This is a civil rights issue. Why should a majority of voters decide my civil rights and whether I should be a second-class citizen of my own country. I pay taxes. Am I to be unequal by majority rule? I vote to remove freedom of religion from American Hindus. Is that OK if I get a majority?

Del. Arora didn't seem to think long and hard when answering Equality Maryland's questionnaire on his support of LGBTQ issues. He wrote that he supported marriage equality and he co-sponsored it before. He's fine getting endorsements and money from the gays, but is wary to support them.

Remember this and the other "supporters" of marriage equality come primary season.

Elevating homosexual and lesbian relationships to the level of marriage is not a civil rights issue. There is no right to same-sex marriage, not under the Declaration and not under the Constitution, originally or as amended over the years, and not culturally or historically. For more than 3,000 years of history marriage is the committed relationship of a man and woman. The consequences are not going to be good.

Please, representative Carter, and others, take your time and focus on "more important" issues than civil rights. I'm sure all the homosexual couples who've been waiting years to be able to legally marry won't mind waiting a few years longer just so we can follow your agenda more closely.

I guess Arora went to the same school of personal conviction that O'Malley went to. He says he'll vote to pass the bill in the House, but wants the people to decide. Well, after the people decide to get rid of same-sex marriage, maybe they decide to get rid of him too.

"The consequences are not going to be good."

What are those consequences? How do you know they are going to be negative?

I suppose that this is more of the typical double speech that we get from politicians. Delegate Arora actively courted the gay vote (and dollars) in the last election. Now he is giving lukewarm support while still advocating for putting our civil rights up to a vote. Would this be acceptable for any other minority? No, it would not! He will be remembered in the next election cycle.

James,

The Constitution exists to garuntee freedom and equality for all citizens. That was it's intended purpose.

The simple fact of the matter is that all citizens are not treated equal. It's been an ongoing problem be it based on race, religion, gender, or even where you were born. Each of those who were once seriously oppressed and now have more freedoms, have them because they stood up and fought to gain those freedoms.

And in pretty much every case it had to be done without allowing the people to vote on it because, quite frankly, if they had then non-whites, women and foreign born citizens would still be 2nd or 3rd class citizens at best.

I would also like to point out that in the several thousand years of human history, that what constitues a valid marriage has changed many, many, many times. As recently as the 1960's actually.

Religious views aside for a moment...For over two thousand years, man/man, woman/woman sex has been considered a social perversion. Elevating man/man, woman/woman relationships to that of a 'marriage' between a man and a woman will cause serious and irrevocable damage to the societal fabric of American society A stroke of a Governor's pen will not change that perception.
Gays want equal rights..fine..call it a civil union but it is no way a marriage.

"this issue has such impact on the people of Maryland" How so??? If you don't like same sex marraige - Then dont have one and dont attend one!! otherwise its none of your business.

If this is a civil rights issue then I have a right to marry my goldfish! Somehow just doing whatever you feel ike has become a civil rights issue in this country! It owuld appear anything goes or it is discrimination. Next the pedophiles will demand their "civil rights!"

What is he talking about this issue having "such an impact on the people of Maryland"?? The only people being impacted by this bill, on which it would have a POSITIVE impact would be same sex couples! Heterosexual couples have nothing to loose by this bill going into effect whatsoever! I think the legislaters should descide on this issue on the basis of what is right and just(marriage equality), and that the people of maryland should respect thier discision. And of anyone in MD does NOT agree with same sex marriage, they should educate themselves on the facts. Legalizing same sex marrirage will only serve to strengthen families in MD. I see no negative consequence of this bill whatsoever.

What is he talking about this issue having "such an impact on the people of Maryland"?? The only people being impacted by this bill, on which it would have a POSITIVE impact would be same sex couples! Heterosexual couples have nothing to loose by this bill going into effect whatsoever! I think the legislaters should descide on this issue on the basis of what is right and just(marriage equality), and that the people of maryland should respect thier discision. And of anyone in MD does NOT agree with same sex marriage, they should educate themselves on the facts. Legalizing same sex marrirage will only serve to strengthen families in MD. I see no negative consequence of this bill whatsoever.

Maybe Sam Arora has a teensy tiny bit of political integrity after all. But it's still dismaying how effective all the anti-Gay lobbies are in whipping people into such a frenzy that people like Arora get bombarded with threats.

