Good luck. Outside of the Seattle-Tacoma area, Washington is as red as the deep south. I've been out in the boonies there... full of rednecks living, literally, in wooden shacks with rusted 40-year-old pickups in the front yard. Good thing most of the population is concentrated on the coast. Might have a chance of passing.

Here is my solution. I would like feedback from all.

My relationship with my wife in the eyes of my church is my marriage.

My relationship with my wife in the eyes of the state is my legal union,

Lving- your relationship in the churches eyes would be Holy Matrimony, in the states eyes it would be marriage, you get a marriage license from the state not the church

So, Her Peas, anyone who doesn't agree with your radical left viewpoint is a dumb redneck?

I am saying change all relationships in the eyes of the state to legal unions, that way everybody in my country has equal rights.

The churches can call it whatever they want and accept whomever they want.

I'm not even a Democrat, and definitely not a leftist. Just reporting what I saw. If you live in an unpowered shack in the middle of nowhere, with a rusted old Ford in the yard and a Budweiser flag flying, then.... well, yeah, you're a redneck.

Her Peas, the point is you are a bigot. It amazes me how it is acceptable to some people to be bigoted towards the south and country people.

@Her Peas...The "redneck" areas are sparsely occupied and the attitudes are changing even places like Spokane. It's mostly a generational shift.

Her Peas might be 100 years old. Maybe she was in Washington before electricity. I travel through rural WA all the time and have yet to come across these shacks without power, etc, etc. Why don't you post some info to a map so we can see where these places are.

It amazes me how it is acceptable to some people to be bigoted towards the south and country people.

I'm not bigoted; I made no disparaging remarks about them whatsoever. In fact, it was Deanna who called them "dumb", not me. I just said redneck. Are you denying rednecks exist? That's just stupid. You can call me a city boy or a yuppie and I won't be insulted. I live in a large metropolitan area; it doesn't bother me if that's how you characterize me. Don't be insulted that I call country people rednecks - that's just generally what they are.

If southerners want people to respect them, they'd start accepting other peoples' civil rights. Until then, of course people are bigoted against them.

Her Peas, you are inferring that they are all against gay rights and are happy they do not live near you. That is bigoted.

I am a Southern Conservative and I am for gay rights and I even offer a viable solution, all you did was make a false generalization.

Toasty, California voted it down, stop the immature projection!

@Her Peas: You are a bigot because you use derogatory words to describe people. Case in point, the definition of a redneck.

Redneck is a historically derogatory slang term used in reference to poor, uneducated white farmers, especially from the southern United States.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a "bigot", a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group.

Sorry...I don't write the dictionary, I just read it to understand what words mean so I can use them in the proper context.

Her Peas, you are inferring that they are all against gay rights and are happy they do not live near you. That is bigoted.

I'm sure some of them aren't... but voting results don't lie. Most of them are. And I can choose not to associate with people like that without being a bigot.

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group.

You just described the entire human race. If being intolerant of people who want to deprive fellow citizens of basic rights is bigotry, then I'm not ashamed of it.

Washington state residents already gave gays every legal thing that hetero's have when it comes to marriage. They just said don't call it marriage. I'm tired of the bickering from such a small minority. Every state that has had a vote of the citizens has rejected gay marriage. Get over it. This country can't even have a simple tradition upheld anymore because someone wil be offended.

@JH...totally! Remember when those black people wanted to sit anywhere on a bus and wanted to vote. Oh man...I remember when those women wanted the right to vote too. Silly ideas. If we have a vote and say you can then you can, otherwise, keep quiet.

Her Peas, you are clueless. There is about the same percentage of rural and metropolitan people that are against this. Stop the immature generalizations. Facts do not back you up, just false projections.

There is about the same percentage of rural and metropolitan people that are against this. Stop the immature generalizations. Facts do not back you up, just false projections.

I could post so many maps showing the distribution of people who support and reject gay marriage that completely disprove your lie it's not even funny. But I really don't feel like going through all that effort for an internet argument.

I could post so many maps showing the distribution of people who support and reject gay marriage that completely disprove your lie it's not even funny. But they don't exist, so I will just keep blabbering about stuff I can't prove.

Fixed it for you....

They exist. You know it. I know it. Anyone with seven functioning neurons knows it. Again, it's an internet argument and I'm not going to waste time googling and posting links when you're perfectly capable of checking it out yourself.

