Gay Marriage Comes to Washington D.C.

Comments

1
what's the basis of the legal challenge, DC is supposed to be a plantation under the control of the congress?

btw it's nice to support gay equality in marriage for dc folks, but remember all dc residents lack basic voting rights. This also deprives liberals of additional votes in the senate and the house. It's very undemocratic and it is not equality before the law. Gay people in DC can now be married, but they can't vote for a senator; black people in DC can be married, but can't vote for a senator.

Apparently the rest of America does not believe in voting rights for all US citizens.

2
It's a slippery approach to take, I think, because many people seem offended by the potential equating of racial civil rights to gay rights. Although, it's not equating we're trying to do, but simply comparing. And figures central to the civil rights movement like Coretta Scott King, Mildred Loving and Al Sharpton have in the past expressed support for Gay Rights and went far enough to consider the two movements synonymous.

Regardless, many African Americans get very offended by the comparisons and it might only polarize that demographic further and set our cause back. The argument then becomes "gays didn't go through what blacks went through in the 60s" though there seems to be some selective memory as gays were not treated like sunshine back in those days. :|
3
If they open the can of worms of voting on this in DC that will similarly open the even more massive can of worms of the fact that DC residents are un-represented and lack in voting rights that other US citizens enjoy.

I can bet you that a lot of people--except for the religious right--DON'T want the Court to take this up, because it could end very badly for Conservatives in many ways. If DC ends up with a Congressional and Senate seat, is there any doubt whatsoever it would be almost permanently Democrat?
4
This is one case where right-wingers would welcome judicial activism. Can't wait to see that, although consistency has never been their strong suit.
5

I'm 100 percent for gay marriage.

But a "flood" ?

C'mon....marriage rates are down all over...why should gays want to be married any more than straights.

Marriage is a bad deal. It's a sub prime mortgage on a declining asset. It's a car loan at 12.5%. It's 21st century slavery.

6
I actually find that pushing for a vote would be a risky proposition for conservatives in DC. While some polls have indicated that the support for gay marriage is lower among African-American DC residents, enough support it that most polling shows an overwhelming support for marriage equality. Here's a rundown of two polls done this past summer: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs… . It'd be really nice to know the details of the HRC poll, but the overall results are so strong that the details may be unimportant.

Bottom line is that DC has huge gay and liberal populations. The influence of more conservative groups from Maryland and Virginia is relevant only to a very small extent, that they would dump money into anti-equality campaigns. The real issue here is that the DC Human Rights Act prevents voting on this measure, and a court would have to strike it down in order for a vote to take place. Now THAT would be a can of worms for everyone.
8
"...but barring a little judicial activism by the Supremes..."

Fuckin' Diana Ross.
9
I think you mean "immigration rights." There's really no such thing as "emigration rights," unless you're talking about North Korea.
10
Also note that last week, Maryland decided to recognize gay and lesbian marriages from out-of-state.

Maryland residents will be able to marry in DC, and have that marriage recognized back home.
11
Joe, you're a nice guy an all but you should stick that analysis back in your ass and let it ripen a little more, it ain't done yet...
12
The papists on the right wing court will obey their sick fucking pope and their sick fucking religion. Once again saying "fuck you" to the Constitution.
13
@ 10 - Which may be big news, considering how many federal employees live in Suburban Maryland, as opposed to the District. Not to be overly optimistic, but this might increase pressure on the federal government to consider a repeal of DOMA.

...Yeah, I'm being optimistic.
14
"Flood"

In what state that legalized homosexual marriage was there a "Flood"?

The Inconvenient Truth is that homosexuals by and large don't give a rat's ass about marriage except as a way to stick it to the Religious Right.

In all of history many societies have embraced homosexuality, NONE instituted homosexual marriage (because they recognized it was a freakishly unnecessary pointless thing to do...).

Put away your umbrella-
nothing but clear skies ahead...
15
"the measure always had the support of black D.C. Council members."

Black Democratic politicians are House Slave Whores who have been pimping away the best interest of their race in exchange for personal advancement and scraps from the White Liberal table for 50 years.

Let DC vote.
16
"And this strategy was successful—with the African American members of the D.C. city council at least."

Check the good Council Members' freezers...
17
In what state that legalized homosexual marriage was there a "Flood"?

How about California?

The Inconvenient Truth is that homosexuals by and large don't give a rat's ass about marriage except as a way to stick it to the Religious Right.

The fact that you're calling them "homosexuals" and your obvious ignorance of what gay people want just goes to show you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

In all of history many societies have embraced homosexuality, NONE instituted homosexual marriage (because they recognized it was a freakishly unnecessary pointless thing to do...).

