Dana, I also want to be very careful with this hot potato, for similar reasons that you state. I however, take a more nuanced approach. Also, in the name of full disclosure, I have a gay child, so this hits me a little closer than some.

My approach is this: There are two aspects to what we call marriage in this country. One is the historically religious aspect. All religious groups have some definition of who they will marry under their various religious guidelines. The other aspect is what could be called the civil contract of marriage. This is the part that does things like grant automatic survivor rights, automatic next of kin notification, property rights of various kinds, and so on. I would suggest that the solution to the dilemma is simple: separate the two.

Allow any religious group to marry or NOT marry, anybody they choose. The only legal restrictions would specify that the married parties have to be adults.

Then, define a civil process whereby any two people who want to create this special form of contract could do so. Again, the restriction would have to specify adults only.

Great post. You articulate so idea the definition of tolerance.

Hs-

Just to clarify, what constitutes a marriage? Is your definition two, unmarried individuals that are of consenting age?

Wowee..I’ll try to answer the question…

Marriage is, at it’s heart, a covenant relationship between two people, who publicly commit to that relationship. It has it’s religious overtones, the word covenant is chosen carefully.

The two key words are covenant and public. Covenant is similar to contract, but there are more meanings there. At it’s base, a covenant between two people is a commitment to share all they have with the other. Doing it publicly means that society recognizes the covenant between these two specific individuals and grants certain legal rights to go with it.

I guess what I’m saying in all this is that I think civil union laws are the answer. To the gay community, I would say, “Stop calling it marriage, and you’ll lower the temperature of the rhetoric, and you’ll offend fewer of the religious folks.” To the vocal straight community, I would say, “Get off your moral high horse about homosexuality. In reality, it’s none of your business what other people do in the privacy of their homes, and who they do it with. The gay folks really want the same thing you want: to be able to say publicly that this person is my chosen partner, and to obtain some basic legal protections with minimal hassle.”

Consider this, with all the push for state and federal constitutional amendments to ‘defend marriage’: The basic principle of the founders is that rights are inherent, they are granted by the Creator, to paraphrase Jefferson. The job of government is to protect those rights, not grant them. A defense of marriage act would actually LIMIT a right to a certain class of people, rather than recognize a universal right.

hs-

I am playing devil’s advocate with this one but bear with me. Your definition is ‘a covenant relationship between two people, who publicly commit to that relationship.’ Since we are broadening the definition, could I, by that logic, marry my brother? Could I marry my mother? Both scenarios are two citizens, unmarried, and of consenting age. We already have many of the legal rights that are obtained through marriage, but we want the name too. I do not think that polygamist marriages or marriages with animals are next, but I think it is an interesting example to consider.

My hypothetical above was just food for thought, not an argument. My actual problem with the recent California decision is two-fold. First, judicial activism is not the role of the courts. They have slowly increased their power from their original role, that of deciding whether or not something is constitutional. Secondly, the ruling talks about the rights of ‘gay couples’. Couples do not have rights. Individuals have rights. An individual has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, a right that is held by all. A couple has no right to marriage, it is the rights of two people at hand. The term couple is amorphous and ill-defined. It may be nit-picking, but the decision was poorly worded at best and fundamentally flawed at worst.

Well written Dana, especially given that this is a tough subject to write about and not come off as being “all for” or “all against” gay marriage.

As hs said, from a legal standpoint, marriage is nothing more than a section of the tax code. It is a merger of two entities. (This does not, by the way, make it a right like some like to bring up.) From this point of view (especially given the hassles of power of attorney for medical matters, health insurance issues, inheritence, and so forth) it makes perfect sense why two committed people would want to have that legal merger available to them.

The problem for gay marriage advocates of course is that marriage in the legal sense arose from marriage in the religious sense. Don’t forget for that most of this country’s history (and a lot of the countries our ancestors came from) we weren’t worried about immigration enforcement as nearly as much as we were growing the population of the country. Marriage and the subsequent creation of children were deemed vital to the long term health and well-being of America or any other colony. It only made sense to formally legalize marriage to encourage and protect this idea as a way to promote the population growth. Tax breaks, inheritence rules, property ownership, and so forth became added incentives to get married, if for no other reason than that they removed possible burdens to couples starting out (usually young, usually just starting to make their own path in the world).