Let's start with the basic civil rights involved here, and by now I'm hoping we all know that we don't vote on civil rights.

Loving v Virginia, which is applicable because the defense used by the state is the same used to justify the anti-equality case, and PSSST IT DIDN'T HOLD WATER...

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

- The Supreme Court of the United States

Lawrence v Texas, which deals with our right to privacy, implied through the 4th and 9th Amendments...

The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

- The Supreme Court of the United States

On top of that, one could make a case regarding the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment, which could also encompass gender discrimination in contract law.

Question #1-

So, if you can, please give me that LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST, the court needed in Lawrence, which would enable the government to limit, at least the 14th, 4th and 9th Amendment rights of an entire group of people?

Continuing, the act of marriage essentially falls under contract law, it has never simply been between one man and one woman, and it predates organized religion. It shouldn't be confused with HOLY MATRIMONY, which is the religous sacrement or sanctifying, or spirituality that's been added over the years.

This is why the STATE issues the lisence, not the church. Why the court oversees divorces, not the church. And, why tons of people are married everyday, without stepping foot in a church. On top of that marriage comes with over 1000 benefits for those who enter into the contract.

That being said...

Question # 2 -

Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage, is the gender of a single party, what is inherent to that single party's gender which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects? Remember, you're ONLY changing ONE person's GENDER, so logically, it must be something within that one person's gender, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT?

Question #3-

AND, since marriage is a legal contract, NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH HOLY MATRIMONY, why then, does that one thing from the paragraph above, NOT ban those parties from ALL contract law?

NONE of the bestiality, pedophilia, incest, polygamy, or inanimate objects arguments WILL EVER WORK, logically or legally, until you can answer those questions.

My final question...

How have any of you been harmed by a gay marriage?

How have any of you been harmed by a gay marriage?

Gay marriage killed my father and raped my mother. True story, bro.

that was cigarettes

Right after it forced you to marry a toaster, right?

Toasty, you think we should should we have to accept civil rights that they don't have yet? When it is the law of the land, then I'll accept it. Until then, I can choose, right? You can respect my right to an opinion, can't you? Even if you don't respect my opinion or me, you can respect my right to have and express my opinion, right?

@Joe...totally agree! Why should we have accepted the civil rights women had to vote when the law said they could not vote? Why should we have accepted the civil rights African americans had to vote, drink from same fountains, go to same schools, sit in any seat on a bus, etc? It was not the law yet, so we were not wrong to tell them they couldn't do it. Ooooh...remember when the law said we could have slaves? No civil rights law said at the time we couldn't have them, so it was completely ok to do so. No moral issues here.

Joe,

Toasty, you think we should should we have to accept civil rights that they don't have yet?

This is only true if you believe your rights are only granted to you via the government.

I tend to believe we have them by lieu of our humanity, and it is the government that takes them away (or tries to), not grants them.

But that's just me.

Good luck. Outside of the Seattle-Tacoma area, Washington is as red as the deep south. I've been out in the boonies there... full of rednecks living, literally, in wooden shacks with rusted 40-year-old pickups in the front yard. Good thing most of the population is concentrated on the coast. Might have a chance of passing.

So Her Peas, you have a problem with the rest of the state? Spokane is the second largest city in Washington behind Seattle.

Let me inform you that life does exist East of the Casacades. Yea, me and me hubby ar' 'rednecks' livin' ere in Spo-cane an everie month we dang well jump in two arr rust bucket-of bolts pick'em up truck too cash our wellfair chech at da local farmare's markit.

What a self-center ignorant remark to make. How about backing up that statement with...oh...maybe...some frilling FACTS! The rest of the state is tired of supporting the Pungent Sound let's give everything away population.

BTW - I'm a 'blue' democrat but I do hate people who make assumptions & fairy tales about something they don't know about or are too damn lazy to research!

Civil Rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, are NOT granted by the government. The Bill of Rights exists to PREVENT the government from taking them away.

We live in a Republic. The result of this is that the majority, in spite of their right to hold referendums on whatever they want, will not ultimately be granted the capacity to LIMIT the rights of the minority. At least, that is what the job of the courts is supposed to be. They've been getting better at it over the years. Nobody's rights are limited by the legalization of gay marriage. Conversely, to restrict the definition of marriages between consenting, adult parties, DOES limit the rights of a minority group. This is counter to the CONSTITUTION. That is why the reversal of legal gay marriage in CA was ultimately struck down by the courts...

