But, hey at least you feel good.

But, hey at least you feel good.

The law of marriage is a civil bond between TWO HUMANS. That’s why miscegenation laws AND anti-homosexual marriage laws keep getting struck down and marriage between any TWO humans is allowed.

Not 3.

Not 4.

Not animals.

Humans.

Two.

Homosexuals are Humans. A couple of them make 2. Therefore, they are qualified to be married, under the Constitution and under the law.

The “slippery slope” argument is specious and the last resort of those who specifically are against gay marriage, and having no valid argument to deny that right, resort to arguing extreme and ludicrous examples as straw men.

The challenge is to tell me why GAYS are unfit for marriage, not farm animals, not polygamists, not incestuous couples… gays.

Either argue the merits of that issue or admit you have no case.

I couldn’t have put it better myself, though I might have thrown in bestiality as well. It’s a slippery slope, docweasel. The Canadians are a good example. It’s impermissible in that society to criticize homosexual behavior even if you’re a clergyman and do so from a biblical perspective. Speech of this nature is called a “hate crime” up north. The same with criticism of Islam, but that’s another story. You must be very young indeed if you think the gay agenda, which includes giving their unions a legal impimatur and calling them “marriage,” will be enacted in your lifetime. Even California has turned thumbs down when it was put to a vote, and the influx of Latinos who will be voting one day guarantees your point of view will remain a noisy minority there as well. Polls are one thing, votes another. That’s why gay advocates try to work through activist judges. You seem to think there are not any gay values. Promiscuity is one which is why AIDS won’t go away. Irony is another. (Wink).

This is the correct motorcycle.

At one time, (most of the history of the West) there were two types of marriages, Common Marriage and Cannon Marriage. Common Marriage was dealt with by the local community traditions and involved anything from a community ceremony of some sort to just moving in together (see Joseph and Mary). Cannon Law existed for the wealthy and upper class individuals and involved a big church wedding (See Henry VIII and Wives I-VI).

Currently any Common Law marriage standard is the choice of the state, I see no reason why this concept wouldn’t work for gays and straights alike. Churches don’t need to move into the 21st century with their thinking (nor do the people that want to stick with it) and the rest of the planet can move on. Not a bad deal all around, I think.

A big can of worms.

How about we get government out of the marriage business altogether? You don’t need a license to have children, why is one required for marriage? Marriage licenses came out after the civil war to prevent miscegenation. Prior to that, folks went down to their church, the reverend made a note in his records, and that was the end of it.

Miscegenation, sex between people of different races, was looked upon with disgust, moral revulsion and in fact was a crime in most states for over a hundred years and more. Now those laws are looked at as a relic of a bigoted and racist past. People became more enlightened and tolerant of the rights of others as time went by and that changed. The vast majority of voters backed Jim Crow laws and segregation in the states where they existed as well: did that make it right? Are we not a Republic? What right did President Kennedy have to force a governor out of the way to allow blacks to attend an all white school? Are we voters not to be respected in their bigotry?

I think the next generation will have no problem with legitimizing “gay values” as you say, which are not at all alien to human values. The margins voting against gay “rights” grows smaller and smaller over time, and some states have, in fact, voted FOR gay initiatives. I don’t consider it a left or right issue, I consider it a human rights issue, and as a libertarian Republican I support equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. I think that rights are being denied gay couples who are willing to enter monogamous, committed relationships, and that is immoral, to me.

Generally, to those prejudiced against gay rights, I say you are on the wrong side of history and the tide is against you. “Normalizing” being gay is already here. Do people have any problem with Ellen DeGeneres, arguably the most popular entertainer on TV today, because she’s gay? Or the myriad of gay politicians, actors, musicians, public figures of all walks of life?

Gay marriage will be a right in all 50 states in our lifetime, and gay “norming” will be as established and accepted as mixed race and mixed religion marriages (which were both forbidden and morally censured in less enlightened times).

I find that people who actually know and interact with gay people in their lives are much less likely to harbor these feelings.

Personally, I see civil unions with tax and financial considerations as a reasonable compromise. A less strident and absolutist approach by proponents might bring forth a proposal that has a chance of gaining approval. Framing people with different views as heartless bigots surely hasn’t worked. It never does.