The stigma of homosexualty will be a shadow of itself within 30 years. Nearly gone. Picture the difference in racial prejudice from 1960 to 2010. Now put gay-straight strife on that same path, but it's already 20 years in at least. 30 years and most of the views on this board will be in the ground, and we'll be better for it. We'll also have collapsed into civil war over impossible government promises, debt, and a police state. So, we'll be worse for that...

No, I didn't flip flop. My position all along is the ETHICAL answer is to treat all marriages (or civil unions, pick your term) the same way under the law. Gay couple, straight couple, whatever. It's a blanket contract that allows certain defaults in other laws to take effect without explicitly filling out ziillions of other legal agreements to ensure power of attorney, etc. My second position is that if you study the Constitution, it's not a federal issue. Except that overreach has the feds specifying a ton of things about marriage already, so there may be a federal component for federal stuff beyond granular state laws.

Likewise, no reason to fuel animosity that will eventually have class preferences for gays, like hiring preferences and quotas, and college admission advantages. That crap is coming, and we'll have a much better chance of stopping it if principled people on the right support what is ethical and fair. Keep supporting the unfair and there will be enough of them in the Democratic party bloc to stick it to us breeders. We have a chance to embrace principled liberty and get some new votes. Let's do what's right and it's win-win.

I'd tune in. If people would change all the wording in all the laws, giving gay and straight couples the exact same priveleges, you could call it rugrumpstuppen instead of marriage. (Though that does sound a little too German, but whatever.) I wouldn't care. People can call it marriage in their churches. Leave it out of the laws. The point is, consenting adult gays harm no one. Maybe they offend God, but that's up to God to decide, not men. No harm, no crime, no reason for the law to disfavor them.

I think that is what is ETHICAL. As for law, it's not a federal issue directly, it can only be a federal issue where various federal laws apply to marriage. That stuff gets messy. When most federal laws are already unConstitutional, how do you deal with the effect of one thing on a bunch of others that are already wrong (say, violating the 10th Amendment, which most do.)

LOL, now that is funny. Here's the problem. If you let gays marry, or if you strike marriage from all laws and convert it all to civil unions, or floobs, or whatever you call it, then the priveleges under law can be the same. If you don't, they'll NEVER be the same. No way. So I don't care which it is, but make the effect of the law the same for gay couples and straight, and I'll live with whatever word anyone picks.

That' "not really'" interested argument is at best irrelevant and at most misleading. If I want to protest Obama and I'm the only one, my lack of company is no reason to use force of law to stop me from excersising the right. Further, there are PLENTY of gays who are passionate about the issue. To deny that is utter nonsense.

Again, I think the notion of DOMA pushing it to the states IS the right Constitutional approach. I also think allowing gays to marry is the right approach for any state law, as it is the ethical answer from NATURAL LAW.

Time out. I have advocated ZERO specific legal remedies. And as such, I have defined no specific judicial level at which those remedies would be enacted. I DON'T think marriage is a federal issue, except indirectly, by things like Article 4 Section 1.. Though by your point, it becomes interesting to assess whether states that DO opt for gay marriage should have that recognized in other states that do not. The Consititution has potential for some interesting conflicts.

By the way, I'm not even saying homosexuality doesn't offend God. It may. Who am I to judge? Who are ANY of us to judge? That's the point. Man's law should confine itself to things men can objectively assess. What offends God is beyond that, by definition. So let's stick to laws that only act against those who take the life, liberty, or property of others. And leave the other judgements to Him.