When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences.
One of these is the fact that in most states, we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?

Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair?

If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. In court cases, a partner's testimony can be simply ruled irrelevant as heresay by a hostile judge, having no more weight in law than the testimony of a complete stranger. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied on the whim of a hostile family and the cooperation of a homophobic judge, unrestrained by any law or precedent. Conjugal visits, a well-established right of heterosexual married couples in some settings, are simply not available to gay couples. Is this fair?

These are far from being just theoretical issues; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you numerous horror stories of friends and acquaintences who have been victimized in such ways. One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Why, as a supposedly advanced society, should we continue to tolerate this kind of injustice?

These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper.

Bullshit answer...

Unless you are also an advocate of incestual marrige and having multiple spouses...

Are you?...

Bacause I'd like to see how you could believe two people of the same sex can marry but not two people of the same bloodline...

That wouldn't be "equal protection" and it sure sounds like "discrimination" to me...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.

If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.

Doesn't work...

A "civil right" is something that is inalianable...the government can't give it to you and the government can't remove it...

The fact that the government can regulate ANY hospital from giving info to ANYBODY shows that it isn't a "civil right"...

Which is my whole point...people throw the term "civil right" as meaning "any friggin' privilege bestowed on the general public that comes down the pike"...

Which is false and an affront to actual constitutional law...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

So by what you are saying, black people were in the wrong to ask for their civil rights to be protected?

Depends on what they're asking...Not everything is a civil right...

Their civil rights should be 100% protected...But not everything one CALLS a "civil right" is actually a civil right...

So if ANY group wants 15 things, but only 8 of them are legitimate civil rights, then those 8 should be GUARENTEED under the constitution...

But the other 7 AREN'T guaranteed and should be debated and legislated...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Marriage is a right. You have the right to get married. Saying that you cannot marry another man is gender discrimination. cnredd, you are being discriminated against, yet because it does not effect you, you don't care.

Incest is illegal, homosexuality is not. Before incestuous marriage could even be brought up in a debate, the legality of said relationship would have to be challenged. Legalizing same sex marriage would give incestuous relationships no more of a foothold towards legality than they already have.

Beastiality is also illegal. Polygamy breaks the rules... marriage is between two people. Personally, I would have no problem with legalizing polygamy, but it is a non-issue.

Supreme Court “ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... ” The rest of teh quote goes on to talk about inter-racial marriage... but what is truly important in this context is the defining of marriage as a civil right.

__________________
some days you're the dog, some days you're the hydrant

http://www.marchforbabies.com/chuck725 ... helping babies born prematurely and with birth defects

Once I got to this flagrant unconstitutional lie, nothing else needs to be said...You are exactly proving my point...

People are under the impression that that there are "rights" when, in actuality, there is no such thing...

A "right" is something ALL people have...

But I think you'd agree that a brother and sister are not AFFORDED those same rights...thereby making your statement a fallacy...

Now if you said "Marriage is a right. You have the right to get married EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN INSTANCES", then you'd have a point...

But that would also prove it's not a right...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

First of all, Arnold is an extremely good politician and that is why I can't believe anti-gay legislation in his state would have clear majority approval. Also he worked in Hollywood for many years and has become an acquaintance and friend of many "dramatic types" if you will. I think he was waiting for the right time or the last minute to back what he feels is the correct side in this argument. Probably had to hand out some goobers to the ultra conservative wing of his party and now feels he's free to take action. I don't doubt the Log Cabin Republicans and other activists played a role in his decision. But he is a good player, as I said, and would not come away from the table with nothing. I don't know what his long term plans are- whether they involve a run for other state office or maybe he has a favorite he will back in a future senatorial or presidential race. But he will have a vast coalition in the gay activists who are watching.
As for the constitutionality argument..pursuit of happiness...are the words that come to my mind in relation to gay marriage as a "right".
We straight people have all known gays and maybe we approved or maybe we didn't. But there is a truth that a smart judge will not ignore. A person (Larry Craig?) who lives a lie cannot even begin to pursue the happiness others take for granted.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. To me it is just a pastime. To others, I am beginning to understand, it is much more than that.

__________________
Consumption is indeed important in a free economy: particularly the freedom of consumers to buy their goods in unhampered markets. However, key to long-term economic growth is investment (savings), which is the opposite of consumption. Public policies that promote consumption — such as low interest rates — do so at the expense of savings. Less savings means less investments; an economy that does not save or invest will consume all of its resources and eventually end up bankrupt.-David Saied

You should have kept reading... to the part where I showed that the Supreme court says that marriage is an inalienable right.

Incestuous relationships are illegal. Homosexual relationships are not. Comparing the two is apples and oranges.

I had a point, you just don't like it.

__________________
some days you're the dog, some days you're the hydrant

http://www.marchforbabies.com/chuck725 ... helping babies born prematurely and with birth defects