Sometimes I really wish that there was an 'emoticon' for me rolling my eyes. Oh well, you can't win them all.

PS-There are a lot of "country folks" in WA. They mostly are pretty middle of the road, socially. There are religious fanatics everywhere. And there are very few people in WA without electricity.

Herpies er...Her Peas is funny. I live in WA...and most of the houses I've seen in the boonies have been multi-story million dollar homes surrounded by well clipped lawns and landscaped scenery. Not to mention most of them are gated and surrounded by trees.

As for gay marriage, I'm for it. My marriage isn't ruined by the two lesbians across the street if they get married. My kids aren't corrupted if their kid goes to school with them. God still loves me and everyone else.

What's your logic on divorce being classified as a felony?

His logic is:

If gay marriage is a threat to the sacredness of marriage, and should be outlawed, then by extension of that logic divorce is a threat to the sacredness of marriage and should be outlawed, and what better way to outlaw divorce than to threaten a felony conviction.

The logic being that the anti SSM forces are saying that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. What's a bigger threat than divorce? At least they should be consistent.

Because the most common argument against gay marriage is the damage it does to traditional marriage and children. There is solid evidence that divorce is incredibly harmful for children and obviously tears families apart. The evidence for same sex marriage being harmful to others marriages or children is thin to say the least, certainly far thinner then the evidence for divorce's harm. Therefore if you oppose same sex marriage on that basis then you must oppose divorce far more strongly.

Dear Her Peas (classy name, by the way):

I have lived in Washington for 48 of my 51 years. I grew up in a semi-rural area, have friends on both sides of the Cascades (in both rural and urban areas) and have driven all over the state at one time or another. I have to say that I have NEVER seen the conditions you describe--I honestly can't imagine where you imagine you witnessed them. Certainly there are some people who have more wealth and some who have less, but I can't recall ever seeing plywood shacks anywhere I've traveled. The houses I've seen, all over the state, have been normal houses, the vehicles just normal vehicles (though there does seem to be a bit of a craze in my own affluent, highly-educated community for buying and restoring vintage pickups, and some of those can look pretty crusty at first). The majority of the Washington farming families I know are college educated and informed about national and world events.

I'm not even going to address your "redneck" comment. What person (who isn't Jeff Foxworthy) calls another person a redneck? Honestly.

I'm a proud Washingtonion, a Democrat, a Christian, and I will be voting for marriage equality in November. No marriage of mine would ever be so flimsy as to be weakened by another couple's marriage. Oddly enough, many of my Republican friends feel the same way.

As my daughter would say, I

Correct. My wife and I went to the court house and got a "Marriage License" issued by the state of Washington. We were married in a outdoor ceremony by a judge. No religion involved. We also decided to not have children. Why shouldn't a gay couple be able to enter into the same legal contract as we did?

Theoretically, I agree with you about the constitution and marriage equality; as a real-world, practical matter, however, the Supreme Court has not ruled that way--yet, anyway, and although I think it's likely that at least a bare majority on the court WILL uphold marriage equality as a constitutional right, it also may not, and find that it's a state matter. Either way, it is a state matter now, which means referendums, legal challenges, etc etc. The important thing is to try to win the votes; monotonously repeating the refrain "We shouldn't vote on civil rights" doesn't get anything done.

As I stated, considering the constitution already has this argument answered, it isn't a 'state right', and shouldn't be up for debate or voting. Which is why even if a super-majority of citizens voted for it, it has been routinely shot down in the courts. It's no different than if Alabama voted to re-enact Jim Crow laws. Just because a majority of the citizens think that other citizens should not have equal rights or rights to practice their religious (or non-religious) ideals doesn't mean it flies.

Freedom of Religion/Freedom from religion and equal protection under the law are expressly spelled out. Debating it is like debating whether a stop sign says "stop" or "yield".

Again, I don't want to seem like I disagree with you, since we're on the same page on the central issue--but it's just a plain fact that, although you can say "the constitution already has this argument answered", that's meaningless unless the Supreme Court sees it that way. I have some hope and even expectation that it will, but that's not a sure thing. I'll have to stand by my contention that until and unless that day comes, it's common sense to deal with the situation as it is, which means engaging in the process that is actually in front of us.