Now I mention this obvious history lesson because it has a lot to do with the feelings of some people today. Marriage may have two aspects to it, but to many it is the religious side that is the most important. And the religious side, of course, has from pretty definitive definitions of what is and what isn’t acceptable.

The gay community wants “marriage” in part because that will (in their mind) make them more acceptable, more mainstream, to society. It will help legitimize who they are and why they are.

I think most people are like me, in that they can understand both sides of the argument and have a hard time choosing one over the other. Both sides make good points, and both sides make bad points.

hs, once again you bring up a good idea by saying that the gay community should stop calling it marriage. Some variant of legal merger (civil union as you mentioned) would appease some objections to marriage while still maintaining the same legal rights and advantages of marriage that heterosexual couples enjoy. Of course, many gays are religious too, and want that blessing from God just as much as my wife and I did, so even this idea can become a complicated one rather quickly.

Wowee your second post is also a point I have made in the past, and like you it was not made to be obnoxious or over the top, but to bring up a valid extension of an argument often used by the gay community. Your thoughts about “couples rights” is something that never occurred to me and was very interesting.

Here’s why I’m against gay marriage. I don’t believe people are born gay, straight or anything else. There is no set percentage of gays in any society due to a gay gene. Legalizing gay marriage is essentially promoting the gay lifestyle. Society needs heterosexual relationships to be the norm in order to survive.

Here’s another thought. If you do believe people are born gay or straight, then you must believe people are also born bisexual. Following that logic, you cannot limit marriage to just two people because it is unfair to bisexuals. Regardless of what anyone says, legalizing gay marriage is opening a pandora’s box.

To stir the pot a little more, , I would comment that any church is, and should be, free to marry whomever they want. The state has no business telling a church who they may (or may not) marry. If a particular church wants to marry gay folks, that is certainly an issue for the CHURCH to deal with in it’s own ways, but it is not an issue for the law to be involved in.

Thanks guys, for rational comments, and for staying away from the overheated rhetoric that is so common. To be honest, I’ve never quite understood the logic behind how banning ‘gay marriage’ is defending traditional marriage, and how a pair of committed gays living next door casts doubt on the legitimacy of my marriage.

Wowee: to go back at your devil’s advocate statement. Let’s say that marriage is a covenant relationship between two people who are not otherwise related by blood. There, that resolves your debating point.

Tim,

You say: “The problem for gay marriage advocates of course is that marriage in the legal sense arose from marriage in the religious sense.”

So what about all the atheist straight couples who have gotten married down at City Hall over the years? These are people who choose to not have a religious ceremony but to get a marriage certificate from the state. That’s all the proof in the world that CIVIL marriage is a totally separate concept from a RELIGIOUS marriage ceremony. Prop 8 would in no way, shape or form force any church to marry two people of the same sex. Some churches, such as the Metropolitan Community Church and the Unitarians, may choose to do that if they wish, though, which is something they’ve been doing (not just in Calif.) for years. Nor would Prop 8 force heterosexuals to marry people of their same sex, which seems like a ridiculous claim, but the Yes-on-Prop-8 crowd would like you to believe that. All Prop 8 does is say that since straight people have the right to a CIVIL marriage certificate in the state of California, gay people should have that right as well. And if you think marriage is not a right, try outlawing straight marriage and you’ll find out really fast how quickly straight people will call it a right.

Nick123,

Shouldn’t we outlaw marriage for Jewish people (or Catholics, or Presbyterians, or Muslims), because which church you attend or which creed you follow is a choice (unless you’re a minor and your parents force you)? Shouldn’t we force people to prove to the world that they were born Baptist, Lutheran, etc., or whatever religion the State deems to be the “one true faith”?

And while we’re at it, shouldn’t people be forced to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were born with an innate interest in rock music, rather than having chosen it as their favorite musical genre, if we feel that classical, jazz, etc. is the best (and therfore the only worthy) music to listen to? Why not base everything in life based on a choice vs. born-that-way decision, if it is anything that we happen to disagree with? Where in the Constitution does it say that we can just outlaw things that we disagree with, provided the person doing it can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not conscientiously choose that way of life?

