How many states have passed gay marriage by an election on the ballot?

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by Sophiasmommy

Go for it, hit search, hit "advanced". The more I think about it, the more I am in support of a 100% democracy; with some caveats of course.

I use to get offended when someone would say this to a female, immigrant minority, but now I just laugh at the desperate attempt at trying to piggyback off of the civil rights movement. Every poll and survey has shown that Black Americans are more opposed to gay marriage than any other group. To equate skin color to sexual choices is insulting.

Sexual orientation is no more a choice than you being a female. I did not choose to be gay or male, you did not choose to be female, blacks did not choose to be black. Did you choose to be straight? Please try and be honest with your answer and detail when you made the choice and whether you felt an honest attraction to the same sex when you made the choice?

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by Sophiasmommy

for a man and a woman. You are trying to redefine marriage and equate your sexuality to the civil rights movement. Both are equally insulting.

Why is it a right for a man and a woman, but not for gays? Please explain it without using religion. The 1049 rights that straight people get with a civil marriage contract are rights and they are denied to gays, this is a case of civil rights abuse whether you like it or not. We gays are people too and deserve the same rights you take for granted, rights are not just for straights or christians you know. I am insulted that people like you think you can deny me my rights by voting them away.

[bluesjuke]

Originally Posted by Voyageur

One does not need government permission to marriage. I was married in 1995. I did not need permission. My wife and I needed a license, but granting of said license was automatic and merely for reasons of public record, not so that the government could pass judgment on whether or not we might be married. The government had no power to grant permission, only to note for the record what would occur.

Anyway, the United States Supreme Court has clearly stated that marriage is a fundamental right. In Loving v. Virginia (1967) the USSC stated:
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"
and
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"
It is worth noting that Loving was a unanimous 9-0 decision.

See also Meyer v. Nebraska (1923):
Without doubt, it [the Due Process Claus of Amendment XIV]denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

These are but two of the numerous cases in which the United States Supreme Court has declared marriage to be a right.

And that is American Law 101.

The Court's assumption was also marriage between a man & a woman.

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by bluesjuke

The Court's assumption was also marriage between a man & a woman.

Loving v. Virgina (1967) was about prohibitions on interracial marriages. But the United States Supreme Court did not state that marriage between a man and a woman was a right. They stated that marriage -- period -- was a right.

Sophiasmommy, among others, have repeatedly claimed that marriage is not a right. They are wrong. It is a right.

Once, again:
Loving v. Virginia (1967):
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"
and
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923):
Without doubt, it [the Due Process Claus of Amendment XIV]denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

The United States Supreme Court stated that marriage is a right. Nowhere in that statement do they qualify marriage as between a man and a woman. Nowhere has the United States Supreme Court ever addressed the issue of marriages between members of the same gender.

Marriage.
Is.
A.
Right.

Are we clear on that?

Now, having established marriage as a right, when the issue of same-sex marriage finally reaches the high court, it will be incumbent on the state to justify its compelling reasons for denying the right of certain consenting adults to marry the other consenting adult of their choice. If they fail, all such prohibitions will fall.

Good luck with that. It's coming. Anyone who isn't blind can see it.

[Hoarfrost]

Much to our chagrin most of these people seem to think that laws should be made and interpreted based on their own cultural or sectarian beliefs. Anyone who has been following the Prop 8 case knows how flimsy the arguments are against same-sex marriage. When you ask them to make a case according to the established structure of our legal system w/o using populist catch phrases they turn up empty handed. The only non sectarian arguments they provided were related to childbearing and those didn't stand up to scrutiny.