and I don't care how many Americans support it. If the majority of Americans supported banning interracial marriage (as they once did), wouldn't that be sick? Was it not sick for people to oppose desegregation? The fact that a whole hell of a lot of people are sick doesn't excuse it.

There's no reason to ban gay marriage. Would you care to tell me who it hurts? Who is harmed by gay marriage, honestly?

1 man should marry 1 woman, and stay married.

So divorce should be illegal? Okay. I think you just want people to be miserable.

The man and woman should procreate, and the woman should have the baby while still being married to the same man

So it should be illegal not to have children? What an interesting position.

You. Are. GOP.

With everything else going on in this country the question needs to be asked; why do we really get that worked up about this. Seriously it isn't like we are at a loss for a REAL issue. Who cares if gay marriage is legal - the only people it affects are homosexuals so they should be the only ones who get worked up & have a vested interest in this!

and you belong at redstate.

Get thee behind me satan!

Marriage has not been about 1 man 1 woman for "1000s of years".  Haven't you ever read the Bible?

Here, let me get that for you:

Yet, my posts are rational bigoted and based on logic the fear of people who aren't like me.

Much better.

In my view, marriage is a fundamental right and nothing about its core is predicated on whether the parties of the same race or the same sex.  Rather, it's about the individuals' love and commitment towards one another.  

You can diagree if you want to, but Loving was all about denying a fundamental right based upon ridiculous considerations.  This strikes me as the exact same issue.  

As a follow up, why do you think gay people are incapable of joining in a committed and loving relationship?  Is it because, as you implicitly asserted, they aren't "normal?"  

you don't know what you're talking about.

about 50 years ago marriage was between one man and one woman of the same race

about 120 years ago marriage was between one man and one woman of the same race and the man had all the power and made all the decesions

about 200 years ago marriage was between one man and one woman and was arranged by the father of wife with the husband

about 400 years ago marriage was between one man and one woman and was arranged by the bride's family and the groom's family, sometimes as early as before 10

thank you for playing but you lose

if i don't believe 2 men should be able to get a state-sanctioned marraige license with all the rights of a normal couple... I'm a bigot, and not a liberal?

Um, yeah - pretty much.

Proud liberal when half your rant in support of a discriminatory ban is against activist jurors? Sure you are.

You are also more then likely a closet homosexual. Those that harbor bigotry against homosexuals are usually the ones who can't come to terms with their own sexuality.

I believe in most countries in Europe, Japan, etc. they have "civil unions"... like getting a license .. done deal.
 If you want to get "married" then this is separate but not needed. The "civil union" is the legal portion, the "marriage" is the religious and party piece.

Why not make it this way for everyone?

against gay marriage?

Redefining the 13th Amendment -

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

As LIMITING freedom.

One person's freedom, often impinges on another.

Morality is subject to the whims of a generation, and THAT is why moral restrictions are not placed into the constitution.

What's your "reasoned" argument against gay marriage?  Committed social relationships are good for society according to empirical data.  Allowing gay marriage incentivies committed social relationships.  If you want to make a "rational" "reasoned" argument against gay marriage, you have to actually identify some harm that would result from it.  I challenge you to do so, because there is none unless you think people's gayness is "catchy."

Homophobic is the wrong word. Let's stick with something more generic like intolerant. Your morality issue stems from a preconceived notion of what is and isn't offensive to you personally. It isn't reason at all, because reason requires a purely objective viewpoint. There is no logic behind this. Marriage is a social construct designed so that humans form stable families instead of descending into base sexuality. If two consenting adults wish to form a monogamous relationship and raise a family, I don't care who they are. We need to promote that as much as possible over the alternative.

how is that for mature, asshat?

Redstate's much better at silencing liberals than liberal blogs are at silencing republicans.  

I suppose that's something to be proud of, even if it's annoying sometimes.

I am opposed to people publicly referring to their wives as "cunts"

I do not support a constitutional ban on the above.

Clear enough for you?

Your definition of "political" is so broad that there's not a US Supreme Court decision in the past one hundred years that would survive it. Essentially, you're saying you don't think any decision not based purely on solid precedent and unambiguous legislation is illegitimate.

And no, the Court in Roe didn't declare a right to abortion. It declared that the Government has no legitimate constitutional interest in what a woman does with her pregnancy -- until the fetus reaches a certain stage of development. Hence the necessity of going into trimesters. That's not political, that's a practical means of demarcation.

"This is radical. Imagine an issue you think is fine, and 7 people decide to totally over-rule it."

Hey, I can trump that. I can think of plenty of times I thought the law was fine and 5 people just crazily decided to overturn it. But guess what? I'm not on the Supreme Court. (I k Under our Federal system -- and under California's -- those justices are given the power to interpret the law. What they say, goes. We're free to disagree with the reasoning, but that doesn't change that their interpretation of the law IS the law.

A ballot initiative is necessary to re-ban gay marriages because the California SC declared that the law, as it was, did mandate gay marriage. That is the law. You need a new law (or in this case, constitutional amendment) to overturn that. See, e.g., earlier Guantanamo cases and then the MCA and DTA. Right now, the Cali law says (rough paraphrase warning!) it must treat people equally, and not on the basis of sex. The State can't refuse to honor a contract simply because one of the parties is not a male. Ergo, the law as it stands requires SSM.

While a Court could potentially say what your list of hypotheticals says, given that no judge at any level I'm aware of has ever advanced that kind of reasoning, it's not really relevant.

I'd somehow managed to miss both those facts, both about the ratio of GLBT voters to AA and the Supreme Court being directly elected. Thanks for the clarification!

Dude, Obama opposes the ban on same-sex marriage; he may be personally against it but he's opposed to state amendments that prohibit homosexual marriage.

the gay rights champion we'd like him to be; however, he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed DOMA in 1996. Obama doesn't support a BAN, and that's the most important thing.

You really have no right to call other people tools.

Actually, though, the California legislature voted on this before the California Supreme Court made its ruling.

Yellow their is no such thing as normal. And I know you must be having problems coming to terms with your own sexual attractions to men, may I suggest therapy? Don't worry you are not alone. I have been hit on by more "straight" black men then I could list here. It's quite prevalent in the A.A. community, but rarely spoken about.

Virginia allowed everyone to marry a member of their own race. So everyone had the exact same rights under the law. God intended all those whites, blacks, reds, yellows and malays to marry only others of their type, why do you want to re-define marriage now?