Should California Pass Prop 8?

The California Supreme Court abolished the state’s same-sex marriage ban in May, sparking public celebration in some places and angry protest in others. Now some critics of same-sex marriage are fighting back with an initiative to reinstate the ban, leaving voters once again divided. Should marriage remain between a man and a woman, or is it time to widen the aisle for same-sex couples? (Editor's Note: On November 4th, California voters passed Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage.)

If you have a kid in the MA public schools you'll soon find out how your parental rights have been taken away from you. Your Kindergardener will be required to read books such as King and King (a story about 2 men falling in love). Parents aren't even allowed to opt their kids out of that curriculum. Google David Parker, you'll see this is a real life case. Tolerance is a two way street. When it becomes a one way street it is tyranny, not tolerance.

America is joining the wide world of socialism, and while proposition eight supporters and opponents are pointing fingers at each other, the state (the entity to blame for this whole ordeal) gets away without scrutiny from its people. What happens when government becomes the creator of marriage, and not the protector? And why does no one see fit to question this shift in power?

To investigate this further, read:

It is my honor and delight to officiate for same sex marriages in Connecticut

I even advised all my 100 or so civil union couples that I would upgrade them to marriage for NO charge (if they came to Norwalk or Darien).

CT is proud to lead the way to provide this basic right to ALL couples.

CT is the ONLY state where a same sex couple can get married in one day- no residency requirement, no blood test, no witnesses. Just the $30 license fee and $10 for a certified copy plus the fee for the officiant (which varies by officiant and by location). I take care of everything for as little as $200.

I have couples who have flown in from CA, FL, TX, IN, OH, IL, Mexico and who have driven in or taken the train from NYC, NJ, PA, RI, VA

Most couples have been together for YEARS..including one couple from Florida who have been together for 45 years!
Let people love each other and take care of each other. Isn't that what marriage is about?

Mary Pugh, CT Justice of the Peace, Norwalk, CT

We cannot just let go of the Same-Sex issue because it involves too many fundamental freedoms Californians have not enjoyed for 6 months due to the California Supreme Court's decision. I agree with many of the arguments posed by the Agreement Vs. Respect comment below. Respect of opinions should be given to all and I believe the right to maintain individual opinions on this matter is important. However, the Supreme Court's Decision has taken away Californian's legal right to disagree with Same-Sex Marriage and is in fact forcing that opinion upon us. While I have not qualms with giving a license to Same-Sex Couples, the Supreme Court did more then that in their ruling. Please find and read it. They placed Same-Sex and Traditional Marriages as equals that cannot be separated, and that has brought up a slew of civil-right and religious issues, as well as taking away our right to have an opinion on the issue. If you wish to have an opinion on this issue, vote Yes on Proposition 8.

Majority rule is all well and good .. unless the majority behaves as a tyrant. Tyranny of the majority is tyranny nonetheless and anyone who values individual rights and liberty is within their rights to take action to dismantle such a culture's hold on its victims. One is free to define the characteristics of one's community, provided one's community behaves in a way respectful of its individual members' rights and liberties. No community ought to be free to rule with an iron fist, just as no individual is free to do the same. Right to self-determination does not include right to the determination of others against their will, provided such others are not themselves in violation of your rights and liberties.

If tyranny of the majority is what you advocate, might I suggest some locations elsewhere on our planet more friendly to the tyrannical. We will have none of it in a nation that allegedly values individual rights and liberties. In such a society, ONE is the majority and always must be.

If religious individuals refuse to recognize the authentic marriage of any two individuals, they are within their right to refuse, however, they are not within their rights to forcibly prevent such a union. Opine all you wish, however, you may not turn opinion into a rope around someone else's neck.

You may or may not be at liberty to do so, however, you have never been nor ever will have the right.

Of course, because an authentic marriage is one of the heart and spirit, no man can prevent it when those who wish marriage desire it truly. A paper and stamp, law and community opinion are irrelevant in that regard.

Nothing can take away one's right to his opinion or his right to express it. One's right to marry a person of his or her choosing is what proposition 8 WOULD do. I think I would prefer to have both of those rights, just as you do.

