The pace may be picking up, but every day that discrimination is allowed to remain in any part of the civil code, is another day that the US Constitution remains suspended for millions of Americans. One day, one hour, one minute more is far too much time to be denied equality.

Obviously when you force an issue down people’s throats it will be swallowed but only reluctantly. Unelected judges did this unconstitutionally and therefore gave cover to the idea in a few liberal states. Nationwide it has been rejected because it is bad public policy. Children need Mothers & Fathers.

Sorry to break the news to you Eric, but marriage is not a civil right or ANY other kind of right. Therefore there is no discrimination. It IS just a centuries old union for reproduction and it is he best way to raise children.

Whether or not Question 1 is approved or defeated matters not.

The very conversation regarding same-sex marriage has become immoral on its face.

How can we as heterosexuals deny our gay children the same rights that we afford ourselves simply by virtue of birth? Furthermore, how do we justify this as a society? Further still, why would we even want to?

We have done a grave disservice to our gay children. Not just in marriage rights, but in every area of their lives. And it is becoming increasingly difficult to be a part of the group who is demanding Apartheid toward the very gay children we created.

But what is most troubling and most vile is our willingness, no, EAGERNESS to attempt to carve our gay children out of the United States Constitution. It is the most immoral thing it has ever been my displeasure to witness. And only when the United States Constitution keeps its promise to our gay children will America be a country that I am once again proud to be a part of.

If we as a nation can not even come to recognize the simplest of truths - that all people should be treated equally under the law - how do we expect to repair a nation that is broken? And why, against all evidence, do we continue to blame our gay children for the downfall of a nation that has done nothing but abuse and dehumanize and marginalize them?

We have MUCH to make amends for. We have MUCH to seek forgiveness for. And we must stop this immoral Apartheid in the United States of America.

Our Constitution demands it. And no amendment or referendum that we pass makes this any less immoral and unConstitutional.

One day, we will weep.

Fed Up states:

"Sorry to break the news to you Eric, but marriage is not a civil right or ANY other kind of right. Therefore there is no discrimination. It IS just a centuries old union for reproduction and it is he best way to raise children. "
_______________________________
In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is, in fact, a human civil right.

And what that means, Fed Up, is that if it is a right for YOU, it is a right for GAYS.

And no amount of amendments or referendums can diminish that fact. It can only delay it.

It's been said by some, even here as you can see, that "marriage is not a civil right" it's a "union." This is true. Which is why gay couples are getting married in every state in this country in countries all over the world, even where it is not "allowed." The issue here is not about "allowing" gay marriage because it's allready happening all over. The issue is whether or not the nation will grant rights given to straight married couples and recognize the marriage under the law. Gay marriage is legal. Gay marriage rights are denied

Civillywedd.com says: LGBT Marriage is already here and will become the norm in the future. Just as the "States" were created and progressed; so will the isssue of the right for all to marry, if so desired.

If rights are granted to some and not to others, that's inequality

The elected members of the Iowa Supreme Court summed up the issue best. The debate is really about religious animous toward a minority group and do we as a society want to allow religious groups to use the force of government to force their religious beliefs on others.

I still cannot understand that, when the religious aspect of the gay marriage argument is not successful, opponents then try to say that gay marriage is bad because children need both a mother and a father. Even for heterosexual couples, there is no law (nor should there be) mandating that, once married, they MUST have children. Nor is there any law stating that one must be married to have children.
If marriage is not a civil right, as “Fed Up” had stated and “Scalia” refuted quite well, then why does the Federal and Local CIVIL governments link so many rights and benefits to the status of “married?” If a heterosexual couple were to wed at City Hall, never having stepped foot in Church or Synagogue, they are legally married. However, if a heterosexual couple is married at a Church or Synagogue, they MUST obtain a marriage license from the State government for it to be legal; the Civil Government trumps the Church! Even at the end of the ceremony in a house of worship, the officiator states “by the power invested in me by the State of …” not God, not the Church, not the majority of the people.

"In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is, in fact, a human civil right."

Whatever the hell THAT is!

Marriage of any kind is NOT a right under the US Constitution. The Constitution does not confer rights but guarantees the God given rights we are born with from government infringement.

Man some people need to go take a civics course!

As a native of Baltimore, I long for the day when Maryland lives up to its ideals and provides equal access to the legal benefits of marriage to its gay citizens. As a gay person and the [legally married] spouse of a non-US citizen, the day when full marriage equality is achieved, including in immigration law, cannot come too quickly.

by the way, @fed up, you are simply wrong. the supreme court settled the issue decades ago that marriage is a fundamental civil right. And any time such rights [and civil marriage confers more than a thousand of them] are provided to one segment of the society and denied another is a violation of our Constitution's equal protection clause, one of the bedrock principles of our republic.

Fed Up, it is YOU that needs a civics class.

In 1967, in the case of Loving vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court of These United States did in fact declare that marriage IS a fundamental civil right.

HERE IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THEIR RULING.

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Your willingness to ignore that, Fed Up, is exactly the reason that this issue will eventually be taken out of the hands of 'the people' responsible for the Apartheid of our gay children. And it is exactly the reason that it should be.

The threshold issue for equal protection questions is: are the two groups similarly situated? The answer frequently depends on personal knowledge and life experience. The anti-equality faction sees no similarity between "opposite marriage" and same-gender marriage. Such people presume that they are dissimilar and superior to gay couples. For some reason, religious conservatives are afraid to acknowledge this sameness, relying on translations of ancient texts to reassure themselves of their supremacy. Ironically, they have abandoned the premise of their faith that we are all made in His image. It’s the same hubristic mindset that believed in a geocentric universe. In contrast, pro-equality people frequently know from personal experience that gay couples are nearly identical to straight couples. They are just as boring, ordinary, and predictable as everyone else. There are jobs, bills to pay, hobbies, PTA meetings and being just too tired for sex. There is no "otherness" about them. These more worldly people realize the essential sameness and equality of their gay neighbors. They recognize that the human heart beats the same whether it’s across the street, across the aisle or across the globe, and they know that the law should treat them the same.

Preservation of marriage as it was centuries ago was ruined when women woke up and refused to be the chattels and the properties of the men they married. Marriage is a dynamic institution which has changed over time and various hybrid families have emerged from these changes. The death knell of marriage as a holy union has been rung by heterosexuals who have gutted the institution with their adulteries and divorces. Marriage now is a legal right with numerous benefits. Homosexuals cannot be denied these rights in good conscience.
Caravan

Bill - That ruling was over inter-racial marriage between members of the opposite sex. It has no bearing in the case of same sex marriage. At the time of the ruling marriage was defined as the union of a man and woman. Since we aren't talking about the union of a man and woman it carries no precident.

Carvan - your comment on marriage preservation is also wrong. It's orginal design was to create a family structure for children which would eventually be concieved and born. Somthing quite impossible with two members of the same sex only.

@ anonymous. you are simply incorrect. Loving's ruling that **marriage** is a fundamental civil right is the foundation on which must be based the legal consideration of whether excluding gay people from benefits provided by the government because of that fundamental right violates constitutional principles of equal protection. It also would inform any consideration of whether refusing to recognize duly legal marriages of one state violates the constitutional mandate of full faith & credit.

It's frankly time for the US Supreme Court to mandate that all Americans including gay Americans be treated equally. This should not be subject to vote, any more than civil rights for African-Americans should have been subject to a vote. Sometimes the courts need to move the country forward and this is such a time.

Marriage was originally between two men. It was a legal contract transferring legal ownership of one or more women and her future children from a father to a husband, a bill of sale if you will.

Biblically, this transaction is outlined in Exodus 21:
 2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
 5 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges. [a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

 7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Every day without gay marriage is another day of unfairness.

To whoever posted: "Bill - That ruling was over inter-racial marriage between members of the opposite sex. It has no bearing in the case of same sex marriage."

Indeed, if something is deemed a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT, than it applies to ALL humans.

Not just those that some deem worthy.

Get a grip.

I have no say on who anyone else loves and wants to marry and either should any government.

If marriage isn't a right as "FedUp" stated, I want to know when we can all vote on the hetero-marriages! And why stop there. If rights can be voted away by the simple majority, can't we vote to take away anyone's rights?

Come on Anonymous, you say that my comment on marriage preservation is wrong because the original intent of marriage was to provide a family structure for children yet to be born--but not without shackling women to men for sustenance and survival--it is the women who were forced to provide an artificial stability to marriage while the men were off and away with their paramours. Eric is right, all over the world marriage was no more than a bill of sale--even today in places like India women are sold in the matrimonial mart like cattle. As women have been breaking their shackles marriage's original intent has come to naught. Preservation of this so called original intent is just another shaky argument the heterosexuals pose against their gay brothers. There is nothing holy about marriage and the heterosexuals have not been given a monopoly over it. It is no more than a legal contract--the heterosexuals treat it as such, breaking it whenever they want to and exploiting it for its benefits when they choose. Why shouldn't the homosexuals have the same rights and benefits?
Caravan

The first record I ever bought was “Love and Marriage”. Honestly. At the time, I assumed that I would someday marry.

By the time I realized (much to my initial horror) that I was gay, I concluded I would have to remain single.

