In response to:

Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage

44thWhitePrez Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 3:47 PM
"Is it fair to continue to deprive these people of the right to marry one another? " Yes. There is NO right to marry. It is privilege for which you must meet certain conditions.
nawlins72 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 6:30 PM
"Yes. There is NO right to marry. It is privilege for which you must meet certain conditions."

Correct. And since all privileges are grants of the State and the State changes over time, then there is nothing that precludes the State from loosening the restrictions. But since conservatives WANT marriage to be governed by the State, then they have to deal with the consequences.
Beethovens10th Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 8:09 PM
Marriage isn't "governed" by the state, it is merely recognized for very good reasons.

It's like scientists recognized gravity in crafting inventions that harnessed it. Does that mean that scientists "govern" gravity?
pastorial Wrote: Oct 31, 2012 9:38 AM
mulbery Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 3:52 PM
44th white prex you are categorically incorrect. As far as the laws of the nation go, the only criteria that would apply is that a person has to be able to give consent. So they have to be 18 and able to express themselves legally. Other than that, there are no conditions according to the US constitution. The consittuion makes it remarkably clear that any and all Americans are afforded the same rights and privelages, and that no one can precluide those rights. Those who are against gay marriage are about to find themselves on the wrong side of history.
Jay Wye Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 3:59 PM
Homos already HAVE -equal- right to marriage;
they can marry another person of the opposite sex the same as any other person.
That IS the definition of "marriage";man-woman,it's been that way for several thousand years.

This is all about the REDEFINITION of "marriage" to be something it's never been,and thus FORCING other states to recognize the abomination via Article IV,sec 1.
Homos are seeking SPECIAL rights and the reordering of US society to suit their agenda and mental illness.
Bill1895 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 4:00 PM
Jay Wye Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 4:00 PM
Of course,some people IGNORE the second part of Article IV,sec 1;
"and the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,Records,and Proceedings shall be proved,and the Effect thereof."
Congress "prescribed the manner" by enacting DOMA.
THAT alone allows DOMA to be Constitutional.

Congress is SPECIFICALLY given the power to decide,and they did.
The Original King Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 4:04 PM
Mulbery..........you're spot on regarding being on the wrong side of history. It's only a matter of time. In addition to the fact that the future voters/pols overwhemingly do NOT think there is anything wrong with SSM, there is also the factor of, when and where SSM is being allowed, the "fence sitters" will, over time, realize that the sky does not fall and there are, in fact, few (if ANY) negative ramifications
Bill1895 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 4:05 PM
Wow Orignal: you have a crystal ball; who will win the next three Super Bowls?
44thWhitePrez Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 4:15 PM
In nearly all states:

1) one man and one woman
2) both must be 18 or over (or have been given consent of a guardian)
3) neither can be currently married
4) neither can be closely blood-related.

So we're changing #1. Why not the others, and which "category" was I incorrect in again? BTW, "rights" are not the same as privileges. Privileges can be revoked. And I think I'll be just fine being on the "wrong" side of 10,000 years of history.
Milt37 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 4:19 PM
Mulbery,

You are categorically stupid!

The US Constitution has nothing to say about marriage. That is something left to each state. Since the age of consent in each state is different, you are again, categorically stupid.

Since there are no such words in the English language as "privelages" or "precluide", I'm assuming you were on the wrong side of history when it came to graduating sixth-grade.

If I didn't make my self clear, let reiterate, you are categorically (and probably dysfuntionally) stupid.
Illbay Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 4:19 PM
So tell me this: Why in all of recorded history, has NO SOCIETY IN THE WORLD ever come up with the idea that two men or two women ought to marry?

I mean, even in societies such as ancient Greece where homosexuality was accepted, everyone married a member of the opposite sex in order to procreate. They would bugger their buddies in the gymnasium or foxhole, and go home and make babies with their wives.

Why do Leftards completely dismiss the obvious argument "against," that no one has ever even CONSIDERED a right for two members of the same sex to marry?
Jay Wye Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 4:40 PM
in some US states,the age of consent is as low as 14.

FYI,Woody Allen married his adopted daughter Soon Yi.(as an adult)
anonymous3218 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 5:33 PM
So, if you're 18 and able to express yourself legally, you can marry your sibling or first cousin, if that sibling or first cousin is also 18 and able to express him/herself legally? Really? How about a parent and his/her 18 year old child? Seems to me there are a few conditions that prevent these combinations and some others along the same lines. Gays can have their civil unions and all that implies. Fine. But redefining marriage goes too far. Sorry.

Next week voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington will vote on whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

Given that there are good people on both sides of this issue, how are we to explain their opposing views?

The primary explanation is this: Proponents and opponents ask two different questions.

Proponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman fair to gays? Opponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is same-sex marriage good for society?

Few on either side honestly address the question of the other side. Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge...