Marriage is a RELIGIOUS union - not a legal union. The government only figured out they could tax married couples more than singles and then the whole entire "legal" union issue arose.

So if gays want to marry and pay the penalty - I say let them. If it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg... of what difference is it to me?

@roger;

Really? What counts more the license or the bible, when you buy a house together?

What if you are a gay atheist? How "religous" is it then sir?

The SCOTUS will rule, as it must, that Prop 8 and DOMA are unconstitutional.

They have to, the text of the Equal Protection Clause is pretty clear. I would also argue(possibly unsuccessfully) that it violates the First Amendment, as a law is imposing a religious belief upon a segment of the populace.

Seems many states are ignoring the FEDs anyway.

The Campaign for Liberty and others endorse a notion being promoted by conservatives called nullification that holds that under the 10th Amendment states can ignore federal laws if they choose. The 10th Amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

More people say Yay, the feds might say nay, so it really doesnt matter anyway.

You can marry if your Gay!

The opposition is often focused on the notion that the lgbt community appear to be "hijacking" the M word. The simplest answer is to have state and federal government civil unions for all couples and leave the now no longer hijacked M word for traditional mainstream church-sponsored weddings. And just to be 'fair' all couples can share the 'D' word, which is always a civil affair.

Religion is theory, not fact. A document that states "equal rights for all" in this country is fact, not theory. Like I said before, it seems the only ones offended by the idea of gay marriage are the religious wackos, and we know that they rarely ever make sense anyway....

Actually, "The Rite of Holy Matrimony" is the religious union, and 'Marriage' is secular. We've since conflated the two. Atheists can be 'married' by the State. Religious people CANNOT get the 'Rite of Holy Matrimony' bestowed upon them by the State.

Gay people should be treated no differently than heterosexual infertile couples. As long as we permit heterosexual infertile couples to marry, we cannot -- with a straight face -- say that their marriage is 'for children'. We do not, nor should we, demand that heterosexuals produce or adopt children within XX years of getting married. A 60 year old woman who has long-since dropped her last egg is no more likely to produce a child than two lesbians or two gay men are -- yet the 60 year old infertile heterosexual woman is allowed to marry and re-marry as many times as she likes, yet the lesbians and gay men are not. This is simply ethically wrong.

Marriage is a social item.

Religions may have been among the first to enforce and encourage it, but the family unit and, by extension, society as a whole are affected by marriage and the rules/laws placed upon it.

Marriage is a type of union... but the meaning of the word has no importance in the eyes of the government.

In the eyes of the government, a man and a woman with their child is ultimately no different than two men or two women and their children.

The same rules, laws, and social expectations are applied, and expected to be followed.

Well said. I love the constitution. But perhaps you can explain why liberals want to ignore this one:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You can't pick, choose, and selectively enforce the supreme law of our land.... The Constitution... So I'll take liberals more seriously when they practice what they preach.

Um because the National Guard is considered the well regulated militia. And it is not necessarily a matter of taking away everyone's guns, but rather making sure that those who should not have guns, do not have guns. The Giffords, and the Dark Knight Rises shootings should be evidence enough of that(with the firearms being legally obtained). However there is too much of a knee-jerk reaction in those instances to get anything meaningful done. Then there is the NRA......

Eric,

Beautiful! Yes, sometimes it's so simple-just read it people. There are no other arguments.

Does this include the right to keep and bear arms????

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...NOT a bunch of people with guns/ WELL REGULATED. How much more clear could they be? Why do people always want to skip the parts of the constitution they don't like? ( Just Like Equal Protection).

Exactly Leonard. And when that day comes, it will be you getting the judgement - how you and so many others don't see the fallacy in your beliefs, the so-called "salad bar" religion that you pick and choose what you like to believe, is beyond me.

But hey, after all, I'm just a sinful gay man.

And segregationists in Alabama, where I grew up, didn't understand the problem with having separate high schools for blacks and whites. They built one of each in my home town, from exactly the same architectural plan. Who could possibly have a problem with that? How can two students both go to "Tuscaloosa High" if one is black and one is white? Everybody knows whites are are the real Tuscaloosans. They let blacks call "their" high school "Druid High." Straight people deciding that a gay person's marriage isn't a marriage and has to be called something else is just like white people saying black people aren't fully citizens, and that they have to have an alternative school with an alternative name.

FinDu

Like the "salad bar" comment, very true. I myself am not gay, but I do have a beautiful woman at home, and two beautiful little girls, and we live together in sin, (as I am frequently told, not married yet.) Marriage is not for everyone, but for those of us that want to get married, it should be your right to do so, regardless of gender. So on my judgement day I'm sure I will be sent down to a lake of fire to burn for all eternity, while all of the non- judgemental "christians" will rise up from earth to the heavens to hang out with jesus on a cloud or something....

We already allow inter-racial marriages. Now we're going to allow same gender marriages. The next step will be plural marriages. Funny because people are DOING these things, whether legal or not, by just all living together.

Leonard Thompson100,

It's really very simple. See the posting by Eric above. It recites the relevant section of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. It's commonly referred to as the Equal Protection clause. You can't treat people differently when there really is no justifiable basis for doing so. There is also a SCOTUS case called Brown v Broad of Education which said that "separate but equal is inherently unequal." That is the argument you are making: let's call it marriage for opposite sex couples, but a civil union for same sex couples. The problem is, there is no justifiable basis for doing so. Marriage is not a religious institution, so those beliefs cannot dictate how it's defined. Marriage does not require children to be born (or vice versa). There has never been any reputable evidence that it is bad for society. When it was argued in front of the Federal Appeals court, the side against it could not provide one shred of evidence. No statistics, no research, nothing! There is no justifiable reason to instill a separate word or definition. It would then be treated as unequal, which would violate the Constitution. Marriage is a government contract, process, status. It existed before religion and was created for property rights. Matrimony is a religious sacrament, but marriage doesn't require any religious anything to be legal. And you could stand in front of a minister all day and you wouldn't be legally married if you hadn't gotten the government license/certification process completed. Churches won't have to marry gay people if they don't want to (just as they can currently turn away anyone they want). You don't have to like it, just as some still don't like interracial marriages. You are free to have your opinions, but you can't take away other's civil rights. The SCOTUS already decided in Loving v Virginia that marriage is a civil right.

DUH

Aw gees Brenda! I was with ya a hunnerd percent....and then you had to go talk about heterosexual sex. I got a little nauseated....and just the thought.....my brain is on fire! It hurts. My eyes!!!!!!!