

Nothing is stopping a heterosexual woman from marrying a homosexual man.
Nothing is stopping a heterosexual woman from marrying a heterosexual man.

All are barred from same-sex marrying.

In other words, nothing stops any man from marrying a woman, and nothing stops any woman from marrying any man. All men have the same Rights, and all women have the same Rights.

This is equal protection. This is equality. This is equity.

Therefore, there is no inequality and no inequity.

^^why can they not deny marriage on the basis of race, religion or political belief?^^

Not the same thing as the basis and reason for marriage in the first place.

In any case, men and women of different races are still men and women.

Men and women of different religions are still men and women.

Men and womenof different political parties are still men and women.

^^...we need to find whether or not sexual orientation is a freedom protected by the consititution.^^
I can settle it for you now: It isn't.

^^ I personally believe it is...^^

Those who claim to be homosexual, their activists and supporters would.

^^...It is arguably under all three inalienable rights so proclaimed: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.^^

Uhhh, except that you people tell us that the Declaration of Independence is NOT law.

Now, if, as Jefferson says, we have theRight to life, for example, when does that Right begin? Jefferson says it begins when we are created. When is that?

so Mr. Incredible. So it would be ok for states to say that you cannot marry outside your declared race or religion? As long as it applied to everyone? How about hieght? Those above 5'10" are not allowed to marry those under and vice versa. Perhaps eye color. No two people of different eye colors can marry. Are any of those any less arbitrary? If yoru church does not want to marry two men or two women they don't have to, any more than a synogogue is required to serve bacon with breakfast. The state discriminating on such an arbitrary basis is unconstitutional.

Louis: "Do the states have the right to deny the ability to marry based on the sex on the participants?"

From a State Constitutional question, that depends on the state. But from a US Constitutional question, the answer is "yes".

The SCOTUS has applied "strict scrutiny" to race and religion but not to sex (i.e. discriminatory laws re: against race and religion are considered illegal unless the Govn't has an overwhelming argument to exclude.). Sex and gender equality issues are dealt with using "hightened scrutiny", which is a lower level of scrutiny and in which case the govn't must prove a "rational basis" for discrimination, such as the excluding women from "combat situations" in the armed forces.

From the standpoint of the state of CA, the question may be resolved when and if the voters opt or opt out of adding a ban in the State's Constitution. Only a simple majority can change the CA Constitution.

That will be the litmus test of how all of these polls are doing.

^^So it would be ok for states to say that you cannot marry outside your declared race or religion?^^

"Marriage" is between a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife. Men and women can be of different races and religions and still be men and women.

^^ As long as it applied to everyone? How about hieght? Those above 5'10" are not allowed to marry those under and vice versa. Perhaps eye color. No two people of different eye colors can marry. Are any of those any less arbitrary?^^

See answer above.

^^The state discriminating on such an arbitrary basis is unconstitutional. ^^

That all men may marry women and vice versa is not arbitrary. All are treated the same.

When does homosexuality begin?

Those who claim to be homosexual agree with Jefferson that the Right to life begins at creation. That means conception.

If that's the case, then they disagree with Jefferson and the pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice crowd who say that the Right to life begins at birth, even though, clearly, something was created befor that.

So, which is it?

they disagree with Jefferson >>>>> they agree with Jefferson but disagree with...

I find some of these arguments weird: if straight-only proponents actually work on strengthening marriage in general instead of working to prohibit others from marrying, then they may stem the 50% divorce rate.

That divorce rate is the fault of hetros, it is pointless argue otherwise. Straight marriage has been failing for generations... how does gay-marriage prohibition help that. It is red herring.

Ok tying same sex marriage to abortion is a ridiculous argument.

I am an activist for freedom. there are those that appear to believe that freedom should be avaialble only under the narrowest of vison and to the majority opinion. I take the opposite view. state a single reason why two or more consenting adults should not be permitted to wed? What threat is manifested by having such a union. What is allegedly being protected though this limiting of marital privilege? Traditions particularly ones regarding marriage have changed significantly, and despite what you think, they have not aleays been one man and one woman.
The same arguments you make to prevent same sex marriage are the same ones used to try and deny women and blacks the vote and interracial and interfaith marriages, not to mention non-white marriages at one time. In the history of this country there have been laws passed against both. You don't have to like homosexuality nor practice it. Marriage is a legally recognized union between two individuals that have declared their commitment to one another. If there is a non-religious based argument I'll happily listen, otherwise, there is no reason to deny people this proviledge based on sexual preference. tradition is not an answer, it used to be tradition that my ancestors were property, right up until someone of the minority opinion saw that that was wrong.

^^What threat is manifested by having such a union.^^

Against tghis society, this culture, this country.

^^ What is allegedly being protected though this limiting of marital privilege?^^

Family, this society, this culture, this country.

^^ Traditions particularly ones regarding marriage have changed significantly...^^

They can change regarding wifebeating, bank robbery and murder, too.