I agree 100% BradM - no one should be allowed to vote away equality for others! It pisses me off - here in Maryland the same damn thing happened. Once they voted to allow same sex marriage - they let the morons vote against equality.

Why?

although you can say "the constitution already has this argument answered", that's meaningless unless the Supreme Court sees it that way.

In a way, the SCOTUS already has. They already deemed marriage itself to be a "basic civil right," in their landmark case: Loving v. Virginia (1967). That gives an idea as to how the SCOTUS would decide if the issue of gay marriage itself falls to them, which I think it may eventually.

That is true only if we agree that changing the definition of marriage for Everybody is the "right" of a small minority.
Nobody has a beef with what they do in private. It is definitely a public issue when you propose to change laws for everyone and create new "rights" for a minority.

@Deanna....totally agree. Like when they changed the law for the minority of black people that had to sit on the back of the bus, drink from different water fountains and attend different schools. We deserve the right to vote to allow these people to live like the rest of us or not.

BTW...just in case you didn't get it...I don't agree with you. Your argument is terrible.

It's not NEW rights Deanna - it's EQUAL rights for all - just because the homophobes don't like it - tough @!$%#!

Deanna, the fact that you can't sell your daughter away into a marriage for several mules means marriage has already been redefined.

Civil marriage is a contract - and the civil benefits and obligations that come along with it are in no one's power to grant other than the government. Since the single most fundamental principle on which our civil law is based is that it must apply equally and fairly to all citizens, there is no valid reason to withhold the marriage contract from same-sex couples.

Well, thankfully Deanna,more and more people in society DO think that it is our right.Last time I checked, I pay taxes and live legally as a productive citizen of this society. Why should I live my life "in private"?Sounds like you,like so many, only visualize the sexual aspect of a same sex relationship-because heterosexual PDA can't affect the public too, right? The fact that you see my desire to be married to the woman I love as I'm looking for some kind of "special right" is really frustrating. My relationship affects you as much as yours affects me(Hint- it doesn't) Hopefully people like you are putting some effort into fighting the divorce rate and spousal abuse if you want to fight for marriage and whatever you think it stands for. There's a bit more in the Bible that's going on in the world that God is probably worried about...like those horrible poly/cotton blends everyone is wearing these days!

SCOTUS has proclaimed it a right...

Loving v Virginia, which is applicable because the defense used by the state is the same used to justify the anti-equality case, and PSSST IT DIDN'T HOLD WATER.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

- The Supreme Court of the United States

On top of that you have...

Lawrence v Texas, which deals with our right to privacy, implied through the 4th and 9th Amendments.

The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

- The Supreme Court of the United States

On top of that, one could make a case regarding the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment, which could also encompass gender discrimination in contract law.

What about lesbians?

Unless they're lesbian, then they're looking for each other.

simple question you two , think of those lesbians you have met / saw, would you date one of them ? ........granted there are always exceptions, such as Ellen....no, ........her girlfriend on the other hand.........:)

I'd date Ellen. She's sexy, beautiful, and funny. Same with Rachel Maddow.

Men... sheesh.

I admire your optimism. :)

You might want to do some more reserach into the historical definition of marriage, including in the bible.

If they are not allowed to marry each other that is by definition discrimination against homosexuals. Surely you can see that obvious combination missing from your list of things which you claim show there's no discrimination.

No it hasn't, at various times it has been defined very differently including the union between a man and a young girl, a man and a girl he rapes provided he pay her father 50 shekels, a slave owner and his slave, a man and as many wives as he chose. These are all forms of marriage referred to and common in the Bible. The definition of marriage hasn't even been the same for the last hundred years, a hundred years go interracial marriage was illegal. To argue its definition is unchanged since the dawn of time is just bat*%^+ crazy.

ronamn....why should your bible influence what logical people who categorize the bible as fiction, dictate their right to marry? If that is your belief....fine....but it is "sacrilegious" to impose your beliefs on others. By the way....just in which biblical interpretation of the 38 did you find your definition?

sbstarlite...We're on the same side. I was just pointing out that even in the bible there many more definitions of "marriage" than one man one woman.

mea culpa....we do agree. needless to say the words of the bible are just words to me....as those of a story. There is no lesson to be learned or judgement to be gained from such fiction.