Wrong again.
18
Politicians that think of themselves as above the populations that they're are supposed to represent were the ones who drew parallels between the Civil Rights Movement and gay marriage not the people. And the proof of that is precisely in the way in which this imposition (because that's what it is) was rammed through with total disregard for the community and neighborhoods in which it will be implemented.

I'm confident tho that ultimately this will be reversed and the people of the district will be finally allowed to exercise their right at the ballot box like the rest of americans have done, regardless of the whims of the gay lobbies who want to deprive them of their right.

There's one parallel to be drawn in all this but it's not between the Civil Rights Movement and gay demands but more akin to the latter with those who denied the right to vote to African Americans.

In the meantime I know that many of those involved in this and who find themselves up for re-election will soon find themselves out of a job.
19
In all of history many societies have embraced homosexuality, NONE instituted homosexual marriage

Actually, lots of societies have given social recognition to gay relationships. Off the top of my head, I can think of early Christian practice, and Native American practice. Not to mention the many, many countries and states that allow gay marriage today. (Yes, people, today is also part of "history".)

I wish I had an African example handy, for the Triple Crown of Lovechild's head exploding.
20
There's one parallel to be drawn in all this but it's not between the Civil Rights Movement and gay demands but more akin to the latter with those who denied the right to vote to African Americans.

Haaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha you're a moron.
21
I wish I had an African example handy, for the Triple Crown of Lovechild's head exploding.

D'Oh! I forgot South Africa, of course, which has had gay marriage since 2006.
22
"And the lessons gay marriage campaigners, black and white, were supposed to take away were these: outreach to African Americans is hugely important (even if the African American vote in California wasn't large enough to impact the election in any way), and African Americans take great offense when gay people or groups compare our struggle to the African American civil rights movement."

Black people don't get offended. HOMOPHOBIC Black people get offended.
23
I'm confident tho that ultimately this will be reversed and the people of the district will be finally allowed to exercise their right at the ballot box like the rest of americans have done, regardless of the whims of the gay lobbies who want to deprive them of their right.


And what will you say, Loveschild, if it goes to the ballot box and same-sex marriage is upheld? Then you'll be complaining that the rights of the minority are being violated, I'm sure, or that voters were somehow hoodwinked.

Or maybe you'll just express the desire for all who voted for it to be subjected to brutal treatment. You're certainly not above wishing violence upon those you don't care for.
24
17

How about California?
How many homosexual marriages?

.

"The fact that you're calling them "homosexuals" and your obvious ignorance of what gay people want..."

The fact that you're calling them "gay people" reveals your obvious ignorance of what lesbians want.

.

"Wrong again....."
So Sorry.
Please advise:
What examples of homosexual Marriage do you find?
25
I wish I had an African example handy, for the Triple Crown of Lovechild's head exploding.


But you can't. Not with any traditional African culture.

South Africa embracing western ideas due in part to the sizable western population in that country and due to the trauma brought about from the apartheid system is another thing completely different. But even in South Africa, ethnically native South Africa both culturally and individually repudiate what was instituted by the court.

Likewise most surrounding states many of which share the same languages and cultures as those found with the majority of the native South African population completely reject the western notion of homosexuality.
.
26
24, don't be a moron, ok? It's not amusing or entertaining.

20,000 same-sex couples married in California in a few months prior to Proposition 8; I would call that a flood.

And you have been given many examples of same-sex marriage below. Read them.
27
But you can't. Not with any traditional African culture.

Bullshit. You've been given examples repeatedly in past threads. There is a well-documented history of socially-approved homosexuality and same-sex marriage in traditional, pre-colonial sub-Saharan Africa.
28
South Africa embracing western ideas due in part to the sizable western population in that country and due to the trauma brought about from the apartheid system is another thing completely different.


Loveschild, because I'm a little baffled by this argument, let me make sure I have this completely clear: you're suggesting that at least part of South Africa's reason for legalizing same-sex marriage is because the population was traumatized by apartheid.

Are you being intentionally condescending, or is it because you don't have any actual facts to back up your claims that you'll say just about anything?
29
And what will you say, Loveschild, if it goes to the ballot box and same-sex marriage is upheld?


I wouldn't like it but I would respect it. That's the difference between people like me and those with the homosexual lobbies. We want the people all of them not just caucasian americans to have a say in what goes on in their communities while the other side wants to impose their beliefs and have those communities that they might think have a different view from theirs barred from participating in the same exercises that other communities have. The message today for them is clear, shut up and accept what the homosexual lobbies want.