Are you suggesting that a constitutional ammendment is 'just an opinion'? And are you further suggesting that it's ok to have an opinion on this matter as long as the law is on the side of your opinion? And are you also suggesting that when the law is against your opinion, it has also stripped your right to have an opinion? I have one question for you.. In your opinion, is it better for you to have an opinion if another persons legal rights are trampled, or is it better for everyone to have equal rights and for you to have no opinion whatsoever?

Ok, let me try publicly stating my opinion using the "N-word" and see where that gets me! Oh, but wait, we already have plenty of examples of lives that were destroyed and jobs lossed for doing MUCH LESS than that, huh? So again then.. is it not that we are only in suport of the "right to opinion" only under certain terms as it does not violate certain offenses or opposing views; and likewise we only support the "rights and freedoms" and protection from discrimination to things which we ourselves accept or believe in? -Hmmmm..

So then what exactly is "free to have your opinion?" And what exactly are "rights and freedoms" that are deserved or supported? -According to who?? I am sure EVERY person or group that does not feel civil or legal freedon to do as they prefer, is waiting in the wings of such the answer. -Pandora's box, people!! Try to burn a brain cell not be so short-sighted abd narrow minded, and look farther down the road, which we have proven as human's we suck at!

..I also think gross hairy men who walk around without their shirts on when they have bigger boobs than I should be illegal.

Oh.. but wait. I can't have opinions because those things are legal. Right. So I'll be forced to smile at the disgustingness or I'll be arrested for not agreeing with something that's legal - and by all right should be legal.

Just because I - and probably a lot of other people - think that mullets are offensive and Keanu Reeves is a really bad actor doesn't mean that laws should be made to regulate such things. Well, I might make an exception to this if it meant no more Reeves, but.. ehh.

Nothing prevents you having an opinion.

What are you trying to say here? You have apparently missed the point. Freedom of speech and freedom from the consequences of what you say are two different things. Also, you can't be thrown in jail for having an opinion. But, you can be thrown in jail for acting on your opinion.

Try to be more descriptive with your argument. You may have a valid point, but it's not clear in what you are writing.

The Supreme Court of California did exactly what they're appointed to do. They determined that the prior voter supported action was unconstitutional. It violated the wording of the California State Constitution, and it violates the wording and spirit of the American Constitution . A yes vote on Prop 8 is a vote against equality for all Americans and a vote for law based upon one particular religious belief -- that with a Judeo-Christian base. That, in effect, establishes a state religion, which is forbidden by the United States Constitution.

Really..??? -Sounds prety bias and one sided to me. But hey, I am only basing that on the presence of ambigous and abstract agrguments of opinon; and the absince of any rhetorical construct. -Just exactly what I said; and proves the point about how bias and myopic the "No" side, or SSM position is. Although, they are convinced, and would swear the opposite is true. -But of course, then is that not an obvious despriptive result of being "bias" and "myopic?"

I'm sorry civil union or marriage, homosexual marriage is not the same as heterosexual marriage. They will have an uphill battle because over half of the US states and many foreign countries have already voted to preserve that marriage "is a man and woman." You go California with your liberal ideologies.
I am a bigot because:..1. Throughout history, marriage has only been between a man and woman..2. The natural law of humanity only allows an egg and sperm to procreate..3. Civil Liberties is not civil rights.4. Civil rights is not conduct..5. We are being indoctrinated by society to accept conduct when it goes against personal ethics.6. Businesses, churches, government and families should have freedom of speech by the foundation that this land was based on and not be tried for discrimination..

No one says you have to LIKE gay people, or gay marriage. What you do not have a right to do is force what your notions of right and wrong upon others by preventing them from attaining equal status under the law. You can wear a shirt that says "I'd rather lick a pig's anus than agree with gay marriage". You can be just as vocal about being irrationally against something just like the KKK is.. you don't have to accept gay marriage. But you don't have a right to legally prevent another person from attaining the same legal protections marriage offers.

No one is "indoctrinating" anyone. It's the indoctrination of society that had prevented gay people from being accepted as even people until recent history. Aaaand you would appear to have been indoctrinated.

The statement "throughout history, marriage has only been between a man and woman" may be true if one limits oneself to a very narrow definition of "marriage" in order to ignore the overwhelming numbers of authentic marriages that existed and exist now outside of your limited definition. Human beings are quite talented in marrying themselves to places, to times, to objects, to individuals of other species and, of course, to one another in a seemingly infinite number of ways. All that's really required of a "marriage", at least for one involving at least one human being, is authenticity of commitment.