We agree on that also. It's just so much fun to use the basis for their arguments against them.

Believe Me,

That was the defense put forth by the state of VA in Loving v Virginia. They lost.

Just playing devil's advocate here: what if an adult man wants to marry his adult sister?

Incest is already illegal. Try again.

Yeah, I know that. And so is gay marriage in a lot of states.

They're consenting adults, though. What about their rights?

Man Fresh, I like someone who can play devils advocate and create a good debate, its refreshing, due to the fact of similar genetics from siblings it would cause offspring to have a greater% of suffering from developmental problems. Hope this helps a little

If they're both consenting adults, who cares? Doesn't affect my life in any way, and it gives just a little bit of happiness to a couple and a little more freedom to all of us.

Yeah, even if I agree with someone, I have to argue against them. It's boring otherwise.

That makes sense, Really.

Incest is illegal, gay relationships are not. All they are asking for is an ability to enter into a legally binding contract. Laws would have to be changed to allow incest and I just don't see a lot of push for that. Also, the state probably has a compelling interest in preventing brother/sister marriage due to potential for birth defects and their cost to society.

A better question might be "Why is polygamy illegal?"

Polygamy is illegal because of rampant abuse of the (often) young girls that are coerced into it, and because of the legal mess the dissolution of such relationships cause. Figure those things out and then it has standing to be legalized. It is really irrelevant for the gay marriage debate, however.

I really have no problem with polygamy as long as everyone is a consenting adult. However, in case of a divorce in a polygamous marriage that could create a huge headache for the legal system. All the laws would have to be rewritten. That is not the case in gay marriage. Same divorce, inheretance etc. laws apply as for hetero marriage.

Beat me to it, EngEsq.

I didn't think I would need to explain a sarcastic non sequiter.

True, until you get into all of the legal issues involved in any consenting relationship. The "bystanders" however DO far too often have an effect on the "partners" in any relationship in those legal issues...property dispersal at time of death, medical decisions, etc. That was the entire logic for all of the 1400+ laws on the books regarding "marriage"...to determine legal rights in community property, etc. A "marriage license" is actually a legal contract for such "community property" rights. It is also why many such "marriage licenses" are governed by pre-nuptual agreements as well.

I agree, I care not if my neighbors are gay or married as long as they are not treading on my individual rights. I am too busy living my own life to butt my noise into other peoples' business.

I question the fact if equal rights for minorities & women would ever have become reality if it was left up to vote of the people, bigotry & racism seems to reach the core of most including those who swear they have no bias.

You should have the right to do anything that does not harm or impose upon the freedom and rights of others, and gay marriage fits that category.

No. A man and a woman have the right to marry someone they love. A man who is in love with another man, and a woman who is in love with another woman, who is not related, is over the age of majority, and is not already married to another individual, cannot. Therefore, they do not have the same rights.

The constitution protects freedom of, and freedom from religion. The Unitarian Universalist Church, in addition to other religions and congregations, does not discriminate and preaches that marriage is between two loving, consenting adults, who are not related, of the age of majority, and otherwise in a committed relationship. E.g. minus gender, the exact same definition used by any other religion. They are denied their right to practice their religious beliefs by the orthodoxy of another religion who states that their narrow definition of marriage between two consenting adults, who are not related, and of the age of majority may marry as long as they are of opposing genders.

Furthermore, the constitution gurantees equal protection under the law.

If two individuals, who are not related, and are of the age of majority, may enter into a legal binding contract to combine assets and to essentially form a "family corporation" for all legal purposes, but may only do so if one person is male and one person is female is not equal protection under the law because the purposes of creating such a contract is due to the romantic and sexual relationship between the two individuals culminating in the decision to legally merge and operate as a single entity.

You do not have, under the constitution, to do anything you want. However, if the majority of the people in a nation qualifying under the same criteria except for something arbitrary, such as sex, gender, age (in excess of the age of majority), or religion can do something, but a small subject of that group cannot, it is in violation of the equal protection clause. That comes into play if marriage is a civil issue, which it is by the issuance of marriage licenses from government.