I see this all the time in West Virginia, where I live. It takes one really BALLSY politician to openly express support for his or her Gay constituents, because as soon at that happens, the right-wing attack machine goes into overdrive, with newspaper ads and TV and radio commercials screaming about how "Candidate so-and-so supports SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR HOMOSEXUALS!!!"

As a results, West Virginia doesn't even have a law protecting Gay people from job discrimination, let alone allowing Gay couples to marry. I know that such a law would pass if our elected officials had to vote with the courage of their convictions, but they use every legislative maneuver to make sure that it never comes to that.

To my Gay compatriots in the state of Maryland (where I actually spent most of my childhood), I hope marriage equality comes to pass. I wish you well.

Corey, thank you for your thoughtful and heartfelt response. But we see the Constitution differently. The Constitution exists to create a constitutional republic,
with a Bill of Rights to protect we the people from oppression by government.
Many of us see ourselves oppressed by our government elite in creating same-sex
marriage rights. That is why we will take it to referendum. In all 31 states where the question has gone to referendum, we the people have rejected creating marriage status for same-sex relationships. Even in California, where the black and hispanic
faith groups turned out in large numbers to reject it. We wish same-sex people no harm, but neither we wish to accord them a special status that they have never had.
This is another effort by the homosexual movement to compel the majority to
accept them universally as heterosexuals despite very clear differences.

It's your "civil right" to marry someone of the same sex? Will, then, it must be a civil right to marry multiple partners. And if a person wants to marry his sister, why should he be denied that civil right? It's certainly a brave new world. Previously unknown "civil rights" are springing up like flowers in May.

Like it or not, homosexuals pay taxes too, therefore they SHOULD be allowed to form a legally-binding contract.

I recommend that if a same-sex religious service be performed, they should adopt the name 'gayridge' (rhymes with "Bay Ridge") to denote the difference between traditional marriage and same-sex unions.

My political plug here - the ONLY party that truly doesn't have an issue with this are Libertarians. In fact, they support it as a matter of fact because we're able to separate the moral dimensions from the legal ones. Ultimately, this is between them and their Maker should they choose to believe in One...

James, your argument is totally invalid, and a little bit of critical thought on your part would go a long way.

How are you being oppressed by this bill? How exactly does the elevation of gays to a status equal to you ACTUALLY harm you? How can you say you wish them no harm, when you are at the same time saying they do not deserve the SAME (not "special", and jesus God, there's some straight male privilege for you) treatment, the same status as a human being as you. What is wrong with thinking homosexuality is simply another aspect of human sexuality on a broad spectrum? Oh, that's right, because your religion forbids it, and you try to justify it with pointless arguments about procreation and what "nature" intended.

We are not a theocracy, James, and by the time you die our country will have largely come to accept homosexuals as equal citizens. You will be part of a small minority of frightened straight men who've watched THEIR special status as the secret masters of the world drain away, and Fortune will spread her legs for you no more.

James,
Please show me where in the Consitution it gives anyone, gay or straight, the right to be married and have special privleges attached to that status by the government. You, like so many others that are opposed to full gay rights, fall back on the Constitution, which could have been done in 1850 to support slaverly, in 1870 to deny african americans voting rights, in 1890 to deny women voting rights. Just because an idea isn't popular with the majority does not mean that it is fair and equitable. Lastly, please explain how you are in any way "oppressed" by someone else's marriage? That comment makes absolutely no logical sense. What one person does in committing to another individual effects only those two people. As may people have said, if you don't like gay marriage, don't get one.

Snarf,
You're a redundant moron. The argument has been made to death by those opposed to gay marriage and the response has never changed. A goldfish or a child cannot possibley provide informed consent to commit to a marriage. So no, two adults deciding to marry, who happen to be of the same gender, is not opening up a slipery slope to pedophiles and those that practice beastiality to demand their rights, for the same reason that children and animals can't contract to buy a car, they lack the capacity.

James,

I know you see the Constitution differently, and I am glad that not only can you have a different opinion, you are free to express that opinion.

The Founding Fathers believed that citizens should not only be free from oppression by their government, but also free from the Tyranny of the Majority. They said so themselves many times.