You also say: “Society needs heterosexual relationships to be the norm in order to survive.” Well what about straight couples who marry where one, the other, or both are barren / shooting blanks? What about elderly straight couples who no longer can produce offspring? What about straight couples who choose to not have kids, for one reason or another? What about couples who marry for 55 hours, a la Britney Spears in Vegas a few years ago? What about gay couples who have been together many years and have adopted children or who have children through artificial insemination? And what about a straight couple who chooses to have (or can only have) one child, compared to another straight couple who end up having 10 kids? Shouldn’t we dissolve the marriage of the couple with only one child because they did not live up to our expectations?

Any religion can define marriage as they want. The California Supreme Court’s decision upholding the rights of all people to enter into a civil marriage does not change this. It simply ensured that all people are treated equally under the law. My marriage, and the meaning that it holds for me, is not threatened by gay or lesbians who choose to marry. My religion is not threatened. The social fabric around me is not threatened.

Proposition 8 does not preserve traditional marriage. Churches will continue to decide which marriages are sanctified. Traditional marriage will happen regardless of the rights of others to enjoy the civil protections inherent in how the government treats marriage.

Proposition 8 is not about religious liberty. It is just the opposite. As a California resident, I am voting against it.

It’s not tolerance if you want to designate a specific group of people - whose consensual, monogamous marriages won’t hurt you, families, or society (unlike allowing incest, polygamy, etc.) - to have a lesser status than everyone else. That’s actually intolerance, thinly masked: “I’m okay with (group), but I’d rather not have to share a bus seat or pew with them.” Regardless of personal beliefs on marriage and sexual orientation, state and the US constitutions, and our highest principles as democratic citizens, demand equal justice for ALL. All doesn’t mean everyone except Group X. All means all. No to hate, no to 8.

First, marriage *is* in fact a Constitutional right in the US. Please see Supreme Court ruling: Loving vs. Virginia.

Second, it is vital to distinguish between the religious ceremony or covenant aspect of marriage and the civil, legal “rights” aspects of civil marriage. An atheist couple can obtain a marriage license from the state and be married by a judge, and it’s just as valid, from a civil point of view, as a marriage performed by a minister, pastor, rabbi, etc.

Furthermore, a priest, rabbi, etc. may not marry a couple in the eyes of civil authority unless they have obtained a marriage license from their state.

So I think it’s vital to distinguish between the “covenant”/commitment aspects and religious meaning of a church marriage, with the parallel and independent civil aspects.

At any rate, the Founders clearly understood the peril of subjecting the rights of individuals or groups to the popular whim, having experienced persecution for their religious minority status in England. They created the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, to make these rights “inalienable” and not subject to the popular vote.

They also set a high bar for amending the Constitution with an involved process to accomplish this, to safeguard against the “tyranny of the majority”.

The California constitution should NOT be amended in any way by any majority of citizens, except through a similarly high standard

Proposition 8 is an ABUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION and the Constitutional process. All right-thinking Americans will oppose this discriminatory, and illegal, law.

I agree that tolerance does not involve abandoning one’s standards. But intolerance and tyranny occurs when you force your standards on mine. Under the current state supreme court decision, California does not require your church to recognize same-sex marriage. Yet, your church wants to force its beliefs upon my state.

I am not gay, but when close friends got married it did not affect your religious beliefs. It did not cause any harm to society. In fact, their family and their children are a model of a stable, loving home.

Not that long ago, the majority — including the Mormon church — opposed interracial marriage. Brigham Young said it was worthy of death. LDS President George Smith called it repugnant. LDS Apostle Mark Peterson called it cursed. Yet, when the civil sanctions against interracial marriage fell, society advanced.

James Madison (author of the bill of rights) warned against the “tyranny of the majority.” That warning should be heeded.

A few things strike me here.

If allowing same-sex marriage will destroy society by encouraging homosexuality, how exactly does banning it cause people to stop being homosexual?

The argument is made that “defending marriage” is for keeping children in homes with both a mother and a father. Does this mean that we should also remove children from homes that don’t have this situation?

The Divine Institution article also leaves me seeing a certain degree of sexism here. It would imply that there are certain roles only a woman can teach to children and certain roles only a man can teach. Apparently, there is no way that in a same-sex marriage that it is possible for members of the couple to have complementary personalities. Also, what about hetero-sexual couples where both people have similar personalities?

I think it’s well and good if churches want to be against same-sex marriages, but to push legislation clearly crosses the separation of church and state. Granted, I also believe that the state should not be able to force churches to recognize same-sex marriage, but I agree with previous postings that religious marriage should be separate from civil union which should be the mechanism for legal rights. That would be similar to European countries that require separate ceremonies for the two aspects of marriage - one for the civil/legal rights, and another for religious purposes if the couple chooses.