If marriage is instead a religious institution, then therefore as long as a couple satisifies the basic requirements of being two consenting adults, not related, and over the age of majority, the definition of sex being allowed into the relationship is purely up to the decision of the church. Your church can choose to define marriage as a man and a woman. My church, defines marriage as two loving adults. First amendment says both are protected.

Russ,

As I've said numerous times...

That was the defense used by Virginia, in Loving v Virginia. Pssst, it didn't work.

APPLAUSE from Texas

ya Sandusky was straight and married, rape is more about power than it is about sex, and the sheer fact that you use that as a correlation means you have nothing what-so-ever that is valid to say

Really good argument about Sandusky. What a sick sick man. Oh wait....wasn't he legally married to his wife? Yeah, marriage between a man and a woman will protect the children from harm. Great argument...just brilliant.

Man/Dog???

When did we grant dogs the legal capacity for informed consent???

morality is subjective and cannot be legislated

You mean according to your definition of immorality, which many, perhaps even most according to recent poles, Americans don't agree with. And more importantly no one is suggesting anyone has to or should marry anyone else, gay or not.

It's a freedom of choice thing.

As for illegal occupier of the white house, you're stuck back in 2001 - remember when that guy Bush was placed in the white house after losing the popular vote?

My morality includes not discriminating.

@romanm...nice....I like it.

If gays are allowed legal marriage, how would that affect your life? Granted, it would give you the opportunity to show everybody your moral outrage. But guess what. We don't care.

@Jamie, the only downside I see is having to buy more wedding gifts, but if they have an open bar at the wedding, then I will get over it.

Idaho,

Wouldn't that help the economy though?

LOL. Gay folks, statistically, have more disposable income. This would greatly up the odds of an open bar reception.

Defined by whom?

Let's hope that the voters will once again protect the sanctity of marriage

By outlawing divorce? Oh, you just mean by discriminating against other people. Same argument was used for miscegenation laws, and it failed their too.

'there', not 'their'. I need more coffee...

Mac,

I'm sure, as you post this, you're outside your local Red Lobster with your "God Hates Scallops" sign, right?

HUGE HUGE Applause with laughter Sarah. LOVE all of your posts.

Well, it's been changed a bunch of times before. Why not one more time to make, to do the right thing?

That's not what I heard. I heard that if marriage equality passes, I'll be forced to leave my wife and marry my fat, beer swilling golf buddy Tom. Is that true? I'm affraid!

Romann,

No, not at all. You'll be forced to marry fat Tom's beer can and/or his golf clubs. Not fat Tom, himself. I'm mean, let's not be illogical here, right?

Oh, OK. Thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense, I feel better.

No they haven't. Wrong as usual.

Bigots too! Don't forget about the bigots.

You mean RELIGION has been a plague on every culture for centuries.....Now it makes sense!

Religion has caused cultures to go to war, sacrifice their own, discriminate, and hold back technological progress. What have "sodomites" done to "plague" any culture? Please have something documented and not a faerie tale.

On special occasions and after plenty to drink, sometime my wife and I are "sodomites". Wink,wink.

romamn: TMI

Absolutely. And there are many same-sex couples I know with a deep and abiding love and commitment to each other. It seems extraordinarily hateful to deny them the affirmation and sanctity that marriage brings, if that's what they want. This is MYOB territory.

Because it's unnecessary. Equal marriage for all works just as well.

Toasty, the state has no business being in religion. The main fight is that marriage is a religious term.

If everyone has the same designation by the state, is that not total equality?

Added benefit, it allows individuals to know which churches chose not to accept everyone.

Only drawback is the left can't keep the country divided.

livingbarefoot, marriage is not a religious term in it's origins, nor its current usage. I'm married and never steped foot in a church or used a priest.

Lastly, even if you could argue it is religious, some religions allow for gay marriage... so banning it is counter to your argument of religious grounds.

If everyone has the same designation by the state, is that not total equality?

No. If it were, then miscegenation laws would still be legal.

The argument is that it is a religious term. You even said some churches allow gay marriage, that is great and they probably consider it a sacrament of their religion.

Why not just change the term?

Where is the harm? Who is hurt? Who has less rights? NOBODY! It works!

lving- Marriage as a word came from the Anglo-French in the 14th century and had absolutely nothing to do with religion, so please stop using that as the staple of your argument

Marriage is not a religious term though. A wedding in a church does not make two people married. They need state approval to be married. We already have a universal term, so let gay people use it too.