The fact of the matter is that when you regluate a person to being a second class citizen, you cause him harm. You are trying to make him less than you.

People who are asking to have the right to marry the person they chose, are not asking for "special status", they are asking to have the SAME status. Equality under the law, is not merely needed for freedom to prosper, it is a moral imperative.

The fact that people consider it "special status" should tell you something right there. Or think there are "clear differences". Imagine if you were told that your marriage wouldn't be legally recognized, and the financial benefits were to be denied you because you and yoru spouse didn't have the correct hair and eye color. I'm only guessing, but I'm willing to bet that would not only appear unfair, it would be hurtful.

We are all human beings. We bleed the same color blood, breathe the same air, drink the same water. A homosexual is no more different from you than any other human being is different from you. Nor is that person either inferior or superior to you.

I think it is dispicable that people believe they have the right to decide whom others may love. To ban same sex marriage or prevent it upon the institutional belief that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman is pathetic. The institution of marriage is hardly more than a joke at this point in society as over 65% end in divorce. Why not let each individual have the right to decide who to love and marry? It will hardly affect others. There has also been research on same sex marriages and their raising of families that indicate that same sex couples are much better at raising successful, productive children as compared with heterosexual couples. And for those who believe GOD does not sanctify a homosexual marriage I ask...Why do you not believe in Santa Clause as well?

Create something for civil unions.
Don't include same sex into the traditional marriage. It is not the same.

The law prohibing same-sex marriage is not reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. The government does not have a legimate interest in grafting your religion's archaic prohibitions onto its public policy. You can point to any old testament text you want; the law prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

James, what do you think is the proper role for gay people in America? What rights and responsibilities should same-sex couples have?

James,

The Bill of Rights is intended to prevent the people from oppressing the minority as well. The only oppression occurring is your lack of accepting someone different than you. You don't have to accept them personally, but your government does.

Outrageous. This issue has such a direct impact on the people of Maryland???? Who does it impact besides gays? That is the worst and most dangerous load of B.S. I have heard. And then he takes a complete cop-out by suggesting that he is only voting yes on the floor to give Marylanders the right to vote on the issue. That is infuriating.

I live in Montgomery County and I will be working (and investing my money) in defeating this sorry excuse for a leader come election time. I'm not going to forget.

Sam, you should be embarrassed and ashamed. Pitiful.

There is no such thing as "gay" marriage -- it is the exact same institution. The Supreme Court has called the right to marriage a civil right -- a fundamental civil right -- called the most important human relationship.

The evidence is that straight marriages are not harmed not one bit by same-sex marriages -- not one bit. Carving gays out of marriage is wrong and religious. Gay families and their children are just as good as everyone else, and should not have to subit to other people's religious ideas. Gays pay the same taxes.

Everything they get under the law, I get -- get it?

James - If Civil Unions are the same thing, then we should just not have marriage at all, for anybody. We'll just tell people to get Civil Unions. That will solve it, right?

My marriage ceremony was performed by a Federal Judge, with no religious component whatsoever. Is marriage a legal thing or a religious thing? It could be both... but the legal aspect is what we're looking for here.

"The tyranny of majorities may be as bad as the tyranny of kings."
~Arthur James Balfour

I thought the purpose of the constitution was to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. The founding fathers gave us a country not ruled by the majority, but ruled by the Divine idea that all are created equal.

Mr.Arora is one politician I can support for his support to allow the voters to decide this issue not the legislature.

And to Frank and all other dimwits who just plain can't or don't want to comprehend the basic, simple definition of REAL marriage......

1 MAN (male) + 1 WOMAN (female) = REAL Marriage EQUALITY (male and female).

The way God intended for REAL relationships to be formed. Period, plain and simple!

Frank, to answer your vote question: because a MAJORITY is needed to decide a winner. Now if you want the minority to win Obama would be back in Chicago, not the White House. John McLain would be President instead. Sarah Palin would be the Vice President. Hope I clarified your question.

James: Please explain to me how allowing two people in love visit each other in the hospital and file joint tax returns will negatively impact your life.

DEAR JAMES:

While it's true that the Constitution doesn't define "marriage," the federal government has complicated the issue by taking a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of tax law and Social Security (among the 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are automatically bestowed on couples once they marry). Therefore this is not an issue that can be left up to the states to decide individually, since it wouldn't do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa, for instance, to become automatically UN-married once they decide to move somewhere else.