It is quite demonstrable that there have been and are many legally-recognized or community-sanctioned "marriages" lacking authentic commitment from the very beginning and many non-sanctioned "marriages" with unwavering authentic commitment. All this to show, community sanction and legality have little really to do with authentic commitment and genuine marriage.

The statement regarding "throughout history" is unsupportable. Throughout history "marriage" has been defined in a long and growing list of ways and can be expected to be widely and diversely defined in the future.

Bigots can define words for themselves, however, they may not define them for others.

If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that change for the good is always an uphill battle. There was a time when slavery was considered necessary for the good of the country. There was a time when women were not allowed to vote. There was a time when keeping the races separated was thought to be an idea that God considered appropriate. There was a time when Jewish persons were killed in gas chambers, just for being Jewish. There was a time when Christians were killed for being Christians. I hope that someday soon we'll be able to say.. There was a time when we didn't allow same sex couples to marry. Every single one of these changes were hard fought. And every single time, there was someone on the other side, Roman, Nazi, KKK, who argued that the status quo was for the good of society.

I'll help you out with my non-religious opinion. Since the earths creation, even before religion, it has been a man and woman. Same sex couples can not obtain the progression of life "naturally". Thus, indoctrinating society to accept something that is by natural law "unnatural". Now, why should we indoctrinate society to accept conduct when it doesn't enhance natural progression? Marriage is NOT a fundamental right. The only difference from their equal civil unions is the label of marriage, which is much more than a commitment between two people. It is the formation of a family which includes procreation and the rearing of children. The voters of California have already spoken once to preserve the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. It should remain so. We need to evaluate what standards our society want to live by and not a failing judicial system. Civil liberties are NOT civil rights YES on 8

Because one cannot exist nor act "outside of nature", i.e., there being no "outside", all that one does is necessarily natural. Your argument is one of assumption that the purpose of a single human life and the purpose of ALL human life is procreation. Although true, the species will not continue without a sufficient number of individuals reproducing, you assume also that it is the duty of either every or at least some individuals to do so. I would submit there is no such duty to "carry on the species", however, one is certainly and ought certainly be free to do so if one wishes. What one is not free to do nor ought to be free to do is compel a false duty to reproduce on every individual member of the abstract idea of "species".

I must also submit that the word and utterance "marriage" has many meanings depending on the one using it and context of its use. Individual human beings "marry" themselves to one another in an enormously diverse number of ways. Mere "best friends" are married to one another. Employer and employee are "married" from a certain form of view. One is "married" to one's pets if there is a mutual love, mutual dependence. Same-sex and, indeed differently sexed couples and even large groups of individuals have been marrying themselves to one another since before the dawn of this species we call "humanity". There is nothing anyone can do to prevent the emotional marriage of two or more individuals to one another if they so choose. They and their detractors often do not understand or, in the least, forget the fullest implications of the concept of "marriage". Certainly, those who rail against same-sex marriage as a potential redefinition of "marriage" seem to miss the irony of their very limited understanding of the much broader concept. Communities may or may not be at liberty to suppress official recognition of a "marriage" of two or more people. As a more advanced thinker, I am little bothered by what communities allow or disallow on this issue. An authentic marriage is one of the heart, mind, spirit.

No government, vote, voter, law or court can allow or disallow what is quite outside of their control. That communities create a bit of paper and a stamp and then deny some few to participate in ownership of that unnecessary paper and stamp is a ludicrous self inflation of childish human beings. Those genuinely committed to one another have no need of community approval.

Marriage is indeed considered a Fundamental Right under the Constitution of the U.S. Please do your research on this. It seems that the Yes side is very, very lazy. Lookup Loving v. Virginia. It wasn't very long ago that mixed-race marriage was illegal. This is what a judge in Virginia had to say about mixed-race marriage just 50 years ago.. "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix." This sounds so much like the Yes on 8 agrument. It should make you all sick to your stomach.

Then why cant a 42 year old man marry a consenting 13 year old??!! Especially, "they aren't hurting anyone!"

SSM advocates have made the treacherous and unintelligent comparative analogy to racial discrimination; and it will be one of the many of your own arguments, by which their agenda will be exposed. Apples to Oranges! An attorney representing pedophiles, and many other such groups, will have a MUCH MORE ACCURATELY CLOSER comparative analogy to legalizing SSM and homosexuality, than SSM advocates have to "racial" discrimination.