How dare those uppity African Americans ( the majority in D.C ) have a say in what goes on on their community.
30
19
Thank you for the links.
They verify my point.

(oh, and "social recognition to gay relationships" is not Marriage.)

Early Christians?
"Boswell does no, settle anything, or satisfy either side -- it is rather more grist for the mill for both sides. An important book, but not definitive by any means."

"...there is no 'I now pronounce you husband and husband (or wife and wife)' kinds of statements or liturgies here, but rather testimony to friendship, companionship, communal support, of a sort that is ambiguous."

Indians?
"an in-depth look at CONTEMPORARY American Indian gender diversity. "

@21

2006 is "History"?

OK......
31
pre-colonial sub-Saharan Africa


None whatsoever, homosexuality as it exist today which includes this gay marriage thing is a complete western construct totally foreign to African culture.

And you can laugh all you want but no wrong last forever and the day will come when the people of D.C, the same people that you and the rest here have mocked and have sought to deprive of their voice will right this wrong in a democratic and lawful way as others have done and are currently doing in other states in this nation (and not in your home country). And will see then who's laughs in the final victory. Our house is built on the rock, not on your sand.
32
@22: excellent point!

Also, if homophobic black OR white people don't like the correlation being made between gay discrimination and black discrimination-- that's fine. The correlation is still there. Discrimination is discrimination.
33
@26

California;
38 million people-
10% homosexual gives 3.8 million homosexuals.

3.8 million homosexuals
who have been waiting their
ENTIRE LIVES
for the chance to get married
JUST LIKE NORMAL PEOPLE!!!

And the legalization of
Homosexual Marriage releases a
HUGE Ejaculation of Nuptial Energy-

let's see-
20,000 couples from 3,800,000
makes
0.5%.

a half of one percent!!!!

a FLOOD of Martial Bliss!!!

(not counting the out of state HomoMarriage Tourists who run to every state that legalizes homosexual marriage to get a new certificate...)

34
I wouldn't like it but I would respect it.


The same way you "respect" same-sex marriage in other places? If same-sex marriage passed by a majority vote in DC you'd claim it was the cause for every crime that occurred there.

Besides, as has been stated before, we live in a culture where marriage has already been redefined to be based on love where it used to be based on property. Loveschild, what gives you the right to decide that gender should be a basis for preventing two people who love each other from having the same rights as others?

35
@14: California. Iowa. Connecticut. Vermont. Massachusettes. New York. New Hampshire. New Jersey. Maine.

36
31: None whatsoever, homosexuality as it exist today which includes this gay marriage thing is a complete western construct totally foreign to African culture.

If by "homosexuality as it exists today" you mean gay identity, then that is a relatively new phenomenon. But if you mean homosexuality, as in the phenomenon of people having a need for a primary emotional and sexual relationship with someone of the same sex, that is not a new thing, it is not a "western" thing, and it is well documented in precolonial, traditional Africa, no matter how much you wish it wasn't.

Face it. Same-sex marriage is the future for America and ultimately for the world. The sooner you accept that fact that happier you'll be.
37
How dare those uppity African Americans ( the majority in D.C ) have a say in what goes on on their community.


I know this is mean to be ironic, but it only comes across as incredibly offensive, considering that this is a debate about minority rights. Of course I guess that's to be expected from someone who's so condescending you claim South Africans are easily influenced because they've been "traumatized".
38
Okay, I know this is a crazy idea, but, has anyone ever done focus groups with African-Americans to see how well messages like comparisons between the Civil Rights movement and the gay marriage movement are received? Where is the actual, hard data on what people think of this strategy? Because I don't think 5 city council members is exactly representative.
39
@33: you're awfully worked up over the use of a fairly harmless metaphor.

20,000 people might indeed be like a flood.

Metaphor.

You'll be ok.

40
As much as I hate to respond to Loveschild, here is a detailed account of all the various instances of homosexuality that were in existence in Sub-Saharan and southern Africa at the time of European colonization (including at least one form of "marriage"), as reflected in contact literature, missionary accounts, and other documentation from that time. The idea that homosexuality or even homosexual "marriage" didn't exist in Africa is a absurd.
41
Never forget that the Catholic Church fighting to not give benefits to any married couples in DC is their way to keep the Black Man down.

