The Loving Decision

This is opening a can of worms--soon it will be a matter of why I can't marry two wives, or two wives and a husband, and why not get married my cat too. Doesn't everyone love animals?.. I only wish I was entirely kidding but it's going that way.
Fact of the matter is, it was put to a vote directly to the people and the folks said 'no'. Cry bigot all you want but there are still a lot of people who feel that marriage is defined as something between a man and a woman. America was founded on Judeo-Christian values and still is in some places

It seems that many people here need to stop pretending like they know the legal contours of the constitution. Go to law school and take a constitutional law class and then you will understand that many who argue in favor of same-sex marriage are so arguing based on emotion and not based on the way the three branches of the gov't were set up by the constitution. Furthermore, science has yet to reach a consensus on whether homosexuality is something you are born with or whether it is a lifestyle choice. So, any arguments in favor of or against gay marriage based on the nature of homosexuality are really beside the point.

Don't compare your sin to my skin.

As usr105 points out, few gays take advantage of the right to marry. They only want the same rights as married people to legitimize the practice of homosexuality. They have come so far in doing so, and have hit a brick wall. They must have all the same rights to be legitimized in their lifestyle...only 99% of the same rights and they are still stigmatized. Majority of Americans do not want them legitmized, them or pedophiles or drug addicts.

Why do so many not grasp the real power and purpose of the choice to marry? I am 39 and married for the first time year. It was a huge lifestyle change for me. I decided the time had come face my creator and profess my complete dedication for one person for the rest of my forseeable life. How can the religious establishment be opposed to that?
Might it be possible that these amendments or definitions to suit their vision of life are slightly over-controlling. Would the world or our country really begin to slowly crumble apart if encouraged people to make honest committments with one person in their life who makes them happy. The whole argument just boggles the mind with this level of hypocrisy. Thank you Anna.

This is not a matter of personal emotions or feelings but more a matter of self-government. The Constitution protected the couple in the Loving case because history shows that the "equal protection clause" was clearly and unequivocally fmeant for these type of issues. The U. S. Constitution in no shape or form addresses the issue of gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia or numerous other peripheral issues like them. these are clearly matters for states to address. The people have spoken in the clearest of terms in these various referendums throughout the country and their wills should not be subverted. No matter what side of these issues you may be on the rule of law and democratic principles must be respected. If the author is right then eventually society will see fit to change the law but doing it by judicial fiat is dangerous. One must remember that this empowerment , once embedded, can be used against one's political agenda as well as for it whether it is Lochner v. NY or Roe v Wade.

There is no law that prohibits anyone except children from marrying. There is no law saying that you can't get married if you're a homosexual. The laws that prohibit same sex marriage apply equally to everyone and therefore discriminate against no one. This is simply the logical fact of the matter. Quindlen's arguments, like most liberal arguments, are based on emotion, not reason. Liberals have a desperate need to find causes to advocate that make them feel virtuous. Since all the old civil rights battles have been won, they now must invent a new "minority" whose rights they can champion. Homesexuals are that "minority". Sorry Ms. Quindlen, nothing you can do can turn homosexulaity into an ethnicity.

Eventually China will overtake the US as the world's superpower. Why doesn't the US and Europe just hand the world over to them right now. If the people do not want gay marriage, why must it be forced on them? Why not try to make equal rights thru civil unions for everyone (gays and straights)? I see plenty of arguments against people of faith, but little respect for them.

It seems that many people here need to stop pretending like they know the legal contours of the constitution. Go to law school and take a constitutional law class and then you will understand that many who argue in favor of same-sex marriage are so arguing based on emotion and not based on the way the three branches of the gov't were set up by the constitution. Furthermore, science has yet to reach a consensus on whether homosexuality is something you are born with or whether it is a lifestyle choice. So, any arguments in favor of or against gay marriage based on the nature of homosexuality are really beside the point.

This is opening a can of worms--soon it will be a matter of why I can't marry two wives, or two wives and a husband, and why not get married my cat too. Doesn't everyone love animals?.. I only wish I was entirely kidding but it's going that way.
Fact of the matter is, it was put to a vote directly to the people and the folks said 'no'. Cry bigot all you want but there are still a lot of people who feel that marriage is defined as something between a man and a woman. America was founded on Judeo-Christian values and still is in some places

The people have spoken. Like a wildfire out of control. The subject of same sex marriage is a subject of religion

and the marriage of church and state is illegal. The first amendment prohibits it. Thefore you cannot vote on the

subject of religion.
The Bible says a lot of things. It has been adapted over the years. It forbids divorce. It abhors murder. It preaches

that revenge is the lord's, and it preaches forgiveness.It might have originally said "two people" or something like

that. Perhaps it should.
The California Bar association is behind the ballot measure. They are uncomfortable whith the prospect of a gay

man marrying his cell mate. After all, the straight prisoner cannot actually live with his spouse but he can marry.

Hell, a straight murderer can marry. But not a gay person. Or a church and a state.
The subject of bob and mary be coming man and wife is a matter of the church. Is the question of bob and bob?

Before you answer that, consider that if it is not but has been made an issue by the prohibition of an act that

remains a religious and legal right for bob and mary. Therefore it should legally be prohibited to be acted upon by

a vote to the people by the Bar association or the judge who allowed the actions, by virtue of the first amendment.

Lets print the real facts first. California said no to same sex marriage in 2000 with Proposition 22 , which the court struck down in June, 2008. The majority of the people reversed the court with Proposition 8. When the court tried to reverse the decision of the majority the majority said "No" to the court.

Here's a history lesson Anna, marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman for over 5000 years. What gives you the right to try and change that definition? Call it something else, but it's not marriage.

Same-sex marriage appears to be a political solution to a poorly understood health problem. Optimistically, there will be appropriate health care solutions available in the future. Further study of the human genome will be needed. States that offer marriage now to gay or lesbian couples will be viewed as foolish when better solutions become available. How would you view a State's offering suicide to the clinically depressed who want to die? Same-sex couples who want to marry do not yet have their health solutions yet, but like the health solutions for the depressed, they will come. Dismissing people with the political marriage solution is not really very satisfactory. It will take patience, but better solutions will immerge.