I respect the rights of private institutions to have their ceremonies that they may call marriage. I oppose having the courts create new definitions of marriage as part of public law, particularly where the people have voted for the traditional definition. Prop 8 is only needed because activist judges are going beyond their proper authority.

Given the financial strains of the day, I would also note that a radical change in the definition of marriage may greatly expand government obligations. If any two people in a committed relationship can claim the benefits of marriage, then where would that lead? You could not restrict those relationships to sexual ones. You could not exclude blood relations as suggested above in one post and allow other relations. I care for an aged parent in a long-term committed relationship. Should I claim Social Security survivor benefits and other government benefits traditionally held for married couples?

If we need to revise laws for married couples or domestic partners, we should do so by popular vote and not by courts making a radical change in the definition of marriage and overturning existing laws.

Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code §297.5.) There are no exceptions. Proposition 8 will not change this.

I have gay friends and gay family members and I can completely understand on a legal standpoint, why they would want to get married. However, if they have those rights already in terms of benefits and being recongnized as a “union,’ then there is no reason to change marriage to now include with it the idea that being gay is right when it is not,whether it is “our business” or not.. Legalizing gay “marriage” will legitimize the idea that there is nothing wrong with being gay. Don’t confuse that comment. I do not think anything bad of gay people but..there is something wrong with it and this law will make it even harder than it is already to teach our children that being gay is “wrong.”
Do I believe, withun the law that they should have all the rights with regard to the beneficial factors of marriage, also “within the law”? Absolutely. But it is definately wrong to try to impose the idea that being gay is “normal”, when it is not.

Under California law, “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code §297.5.) There are no exceptions. Proposition 8 will not change this.

I have gay friends and gay family members and I can completely understand on a legal standpoint, why they would want to get married. However, if they have those rights already in terms of benefits and being recongnized as a “union,’ then there is no reason to change marriage to now include with it the idea that being gay is right when it is not,whether it is “our business” or not.. Legalizing gay “marriage” will legitimize the idea that there is nothing wrong with being gay. Don’t confuse that comment. I do not think anything bad of gay people but..there is something wrong with it and this law will make it even harder than it is already to teach our children that being gay is “wrong.”
Do I believe, withun the law that they should have all the rights with regard to the beneficial factors of marriage, also “within the law”? Absolutely. But it is definately wrong to try to impose the idea that being gay is “normal”, when it is not.

Just a problem with this whole discussion: Years ago I remember the gay rights movement had 3 basic arguments, two of which were that (1) being gay is “normal,” and (2) they were not about “recruiting” others to their lifestyle. Society has gone a long ways since those days. Of course, I understand why they would want to be considered normal, anyone would. And about the only means they have to accomplish it is via legislative means.

But, its the 2nd item that bothers me… that they don’t and won’t “recruit” others to their lifestyle. They even continue to put out TV ads that “it won’t be taught in the schools”!

Just so I get this straight, if a 14-year-old boy is attracted to a 14-year-old girl in junior high school, he’s going to initiate something friendly-romantic, and get her to respond in kind, isn’t he? So, how is it that, if a 14-year-old gay boy is attracted to a 14-year-old straight boy, he isn’t going to initiate something friendly-romantic to get him to respond in kind? Gimme a break. Is this “recruiting” or not?

Same with adults to children. As one who was subjected to gross pedophile abuse as a 3-7 year old child, and has had to deal with it ever since, I know what it does to a child when proper boundaries are ignored, and adult-to-child or child-to-child sexual abuse occurs. It is living hell. Do people think the suicides will stop if Prop 8 is defeated? No. So, please excuse me if I don’t feel much empathy with those that are “attracted” to those of the same sex and therefore feel justified in “taking their liberties,” as they rationalize their entitlement to destroy another life under the guise of “well, its only normal.”

(And please don’t weary me with the “born that way” argument foisted on us by pseudo-social scientists intent on proving their agenda. An unbiased study by L.C.S.W.s 20 years ago showed that 97% of gays were abused as children. Of course, I’m sure that percent has changed since then as more have experimented with it, & since society has foisted it on the American public.)