Charity begins at home.
42
@37 Not "influenced" but carried away by laws clearly intended to heal a people that were under siege in their own land.
43
@42 How horrible to be "carried away" by a desire to treat others with dignity and respect. I wouldn't wish the horrors of the apartheid era on anyone or any group (that's one of the differences between you and me--I don't wish harm to anyone) but the world would be a better place if more people could be so "carried away".
44
@33: You make several somewhat glaring mistakes in your write-up. First, assuming that your numbers are correct, 20,000 couples out of a total of 3,800,000 homosexual individuals would be equal to 1%, not 0.5%, demonstrating your unfamiliarity with the meaning of the word "couple". Now, I know there's not a huge difference between 0.5% and 1% in this case, so let's move on to the other, exponentially more thick-headed mistake:
You assume that each and every gay man and lesbian woman in the State of California is not only out of the closet, but has also found the person that they want to spend the rest of their life with. If only finding one's soulmate was that easy! The US Census indicates that only 50.6% of households are run by married couples. So yes, you are an idiot, in case you were wondering.

@42: D'awwwww, it's so cute how you know how to interpret everything! You know what they were thinking when they made those laws, then?
45
We should vote on Loveschild's right to post on SLOG.
46
so you have to live in d.c or around the d.c. area....or is for the state of maryland.....
47
By the way, I love it that Loveschild moves from criticizing South Africa for "embracing western ideas" to claiming that they've been "carried away".

You had it right the first time, Loveschild. South Africans are embracing ideas like tolerance and openness. When you claim that they're being "carried away", you sound extremely condescending--as though they're incapable of being responsible for their decisions.
48
44
so you're saying that homosexuals are only one fiftieth as likely as heterosexuals to marry?
49
@48: If they're only given a minuscule window in which to do so, yes. Let's see what portion of heterosexuals get married in a five-month period.
50
49
But venom!...
These 3.8 Million homosexuals
had been waiting their
ENTIRE LIVES
for the chance to get married!
You know-
JUST LIKE NORMAL PEOPLE!!!
Why wouldn't they have
JUMPED through that narrow window?

Why?!..

Maybe because 99 out of a hundred homosexuals don't give a flying fuck about marriage.

Maybe that's why.
51
@50: You, sir or madam, are a thundering idiot. You think that all gay people will instantly get married at once? The census found that 4,918,000 people had, at the time, gotten married in the last year. Out of 188,000,000 straight adult Americans (assuming the 10% figure is true), we have 2.6% of all straight adult Americans getting married in any given year, which means about 1% getting married every five months. (I'll leave you to do the math if you should you feel so inclined.)
So, on average, 1% of straight adult Americans get married every five months.
1% of all homosexuals (which would be about 1.4% of all ADULT homosexuals; you should account for age in your estimates as well) got married within a five month window.
So apparently the sudden option of getting married makes homosexuals in California get married at about 1.4 times the national average for heterosexuals, even when you count the sizable fraction who are closeted. What was that point you were trying to make again, you mathematically-challenged little bugger?
52
51

But venom!...
These 3.8 Million homosexuals
had been waiting their
ENTIRE LIVES
for the chance to get married!

You know-
JUST LIKE NORMAL PEOPLE!!!

Think of all that pent up demand-
the deferred dreams-

Why wouldn't they have
JUMPED through that miniscule window?

J-J-J-Jumped?!?!?!?!?!

Why?!..

You say that,
after 250 years of oppression and denial,
homosexuals FINALLY get the right to marry
and they just meekly wander down to city hall-
just like heteros?...

53
Raining BULLSHIT, seriously, you're making yourself look dumber with every post.

1. Nobody knows the number of gay people in California. There is no reliable way of counting them.
2. Ditto bisexuals.
3. Since there's no reliable way to ascertain the number of people in California who might want to enter into a same-sex marriage, we have no way of knowing what percentage of those people took advantage of the brief legalization of same-sex marriage.
4. Some same-sex attracted people aren't open about their attractions for a variety of reasons; this means that the pool of same-sex attracted people who are likely to marry is reduced.
5. It is unreasonable to assume that every same-sex attracted person is currently in a marriage-like relationship and therefore ready to contract a marriage.
6. Even if every same-sex attracted person in California wanted to marry a same-sex partner, which is unlikely (not everyone wants to get married, for one reason or another), it is unreasonable to expect that they would all rush to do it at the same time. It takes time to plan a wedding, for one thing. People also have other things going on in their lives (work, travel, deaths, obligations).

I won't continue, though I certainly could.
54
@52: Did I stutter? An increase in the rate by a factor of 1.4 (more like 1.6 when you account for the closeted fraction) is nothing to sneeze at.
Why is it not even larger? Well, just like heterosexuals, homosexuals like to wait for someone they really truly love to come along before settling down. The fraction of gays and lesbians in any five-month period who have found Mr. or Ms. Right is not going to even be close to 1.

