Casey, you sir have a lot to learn about bigotry. If being a bigot is bigoted, then you’re basically saying one could be a baker and play golf! You can’t do several things at once and still be a proponent of equal rights; it’s logically and ethically unsound. Societies must form together around their core dedication to competition and philanthropy and help those who need it most. Whether those people are blacks, asians or arabs, gay marriage will not help them. We should follow this logic to restructure the tax code, emphasizing competitiveness in relation to Southeast Asia, as well as support for increased naval presence in the Indian Ocean, in anticipation of a proliferation of global problems arising from such things as pestilence, nuclear weaponry, but most prominently, simple immorality. The rampant immorality in the recent presidencies of Carter, Clinton and Ford show that we cannot surrender to these things. That is why we should have social laws that reflect our practical belief in things like competition, fairness, and defense. Defense cannot be forgotten under any circumstance because think about it — if there’s no defense than there’s no law, and then there cannot be fairness. This is very important to remember in gay marriage.

Christians don’t base their assertion of homesexuality as sin off of Leviticus any more than they find it necessary to live by the Levitic code. It’s from the scripture in the New Testament that Christians base their assertion that homosexuality is sin.

That’s the worst fucking fundie logic I’ve ever seen. Gay marriage actually DOES benefit society; there are children who would otherwise have a shitty home, and gay people deserve families too, among other reasons for gay marriage.

Go to Saudi Arabia, you fucking godbot. You and the Muslim fundies would get along.

@2:08,

How quasi-Jim Crow of you. Your veiled attempt to suppress your inate bigotry makes no sense.

Let me bottom line it for - Equal Protection Clause.

Haha! 2:08 criticized a Republican president and didn’t even know it (Ford). I think he meant to include Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal, Nixon’s Watergate, and Bush Jr.’s WHOLE ADMINISTRATION.

But seriously, 2:08, what the hell are you talking about? Try making a cohesive statement.

Casey, slaves were not actually obtained by force. One had to give themselves into slavery or the “slave” was made a slave as a punishment. It’s not like in Africa, where Africans rounded up other Africans and forced them into involuntary servitude for the sole purpose of profit.

Bigotry is defined as a strong bias towords members of your own group. The only way a proponent of gay marriage could be considered a “bigot” is if he/she was gay and wanted the government to ONLY allow gay marriage and ban straight marriage. When African Americans wanted the right to be able to marry interacially, were they being bigots? According to the dictionary, no.

To anonymous at 2:08: Do you seriously have any education at all? I didn’t follow your comment at In the least bit. You seem to glue national defense, the middle east, and someone golfing and baking into an argument against gay marriage?

Marriage is not a right… it’s an incentive for heterosexual couples. The US may not be directly governed by religion, but we are culturally Christian. The Founding Fathers were Christians and used their morals to decide the principles of our nation. Without a strong moral compass, where is the line? Gays are not being oppressed. They are allowed to be gay, have relationships, have children-for the most part, etc. Marriage is an incentive for a man and a woman and gently to suggest a preference to heterosexuality. I suggest before such an article is written… go talk to someone that lived through the civil rights movement. Or go talk to someone that was oppressed before said movement. There’s no comparison and you sound foolish.

well-written, but historically inaccurate. Jefferson was an anomaly among our founders. Nearly every other founder saw great value in a religious populace and wanted to protect churches from being imposed on by government, not eliminating the influence religious people exert on their government. Defining marraige as one man and one woman does not discriminate against gays anymore than minimum age laws discriminate against those in love with minors. Society has the right to encourage some behaviors and the American people have decided to encourage heterosexual monogamy. That does not make them hateful bigots.

It would be wrongheaded to redefine a basic institution of society on the basis of exceptions to the biological and social norm. To say as much is not to express a prejudice, nor to institutionalize some perceived “inequity.” Marriage has always been, and remains, subject to cultural traditions, legal conditions, social approbation and political validation. It is not a right, as some would advocate. I have no more right to marry another man, than I have a right to marry my sister, or a child, or a second wife without divorcing my first, even if any or all of them should consent. In no human culture has marriage ever been a matter of entirely free choice and personal desire. While there have been variations in the cultural and legal constraints on who may marry whom, as a legal and social institution marriage has never been defined outside the context of child-rearing.

Proposals for gay marriage fundamentally redefine the institution of marriage by removing from it not merely one essential element, but indeed the defining characteristic. In place of the anthropological imperative to produce and protect children, gay marriage advocates substitute talk of the individual “rights” of “loving” and “committed” gay couples. Still, such discourse does not reach the main issue. A relationship based on same-sex attraction, even when evolving into a lasting mutual commitment, simply cannot answer the social purpose for which marriage is instituted and legally protected. As a natural fact, the homosexual union is incapable of fulfilling the principal purpose for which marriage was established and legally protected for centuries (under both civil and church law).

