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