Ok, so then using your argument, a cultural or tribal or religious sect should also be allowed to practice human sacrifice; as was percieved as appropriate and acceptable in many cultures. Who are any of us to say that perspective is wrong and should not be tolerated?
See, you (plural) are doing it again.

First: the right to choose one's own partner is a fundamental right. You'd never give up your right to choose your partner, why should anyone else?

Second: Same-sex relationships are 100% legal as long as there is consent. A minor is not an adult and therefor cannot give consent. Equating grown men and women to children is just insulting.

Third: Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. Please explain how exactly two grown men or women cannot give consent legally like a 13 year old? Also, please explain how refusing the right to marry based on physical gender is any different than refusing the right to marry based on skin color.

You really need to do some reasearch on the Due Process Clause and the 14th Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution and recent decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court. Because, honestly, you don't know what you are talking about.

I'm equating inter-racial marriage to same sex marriage on the basis of discrimination. A logical and easily understood argument.

You are comparing same sex marriage to pedophiles and human sacrifice. That's just weird.

Ok, that may be.. I do not know.. but the "NO" side is definitely and unarguably (as already evidenced) very myopic and self centered, and unintelligent in basis and rhetorical construct, or the lacking thereof. It is unarguable that their positions ABSOLUTELY only uses the basis for their claim for SSM narrow mindedly and one sided, without considering the other and EQUAL side of those same arguments about "equality" and "discrimination." Basically, its the whole use only the parts or position of an argument or example as it suits your agenda; but not as it does not. That is not really being "EQUAL" nd "FAIR" now is it? -Please open your minds and quit having your cake and eating it too. If you can not see this, then you are "still doing it!"

Explain to me who will suffer if same sex couples are allowed to marry? Also, explain how someone will suffer? I want concrete examples, not fear mongering. Try to be clear with your comment.

If proposition 8 passes, it will be challenged at the earliest possible convenience, and it will end up in the same supreme court that allowed gay marriage in the first place.

Can't we just let this go? Can't we just allow people to live their own lives the way they want to? They don't hurt anybody. Do you think that they don't get married in their own Churches? What makes your beliefs better than theirs? They use the same Bible.

Let me tell you what. I want ALL people to have equal rights. If they have to borrow a word to gain those rights from straight America to achieve them, I'm all for it.


Yes, indeed; and someone should file a class action suit angainst the California Goverment and the California Supremem court for their responsibility in both the overturning of the people's vote and causing another propostion vote. California boasts the world's 6th biggst economy; yet you still bamkrupted it. Their is no way California could afford the 10's to maybe, 100's of millions of dollars this issue cost. -Good job liberals! Now you have contributed to bankrupting your state.

Additionally in response: So then that author, and other's making the same argument about wanting "ALL people having equal rights" then also supports consentual pedophilia. It does not hurt anyone either. -Or is it that ultimately, we actually,(truthfully, behind the smoke and mirrors) only really support the rights of those things that we think are acceptable or are not opposed to? -Hmmmm..

It does not take an intelligent philosopher to understand that "equal rights" are a "delusional illusion" How can everyone have equal rights for all of the things they want? -Proposterous! and a lie of society. And until we admit this and get over our SELF-CENTERED agendas that seek only to have things as it pleases us; and give up on pursuing some of our rights; realizing "you can't always get what you want!" we will only keep going the wrong direction and losing ground; all the while thinking we are accomplishing the opposite. -Spells DISASTER and CHAOS.

Better check your facts buddy. Hetrosexual fathers, uncles and brothers wrapped in secure holy matrimony account for almost all sexual abuse of children. Yes that's right Daddy does it! Look it up in the stats for child abuse and sexual abuse of children. Except for those acts commited by other hetros like priests, ministers, coaches and scout masters. So if you want to talk about child abuse look within and don't even try to compare homosexuals to hetro child pedophiles. That is your disgusting issue not ours. Funny how you are spending so much time and money stopping adults from marrying and no attention at all to your own children. H8 is a powerful thing but unhealthy.
Don't be a h8er.