In fact, society does have a continuing interest in making sure that traditional marriage is encouraged. Both the stability of marriage and the raising of children should be aided by the laws of the society, if for no other reason than social self-preservation. The preservation of that institution can be aided, but should not be dependent upon, religious recognition. To affirm as much does not make me a bigot.

The real message that ought to be taken away from this column is the immense flaws of democracy. You only have the rights that 50% +1 of the people who vote say you do and as this example proves that’s not much better than only having the rights a king says you have.

Casey makes the point that “equal rights” should not be denied gay couples. Yet, as soon as he defines rights as belonging to couples in relationship (rather than to individuals) he has undermined the basis upon which a comparison with the civil rights movement could possibly stand. Issues of voting rights, public accommodations, school desegregation, all dealt with rights denied to INDIVIDUALS on the basis of their color.

If we define “rights” as the possession of couples or groups of people (rather than individual entitlements), then upon what ground can you deny the “right” of anyone to marry three or ten or fifty people at the same time? If it is clear to you that our laws ought to confine marriage to a relationship between TWO people (whether gay or straight), aren’t you, then, also a “bigot”?

As for the Bible, isn’t interesting that those who want to keep religious opinion out of politics (even as they draw comparisons with the civil rights movement) forget how fundamentally RELIGIOUS and BIBLICAL were both the Anti-slavery movement and the Civil Rights movement. Should those Biblically-informed opinions also have been silenced? Or, is it only those religious views with which you disagree that don’t belong in our political discourse?

2:08am, that is the most insane, inchoherent thing I’ve ever read.

2:08—are you high? what? i have no idea what you’re trying to say.

So daddy should be able to marry his little girl and mommy her son? Brother and sister should be able to marry?

Anything less is taking away their equal rights, right?

bigotory - strong opposition towards your own group. so heterosexuals aren’t bigots because they’re not homosexual. this alludes that we are separate people, the same as blacks are different from whites are different from latinos are different from asians are different from russians are different from whatever other category you can derive. but hey! here’s a quick tidbit for you that you might have forgotten … we’re all humans first and foremost. and this is about HUMAN rights. therefore, yes, the religious right are being bigots since they are infringing on the rights of their fellow humans.

furthermore I’m pretty sure this was explained but I’ll just recapitulate for good measure: by denying homosexuals the ability to marry, we deprive them of 1,000 legal benefits. Not 10 … not 100 … 1,000. A thousand. Now, while legal benefits in and of themselves may not be “rights” this is still a system of privilege to heterosexual couples and any system of privilege has its counterpart that gets trampled along the way. Arguments against gay marriage favor the fact that gays cannot produce children together. This may be so, but I’m sure that many of the couples would love to get their hands on some of the children sitting in our orphanages and foster homes (a system which has, if you didn’t already know, gone quite downhill and which shouldn’t, for the most part, accept new children because they’re already struggling to find enough places for the ones they do have) and make these children a part of their families. This would actually benefit society by giving homes to these children and raising them in an environment much alike the heterosexual family (which is the favored method of such) but of course with two fathers, or two mothers. And since the lines on mom and dad get muddled we cannot support such an institution. This argument against gay marriage on family fundamentals really makes no sense to me.

Down to the wire: If this nation is about equality then privilege cannot be present in the social, legal, and private aspects of the state.

Is anyone interested in playing “culture war for dummies”? Too late, you’re already playing, dummy.

@1047 ignoring the massive amount of religious people and communities who were anti-abolition and/or anti-civil rights movement, your argument has zero logic. Whether or not some religious people did the right thing in the past for equal rights does not then automatically mean that whatever those people do in the future will be the right thing. If marriage is a religious institution than it has no business being regulated by the government period. And there should only be civil unions, however, as long as marriage remains a legal contract religion has no business in it. @10:47 again, there is no reason to encourage “traditional” marriage over “non-traditional”. Gays being allowed to adopt and reducing the number of children in the foster care system is better for society. Allowing all to have equal protection and gays to be able to let partners be made will beneficiaries and pension beneficiaries is good for all. Encourage a traditional marriage syste which has more than a 50% failure rate is ridiculous. Let people marry who they want if both are consenting.
also, two people who are siblings cant marry because of the side effects that would be caused in resulting children although that doesnt keep the bible from having that, is that then traditional? An animal cannot consent to marriage and neither can a child, in both ways you are forcing yourself on an unconsenting being (not trying to say that pedophilia and bestiality or even close to the same thing though).

Hey everyone, the economy is collapsing and you’ll probably be in a soup line in 6 months, but at least you have gay marriage to ponder while Rome burns.