Exactly how is allowing Gay couples the exact same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted going to affect 'traditional marriage?" Marriage equality for Gay couples will have precisely ZERO impact on your life, your marriage, your church, and your children. Your church will never be forced to marry Gay couples, any more than it is forced to marry non-Christian couples. Public schools will not be forced to “teach” about Gay marriage, any more than they are forced to teach about Straight marriage.
Instead you should ask yourself why law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans should be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples enjoy, when we are unable to take advantage of those same incentives to marry? And since when do voters get to decide that the rights that they enjoy should NOT apply to minorities?

You claim there are "very clear differences" between Gay and Straight couples. As far as I can tell, the only real difference between a married Gay couple and a married Straight couple is the gender the two people in the relationship.

Religious beliefs are irrelevant to this debate, because (1) the United States is not theocracy, and (2) churches will continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want.

Procreation and parenting are irrelevant, since (1) couples do not have to marry to have children, and (2) the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license.

This is simply a matter of equal treatment under the law.

You same-sex people crack me up with your "none of your business" comment such as from Danny.

Well if that's the case, why the heck is the legislature sticking it's nose into such a private issue?

Come on now, answer the question.

Coming out, kept me from killing myself. I prayed and cried for years, until I realized self torment wasn't the answer. When I came out, I became happy and I felt life.
I would never wish homosexuality on anyone; we are hated more than any people on the face of this earth. How my happiness causes so much pain for Str8 people is beyond my understanding.

Paul,

You are drawing false comparisons.

Marriage is a binding, legal contract between two people that legally joins them financially, and familially. And as such is can only be dissolved by the death of one of the parties to that contract, or by a court of law.

Such contracts would be extremely difficult to dissolve if they included more than 2 people. Look at how ugly things can get when children are involved. Multiple marriage would be too difficult to administer in an equitable fashion legally, so the government has a legitimate insterest in restricting them.

As far as children or animals go, they are not able to enter into binding contracts as they require mutal consent by both parties. Animals do not have the ability to grant consent as they are not sentient, and are unable to communicate in a legally recognized manner. Children are not legally able to give consent because they are not able to make informed descions on their own.

As for marrying a close relative, not only does a famillial connection already exist, but there are medical issues to consider.

I'm 100% happy to not be able to marry my partner of 13 years as long as the government does not require me to pay the same amount of taxes as straight folks. Now, if the government and the other people not wanting to grant me the same rights that they have don't want the very large amount of $$ that I pay in taxes fine. I can keep my money and resign myself to the fact that I cannot marry.

However, if the government wants to keep taking all those taxes out of my paycheck just like everyone else in the USA, then I deserve the same rights as everyone else in the country. The very same country that I live in and served, by having served in the military during war time.

Hypocrisy can work both ways.

LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

@Mark: I think if you thought REALLY hard about your question you would realize why it made zero sense. Explain to me how it IS your business who marries who and I'll explain to you how it's not.

James: Cite the poor consequences in states or countries where they have had same-sex marriage for years? That is just baseless fear-mongering. The negative consequence is only going to be that you are forced to live in a country where everything isn't to your liking. But, guess what, we're already there.

Also, newsflash, there is a right to marry and pretty much every person (including every Supreme Court Justice) in this country agrees. Gays are being deprived the right to marry because the entire scope of people they might be capable of marrying happily are off limits.

What if your fear comes true and gays become the majority in this country and pass laws that say marriage is only between a man and a man or man and a woman. Would you believe then that your civil right to marriage was denied? Or would you just say oh tough luck I still have the right to marry the same sex!

One more thing; on the santity of marriage. I have been with my partner for 13 years. In that same time span, my sister has been married, divorced, married, divorved, engaged, single and now engage again. A number of friends and collegues have been married several times, had affairs, children and broken marriages, but the GAYS are going to ruin the institution of marriage?

"You're no daisy. You're no daisy at all!"

OMG funniest thing I've heard in a while. Straights are REPRESSED by same-sex marriage.

I wouldn't go touting as meaningful the fact that states have rejected same-sex marriage on referendum. Take a time machine back to history my friend, where people time and time again rejected the rights of blacks and women. They are absolutely mortified of those positions now.