Smurph your arguments are not as good as you think. There is no such thing as consentual pedophilia because minors can't legally consent. Your argument makes absolutely no sense. Try looking at this issue from a purely logical point of view. I'm not gay, so I don't have any reason to feel strongly about this, except that the logic is clear. There is no good argument against same sex marriage. All arguments against are purely emotional. Take a few minutes and really ponder this.'re perfectly willing to live in a society with self-centered agendas.. as long as it's yours. No one can do anything that you don't like. Not that will harm you, not will harm your children.. it's just something that you don't like. And because it's something you don't like, you're willing to pursue laws that are corrupt and bankrupt of any integrity. As long as you get to dictate to people what's acceptable, it's okay.

You're right, it doesn't take an intelligent philosopher.. all it takes is a bigoted, close-minded perverter of justice. Or.. you.

Restoring the liberty of homosexual individuals to marry whomever they choose has nothing at all to do with agreeing with their preferences in sexual partners or their lifestyle. Agreement with them is not required. What is required in any civilized culture which claims to value individual rights and liberties is respect for their individual humanity and their personal pursuit of happiness. Assuming an individual is not infringing the liberty of another to exercise their individual rights, that individual is owed to them the liberty to do the same.

I must remind those who object to granting liberty to same-sex couples to marry one another that, regardless of how right you believe your viewpoint and values, there are always thousands of individuals in the United States who disagree with your points of view, your beliefs, your values, your chosen lifestyle. Perhaps some of those who disagree with and object to you would see that you lose some liberties to enforce their point of view upon your choices. If you would not have the practice of suppressing liberties because the lifestyle of another makes you uncomfortable become a standard approach to relationships in cultures, perhaps you ought not encourage such thinking by thinking in such ways yourself. You will, no doubt, be forging the chains you will someday wear.

If you wish to live with optimum liberty, although you do not owe another your agreement, you DO owe any and all your respect of their liberties. If you do not believe this true, then you explicitly disagree with a culture that holds as its highest value individual rights and liberties. What you truly value is an elitist culture - liberty for some, slavery for others. Perhaps your viewpoint is better suited for a feudal society or one similar to Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea or perhaps Cuba.

Those dictatorships are always looking for your sort of affirming opinions.

People want to love who they want to love, and we need to butt out. If they aren't hurting anyone, I don't give a rat's behind who loves who and who wants to marry who. For all I'm concerned people can marry their cat if they want to. If it doesn't hurt anyone, what does it matter? It doesn't hurt me if same-sex couples get married.

In the end..don't like same-sex marriage? Then shut up and don't get one. That easy. People like Westboro Baptist Church can just keep their rallies indoors. I don't know if you heard but they got sued and rightfully so.

i agree. i have 4 wives and i'm getting ready to marry my 17 yr.old cousin. it is no one's business. i love my wivies and i'm in love with my cousin too. and he loves me..

I really don't have a problem with polygamy either. Seriously. It's part of some people's religion (as stupid as organized religion really is and the fact that God is a non-existent figment of people's imaginations).

Now 17 might be pushing it a bit. The age of majority may still need to be enforced, but you know, that's about it. Of course you have to be 18 (or have parental consent) to enter into other contracts as well. People do need to butt out of what two consenting individuals do and focus more on issues that matter (i.e. the economy ).

now don't be coming down on us who believe in God as stupid. and my cousin will soon be 18

Ok, good point about "In the end..don't like same-sex marriage? Then shut up and don't get one. That easy." So I do not like pedophilia, so I will just shut up and not fool around with boys and girls. You are right, that was "easy." -Good thing I dont have children to protect, huh?

Since when has pedophilia been consensual? Answer: NEVER.

The cut here has to do with consent. A young person does not have the mental capacity to consent to anything. Same-sex marriage hurts nobody because it's done by two consenting adults. BTW, I also support euthanasia, as you mentioned previously, for whatever reason..depression, terminal illness, just tired of life, etc.

Again, we boil down to the religious argument. It ALL has to do with religion, and since religion is BS anyway, oh well.

"For all I'm concerned people can marry their cat if they want to. If it doesn't hurt anyone, what does it matter?"

1) It would certainly hurt the cat if the person who married it tried to consummate the marriage. Aside from the physical harm it would suffer, I highly doubt that the poor feline would consent to being violated in such a manner.

