They are contantly, desperately peddling a narrative that is an odd echo of the GOPs "back to the 50s" mantra. Media saturation, smartphones, congressmen and zumba instructors sexting each other- all doom riddled signs of the apocalypse which must be effecting some horrific brain changes on the humanimal.

I look at the sea change around attitudes towards equal rights for LGBT citizens, among other things, and posit that the opposite is taking place.

Here's a great example from Mark Morford as read by Mike Malloy:

http://server4.whiterosesociety.org/content/malloy/MalloyMemories/Mike_Reads_Mark_Morford.mp3

Still, the "conventional wisdom" (for what thats worth) around the 2004 election was that it was driven by "values voters" opposed to gay marriage, among other things.

States should NOT be allowed to decide issues of equality! Marriage is recognized by the FEDERAL law. I should not have to go from state to state and hope they will recognize my marriage. My relationship not have the same fucking status as a driver's license! I shouldn't have to worry if I live in one state "everything is cool," but if I have to move to another then my property, money, and for some, children, can be stripped BY THE STATE! I shouldn't have to worry that any old relative can come out of the woodwork and destroy my life should my partner, G-d forbid, die.

I am glad you are voting for Obama, but don't think for a minute that MY CIVIL RIGHTS should be at the whim of any state!

But a domestic partnership between a man and a woman is the relationship which a state can define as a marriage. It is only a word, why fight over it. It is a subset of the set "domestic partnership'. The greater set "domestic partnerships" has equal legal, economic, and social rights for all.

You and your ilk are the ones who are fighting over the word! What I and those like me want are that LGB relationships are treated EQUALLY! This means my relationship status doesn't have to be re-registered every time I move. This means my relationship status is not questioned if I am on vacation in another state and my partner needs medical attention. This means my relationship status is guaranteed the over 1400 federal tax breaks that heterosexual couples get. This means my relationship status protects our finances and all that entails.

Separate is NOT equal!

What makes you better than the LGBT community?

And as to the the part that it should be dealt with on a local level is pure BULLSHIT! I should have the same rights in New York as I do in Mississippi!

If you have a problem understanding that, you are either really ignorant or really bigoted. Which is it?

NO EXCEPTIONS!

It's legalized apartheid limiting the freedom of a minority, just as different drinking fountains were.

Plus, it's a matter of basic human decency - until you get that, you're a bigot.

As a matter of fact, I view marriage as a religious choice.

Being single myself, I wonder why married people should have separate rights than single people.

And if I were to marry, that would be between me and my God; the state should but out.

In any event, we would not want individual states to decide which religions to worship, would we?

I've spent hiding under the bed from the gay marriage bogey man has been for naught? Well don't I just feel silly.

Fortunately it looks like at least 3 of the gay marriage laws are going to pass this year. Which will be big as they will be the first states to pass it via election. Progress, albeit slow, will help to push toward the day when gay marriage will be legal everywhere.

As in, if the people down the street from you are gay and they want to get married, or if they're a pregnant woman who wants an abortion, or they're terminally ill and they want a pain free exit on their own terms, or if they're consenting adults who want to smoke pot in the privacy of their own home, how about you get all "local level is better" to the maximum, and realize that it's not any of your business to use laws to try to stop it?


Beyond that, though, your argument falls apart. Basic rights are not -and should not be- up for majority vote. The same "states rights" arguments you're using against gay marriage equality were once used against interracial marriage. Sorry, but the people who feel like it's their problem, that it somehow interferes with their life, if their gay neighbors get married and CALL IT A MARRIAGE.. they need to grow the fuck up.

I don't care where they live, it's no excuse.

As in, if the people down the street from you are gay and they want to get married. They can have a Domestic Partnership ceremony and celebration. This can have all the "rights" of a marriage, just the document from the state is a "Certificate of Domestic Partnership." Why fight over the usage of a word as long as the rights are equal.