We could change all marriages through the state to some other term, but that would be a huge pain in the ass, and people like me who are married without religious involvement would be hard to convince.

Marriage isn't religious, LBF. So with that in mind, keep your religion out of my government.

The main fight is that marriage is a religious term.

But it's not! Marriage has always been a civil institution under the law before religion became involved, especially in this country. The religious aspect is merely ceremonial with no legal weight.

If everyone has the same designation by the state, is that not total equality?

Marriage is already the designation and it's also a legal term.

Why not just change the term?

Why bother? Just make it applicable to all.

Civil Unions for all! What is wrong with that?

Separate but equal is not constitutional.

well said, Amy....thanks!

Congratulations to you and yours! When my girlfriend and I get married in a few years, I hope ours is as happy as yours!

Totally unbiased reference there bud.

The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies."

What religious organization supports the heritage foundation? The "facts" you report are bull. They sound like something from a marcus bachmannn pray the gay away school and have about as much validity as that tutu wearing fairy has convincing people he is straight. If you want to report statistics, do it from someone reputable.

Ah yes, the heritage foundation. What a solid reference. It's like citing the Natzi party to support your argument that Jews are genetically inferior.

"Even "monogamous" same-sex couples report that they have an average of eight outside sexual partners a year"? Honestly, does this make sense to anyone reading this from their own experience? Even for non-monogamous people, eight partners a year seems a pretty high batting record. Same goes for the "notoriously unstable" assertion, which is really an opinion rather than a fact. At least in my experience, same-sex and heterosexual partners seem to stay together or fall apart based on many of the same factors.

Oh, and here are some real sources that suggest differently:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199705/lessons-gay-marriage

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E_dDSKaxYhUJ:www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2004-018.pdf+Gunnar+%22The+Demographics+of+Same-Sex+Marriages%E2%80%9C+in+Norway+and+Sweden&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&safe=active

Opposite sex marriages: US has the 6th highest divorce rate in the world. Source: CDC Marriage and Divorce. Yeah, opposite sex marriage is really stable.

The homosexual lobby's goals have been clearly defined for decades. But for any goal to be successfully achieved, clever stratagem and sound methodology must be diligently applied.

In their manuscript, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's (1989, Doubleday/Bantam), Harvard educated marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen meticulously laid out the homosexual lobby's blueprint for success in what is widely regarded as the handbook for the "gay" agenda.

They devised a three-pronged approach that the homosexual lobby has masterfully implemented in subsequent years: Desensitization, Jamming and Conversion.

Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:

• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
• Give potential protectors a just cause.
• Make gays look good.
• Make victimizers look bad.

• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers. : They are...or are they discriminating against us??
• Give potential protectors a just cause. : It is a just cause.
• Make gays look good.: As opposed to the evil people they truly are? Nice.
• Make victimizers look bad: I think that goes without saying in any victim/victimizer relationship.

Anything else? I am on board with that plan. Why is it wrong to organize a group to get equal rights?

Oh and by the way...your little blurp was actually taken from Focus on the Family's argument against the literature you cited.

All you have to do is a quick google search to get plenty of info on where your argument came from:

The conservative Christian group Focus on the Family claim that,

It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called 'After the Ball,' where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame.... They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit: Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible... Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers... Give homosexual protectors a just cause... Make gays look good... Make the victimizers look bad... Get funds from corporate America..

Does anyone seriously deny that the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM was the result of political pressure rather than from dispassionate scientific inquiry? ...that the scientific community was pressured and manipulated by proponents of sexual liberation is an undisputed fact. So the concern that apologists for "intergenerational sex"...may be trying to accomplish the same feat for pedophilia is not far-fetched.

I know you just copy and pasted that, but I couldn't resist. YES! I seriously deny that.

I seriously deny it as well.

In what reality was that "fact" undisputed? Raymond, I not only deny that claim, I take serious offense.

That's a load of crap! My wife and I have been together for nearly 12 years... married nearly 10. We've never cheated, used drugs, had any domestic violence, never separated and hardly argue! We've had plenty of stress in our lives, too! We've raised three kids, bought a house, etc. "Short-lived" is a bunch of bologna! I love my wife as much now as the day we married. It will be until death do us part.