The only thing that has become clear to me over the last week is that the straight people against same-sex marriage are intellectually challenged. Proof - the comments section in the Sun.

If Mark and James et al are not smart enough to understand why this is a civil right, why this is discrimination, why this is not comparable to marrying a goldfish (which no one would have the right to do even when gays can marry), why the people should not vote on this, well I'm just glad I don't have such a feeble mind. It's too draining to have smart people explain over and over again the logic of all of this to people who really are incapable of comprehending anything complex (not that this should be complex at all).

Mark/James: What were your SAT scores? What is your profession?

Dear Delegate Arora,

First, I want to thank you for the decision you made today to vote yes on the floor in favor of the same-sex marriage legislation.

I am a 53-year old gay man from Baltimore who is a well-educated and successful professional with no criminal past that would deny me any of the rights of full citizenship. I am in a monogamous partnership with a 53-year old gay man from Baltimore who is also a well-educated and successful professional with no criminal past that would deny him any of the rights of full citizenship. We have been in this monogamous relationship for 29 years.

We are both very hopeful that Maryland will provide us with the right to marriage and the same/full legal rights that come with that designation. We do not, however, need to or intend to seek a religious institution to "bless" our marriage. For us, this is about equal protection and rights under state and federal law of the US.

That said, I was struck by a quote you made today for a Sunpapers article where you said,

"As the vote drew nearer, I wrestled with this issue in a way I never had before, which led me to realize that I had some concerns about the bill," he said. "While I personally believe that Maryland should extend civil rights to same-sex couples through civil unions, I have come to the conclusion that this issue has such impact on the people of Maryland that they should have a direct say."

Your statement about extending civil rights to same-sex couples through civil unions confuses me. I need to know for you as a legislator, what you see as the legal difference(s) between a same-sex marriage and a same-sex civil union? Is it that you see the word "marriage" as a proprietary moniker to be held only by opposite-sex couples? Or are there some legal aspects of marriage that should be granted only to opposite-sex couples and not to same-sex couples?

Please know that I am only trying to gain clarity with both your statement and your beliefs as a legislator on this topic. I think we can both agree that the argument between civil union and marriage has been tossed around for a few years now, and I have never been clear why some who would deny gays the use of the term marriage state that they are OK with it being called civil unions. What are the real, tangible, and legal differences?

Please help me understand. We just wish to be treated with the same dignity, respect, and legal rights as any other law-abiding US citizens.

Just because someone disagrees with you is no reason to call into question their intelligence. That's an act of arrogance.

The simple fact is that many, if not most people who oppose it, have never really even considered the idea objectively. They are simply reacting based on the beliefs they were raised with. Even when most people will consider something so radically different than their core beliefs, they will instinctively focus on rationale that reinforce that belief. That's just human nature.

Reasoned discussion can prompt some of those people to consider other viewpoints, and agree they might be valid even if they don't personally share them. It can even change minds.

But being insulting and demeaning does nothing more than ruin any chance of convincing people.

Man, these stories sure bring out the Gayliban don't they!

Raised as the daughter of a strick pentecostal minister, I too was told that homosexuality was wrong. I was taught hate against homosexuals by my very own father, mother and fellow church members.

Many years later I finally had the courage to "come out" and be happy. Who I am today goes against every belief I was raised with. Yet; I'm out, I'm gay, I'm a parent, I'm a veteran, I'm a tax payer and I'm a law abiding citizen.

All I need now, it's to be married to my long time partner legally.

I do NOT choose to be gay. Same as someone cannot choose the color of their skin.

PEACE!

I'm not unsympathetic to Gay couples who feel that they are barred from something that would make their lives easier and happier. But if a "civil right" is defined as anything a person wants, than anybody can claim anything as a civil right.. Marriage is defined in a certain way, for reasons that have been considered important for a very long time now. If marriage is redefined to allow Gays to marry one another, why stop there? Why not extend it further and spread the happiness? To put it another way, without trying to be insulting, what makes Gays so special? What makes their situation any more compelling than that of a group of people (say a man and three women) who, for whatever reason, want to enter into a marriage arrangement with one another. Wouldn't they have just as much of a right? And if not, why not? Again, what makes the situation of Gay couples so special and compelling that we should redefine marriage to accommodate it? Can somebody answer that question for me?

