Collegiate Times

Once again, we are conflating the quite separate ideas of rights and contracts. By and large, the opposition to the notion of gay marriage actually has nothing to do with the benefits extended to couples by states. The major point of dissension actually comes from the idea of a word - marriage - being 'redefined' to mean something that it has never meant before. The concept of marriage actually has nothing to do with rights at all - it is a travesty that the state has hijacked relationships and offered benefits on its behalf, thought. It's interesting to note that civil unions receive much broader support than gay marriage proposals, for that very reason - most people don't have an issue with the LEGAL ramifications, but rather with the 'definitional' consequences that such a redefinition would create.

Kyle gets hard looking at pictures of Rupaul, and also plans on writing her in as his candidate for president.

Oh i am sorry if you misunderstood a democracy... the masses do control society. No matter how you view the phrase 'power to the people', that is the fundamental point -- that the majority rules.

Gee, Kyle's Foil, aren't we mature? Anyway, what needs to be defined here is rights versus privileges. There is a distinction that I don’t think most Americans understand. A right is something inborn that all people have regardless of nationality, given as the founders said by a creator. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, along with free speech, baring arms, free religious practice, and all the rest listed in the Constitution. The government can’t deny you a right without just cause. A privilege is given to people by the government when they meet qualifications; voting, driving, and even civil marriage are examples. Every citizen over 18 (or younger with parental approval) has the privilege of being allowed a civil marriage provided they meet the qualification that the other party is of the opposite gender. I agree that marriage is a right, that is, religious marriage. If the church wants to (wrongly) redefine marriage as between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, then they should be allowed. The question with proposition 8 (or amendment 2 here in Florida) is whether we should extend the privilege of civil marriage (and the civil benefits thereof) to homos_xuals. This should be left entirely up to the people or their representative legislators, not judges.

Sure, we have a right to bear arms, but not without qualifications. A toddler can't go to a shooting range. The same applies to marriage, an inalienable right. If we left everything up to referendum or the legislature, Jim Crow would still rule the South. Remember, five "activist judges" in Brown vs. Board of Education decided that separate was not equal, bringing an end to de jure segregation. Similarly, our country needs to end the discriminatory treatment toward gay and lesbian relationships.

It is not the role of the Courts to make laws. The constitution clearly states that role is for the legislations.

In a democracy, public policy ultimately aligns itself with what is right, not with the will of the majority or the powerful. See Womens Suffrage Movement and Civil Rights Movement.

Why not? Everyone has a right to be miserable.

No, actually, Brown v. Board of Ed. was a decision which was based upon the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment. The case, as I recall, demonstrated that the 'separate' facilities provided were not, in fact, equal, and as a consequence the policy of segregation was found to be in violation of Constitutional Law on account of that inequity. The point here is that government extend certain rights to married couples that they don't extend to other couples - and the way to avoid this is to stop extending benefits to any couples at all. Else, you have to drive on down the chain of possible relationships and disclaim why other, less standard relationships aren't entitled to the same protections and benefits. The issue here isn't a 'right to marry,' the issue here is actually a right to receive benefits from the government. These are two very different issues.

Unless I start seeing people who advocate for anti-gay marriage also fight just as hard for all the rights of straight marriage to be stripped from the books, thus making it a religious issue, I refuse to accept your views, Kyle. As it stands, not allowing gay couples to marry is discrimination.

No, not allowing gay couples access to the same benefits as straight couples is discrimination. Marriage is a social construct which has been utterly destroyed by a legal construct superimposed upon it. The issue here is definitional, not benefits-based. Thus, there are two possible solutions which ought to be acceptable to anyone - either eliminate the benefits for 'legally married couples,' or else rewrite the legal statues to replace 'marriage' with 'legal union' wherever it exists.

Kyle, you make an interesting point. Your solution is to get the government out of the marriage business, thereby making the discrimination issue a moot point. Take the gift tax exemption, for example. A married, heteros_xual couple can transfer money from one spouse to the next in amounts greater than $10,000 without a penalty, but two women in a relationship cannot do the same. Obvious discrimination. And your solution: eliminate the gift tax. Bam, problem solved, right? But let's dig a little deeper. The Secret Service protects family members of the president, vice president, and presidential candidates. It can protect Dick Cheney's son-in-law but not his daughter-in-law because the latter happens to be between two women and, thus, not a real marriage under the law. Is the solution to fix this example of discrimination for the Secret Service not to protect family members of public officials in high office? No, of course not. There are plenty of cases like this when the government, out of necessity, cannot blind itself to the existence of marriage: legal disputes following divorce, custody battles, etc. Not everything is as simple as the gift tax.

Why would we ever strip people of their benefits? That's madness. The overlying point is that we should treat civil and religious marriage separately, not the PEOPLE separately. Civil marriage is a transferal of benefits to a partnership. The only sane option is to extend them to ALL peoples; we're America. We've always discriminated, but one after the other, these discriminations have fallen away. If people want to use the bible to claim that discrimination is okay--to hate the sin, or whatever floats your boat, go for it. In church, weddings are your business--but in the county records your creed no longer applies. As one heterosexual, married man, I can safely say that two men kissing does not damage my relationship at all, and the MAJORITY needs to stand up for the minority. Stand up for your fellow citizens. Support equal rights for equal individuals. We must never turn our eyes away from injustice.

I'm not surprised that Gramsci is mentioned here. Gramsci's teachings, along w/ those from H.G. Wells, Karl Popper, and George Soros are well under way to be implemented in the Western World. This implementation is quite advanced in Europe. More to the point (which is related to Prop 8 in CA) take, for example, an island, throw in it, say 1,000 people in a primitive setting. After some time, if this 'society' is to thrive, some sort of arrangement will be naturally created; it will relate to the kind of relationship that would eventually pop-up in our island between healthy, unencumbered adults. The goal of such an 'arrangement' will be that of protecting those couples who decided to engage in relationships whereby children are welcome, and possible. Let's call this arrangement 'marriage'. This arrangement is, by necessity discriminative, that's exactly the point. You do want to differentiate, empower, if you will, those adults that want to enter into the 'marriage' thing (one man, one woman, open to life). Not wanting to elaborate more on the topic (which would also lead to an explanation of how 'no- fault divorce' is also bad for that society), I just want to point out that it is in the State's best interest (if that State has its members welfare in mind) to treat specially/better (e.g., giving tax breaks, etc.) to couples willing to enter a stable union where children are welcome, and possible.