My sexual orientation and my positions on gay rights

[Marge_Innavera]

One other comment about California:

The legal system is not a patchwork of state legal structures.  Not only are all of them subject to the Federal Constitution, but they all have similar principles of legal practice including precedents.  The statements of the Supremes I quoted above aren't like posts in a blog; they are a matter of legal record and precedents can be quite powerful.

Moreover, the US Constitution is based on every citizen having equal standing under the law, and as marriage is a legal contract it covers that.  And since we are a constitutional republic and not a pure democracy, states are required to give full faith and credit to legal contracts executed in other states.

[letxa2000]

What do you mean by "we"? Who is "we"? Who is "society"? The last time I checked I was a member of society too.

Yes, you are.

By the way I'm a proud gay man.

Good for you.  Doesn't bother me.

And we're being "arrogant" simply because we're asking to be recognized and treated equally? That's rich. 

No, I'm already saying I'm happy to extend you the same rights with civil unions.  But it is arrogant to assume that society will change its definition of marriage for you.  Rights is one thing.  Redefining words for your convenience and so you feel better about yourselves is something different.

[Marge_Innavera]

Lexta, I just checked your profile and it says you registered only yesterday.  How did you find this forum, and how did you get interested in it?

[letxa2000]

You keep saying you have to defend some hypothetical person who might oppose it at our expense.

For me the question is why do you oppose it?

Because I do not think it's unreasonable that marriage be the union of a man and a woman.  I'm traditional.  I also see no need for society to change the definition of a word so that some subset of the society can feel better about themselves.  Feel good politically correct garbage is just that.

[Marge_Innavera]

No, I'm already saying I'm happy to extend you the same rights with civil unions. 

Equal treatment under the law isn't something that anyone graciously decides to "extend."  It's one of the foundations of the US Constitution.

[letxa2000]

Lexta, I just checked your profile and it says you registered only yesterday.  How did you find this forum, and how did you get interested in it?

Because of the thread talking about the myth if the Clinton surplus that linked to an article I wrote.  I actually only came to this forum to discuss that which is my real interest in being here, but wdj decided rather than discuss the matter of the Clinton surplus that he/she wanted to take the thread off-topic and discuss my position on gay marriage (as if it had anything to do with the Clinton surplus).  Apparently because we disagree on gay marriage that automatically means I'm wrong about everything.  Anyway, my main interest is the myth of the Clinton surplus so I think that's where I'll continue. 

I willingly agreed to be drawn into this other debate which I really shouldn't have done, but I did in the interest of keeping the other thread on-topic--now the other thread has mostly died and all my time is being sucked into this thread.  The topic of gay marriage is obviously of very high interest to folks here but of very little interest to me--I listed a position on gay marriage on my website simply in the interests of disclosure of my positions, not because I'm really all that interested in the topic.  If you go through my website you'll find I attack various positions and myths but nowhere do I make a case against gay marriage--I simply state my position as a matter of disclosure.  The point being that while I have a position on the matter, it is of not high importance or interest to me.

I think I've said all there is for me to say on this topic and all we can do now is go in circles.  So I'll accept that we won't agree on this matter and I'll withdrawal to the thread that was touching on matters that are not a matter of opinion or points of view, but a matter of fact... that there was never a surplus under Clinton.

[letxa2000]

Equal treatment under the law isn't something that anyone graciously decides to "extend."  It's one of the foundations of the US Constitution.

There is no right to marriage in the Constitution.  But in order to ensure that gays have access to the same legal benefits of marriage that has been traditionally understood, without question, to exist for a married man and woman, I have no problem with instituting the concept of civil unions for gays.  I don't think it's necessary to call that marriage and I don't think it's the job of government to redefine the English language for the purposes of societal engineering, nor do I think gays are denied legal rights due to the definition of a word by society.

And this is the last comment I will make on the topic.

[optom3]

I simply cannot understand why people have such a problem with gay marriage.If we talk globally for a minute, there are plenty of faiths which allow the man to have more than one wife.In fact in early Christianity there are plenty of examples of polygamy, to allow for the birth of more children.I believe, even here in the USA that holds true,illegally, for certain splinter groups of one faith. So what therefore defines a "typical marriage"The answer is there is no such thing. A male member of the Islamic faith could quite legitimately argue his right to take up to 4 wives.We may not all agree with it.However it is permitted within the tenets of his faith.

Indeed if things had not changed over the years as fertility rates increased and neonatal deaths decreased we Christians could still be practicing polygamy.So I can see no valid argument t, for not changing things, when they have changed so radically over the centuries.We are a multi cultural world now,which encompasses lots of different faiths and different definitions of the institution of marriage.To isolate gay marriage, and exclude the possibility of it, is to be prejudiced.

So all those who are against it, for the sake of change or conservatism, need to go off protesting about all the other types of marriage that exist, some illegally.They need to be walking with banners advocating the reinstating of polygamy, because that only stopped within the Christian faith because of change.
I still say as a married woman with 3 kids that all citizens should be allowed equal rights.We will never get there without a fight.I do not see gays as moaning or whining.I see them fighting for their rights, in the same way the suffragettes did for votes, and the feminists for equal pay.
It would be interesting to see a straw poll of those who are against gay marriage,  to see what else they are against.

I hope one day someone in decades hence discovers this thread, or reads about all the fuss and just laughs, as gay marriages have become the norm.In the same way we women here, cannot imagine not being allowed to vote.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Because I do not think it's unreasonable that marriage be the union of a man and a woman.  I'm traditional.  I also see no need for society to change the definition of a word so that some subset of the society can feel better about themselves.  Feel good politically correct garbage is just that.

What makes you so certain--or at least think--that we want or need this "to feel good about ourselves." That comment is the height of arrogance and condescension. This is not about anybody feeling good about themselves. This is about equal protection and equal rights under the law.

[Jeff Wrangler]

How do you figure that I have prejudices?  Believe it or not, the fact that I don't agree with gay marriage doesn't mean I have prejudices against gays.  That is similar to calling me racist just because I won't vote for Obama, and I won't have it.

You're the one who is personalizing here, not me. I didn't accuse you of being prejudiced. I said that the arguments against gay marriage, in the end, are founded on prejudice. And being prejudiced against gay marriage doesn't necessarily mean you are prejudiced against gay people, either. But the argument against gay marriage in the end comes down to "We don't want change because we don't want change." It is premised on heterosexist fear of loss of a priviledged position in society. And continued denial of the right of gays to marry is a continued denial of equal protection under the law.