Next contestant. For the good of us all, please take the tomfoolery and faux surprise somewhere else, you blithering nitwit, and let those of us with brains talk turkey.

By the way, homosexuals have been repressed and persecuted for a whole lot longer than 250 years. I suppose you also think that the Earth's only existed for 6500 years, hm?
55
53
54

"blah blah

but.. but...

blah blah

excuses...excuses....."

the answer is
there is NO great pent-up demand for homosexual marriage
there is NO Flood waiting to be unleashed

California homosexuals have had their entire lives to find a soul mate-
there was no law against homosexuals falling in "Love"-
only getting married.
There was a long lead-up to the legalization of homosexual marriage-
plenty of time to plan a wedding (or run down to City Hall...)
And in fact, homosexual propaganda FLOODED the MSM with images of ecstatic newly able to marry homosexual couples.

how many?

Among the 3.8 million homosexuals in California
less than 1% want to get married.

After a LIFETIME of dreaming and hoping....
A LIFETIME waiting for the chains of oppression to fall off....
A LIFETIME being denied the most basic Human Right....

not a flood.
not a downpour.
not a spring shower.
not even a light drizzle....
just the barest mist of a trickle.

.

"Get Married?
Not today, Biff-
I've got to water the houseplants...."
56
I look at same sex legal marriage through the lens of Row v Wade. That which the courts give, the courts can take away. The legal ruling took away the political will to fight for a legislative right to abortion. It would have taken longer, it would have been ugly, but then it would have been settled. Instead, the skirmishes are unending. Similarly, with the rights of same sex partners to be legally recognized as couples. If it goes through the courts, the issue may never be settled.
57
#55. Where do you get your 10% of the population being gay figure? Because as of 2008, self identified homosexuals and bisexuals only made up 4% of the U.S. population. Self-identified gays are the relevant group, because if you don't identify as such, then you're probably still closeted and unlikely to run out and marry gay. Notice also that that 4% includes bisexuals, who may or may not settle on a same sex partner as the person they wish to marry.

So, with real numbers in place, the rate of homosexuals marrying in CA during the SSM window there was probably closer to three or four times higher than the rate for heterosexuals.

Any reasonable person would call that a flood. Any reasonable person would consider that evidence that gays are just as interested in getting married as straights, maybe more so.

But you aren't a reasonable person, are you?
58
This is very complicated. Not only would a Supreme Court challenge threaten the taxation w/out representation situation in D.C. but it could also shed some light on some very old school Vatican favoritism. You know the double standard that led to the founding of the Anglican Church. Doesn't anyone, besides myself, find it interesting that numerous majority Catholic Countries of late have moved for marriage equality w/out a peep from their Bishops or the Pope (Argentina, Spain, Mexico City...) and yet when non-majority Catholic countries try to get marriage equality the Church threatens to stop funding charities in dioceses (San Francisco threat, and D.C. still up in the air). Also, many Bishops become very vocal (where are they on torture btw) and the Church funds political organizations to stop marriage equality. Am I the only person that notices this hypocrisy?

There's so much more I can say, but it seems like history is repeating itself w/regards to the Catholic Church and their decision that apparently some countries are able to control their political future, and some are not. We all know that Alito and Scalia are going to do whatever the hard-line Catholics (who are in power) want them to do. The best way forward (IMHO) is to start pointing out the hypocrisy of the Church when it comes to D.C. equality, and Mexico City equality. The Church is somewhat immune to bad, pr, but nationalism trump religion for most people. People should be aware that the Church had different rules for different countries.
59
56 ftw...
60
58
those countries have strict laws limiting what the church can do...

Following the Revolution of 1860, Mexican President Benito Juárez, issued a decree nationalizing church property, separating church and state, and suppressing religious orders.

Following the revolution of 1910, the new Mexican Constitution of 1917 contained further anti-clerical provisions. Article 3 called for secular education in the schools and prohibited the Church from engaging in primary education; Article 5 outlawed monastic orders; Article 24 forbade public worship outside the confines of churches; and Article 27 placed restrictions on the right of religious organizations to hold property. Article 130 deprived clergy members of basic political rights.

The suppression of the Church included the closing of many churches and the killing and forced marriage of priests. The persecution was most severe in Tabasco under the strident atheist governor Tomás Garrido Canabal.