2) I'm pretty sure bestiality is outlawed everywhere. It's one of many so-called "alternative lifestyles" that federal and state governments neither protect nor should protect.

Is not the very basis for same sex marriage, "EQUALITY?!" So then, now that YOU mentioned it: Why should someone who wants to paractice beastiality be denied their "right" to do so? Why should they be "discriminated against." And so then, likewise, why should pedophiles also be deinied the same oppostunity to love and care for somone of their sexual preference and orientation?? -If it is concentual; or at least at certain age minimum, like say, 12 or 13. what if they were "born that way?" They are "people too." Pedophilia laws and beastiality laws are "discriminatory" and violate their rights to excercise their freedom. -Maybe almost ALL laws are then. After all, "who does it hurt?" It does not harm anyone. What about people that want to murder, and people that want to die? Let us hook them up and legalize that.

Supposedly, according to that same SSM agenda agument basis, who is another person to determine what is and is not acceptable?.. or what is and is not right? Just because you disagree; or you think it gross or unacceptable; what gives us the right to try and "force that on another, and deniy them "inalienable rights?" For that matter, who or what determines what rights are "inalianable?" So then we have to allow ALL rights then. What if I want to urinate in the neighborhood park, at night where not exposing to anyone? Why should I be denied that right? Who does it harm? Public urination laws are "discriminatory."

Are you starting to understand the definition of "pandora's box" yet? Where do we draw the line? -Or do you realize you are indirectly advocating the drawing of NO LINES, and the erasing of many? Hey, "EQUAL" means "EQUAL!" and "right to" means "right to" and escecially, "DISCRIMINATION" means "DISCRIMINATION!" -Or are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? Yes, you certainly are. The fact that one may not have intended to, nor realized they were, does not exonerate one form the guiltiness of such, nor preclude one from the responsibility.
("You" and other pronoun references are general and not aimed at author in reply, but only "as the shoes fits" for rhetorical purposes)
BTW: this excerp pretty much addresses almost all of the comments in support of SSM, in one way or another; as it completely obliterates the primary basis of the SSM argument.

Are you suggesting that we should freeze things the way they are now? No more rights for anyone? We've finally got it right, and if we go any farther we'll open 'Pandora's Box'? Are you sure we haven't gone just a little too far? Maybe we should take away a women's right to vote.. Or maybe we should take away the right for persons of different races to marry.. Or maybe we should segregate the schools again.. We should have a negro league for all sports.. We should outlaw liquor again.. We shouldn't allow women to work.. We should decide on just one religion and throw all the non-christians out of our perfect country.

God only knows the dangers of allowing two consenting adults to pledge themselves to one another. It would be just like a man raping a child. Or maybe it would be more like a man raping a cat. And also, 12 and 13 year olds would be considered adults if we allow same sex couples to marry.

Now, quite frankly, I think your opinion and your logic is gross and unacceptable. But that's your business. And I can choose to think you're wrong without wanting to force you to think just like me. And you can think same sex marriage is wrong. But how will it affect you on a daily basis if same sex couples marry?

Now, I'm all for animal rights, but let's be reasonable. Cats don't have the same rights as humans! I was exaggerating by the way, and I figured someone with half a brain would have been smart enough to recognize that, but apparently since you don't have even half a brain you weren't smart enough to recognize that.

My question still remains..who does the homosexual lifestyle hurt? The answer is absolutely nobody. Or perhaps you are still living in the past where AIDS was called the "gay disease" (which it has been proven that it's transmitted just as fast in unprotected heterosexual intercourse)? Not everybody is a Christian. Stop trying to enforce Christian values on non-Christians. That's the ONLY (and very poor) excuse to deny 10% of the population their civil rights.