Why are we doing more of the same? And “setting-up” even more children for this abuse? When I was a child there were 17 gays, pedophiles, or both within 1 block of my home, branching out in 4 directions. Yes, gays deserve love and acceptance as individuals, as did I when I was an un-understanding child. But, the lifestyle should not be accepted as normal, because then we perpetuate into future generations, our children and grandchildren, the very abuse done to those past.

And, please don’t tell me it isn’t abuse when a child, that cannot understand such things, is force-fed that something is “normal” and “non-harmful” by educators and society. The judges making such rulings deserve the same treatment as the pedophiles they are legalizing. (Do they think that mental-emotional pedophilia in the school classroom under the guise of “education” won’t lead to acting out? And the physical/sexual abuse of children?) It’s like giving a child pornography- he/she won’t know what to do with it, and yes, society will raise generations of homosexuals. I weary of all the “pseudo-intellectual” talk back-and-forth that refuses to discern sense from non-sense.

You could drive a Mac Truck through the holes of the arguments if they’d accept the responsibility of intellectual honesty.

And, all those concerned about “being careful with this hot potato,” … the only reason anyone must be concerned about saying things today that they could have easily said 40 years ago is because so many have allowed themselves to be silenced over the years by the Tyranny of InTolerance as practiced by those that preach tolerance. Tolerance as long as you agree with them, but tyrannical, homophobic and a “hate crime” if you dare to disagree.

I disagree, and a parent has a moral right AND DUTY to protect his children, by whatever means necessary, from those that would sexually abuse and exploit them, be they schools, judges, or whomever. Our children are not the property of the state.

It’s the children that matter in all this selfish discourse, because they are the ones that can’t fend for themselves. And, it is the minds of the children that this is ALL about, not the adults. It is about freedom vs force. It is about the power of the homosexuals, exercised though the states as their agent, to force the rising generations to grow-up like themselves. It is about forcing others to be like them, and because they can’t force adults, they will force children by law at the exclusion of their parents.

Why do they take such a stand, to want to force the homosexual agenda upon the un-consenting parents of children not their own? Why should they care about children not their own? And fight so vociferously for this power over other’s children? Because they know they can’t have their own, and those that choose such a lifestyle cannot stand that other children might grow-up truly normal, with all the powers intact to pro-create posterity of their own.

Though they forfeit this power of their own choosing, having made the choice, they can’t stand the thought that others should have it either. It’s called jealousy and envy, power and control. The more they know they can’t have children of their own, the more they want to force and control children not of their own. It’s no different than human nature is often observed: the more we can’t have something, the more we miss it and want it.

That’s why they’re not content to be satisfied within their own adult-adult relationships, and must expand their sphere to exert control over others’ children.

If homosexuals would keep to themselves, and just live and let-live, and not keep forcing their agenda down our throats, and telling us what we must teach our children, then we wouldn’t need laws to protect ourselves against their efforts to redefine marriage. We could all live happily and amiably next-door and do just fine. We could have bar-b-ques together, work together, car pool together, go to the ballgames together. But, they want to force their beliefs on our children, they won’t leave us alone, they can’t stand exercising tolerance for others, our rights are invalid, and we must be relabeled as “hate” to their satisfaction.

It’s about the children. The children are the pawns in this debate, and they are the ones that will be hurt.

Tyranny of Tolerance is a clever juxtaposition of contradictory ideas, but I see a more rational view of tolerance. Tolerance is recognizing that differences do exist among people and that we as individuals do not have God’s perfection to judge wisely. Still we may find things in people we don’t like. It would indeed be better if we could love one another as Jesus loves us, but lacking that, we can tolerate others as an affirmation of simple decency and civility. The one pure test of religion is does it increase my wisdom and compassion? If we oppose same gender marriage, does that make us hateful? If we say no, then why does the accusation sting so much? Calling it something else, saying, “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” is blatant self deception and does not diminish our guilt in the eyes of God who has commanded us to truly love one another as He loves us. We know better! If you can’t love your gay neighbor, then turn your head away, tend to your own affairs, and pray, “God forgive me.”

Let’s fix some errors in here:

First, Ross Archer: Loving verses Virginia did NOT state that marriage is a right. It stated that a law prohibiting people of different races from marrying was unconstitutional. That has nothing to do with this discussion!

Sej: Marriage as a civil union did come from marriage as a religious institution. There is ample volumns written about this over the years. The fact that athiests get married doesn’t change this historical progression of marriage.