Between 1926 and 1934 at least 40 priests were killed. Where there were 4,500 priests serving the people before the rebellion, in 1934 there were only 334 priests licensed by the government to serve fifteen million people, the rest having been eliminated by emigration, expulsion and assassination. Ten states were left without any priests and by 1935, 17 states were left with no priests at all.
61
57
gosh everybody knows that...
even wiki-

http ://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gays_are_there_in_California

How many gays are there in California?
In: Gay Lesbian and Bisexual [Edit categories]

[Improve]
It depends on your question. currently, we see 10% of California's population are gays, and lesbian. But in fact, there are much more that are unknown. In a room of 100 people, 10 people would say they are gay, the other 40 people would keep it them self. This is my believe that at least 50% of the people are gay and lesbian. Some are force to like opposite sex because of the society.
62
That which the courts give, the courts can take away...

And that which congress gives, congress cannot take away?

63
#61. Alas, I was correct. Anyone who honestly believes that fully HALF of the population of California, or any state for that mater, is homosexual, that person is not just unreasonable, but completely insane.

Aside from a complete crackpot lacking any citation whatsoever, do you have ANY legitimate evidence that would support your claim? If not, kindly retire from the field, for you have dishonored yourself.
64
Ahh LC, I love listening to a Negress arguing the merits of "states rights" and the "popular vote of the people vs. gov't imposition." If only that had been upheld generations ago so that in many parts of the US today you would have no rights and we could legally make you shut the fuck up.
65
@LC,

Finally a Negress with the courage to argue that case of state's rights and against the imposition of rights for minorities against an unwilling populace. If only that had been argued so clearly a generation ago, Blacks would have no rights and we could legally make LC shut the fuck up.
66
I think a major difference in the campaign for marriage equality in D.C. and in other places is that many of the leaders of the movement here are themselves African-American, including some African-American clerics. I suspect many black voters who do not like to hear white gay men or lesbians making comparisons to civil rights are more open hearing such comparisons from members of their own community. And the media coverage of couples applying for licenses today has reflected the fact that many (if not most) of them are black and latino.

(And all voters in D.C., including black voters, have had a chance to vote on this issue. We elected our mayor and city council members knowing, for the most part, where they stood on this issue. And if we don't like the decisions they've made as our elected representatives, we will vote them out of office. But we have already decided, as citizens of D.C., that we will not allow referenda on issues of civil rights.)

(Finally, in a city where normally 10-15 marrige licences are applied for each day, an additional few dozen applicants certainly qualifies as a "flood.")
67
63 you've never been to California, have you...
68
More like a "flash flood" of gay marriage: in every state where it has been made legal, there is an initial rush of marriages as the many existing long-standing couples represent a pent-up demand for marriage. Once that's over, the numbers slow to a trickle. But to use those numbers as a reason to ban gay marriage is absurd. This is a question of civil rights, not numbers. For many years after Loving v. Virginia, the number of interracial marriages was extremely small; even now, the percentage is low. That's not a reason to ban them. Liberty and equality mean that everyone has same rights AND the freedom to exercise those rights or not, as they choose.
69
It is not the right of the majority to vote on the rights of the minority. And when we are considering the magnitude of what you rather call privileges than what they are, rights, then putting this to a public vote is unfair, un-American, and unconstitutional. Over 1000 rights that go along with marriage have been cataloged by the federal government, and anyone can see that that is over 1000 ways that our government says a big "fuck you" to every gay and lesbian person in America. The opposition to gay marriage is primarily based on two things, 1) the "icky" factor, and 2) gay marriage is just another orifice of the government for religion to penetrate in a long and perverse love affair. Neither of those are valid. The opposition can run around in circles all day, with claims of "corruption of the family" (to which I say think of the child with two mothers that has to somehow feel inferior because SOCIETY and THE GOVERNMENT say that their love isn't valid), the "slippery slope into legalized pedophilia and bestiality" (to which I say find me the Golden Retriever and toddler who somehow are the exception to the concept of informed consent), and that it goes against our values (to which I say it was never a value of America to treat others different based on something they can't control, to legalize and condone oppression and hate, yet America has done it before and does it now - so let's mend the American value of equality today by legalizing love, not hate!).

I sincerely hope that this does not go to a public vote. I sincerely hope that what has happened in Washington D.C. sends a message to the states that have not seen the light on this issue. I believe that what has happened in D.C. is a wonderful step towards tolerance.
70
Let the People Vote.
71
@70 - the people did vote. They voted for the representatives that best fit their views. Those representatives then voted for equality. It is the basis for our republic form of government.

If you would prefer a more religious form of government, try the middle east. Please, go today, do not delay!
72
#67. Yes, I have been to CA, several times. Both the liberal South and conservative North. I saw the San Diego Zoo, shopped in LA, drank wine in Nappa valley, sat on the Imperial Sand Dunes, and drove the PCH.