I agree the government should not be involved except for the legal consequences. Therefore there must be a way a committed relationship is recognized. But there is no reason to call it a marriage.

Another example, a woman has the basic human right of control over her own body. Yet at what point is that group of cells growing in her womb become a human being, entitled to legal rights? Since there is no single scientific answer to this question, it must be left up to the states based on local values. Common sense tells me that if a woman's life or health is in danger, at any point in a pregnancy, the decision have an abortion, is entirely up to her. This includes a pregnancy caused by rape or incest since it impacts a woman's mental health. The right to life of an actual person always outweigh the right to life of a potential person. The state must not interfere with any decision she makes about having an abortion. But other than this, abortion should be subject to state law, not federal law. If a state is too restrictive she can always cross state lines.

some people?

I agree it's semantics, if there truly is no function difference between a domestic partnership (legally) and a civic "marriage" (sometimes there is) then what is the problem with calling it "marriage"? I'm not in favor of making meaningless semantic accommodations for bigots.

As for abortion; I am familiar with the nuances of the philosophical debate, however, you have not offered any reasoning as to WHY it is supposedly superior to have "states decide" these things than a blanket decision by the Federal government (i.e. Roe v. Wade) that it is a matter of a woman's privacy. If individuals can and do have differing ideas about abortion and whether or not a fertilized egg is immediately a "person", then why not leave it up to the individual, i.e. the pregnant woman.

abortion rights? "she can always cross state lines" is not so simple for many. When I was a youngster they were legally available only in NY and CA. Being in the center of the country, we had an "unwed mother's home" in my city. And illegal abortions.

Roe v Wade is also about equal rights, but along the line of income/power based.

If "marriage" is only a word, then why argue to restrict it?

Very well said!

These are ALL local referendums. This is also an example of the shit that happens when religious notions inform law. Marriage is a religious institution and should never have been codified, but it was and now we have this, so let anyone marry.

I have already voted Yes on 6 in Md.

Before Christ and Christianity, there are recorded same-sex marriages. This is a right people once had before Christianity spread across the Roman culture and the rest of the world.

We shouldn't be creating laws, at any level, based on religious beliefs because I guarantee you, my religious beliefs, or non-belief, do not match up with anyone who uses religion as an excuse to discriminate or treat people badly.

The Constitution affords us freedom of religion but it also offers freedom FROM religion. So people who feel "marriage" should be something reserved only for straight people have every right to believe that but they do NOT have the right to make that belief a law because you're not only discriminating against me because I'm gay but you're also taking away my freedom FROM religion.

Thank you. Voting NO in Minnesota.

We're keeping our fingers crossed.

Both same-sex and opposite-sex partners having with the same rights under the law. I think the term "marriage" is so grounded into our cultural psyche as being superior to a domestic partnership but legally speaking, that's what a marriage truly is. If you want to call your union a "marriage" for religious reasons or romantic reasons, fine, do it, but under the law they should all be called domestic partnerships..

I can call my dirty ol' egg-suckin' DOG "Marriage"... and if that offends some people, I suggest they ALL get in line and kiss my ass til' there's a hole in my pants... at which time I will happily change into new clothes, and they can all get started again.
It's a LONG line. I'd suggest such interested parties bring something to read while waiting.
These semantic arguments are loaded. The undertones of fear, loathing and a sense of pious superiority are obvious, as is the obsessive need to control and suppress that which is not well-understood by some, since understanding would have to be preceded by an open and honest examination of something they refuse to even look at, or address with any semblance of respect, despite thousands of years of historical evidence that homosexuality and transsexuality are NORMAL and ever-persistent variants of human sexual behavior.
It's queer-baiting, pure and simple.
I know we're not on opposite sides here, and your post seems well-intended to my view... just sayin'.

Rather than play semantic games to accomodate the snuffly feelings of bigots with too much time on their hands, people need to grow up and just deal with the idea of LGBT Marriage.

Yes, Marriage.

Well said and wishing I could rec your reply.