By G_d, I'll take you on again, lol! Widespread discriminatory laws? Don't all laws discriminate against someone? Theft laws against burglars, laws against murder against murderers. Laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman don't discriminate against anyone. We all have the same rights and always have. That is, the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Even gays can marry a person of the opposite sex. I'm really a lesbian trapped in a mans body, but I don't feel oppressed by the proposed GA constitutional ammendment. Why do you?

I'm straight, and don't feel oppressed at all. But the fact of the matter is that allowing gays to marry doesn't deprive anyone of life, liberty or property.

Theft, murders, et al. all have a victim. That is, someone is injured by the action. Other than the bogus injury of "emotional distress", nobody is injured by allowing gays to get hitched.

Sorry RW, but I cannot resist.

Please state where the "Right to Marry" appears anywhere in a federal or state document.

Just because a gay union won't hurt anyone, doesn't make it hunky-dory.

A man having 3 wives wouldn't hurt anyone either, but that is not allowed.

A man marrying his female first cousin wouldn't hurt anyone, but this is also not allowed.

Now, before you go and get pissed at me for "comparing homosexuals who want to get married to polyigamy and incest" please explain, if it is all about 'marrying who you love', why should the gay marriage lobby get to be the selfish ones in this respect and be the only ones to benfit from some misconception about a "right to Marry"?

Or are these other groups going to have to wait until they get a popular enough lobby going before they can have their "marriage rights"?

Please note, production of offspring by the mating of blood relatives has been shown by modern medical science to not be anywhere near as dangerous as once thought, with the rate of birth defects only 5% higher than that in non-blood releatives.

PS as a side note, I really couldn't give a rats ass about who wants to marry whom. I just really like to play the devil's avocate on this issue. Also I am getting very pissed lately, what with constantly being told that I am practicing 'Marriage Apartheid' because I am a married herto male who is 'shoving my values system down their throats' by asking pointed questions. When it is actually the Gay Marriage lobby who is stuffing their values down America's throats.

Right or not, that is what they are doing.

PPS Please stop insulting black Americans born prior to 1964 and everything they went through in trying to get equal rights (seperate, schools, motels, restaurants, bathrooms, drinking fountains, back of the bus, etc) with comparing them to the current fight.

It's apples and oranges, really. And rather petty.

The concept of marriage predates the Constitution, and in my opinion, should not be regulated by the state at all. To be honest, the regulation of marriage is nothing more than a tax. The "benefits" of such regulation could all be easily gotten in the private sector, without having the government force it on you.

Thank you for stopping your slippery slope argument at polygamy and incest. Most people delve into bestiality, pediphelia, and rape as well. When it comes to those things, I'm of the school of thought that as long as the parties involved are consensual and of sound mind, it should not be restricted. If you want to marry your cousin (male or female), more power to you.

Homosexuality also predates the Consititution. It is as old as sex itself. I'm not saying that heterosexuals should embrace homosexuality, or even accept it. Some people don't accept mixed race marriages, but that is a far cry from making it illegal. I'm merely saying that you should not create a set of government benefits for us, that others may not also enjoy.

As for playing the racism card, I don't recall ever saying that the civil rights movement and the current debate over homosexual marriage were morally equivalent. I guess that quoting Dr. Martin Luther King may have led you to think that I was implying such. In the future, I'll try not to ever mention him again unless the topic is germane to the struggles of black American born prior to 1964.

While I agree that the state should have absolutely nothing to with civil unions such as marriage, it cannot be denied that it has become an intergral part of our society. And I think that the same folks who are fighting for 'marriage rights' would argue tooth and nail for it to stay that way.

As a side note, all the 'benefits of marriage' (except for the higher tax rate) can be gotten with a sit down session with an attourney. Just like the one I had when my wife and I set up our prenups, wills and living wills (which is also something that gay couples should do).

I'll stop with the Devil's Advocate arguments. You don't seem to be enjoying it as much as myself.

I would ask that you stop by here and read my disclaimer
http://www.softgreenglow.com/mt/archives/002946.html#002946

No need to get snarky about your MLK inclusion. I'll admit that I may have misunderstood the reason for your using the quote. And I wouldn't call it using the racism card, I'd call it using the wrong quote for the wrong cause.

I do find it odd that you can stand for this lobby's penchant for venue shopping to the same extent as the anti-gun lobby. From my many discussions with folks on the opposite side of the fence of the gun debate from myself, I can tell you that the majority of them are well meaning, if clueless individuals.

Did you just call me clueless??

;-)

I see that the misunderstandings go both ways here.

I'm on the same side of the gun debate as yourself, RW. I was referring to the people that do not believe that you and I have an individual right to own firearms.

Ravenwood:

When citizens violate laws in objection to them, that's civil disobedience. When officials of the government violate the law in objection to them, that's invitation to anarchy.

If any public official can violate any law he or she simply disagrees with, then what power does any law have? If you're an affected citizen, why bother to work to overturn it? It's meaningless.

And a society with laws that are meaningless, even to the government that supposedly enforces it, is one practicing anarchy.

I repeat: Individuals outside of government can practice civil disobedience. If you work for the government, violating the law and ordering other government employees to violate it should get you thrown out of office and jailed.

(Obviously this holds true for governments that are otherwise relatively fair, representative, and functional. Once any government starts down the totalitarian path it's incumbent on each citizen AND government employee to resist. The tricky part is determining exactly when that line is crossed. However, I hardly think "gay marriage" is that line.)