And you know what I saw? Perfectly ordinary, friendly people. A handful were gay, the majority were not, just like everywhere else in this great country that I have traveled.

So I'll ask again. Do you have any actual data to support your 10% figure, or are you, like every other SSM opponent, just making it up as you go along?
73
American's don't want gay marriage. They've voted it down several times, this is disgusting, I encourage people to express they're outrage to their congressman and senators.

The comparison between blacks and gays is disgusting. You can't change the color of your skin. If you don't want to be gay man, don't have sex with other men. It's that simple. Spare me the argument that people are born gay; it's the acts that you commit that makes it morally wrong.
74
@73: And you can go fuck yourself too. Have a nice day . . . asshole.
75
I love that so many comments state "The people don't want gay marriage, they've voted it down x number of times"... well, history lesson: The "people" also voted down blacks having the right to own property, not be considered "property" themselves and to vote, they have voted to deny women the right to vote, denying mexicans the right to vote (texas) and countless other things that today we would be horrified to support... I wont go into the details, we have search engines if you really want to know...

For the people suggesting traditional cultures never recognized gay marriage, therefore it is wrong... history lesson number two: many traditional cultures practiced (and practice) polygamy, the selling of ones daughter to be married, tribal retributions in the form of killing, and countless other things that we consider awful and immoral. This doesnt just apply to stone age civilizations, look at King Henry VIII, dont like a wife? Have her killed or claim the marriage null because of "religious convictions"

Bottom line is that mob mentality does not always lead to good governance (mobs can end up looting, killing, burning, lots of other nasty things when left to themselves) and past cultures don't always have the answer to what is right (a daughter is less valuable than a good horse, and if you are white you have the right to own someone of a darker color).

Your interpretation of the Bible, Koran, or other religious text isn't always a good basis for laws either... some sects of Christianity believe watching TV, wearing makeup, or dancing is immoral and wrong; some sects of Judaism believe that eating bacon will damn you, does this mean we should outlaw Television, dancing, bacon, shellfish and Loreal? Some radical Muslims believe.... well just look at the Taliban, thats an example of what can happen when religious beliefs trump individual freedom.

Bottom line is that this is the United States, regardless of what you've been told by Focus on the Family or the AFA, equal marriage rights will not destroy your marriage, your neihbors marriage, turn your children gay or into murderers, or infect the country with Aids. As this is the United States, all citizens MUST be granted equal rights, per our constitution... and if you say we already have access to marriage, we just have to find someone of the oppposite sex.... well then lets pass a law that says only Buddhism is allowed, and then I will tell you "but you do have religious freedom, you just have to convert to Buddhism"
76
75
"For the people suggesting traditional cultures never recognized gay marriage, therefore it is wrong..."

I didn't see That argument here, but I did see some pointing out that many cultures have been much more openly accepting of homosexuality, and didn't have 'Christian' values to deal with, and powerful men in the societies themselves practiced homosexuality, and could have easily instituted homosexual marriage- but never did.
Because they knew what marriage was for and about and they knew what homosexuality was for and about and they recognized that homosexual marriage was freakishly unnecessary and pointless.
Of course, they weren't in a pissing contest with the Religious Right...
77
#76. "Because they knew what marriage was for and about..."

Yes, they certainly did. Marriage was about treating women as property, using them to produce heirs, and cementing political alliances. THAT is what marriage was about historically.

Now it isn't. Now it's about love, commitment, and strengthening family bonds.

So now, with this new purpose for marriage that society has accepted, it is the responsibility of the SSM opponents, like you, to explain why this fundamental right should be denied to gay couples. It is up to you to justify the discrimination you wish to uphold.

We're waiting...
78
#73. "The comparison between blacks and gays is disgusting. You can't change the color of your skin. If you don't want to be gay man, don't have sex with other men. It's that simple."

Fascinating. So if I, a straight man, were to abstain from sex, then by your logic I would no longer be a heterosexual, even though I was still sexually attracted to women.

It's that kind of stupid that will get you far in today's conservative movement.
79
Pity that Lovechild's marriage and family are falling apart because of it, but yay for DC!
80
73, Why is gay sex morally wrong?
81
77
Love?
In what city, county or state will the government ask you if you are in "Love" before allowing you to marry?
If you fall out of "Love" does that end the marriage?

In this Brave New World homosexuals are going to teach us about Love?
And Marriage?