^^...and despite what you think, they have not aleays been one man and one woman.^^

With God, they have. What falls outside what He has ordained is ungodly.

^^The same arguments you make to prevent same sex marriage are the same ones used to try and deny women and blacks the vote and interracial and interfaith marriages, not to mention non-white marriages at one time.^^

That's the fault of humans. Blacks and whites are still men and women.

^^ Marriage is a legally recognized union between two individuals that have declared their commitment to one another.^^

No, it isn't.

You wanna redefine it to mean that.

^^ If there is a non-religious based argument I'll happily listen...^^

We understand that you wanna limit your intake of information.

^^...there is no reason to deny people this proviledge based on sexual preference.^^

You have to believe that so that -- shave off thecorners -- to fit a square peg into a round hole.

^^...it used to be tradition that my ancestors were property, right up until someone of the minority opinion saw that that was wrong. ^^

Oh, you mean the tyranny of the minority. We see.

to address the right to life issue and abortion: at some point after conception and prior to birth a zygote becomes an embryo and eventually a person. The extreme anti-choice crowd says conception, I've yet to meet a pro-choicer that was pro-abortion. I have also found that the majority of anti-choice advocates are also pro- death penalty, a schism I find telling. The question becomes, when does a person, become a person? If brain function ceases and there is no heart or lung activity a person is declared dead, a non-person. So I would think it applicable, that at a minimum for a person to be declared a person they would need to meet those condidions of human life, a heart, respiration and brain function. consevatively this brings us to 8 weeks. Which would be my personal limitation for abortion. I can see the argument for extending that to 12 weeks, but I think that is too far. I do think that 8 weeks is enough time for a mother to be given options and make a decsison. Taking that right to what is going to happen to her body out of the mother's hands at conception is wrong.

--...at some point after conception and prior to birth a zygote becomes an embryo and eventually a person.--

Sooo, those who claim to be homosexual were NOT created homosexual. That's what we've been saying, and, now, you say that we are correct. We thought so.

-- The extreme anti-choice crowd says conception...--

If those who coaim to be homosexual believe that they were created homosexual, they'd have to believe that, from the very start, when the chromosomes meet, is when they were created so.

--I've yet to meet a pro-choicer that was pro-abortion.--

And, yet, they are.

-- I have also found that the majority of anti-choice advocates are also pro- death penalty, a schism I find telling.--

Yes, the unborn are innocent, and the criminal who has been judged is guilty.

-- The question becomes, when does a person, become a person?--

No, what I want to know is when a person who says he was created homosexual created homosexual. At birth, or conception?

^^...and despite what you think, they have not always been one man and one woman.^^

"With God, they have. What falls outside what He has ordained is ungodly."

And that is the fallacy of the argument. to deny same sex marriage based on religious belief is a violation of the 1st amendment. I've yet to hear an argument not based on religious dogma that opposes same sex marriage.

I clearly have more faith in family, culture and this country than you do.
those same arguments were used to propogate slavery, segregation and womens rights. Because it is traditional, doesn't make it the correct or right thing to do.

How does a same sex marriage damage your marriage? how does it harm yoru family? how is it somehow inherently inferior?

It doesn't matter when someone recognizes they they are homosexual. Did you know at birth that you would be attracted to a particular type of person? I didn't. I didn't figure out what kind of women I liked until I was in my teens. Some homosexuals appear to have always known who they were attracted to, some didn't fiugure it out until later in life. trying to make homosexuality some kind of birth defect is laughable. I've never bought into the 'gay' gene theory. Sexual attraction is as individual a thing as can be, I'd find it very difficult to believe there was a specific genetic trigger for it.

== to deny same sex marriage based on religious belief is a violation of the 1st amendment.==

To require that we deny it is a violation.

== I've yet to hear an argument not based on religious dogma that opposes same sex marriage. ==

You don't get to decide wht evidence we bring.

If you don't wanna listen to evidence, that's YOUR choice.

==I clearly have more faith in family, culture and this country than you do.==

You'd like to think so.

==those same arguments were used to propogate slavery, segregation and womens rights==

Irrelevant.

You wanna tray to dismiss and dilute the current argument by appealing to the faults of others at a different, unenlightened, ignorant time. Doesn't work here.

== Because it is traditional, doesn't make it the correct or right thing to do. ==

Iniquity is in the business of justifying itself.

How does a same sex marriage damage your marriage? how does it harm yoru family? how is it somehow inherently inferior?

faisal, you actually do have the right to tell her how you feel just as she would have the right to leave me should she choose to. I also see no issue with plural marriage, if three or more people should desire to commit to each other, why should they not be allowed?

"How does a same sex marriage damage your marriage? how does it harm yoru family? how is it somehow inherently inferior? "

It harms this society, this culture, this country. I'm a citizen of this society, this culture, this country.