KGM801 - because loud mouths like you made this issue EVERYBODY'S business. If you shut up and go back into the closet, then your life is no one's business but your own.

Lee, you chose to be gay. You were NOT born gay. Also your sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with skin color so don't even try to insult the Civil Rights Era. Sexual deviancy is not a right. It is immoral, unnatural and an abomination to the human race.

Mark,

How long until the story about you being found in a rubber suit, ball gag in your mouth and a broomstick where the sun don't shine hits the papers?

ab has got a valid point. Nobody can possibly volunteer for that. Homosexuality would get no takers.

I figured nobody would want discrimination, prejudice, ridicule, abuse, violence, possible outright murder, loss of job (and benefits and place to life), rejection by family and friends, and if not careful, disease and death.

Ergo, gay people must be making the best of the hand they have.

If a few choose to live for Christ, and that means sexlessly, God bless them. I don't know how I would live like a monk without a lady.

If the others do not, what can I say to them? You're human too? Just the mirror opposite?

The only thing this law is going to ruin is some straights' ability to ruin the gays' lives and pursuit of happiness.

And for those who believe GOD does not sanctify a homosexual marriage I ask...Why do you not believe in Santa Clause as well?

-alex
_________________

I wish it was otherwise, but a reading of the Bible at face value would indicate He does not.

You take a $5 bill because it says $5 and an authority wrote it. You take a $10 bill, a $20 bill. The Bible came from God, why not take it at face value in matters of what God thinks?

Fortunately, we are not a theocracy. Even a Christian like me would get out of here if we were. My flavor might be the wrong kind and I might be on the hit list.

One more thing; on the santity of marriage. I have been with my partner for 13 years. In that same time span, my sister has been married, divorced, married, divorved, engaged, single and now engage again. A number of friends and collegues have been married several times, had affairs, children and broken marriages, but the GAYS are going to ruin the institution of marriage?

-Lee
_____________________

Ever get the impression that a lot of straights are marrying just long enough to bear offspring?

Maybe the gays, who can't have offspring, really mean it about love?

Gay couples can have civil unions that protect their civil rights. This debate isn't about civil rights. It's about a homosexuals wanting everyone to acknowledge that they are "married." If civil unions guarantees civil rights then adding the word "marriage" is a moot point. But Noooooooo...! I want that word "Marriage". I want it! I want it! I want it! And if you don't give it to me, well you're just a dispicable Bigot, Hater, and everything else. I don't want my civil rights in a "civil union package", I want it in a "marriage package!" Well, .. No. I will vote in a referendum against it; against this caprice that masquerades as a civil rights issue..

"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed".

Martin Luther King, Jr.

I don't believe in a referendum vote on gay marriage in Maryland. WHY? Two reasons:

1. I didn't get a chance to vote on Heterosexual Marriage!

2. If the voters in Maryland decided Against Gay Marriage, it will only eventually be stuck down in Federal Court, Like Prop 8 in California. U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in California November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. The same will only happen in Maryland.

Wow, this seems like deja vu in history....Free States and Slave States.
Gay Marriage States and Outlawed Gay Marriage States.

WAKE UP AMERICA ! EQUALITY FOR ALL!

@Richard McGinnis, thank you for injecting a quotation from my favorite civil rights text, Dr. King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail." Here's another:

"An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal."

Current law is unjust; difference is made legal. (This, perhaps, is why Coretta Scott King spoke so eloquently in favor of gay rights including gay marriage.)

casadegarcia,

We tried separate but equal in this country...how did that work out??? You are a bigot and a hater if you think that separate but equal should be allowed.

Paul,

The definition of marriage has changed many times. At times it was acceptiable to have Polygamas marriages, in fact it was a sign of prosperity. Then the definitions got changed.

It has over time been permenant, then divorce was allowed, then it was forbidden, then it was allowed.

Another time, a marriage wsa only valid if it was arranged or approved of by both sets of parents of the married couple.

The list goes on and on. Changes that required the Church, rather than parent. Changes that allowed Common law marriage. Changes that allowed Inter-racial marriage.

It's hard to justify resisting change as a "tradition" when the tradition has changed so many times before.