In other words, I started out precisely where millions of other Americans still are when it comes to concepts of marriage. In time, my understanding of what it means --and doesn’t mean-- to be gay has changed dramatically. It now seems blatantly obvious to me that marriage equality for gay people is a good, moral and necessary thing.

Am I surprised that a majority of Americans may not quite be there yet? Not at all. After all, it took me 30 years to get there, and I am gay!

And yet, give it a little longer and, as all the polls indicate, younger people will sweep marriage equality for gay people onto the books. That’s pretty clear, despite some current setbacks.

Back when I was first struggling with the realization that I was gay, there was no way forward at all. How far we have come since then. No civil rights struggle has ever proceeded without fits and starts. Americans are fair-minded. In time, they’ll understand, and our nation will live up to its ideal of equal protection for all.

I stand corrected.
I guess then you cannot stop a man from marrying another man AND a woman right?
If you say no, then THAT TOO is discrimination. Or you cannot stop a woman from marrying 3 men right?
Any answer other than it too is ok, defeats the discrimination argument on its face.

Im for same sex marriage but i know that mostly the government is concerned that this is not viewed as a proper marriage deeming that a marriage is made of a "man, woman and their offspring". Personally i feel that ALL citizens whether you are gay,straight, or bisexual should have all rights equally. If a life partner goes into a comatose state and his/her partner cannot make a legal decision without a living will present,then where are their rights??

Having loved and lost is better than having to live with the psycho the rest of your life!

FedUp wrote, "I guess then you cannot stop a man from marrying another man AND a woman right?"

Not sure I see the connection.

The primary argument in favor of marriage equality for gay couples is that, while heterosexuals get to fall in love and marry one person they love and share their life with, gay couples currently cannot. That's an equal protection argument.

There's quite a difference between preventing one class of citizen from marrying ANYONE they may fall in love with from preventing EVERYONE from marrying multiple people at once.

It's not as though the main rationale for marriage equality for gay couples is simply that "anything goes." Lots of things still wouldn't "go". You have to consider each argument independently.

While I personally don't care about polygamy for heterosexuals, the arguments for or against it are simply not the same as I would make for gay people, just as the arguments in favor of marriage equality for gay people are not the same as for adults marrying children, animals, or their favorite automobile.

Peace,
Rick

Gay marriage doesn't satisfy life's purpose

People pushing gay marriage keep saying this is a religious issue. That is not true. Everyone needs to answer the question of “What is the purpose of life?” Leaving religion out of the answer, as well as the Bible and personal opinions, there is only one answer that can be given that will satisfy the laws of NATURE. That answer is: “Reproduce yourself and your species.”

Can two female or two male marriage partners conform to this law? No! So, this is not a religious issue alone. It is an issue that defies the laws of nature. The animal, bird, fish, insect, and plant kingdoms all live this law. They reproduce themselves as per nature's laws.

If any of these kingdoms failed to live this law, their kingdom would become extinct in a short period of time. If the plant kingdom failed to live this law, there would be no food for man or animals to eat. We would soon become a dead planet.

Only man wants to defy this law of nature. In so doing, they become destroyers of, rather than contributors to, the human race.

Gay radicals are bent on
re-defining marriage and society, thus changing the human experience. What they are promoting is motherless and ffatherless children.

Rick feels fine discriminating against potential polygamists but cries at the EXACT same perceived discrimination against homosexuals?

I don't get it. Polygamy is just an "alternative lifestyle" right?

Maine voters see the way. It sems the only way to get it done is through the courts because the reasonable continually REJECT it at the polls.

Keep trying to force it though, even a broken clock is right 2 times a day.

31 for 31 times have voters rejected marriage between anyone but one man and one woman. 31 for 31!

Name any other issue with such consistent voting patterns nation wide.

Maine voters AGREED with Obama and Hillary Clinton that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Can't argue with Obama huh? If you do you are a racist!

After spending over 20 years working in Baltimore, my spouse and i moved back to Massachusetts. A short time later, same sex marriage was made legal and we have been married 5 years. The effect our marriage has on anyone else is negligable. People who respect love respect our marriage. People who respect equality repect our marriage. There have been no negative effects on the Commonwealth and thousands of families, and therefore communities, have been strengthened by the rights and stability the institution brings us. Massachusetts was the first state to have public education for all, the first state to legalize inter-racial marriage and the first state to legalize same sex marriage. We are on the right side of history. Do not be afraid. We cannot do any more harm to the institution of marriage than heterosexuals have already done. Hatred thrives where love is silent.

Having loved and lost is better than having to live with a psycho the rest of your life. So says Fed Up.

What's your point Fed Up? Are you trying to say that all homosexuals are psychos and you are sane? That is a stretch of your imagination.
Caravan