Yeah, just like Cheney resigned from Halliburton a long time ago.

Yes, the people do vote on rights issues all the time, however there is a difference between upholding the right for all Americans to own a gun (for instance) and the struggle for a minority to gain the same rights that all other American are free to enjoy.

All the Supreme Court of Mass. did in 2003 was to declare that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. Yes, that affects how the other branches have to redesign certain county code, but that’s only because the Court decision means those laws were unconstitutional, not suddenly, but always were. The Court did their job, and that forces the other branches to do theirs. They made an unpopular decision because the current system infringed on the civil rights of a minority. That’s enlightened leadership. Compare that to forcing a bill through Congress to allow torture and revoke Geneva Convention rights, and I think you may see where the “fine” line is.

“Where do you get this stuff? It was granted. Show us where it was ‘acknowledged.’”

I call it acknowledged because equal rights are something I believe all people have, but are unfortunately not recognized by all laws. And as I stated above, the blocking gay marriage was always unconstitutional, but it took the Supreme Court to acknowledge that and enforce the constitutional law.

Irrelavent and misunderstood. First, it shouldn’t make a difference using the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause when it comes to “breaking a vow,” now should it? This is as arbitrary a line as man-woman “marriage” and man-man “marriage,” is it not? Second, similarly, it shouldn’t matter using equal protection what two adults wish to do with their lives. I’m sure there are studies that show the optimal home for children is a heterosexual marriage as opposed to a homosexual one … so?

When the vow is also a legal contract between two people that con only be truly broken by a court proceeding (divorce), then it does make a difference, because two laws are conflicting. Hence, that is not an arbitrary point.

“That’s right — you haven’t. Which is very convenient, isn’t it? And it in no way “derails” the topic at hand. You just don’t want to address the very relevant questions that are associated with the issue.”

It does derail the conversation because we’re talking about the rights of gays to marry in Massachusetts, not about the psychological affect of a polygamous relationship on one of its members, or the choice of an incestuous couple to have children. I’m afraid that you are trying to attack my credibility in this argument by my lack of consideration of issues that have little relation to the actual topic other than the fact that they may be covered under the same US Constitutional Amendment.

“This is ridiculous hyperbole. If gays are granted the right to civil unions, this satisfies the equal protection argument while preserving a thousands + year old tradition of man-woman marriage.”

I’m sorry, Hube, spearate but equal did not work for women and it it wont work for gays. Let’s also not ignore that marriage has been in a state of almost constant evolution since its inception, and not a tradition set in stone when the concept was born.

“They’re only so b/c you can’t — or won’t — address them, as you pretty much admitted anyhow.”

This has been addressed.

“First, marriage has been defined as a “civil right” only by you and some others. I might as well claim owning a playstation as a “civil right.” Second, the people vote on all sorts of “rights” matters constantly, so your claim is specious on its face. Look at what just happened in Michigan. They voted to ban affirmative action. Did they vote to rescind minorities’ “civil rights”?”

As marriage grants certain legal and social benefits such as tax breaks, and it’s denial makes one citizen less than equal in the eyes of the law, it is a civil rights issue to deny that to a minority. As for the playstation (I thought you disliked hyperbole), it would be a rights issue if gays were not allowed to have one, just as it would be if blacks were not allowed to chew gum, or if women were not allowed to hopscotch to work. As affirmative action does not apply to current civil rights issues, but the compensation for previous violations, I’m not sure how your Michigan point relates. However, I will answer the question by saying No, I don’t believe that rescinds minorities civil rights, because affirmative action gives preferential treatment to a minority.

Do you happen to be a lawyer? You seem to have a pretty damn invariant self-assured but totally inconsistent view of what is and what is not the law. Just curious who died and made you legal God?

Defining marriage as non-gay unions is not a civil right nor legally defensible despite all your somersaults and backtracking.

Wrong. You insist on injecting views which I presume I hold onto me. Once again, if civil unions carry all the legal rights as marriage, the question is moot. Defining gay unions as “marriage” is not a civil right despite all your hooting and hollering.

Um, I just did. For both.

This might be unclear. By this I mean I’ve made clear that claiming the term “marriage” is a “civil right” is silly.

When you can make one valid civil or legal justification for NOT granting equal civil rights in marriages at law to two consenting adults, without gender classifications, then I am glad to hear you.

Um, I just did. For both.

Otherwise save your Tom Crow law exceptions (separate but equal)
for the fools still stuck in the 19th century.

Gee, that really got me. Ouch.

Traditions (like slavery once was) be damned, if they impede the basic civil rights of any person. Remember, civil rights are human rights.

Not being called “marriage” is not a civil right. If gay people are granted civil union recognition and are equal before the law with married hetero couples, the question is moot. Making a claim that the term “marriage” must be utilized b/c it’s a “civil right” is just plain laughable. Again, I might as well claim that it’s a civil right for me to own a playstation.

BTW — personally, I could give a hairy bongo if gays have civil unions or even “marry.” It ain’t gonna affect me one way or another. But, as I’ve seen many times, the “arguments” here just use epithets, overheated talk about “civil rights” and refuse to address other pertinent equal protection queries.