Marriage is not a “right”. If it was a “right” like free speech we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Marriage is no different that a driver’s license, a business license, or any other license. IF you meet certain criteria than you may apply for one. Gays and lesbians don’t meet the qualifications in most states - namely that their legal union is with someone of the opposite sex. If the rules for the license application procedure are changed so that same-gender people are allowed to create their new legal entity (the marriage), then they too will meet the criteria. Even then it STILL won’t make it a right. I hope I have explained the difference to where it makes sense.

The above paragraph applies to Mulvaney’s post as well, since it is also inaccurate about the law and rights.

JB: I do agree that a constitution, where state or federal, should be an inclusive document only. Definitions about licensure belongs in the legislative arena, not the constitutional one.

Tim,

Loving v. Virginia is very relevent to this discussion. This court case basically said that the State can’t use something as esoteric as skin color to decide whether or not two people can get married. And sexual orientation is every bit as esoteric. So no amount of you denying that simply does not negate that.

As far as civil unions, they have a lot of similarities to marriages, but they do not offer all the rights as marriages do. And the fact that atheists get married means that City Hall is not involved with anything religious when it issues marriage licenses to them.

Marriage most certainly is a right. Everything in life is protected by our Constitution PROVIDED THE STATE CANNOT FIND A MEANINGFUL REASON TO EXCLUDE THAT RIGHT. The burden of proof is on the State to determine that someone exercising the right is harmful to others, not the other way around. Otherwise, we could (and likely would) have outlawed everything under the sun sooner or later, since someone is bound to opposed to pretty much anything one group or another has done.

Bottom line: if you’re against same-sex marriage, don’t get married to someone of the same sex. It really is that simple. No one is proposing that a gun be held to your head to force you to marry another guy.

Sej, Loving Vs. Virginia is not relevant to this argument because it dealt with, and ruled on, ONLY race laws related to marriage. Loving vs. Virginia may be mentioned some day in the future as a precedent if and when the SCOTUS hears a case concerning same sex marriages, but until that day your LEGAL meaning only has whatever value you personally are placing on it. All the wishing in the world isn’t going to change what Loving vs. Virginia means in legal matters now.

All I am trying to explain to you here is you are using an invalid legal ruling to supplement your argument. If that legal ruling does not have anything to do with the topic then you are never going to win that argument, no matter how you “feel” about it.

Many states have defined the qualifications needed to apply for a marriage license, basically a man and a woman in some and any gender to any gender in others. Any person can get married, as long as they heed those qualifications in their state.

Gay marriage is allowed by law in Cal and Mass, and I believe the Iowa Supreme Court takes up the issue in December. No other state has provided a means for gays to marry or engage in a civil union at this time.

Things may change in the future, and in which direction its hard to say for sure. But as for the present you are using an argument that doesn’t adequately back you. I suggest finding additional information of a more concrete nature that bolsters your comments instead of leaving them open to easy dissection.

Tim,

The issue here is Prop 8 in Calif. When voters go to the polls Nov. 4 to vote yes or no on this proposition, they will vote based on a whole bunch of things, including their opinion on gay marriage, the high divorce rate in recent decades, their understanding of many court cases, their idea of what constitutes a family or marriage, etc. Who is to say that a voter won’t base his opinion in large part to how the Loving case (or many other cases) turned out? Many voters will see similarities (and some differences) to the Loving case with Prop 8. That doesn’t mean you or I have to agree with that voter. It’s their choice.

When they go to vote they also will have the chance to vote for Obama or McCain for president (and third party candidates). Who knows - some may look at Brown v. Board of Education of 1954, which had NOTHING to do with a presidential election, and form some kind of opinion about race in this country. Since Obama and McCain are of different races, and let’s face it, race has been a huge (while perhaps lessening) issue in this country, the voter may form an opinion on the candidates based in large part on the Brown (or other) court cases.

So the bottom line here is that something that may seem tangential to you may not be all that tangential for others. Drawing parallels from other issues and times is a huge factor in decisionmaking, not only in politics but really all throughout life.

I agree with you there Sej.

I have enjoyed these insightful comments. Some points I have never considered before.

For those who wonder how the definition of marriage affects children and schools, read: http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081103school.html

For those people who believe Prop 8 or Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with religious liberty, see a NPR story, Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three Act Story: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

Dana