If "All men are created equal"?

They ARE persons. As are polygamists. Or brothers and sisters.

Prohibiting these persons from marrying has never been held unconstitutional either.

Can you show me where in the Constitution we need to allow same-sex marriage but not marriage involving these other persons?

PS The state has a legitimate interest in public health, among other things. Certain sexual practices are very efficient methods for spreading disease. The Supreme Court recently found sodomy to be a Constitutionally protected right - wrongly, I believe. But it doesn't mean that the state needs to encourage those relationships.

The arguments (below) regarding polygamy and adult incest are similarly unconvincing. There's nothing inherent in polygamy that makes it unequal, although I don't think we need to recognize those relationships either in marriage. And again, using your language of "treating everyone equally," I don't see a health exception that would allow same-sex marriage and not marriage between, say, a post-menoupausal woman and her brother, father or son. And same-sex marriage advocates always say marriage is not for the purpose of childbirth anyway! There's the "yuck" factor, of course - but again no way to apply that to one context and not another, in most cases. So why consider it in one case and not the other? And why ask people to support it with tax dollars - for Social Security, etc.?

I'm on your side on this one. While it's true that marriage isn't mentioned anywhere in The Constitution, that's irrelevant. Marriage exists for people in this country, and what exists for some must exist for all. Can you image, if someone noticed that the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to eat? Then takes it upon himself to say who gets to eat and who starves? Before you tell me that The Constitution guarantees the right to life so that can't happen, stop. The Constitution also guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness, but that doesn't stop some people from saying others can't get married.

You should forget trying to persuade those religious loonies out there. They're too closed minded to do anything but judge. (even though their Bible expressly forbids it) According to their own beliefs they have a hot surprise coming to them. Hopefully in the form of a suppository.

To clear some things up for people who are unfamiliar with the state of law in this country:

Yes, courts have held marriage to be a fundamental right, even though it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

The laws against consanguinity (Relatives marrying) are based on the legitimate state interest in healthy children. The laws against polygamy are based on the legitimate state interest in marriage as a partnership in which all parties are equal.

The legitimate state interest usually cited for preventing gay marriage is to promote children being raised by their biological parents. However, even though this has been accepted by courts, there has been nothing to show that allowing gay marriage would have any effect on straght marriage. The argument that gay marriage will be harmful to straight marriage is nothing short of baseless fear mongering.

The other arguments against gay marriage also fail under examination. The most common is that marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. This is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant, as the concept of homosexuality being a distinct orientation wasn't even recognized until fairly recently in human history, well past the origination of marriage. This is related to the argument that doing so would upset the traditions of marriage. Well, the traditions have changed over time. Marriage was originally unrelated to tweo people who chose to be together. It was originally a means to acquire wealth, property, power or another male to work the farm. Poloygamy was very common in the early days of marriage. It is barely a hundred years in this country since wives became legally individuals instead of virtual property of their husbands. Should we return to these once-cherished traditions?

Any religious rationale should, of course, not affect American laws. This is true because not only do we not base our laws on religion, but because marriage carries with it a long list of legal and civil rights and privileges.

If someone could come up with a logical, ethical, moral argument against it that can stand up to truth and common sense, I'd love to hear it.

Man created God pretty much for the same reason you said.. although if you think about it it could have also been a clever business idea as the founders of the religion would be at the top of the pyramid while the believers would be at the bottom paying for the top of the hierarchy to teach them the word of 'God'. Well that's my opinion anyway!

Hi John !!

You know the answer to this doncha ?

It's implied !! And if you think it's not , then show me 1 gay couple who was legally married prior to . . . oh I don't know , let's say perhaps 1990 !!

Good point though . But I'll be against that notion every time .

Just look at abortion . That got by because it was said and seriously implied that women who had been raped would be helpless . And don't forget the ever present pregnant mom who will die if they give birth . . .. What a crock of sh!t . Pro or Con , there's no way possible to disagree that because abortion became legal , then late-term abortion began being accepted . Ya give an inch and the selfish folk take a mile .

Edit * - Email me when you have a moment . We have something to discuss .

John,

Yeah, bans on marriages, no matter whom (as long as of legal age and consented) makes no sense and can't possibly be supported by our constitution - but that won't stop the religious zealots from working hard to keep the ban alive.

It all comes down to control.

Your entire argument is based on a false premsis.

You said "1), should some citizens be denied the same rights (i.e. gay marriage) that are afforded to others?"

First, show me any law, statute or amendment / paragraph of the U.S. Constitution where "MARRIAGE" is a right.

I'll wait.

Agreed. The amendment isn't going to pass. They had their chance for 6 years, but the amendment proved to be a smokescreen to prevent the religious right from thinking about Iraq. There is probably going to be some significant conservative backlash in the coming years.

okay....well u see.. if u wanna speak bout da american law...urm.. juz imagine what wil happen to this world if we have thousand of men have the same way to govern the world like GEORGE W BUSH.... well F.Y.I.... juz look in the quran back...it explains everything..dont only look at the bible....

Time is a great proponent in any cause that is socially sensitive. How much time elapse must before "color" in our world becomes neutral. Not to mention "race". Let the bigots digest those factors first and then get onto sexual preference. I would say, time will tell.