Does cheating on your spouse show "Love"?
Commitment?
Does telling your spouse they don't meet your needs and you need permission to cheat show marital "Love"?

Dan told us homosexuals are not very good at fidelity, monogamy, commitment.
It's really not fair to expect homosexual spouses not to cheat, according to Dan.
Are we going to make cheating part of marriage in this Brave New World of homosexual marriage?
82
78
"strengthening family bonds"

That's a little vague...

You mean like people getting married, having kids, staying together and raising a family, being grandparents and being there to support their kids/grandkids, extended family; the whole circle of life thing?
sweet-
Is that the new Marriage homosexuals are going to teach us?

83
77

" with this new purpose for marriage that society has accepted..."

whoa, sister-
You're really getting carried away...
A vote from one of the most corrupt and inept city councils in America isn't "society accepting..."
If "society has accepted..." why are you scared shitless to allow the people of DC to vote?
Are they not "society"?

Are you aware that in Each and Every instance when Society has had an opportunity to express it's "acceptance" it has voted to ban homosexual marriage?
" love, commitment, and strengthening family bonds" and all....

Often by 75% or more.
Often outlawing Civil Union as well.

Did you know that?

Maybe "that society has accepted" doesn't mean what you think it does...
84
@83 Alleged,

Separate but Equal laws were eliminated in the courts, though in many areas the majority of Americans opposed unsegregated schools and facilities. What the majority of people want is not necessarily just.

But that is moot, as some states are successfully legalizing gay marriage, and legislation for marriage equality is gaining traction in many many places all over the country.

To give rights to some people and not others is to treat those others as intrinsically less valuable, second class, really less than human.

Giving a gay person the right to marry doesn't even affect you (hey, it might even help the economy), why do you even care if a gay person marries.
85
What the majority of people want is not necessarily unjust.

Given the chance the American people have usually made
pretty moral choices once they were educated.
Going over the head of the people is a mistake,
this is a democratic Republic-
not a LiberalHomo Theocracy
where right and wrong is decreed from above and
laws are handed down to the ignorant masses.

Let DC vote...

The nation connected all the dots on Civil Rights and
lasting change happened and the nation reached a concensus.
Abortion was snatched from the people and decreed by court and
it is still an oozing festering sore.

And changing the definition of Marriage affects everyone in society.

86
Alleged, given the choice, Americans have also made some very wrong choices as well. It wasn't so long ago that the majority of Americans felt it was wrong for blacks to go to the same schools as whites. It wasn't so long ago that the majority of Americans thought it was wrong for people of two different races to marry. It wasn't so long ago that the majority of Americans thought it was wrong for women or blacks to vote. The court system has been extremely useful in giving people the human rights they deserve. True, they have done terrible things, like Dread Scott vs. Sandford, or Plessy vs. Ferguson, but they have a record of giving people their human rights with cases like Brown vs. Board of Education, or Roe vs. Wade. Indeed, at some point the people of DC will be able to decide whether marriage equality is something they want by voting for or against the people in office that made it happen. No matter what happens, as I have already said, the country as a whole is moving more and more in the direction of marriage equality.

Oh, and there is no single definition of what marriage is. That ultimately has to be decided between the partners marrying. I challenge you to find one way in which you will be negatively affected by marriage equality.
87
@85: Alleged, a majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade, according to the Harris Poll, at about the same rates as in 1973, when the decision was handed down. Complaining about the American people not getting to choose directly is like complaining that you didn't get to order the pizza, even though your dad did order the toppings you want.
As long as we're on the topic of pizza, I bet you're also prejudiced against people who like anchovies. Banning gay marriage is like not allowing people who like anchovies to order pizza; it makes no sense.
And yes, let the denizens of the District of Calamity vote. If they don't like what their representatives did, they'll vote them out of office. Let's see if that happens, you punk bitch.
Deep dish with onions, peppers, mushrooms, and pineapple, please.
88
Actually, Venomlash, I was talking to G-D a little while back and he said that those who have a preference for deep dish pizzas will certainly burn in hell for all eternity, so I'm not sure if I can still bring crumpets to the tea party, though I'll still bring that china.
90
But don't you see, it's all an act. I'm clearly a closeted deep dish lover, why else would I bring down such righteous anger on a lovely pizza and all those that identify with it? You gotta let me call it a New York fold though, I'll have none of this Chicago fold nonsense you doubtless support.
91
@ 62 - it's a lot easier to mess with a Supreme Court ruling because there are fewer bodies involved. Roe v Wade basically passed 7:2, yet now the ideological shift in the court is making tremendous inroads. It's harder to get that major a shift in the legislature.