I understand state rights, but this is about general civil rights. God, religious beliefs… none of that should come into play here. Those are people’s beliefs related to something religious. This is a civil issue, with concern over taxes and legal issues. Not “what it is to God” or “an abomination before God” But two consenting tax-paying citizens of this country that are being denied a right.

Fighting for same-sex marriage should be natural to anyone who currently enjoys the legal ability to marry without having to fight for it.

Iowa looks to be next to having to deal with these discriminatory efforts from the religious kooks.

1. Legalization: I don’t think that the government (assuming the government should be in charge of deciding what constitutes legal marriage) should legalize a marriage between me and pi, on the grounds that the implications of the law would make no sense; how can pi visit me in the hospital? How can pi inherit my worldly possessions if I die without a will? How can pi give its consent to marry me?

2. Semantics: If I were to say “I just recently married the ratio of a circle’s diameter to its circumference”, I’d expect people to respond “… What?” and have no idea what I meant. Heck, I don’t even have any idea what it would mean; I’d have to make something up out of whole cloth and then use that as an explanation.

To go back to gay marriage, it seems to me that gay marriage does make both legal and semantic sense. I understand that Jon feels that it does not make legal sense; I disagree strongly with him on this, but I at least recognize it as an honest statement of his position.

However, it’s disingenuous of Jon to claim that it doesn’t make semantic sense, when the meaning of the phrase “gay marriage” is easily understood.

I believe it is ONLY appropriate to refer to gay “marriage” using quotations marks. Marriage, by defintion, is between a man and a woman, and therefore it would be inappropriate to use a word to mean something other than its definition without the use of quotation marks. In doing so, I am not in any way making a comment about the love and commitment in gay or straight relationships.

Definitions of words legitimately change over time to match changes in culture.

If two men or two women introduce themselves as a married couple, I’d fully expect any given American to understand their use of that phrase without comprehension issues, whether or not they agreed with it.

Disagreeing about whether or not gay marriage should be legal is one thing, but debating about whether or not it can even be conceived of is disingenuous. The idea of gay marriage has enough cultural momentum behind it that you can no longer legitimately claim that the existence of the phrase itself is invalid, any more than you can claim it’s invalid to call a person “gay” without referring to whether they’re happy and exuberant.

Anyways, not that it matters much, but dictionaries themselves do in fact include gay marriage in the definition of marriage nowadays.

Homosexuality is absolutely NOT a choice, and anyone who still believes that either refuses to do basic research or is in denial because of additional beliefs. End of story, really.

It makes no difference to my argument whether homosexuality is a choice. However, since you brought up research, you apparently have not done yours. To help you out with that, read this.

@DanW:

You know, same-sex marriage is something that, I think, should not be decided by individual states. It should be legal in all of the US. I’m not sure why it was put to the states to decide this one-by-one, but it’s just a messed up that in some parts of the country gay couples can get married while in other parts they can’t.

I would disagree – In general, I prefer to give the states more power and the federal government less power. Marriage has been regulated by the states for quite some time (by the power invested in me by the state of ______). There is no reason to change that. If you want to have a homosexual “marriage”, move to a state where it is allowed. If you want to avoid homosexual “marriage”, move to a state where it isn’t allowed.

I must be confused. Homosexual couples have the right to marry in Maine at this time. They are threatened with the removal of this right by popular vote. Isn’t this a civil rights issue?

No, it is not a civil rights issue. I am not confusing racism and racial equality with homophobia. If you will notice, my point is that they shouldn’t be mixed up, and many others appear to be mixing them up.

Equality for race is different than equality for sexual orientation for precisely the reason that I state in the section of my comment that you quoted.

You clearly have not thought through the concept of ‘equality for all’. Throughout all of society through all of history, actions that people take have consequences. You can’t expect to do whatever you want and be treated the same as everybody else. Certain things are not right.

If homosexuality isn’t a civil right, do you expect the government to force gays to be straight?

@JustinJM – No. But that doesn’t mean that homosexuality is a civil right.

First, there is similarity between the civil rights movement and the gay marriage movement, as homosexuality isn’t a choice.

The similarity between the movements are that in both cases, the nation is polarized and there are many people that protest both sides. Simply because African-Americans gained more rights in the 1960′s does not mean that homosexuals should gain more rights now. You can claim that the analogy “still works”, and you are correct from the standpoint that many gullible people believe that, but otherwise the analogy is intellectually bankrupt.

Second, there is no such thing as a “heterosexual lifestyle” and a “homosexual lifestyle.” People in either group are equally capable of maintaining monogamous relationships.

There is such a thing as heterosexual and homosexual lifestyles. How in the world could you think otherwise? The existence of these lifestyles is not a reflection on monogamy or lack thereof.

Third, you shouldn’t refer to gay marriage as gay “marriage.” What, do you think that gay people have less love and commitment in their relationships? If not, then do you think their relationships are counterfeit or inferior, and why?

I believe it is ONLY appropriate to refer to gay “marriage” using quotations marks. Marriage, by defintion, is between a man and a woman, and therefore it would be inappropriate to use a word to mean something other than its definition without the use of quotation marks. In doing so, I am not in any way making a comment about the love and commitment in gay or straight relationships.

i’m stupefied that, in america, people can vote other peoples’ civil rights away.

How absurd. There never was a right to marry anyone other than one unmarried individual homo sapiens over a certain age, not too closely related to you, and of the opposite sex.

If you want to grant a new right where none previously existed, then say so clearly.