Advocates of Gay Marriage...

But denying people their basic civil rights is unconstitutional.

"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman

How does this constitute the state of my self esteem?

Because you require complete strangers to make your marriage significant to you.

I haven't the need to insult you like that. So no.
-----
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to
contemplate."- Saint Thomas Aquinas

Because the California Constitution certainly does discriminate now that the damn thing has passed. That was the whole point of the referendum. Did you somehow miss that point?

And if you and your church buddies push for a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, then, yes the constitution would in fact discriminate against me and my family and all families like mine. It would be the first time that discrimination was written into the Constitution, a document specifically drafted to prevent discrimination and to promote freedom and equality. So go happily into your gay free world of California and leave the federal constitution alone, please.

"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman

What still falls under liberty?

"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson

Then don't act like one.

Its almost humorous that you would say this, since for all practical purposes the opposition to gay marriage in this country is entirely based on religiously-motivated prejudice. If you really want to go the "freedom of religion" route, the simple fact is that there ARE legitimate religious groups in this country, including a small but growing number of christian denominations, that are quite willinging to perform these marriages. Why should the marriages of YOUR church be recognized, but not the others?

Do you even know what a "second-class citizen" is? When I commented on your poor citizenship, I was referring to your obvious disregard for the basic principle equality as enumerated in our Constitution. A "second-class citizen" is what YOU are creating when you refuse to afforce basic civil rights to other citizens simply because you don't like something about them.

This is an "appeal to tradition," and it is not a valid argument for denying basic rights to a politically unfavorable group. To quote the Supreme Court of the United States (as I so often do)...

[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.

Of course, your argument would still have a gaping hole in it, even if it weren't based on an invalid constitutional argument, due to the fact that your assumption that "until now it has only been between man and woman" is simply not true. In fact, there are numerous examples of the relationships of same-sex couples being recognized as "marriage" in a great many historical--and in a growing number of modern--societies. For example, from the African continent we know of the Yoruba, the Ibo, the Nuer, the Lovedu, the Zulu, the Sotho, the Kikuyu, the Nandi and the Azande peoples (just to name a few of the more well-known), all of whom have traditionally recognized same-sex marriages since ancient times. Closer to home, there are similar marriage arrangements that are historically associated with a number of Native American tribal groups, including the Mohave, the Lakota and the Zuni peoples. These Native American examples are particularly interesting, due to the wealth of sociological literature from the colonial era regarding the study of the "berdache." Heck, the U.S. government even accepted We'wha--a Zuni "lhamana" (or "man-woman")--as an ambassador in 1885-86.

And yes, We'wha was biologically male and had a "husband" in her tribe. More examples include the Safavidi Dynasty (of the Middle-East), the Melaneians and Papua New Guineans (in the South Pacific), the people of the Song, Ming and Qing Dynasties (historical China), and the Samurai who practiced Shudo (in Japan). These cultures also demonstred a wide-spread accepted same-sex marriages in their midst. And let's not forget the Ancient Greeks and Romans. The Spartans (for example) practiced same-sex military marriages, and the Emporer Nero publically entered into a marriage arrangement with his male lover, Sporus (and many other similar relationships are well documented in the historical records of the Empire). The simple fact is that the idea of accepting same-sex couples is neither a recent nor a particularly unusual societal affectation. On the contrary, when you step away from the always ego-centric myopia of Western judaeo-christianity and islam---and the often quite imaginary versions of redacted history that they tend to espouse--the rabid opposition same-sex couples and their relationships that we see today seems more than a little odd.

Actually, Washington delivered that comment to a non-christian group and I think you need to read a bit more deeply into George Washington's writings (not to mention his public acts) before trying to argument about what you think he believed. For example, in his letter to Tench Tilghman, Washington stated that "If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists. To anyone who has thoroughly read the writings of our Founders, it must be obvious that these men certainly did not intend for the liberties and rights enumerated in our Constitution were not intended to apply to christians, only. Other examples included Jefferson's famous exhortation...

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

And Madison's...

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects?

I know more than I would like to know, actually. It is unfortunate that I have had to fill my mind with the fearful prattle of that religion simply to defend myself from its seemingly never-ending intrusions into my life.

I can respect you as a human being, even if you refuse to do the same by recognizing my basic rights as a citizen. But that doesn't mean that I am going to let you say things that are inaccurate without correcting you, or make arugments that are based on faulty reasoning without pointing out those flaws in my responses.

Wow...what an opening, lol. Let me just say for the moment that if your plans "to lead the world to christ" involve trampling on the rights of those who do your share in your religious beliefs, then yes, there is something very wrong with your desire.

Not really, no...because those convictions are irrelevant You don't get to make laws based on your religious beliefs, and you don't get to deny other citizen's basic civil rights because your religion tells you they're "bad people." And, you CAN protect your beliefs...right up until the point that in doing so you violate the rights of someone else to do the same. And, it isn't me attaining a "righteous position" that makes this so. Our Bill of Rights does that, for me. I mean, seriously, what part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is so hard to understand?

I would use anti-miscegenation as an example rather than segregation, since the issues are so much more similar. But in the end, same-sex marriage will be allowed in this country. It is just unfortunate that we we have to go through such an ardurous process to make it so. The basic constitutional principles here are really pretty cut-and-dried, and opinion polls on this issue have showed a trend of steady increase in the public's support for same-sex marriages since the issue first entered the national consciousness. Its only a matter of time, really.

I'm not telling you what to believe. I am telling you, however, that many of the things that you believe aren't very well thought out, intellectually informed or historically accurate.

TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.