No, not at all! Look up the definition of "pervert" (the verb, not the noun) or "perversion" Then go do some sociological and psychological research (that you(plural) obviously have not done) on the developmental and childhood causes of most homosexuals, and then take of your "myopic rose colored glasses." I do not stand against homosexuals being as they are, anymore than it is that no one is perfect or without blemish. I have had homosexual roomates and dear friends. I do not at all have a problem with them living their lifestyle as they choose. -as so may of you put it, "they are not hurting anyone" But when we start to ourselves, as a society, pervert the truth about the issue(pervert the truth about perversion), and THEN TAKE IT AN UNACCEPTABLE STEP FARTHER, by saying it is ok, and promoting or advocating it through the legalizing of the sanctity of marriage, is a totally different issue from with which should be protected from. Society should not be able to legislate the advocation of homosexuality to children or anyone else. That is the issue. Homosexual's were given protection from discrimination and same rights as married couples (which is discrimination, by the way) yet, it is never enough and are not satisfied. It is a lie to say it is about rights and equality. It is about cramming the advocation and acceptance of that lifestyle down the throats of society. Please, practice what you aree preaching, "leave society in peace!" -But you will not do it; because you refuse to see anything other than how it suits your own desires or your own agenda. I once realized, and accepted the idea that I can not always have things the way i want them; or always force or have people give in to my preferences and my perspectives. Why can you(plural) not do the same?
More importantly, that same argument, then exist for almost any other group, or person, with an unusual, or seemingly distasteful, illegal or perverted preference or lifestyle. Stop lying!

I don't need to run through the 1,183 reasons why that's wrong.

As the Supreme Court stated in Loving v. Virginia:

"Because we reject the notion that the mere “equal application” of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose. The mere fact of equal application does not mean that our analysis of these statutes should follow the approach we have taken in cases involving no racial discrimination where the Equal Protection Clause has been arrayed against a statute discriminating between the kinds of advertising which may be displayed on trucks in New York City, Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949), or an exemption in Ohio's ad valorem tax for merchandise owned by a nonresident in a storage warehouse, Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522 (1959).. In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the state from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race."

In other words, miscegenation laws were not "equal protection" even though both races were punished equally for entering an interracial marriage. Similarly, DOMAs are not "equal protection" even though both genders are punished equally for entering a same-sex marriage because there can be said to be an invidious gender-based discrimination. The test, then, is whether there is a "rational" basis for same-sex couples not to get married, which I contend that there is not.

Or perhaps people wanting to engage in same-sex marriages should just put up and shut up with how they are already treated? Perhaps miscegenation laws were also Constitutional?

I believe that was ruined long ago.

Furthermore, marriage sucks. I'm not kidding. Unless you think it acceptable and sanctimonious to sell you daughter? Or unless you believe that women are merely property of men?

That's the original intent of marriage and for thousands of years, that's how it went. Calling a hideous tradition a sanctimonious act is like calling slavery sanctimonious. Simply because this has changed to marriage being an actual choice between two consenting adults who love each other doesn't change the history of the act, does it? Nor was the "sanctity" of marriage any less sanctimonious when it was illegal for inter-racial couples to tie the knot.

And just how has the sanctity of marriage been preserved and protected from heterosexual couples? Britney Spears? Drew Barrymore? A 17 hour marriage? Drive-thru chapels? Sanctimonious enough for you?

What is UNACCEPTABLE is for one brainwashed group of people to say that homosexuality is not okay. What is UNACCEPTABLE is for one brainwashed group of people to use democracy to discriminate against another group simply because it "suits your own desires or your own agenda."

You do not have to like homosexuality anymore than I like the fact that some people will continue to wear crosses around their necks and carry guns in their hands and march off into war because it's their duty for country. As if the laws they say they live their by are superseded by their love country. (Which, you don't have to say anything about that, I'm using it as an example of what I have to accept.) What you cannot and should not do is to support laws that intentionally leave out a group of people simply because they are in the minority.
Unless, of course, you thought it was perfectly acceptable for laws to be made that discriminated against black people simply because black people were in the minority.

Stop lying to yourself.

Your comment above states:

"Homosexual's were given protection from discrimination and same rights as married couples (which is discrimination, by the way)"

First, how is this discrimination? How is giving someone equal rights discrimination? Who is being discriminated against?

Second, if Homosexuals have been given protection from discrimination and the same rights as married couples, then why can't they be married?

Have you really given much thought to your opinion? Give me a legitimate argument for banning same sex marriage. I think we both agree that marriage is a good thing. It helps to stabilize society and is an enriching experience for the couple and their family. So, if we agree that marriage is good, how can marriage also be bad? How can including more people in a good thing be bad?

I know, it is morally wrong to allow same sex couples to marry.. Right? Well, as I said before, that was the same argument used against inter-racial marriage just a few years ago. It's an empty argument and it won't hold up to the Constitution. So you'd better come up with something else.