Same-Sex Marriage: Divorcing personal beliefs from the law?

No, you can't expect a bigot filled with that much emotionally based hatred to just turn it off an vote based on logic and reasoning. If they were capable of thinking (if even for just a moment) instead of giving in to a knee jerk emotional response, that hatred would have already been diminished.

While I am one of those people that loath the nanny state antics that our government has been pulling as of late, (read: I don't need big brother to tell my kid she can't have a Happy Meal, that's my job) I do believe that this is one of those instances where the government does need to step in and say "No, you can't vote to deny someone equal rights". They did it in the 60s regarding interracial marriages and they need to do it now regarding same-sex marriage (then they can shut the f--- up again :D )

btw: great article about this actually being an issue of sex discrimination.

Maybe you don't really know as much about legal arguments as you think you do. In terms of how the US Supreme Court has been explaining it's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, there are at least two different levels the courts use to scrutinize the justifications that government offers in defense of its laws that "discriminate." First of all, laws that "discriminate" against gay people are NOT presumptively unacceptable. The burden is not on the government to prove that the laws are "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling purpose," which is the standard that the courts apply to racially discriminatory laws. Therefore, instead, the legal standard that should be applied is the "rational basis test," in which case the government only has the burden to demonstrate that the classification at issue is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. If there is ANY rational justification for the law, no matter how much you make think that it is tenuous, then the law must be upheld. My argument for any state law that bans gay marriage is the point you talked about in #3: straight couples can naturally reproduce and gay couples do not. Any rational and unbiased person can see that heterosexual coupling can and OFTEN does lead to reproduction, but homosexual coupling never does. You were quick to point out the exceptions to my general statement about the frequency with which heterosexuals reproduce. Exceptions to the generalization never do matter when the *rational basis test* is the legal standard that is applied by courts.

Your argument makes no sense because you are arguing potatos and apples.

Let me first say that I have no issue with gay marriage...marriage as a legal institution should be open to consenting adults regardless of gender or orientation. It is a legal establishment and the Bible has no place in governmental law. I say this as a Catholic and a Christian......

Now, the Church, which is run on the Bible should have the right to say they will not perform the sacrament of marriage for a gay couple. This is a religious freedom issue.

Here's where your argument makes no sense....there is no biblical basis for saying races should not intermarry....in fact, people were often commanded to marry among others in the Bible...when they were told not to marry among the people, it was a religious matter..not to marry non-believers.

There are many references in the Bible that are against homosexuality....and some against cheeseburgers and some that say you should stone people who work on Sunday.....but there is nothing in the Bible that supports your race argument.

Again, I believe that gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to enter a marriage as a legal contract with the same rights and obligations as straight couples. A city clerk, court or other government establishment should not be able to refuse a gay couple, however a chuch should be as this is a religious matter.

I thought christianity was suposed to teach you to make others happy, even if it implies not obeying a myth book to make thousands of people happier with who they love.

Learnn to have your own opinions, you are letting yourselves being controlled by the religions if you do everything they tell you to do. Don't you see how you have no free judgement? You don't even ask yourselves "what would God want". Instead, you do whatever your rulers (priests, pastors, etc.) say.

Just as a note:

I can marry someone of the same gender in my country. The definition of marriage is still the same. Homosexuality isn't taught at schools. The heterosexual married couples continued living as before, and their marriage isn't less important than before. We still penalize pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia, and polygamy and incest are still considered wrong.

Nothing changed around here, except for the fact that some people can now marry who they love.

Same sex couples deserve the same rights as any other couple. Every couple should be equal in the eyes of the law.

To people who defend the "traditional" definition of marriage, this means you want marriage to be a trade, in which the girl's parents change their daughter for money/other goods, and the husband gains a slave to serve him, raise his sons and take care of his home.

Actually the comparison is one of the most-valuable comparisons used to support same-sex marriage: Such segregation is "reprehensible" especially in a nation where 'all men are created equal'. Even more-so, it's "because they're the exact same arguments" that those who are pro-same-sex-marriage use the comparison.

This means, because personal beliefs ARE able to be separated from the social/legal realm, the former is the most logical. And to show how, I oppose both smoking and drinking, seeing them as disgusting habits. But if people want to smoke or drink, I have no problem in them doing so.

Same thing with tastes in books, clothes, games, and people. Who am I to tell someone that I don't know that they can't do something they do that at most minimally affects me?

The problem with it is that most people who oppose same-sex marriage, as with most people who opposed racial equality, is that to them their fundamental beliefs must not be questioned or else they have nothing. This has the bigot create a mental block where he will not allow himself to divorce his personal opinions from its legal/social aspect. And until he gets rid of the mental block, he will never allow them to be divorced no matter how possible it is that they can be divorced.

Morality and personal beliefs are not the same thing. Those who label as "immoral" others who disagree with their beliefs are simply bullies, usually ignorant ones at that.

Bear with me here:

1960s: Inter-racial marriage is an abomination.

2000s: Same-sex marriage is an abomination.

2020s???: Marriage between a 12-year-old and a 40-year-old is an abomination.

In my view, you can either agree/disagree with all three or with none at all. But you can't pick and choose. You have to have the fortitude to define any individual, regardless of race, sexual-orientation, age, intelligence, or genetic ability to withstand the ebola virus, as an individual equal to all others. Legally. Are you willing to to that? I hope so.

Personal beliefs (religious, financial, aesthetic, psychopathic or otherwise) will always be there. The greatest individuals will _always_ see above these artifacts. Of course yesterday, gays were barely considered human so gay marriage was not an issue. Homosexuality was a diagnosed disease. Today it is paedophilia. (Note that both of these were widely accepted in centuries past.) What will be the "mental disease" of tomorrow? Resistance to authority and so-called government? The ability to think for oneself?

To answer your question, you have to consider who _makes_ the laws. Yesterday it was the people. Today it is a minority. Tomorrow is just scary. I don't think there _is_ a difference between moral rights and legal rights. There can't be. Unfortunately, those with the strong, offensive knee-jerk beliefs (passed off as morality) are now positioning themselves to be able to create the law to back up and enforce their beliefs. It's offensive. And amoral.

Usually bigots like the personality you described above are extremely close-minded. That being said, they don't think past the "I HATE THIS, IT'S BAD" part. They don't respect those who are different from them, and they're not going to give it a second thought.

You're really looking too far into this, lol. Most people who hate gays aren't going to go all Barney and say, "Well, I may not like it, but everyone's different and should be treated equally. Let's hug it out."

That's simply not realistic.

I'm only going to say that most who oppose gay marriage do so because the Bible teaches against homosexuality. But the Bible does not speak against interracial marriage.

Too much for me to read and understand but I agree to same sex marriages. What I find strange is that fewer heterosexuals want to marry but just live together and that more gay people want to marry.

Using reason on trolls and bigiots is like putting out a fire with napalm.

@Mesanger of God: Are Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire and The District of Columbia not part of your America? They allow gay marriage after all.