We have an institution, by the way, it's worldwide, it doesn't just exist for Americans, that allows men and women to marry members of the opposite gender, it has never, ever been construed by a major culture to involve members of the same gender marrying each other.

I'd like for people wishing to do so to attempt to create an institution of their own to avoid corrupting the socially accepted original institution with alien and unwelcome alterations.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

No, OUR system is just for people HERE.

Except in about a dozen other countries right now, and historically it has in some cultures too. We're talking about OUR legal system of marriage, which is not like other ones, especially since other countries do have gender equality in their marriage laws. I mean, for ****'s sake... Mexico and South Africa are more socially advanced than we are right now.

So, create an institution identical to marriage and call it marriage 2.0? Everything identical except the name?

That's pretty ****ing retarded. We already have an institution where men and women are allowed to marry other consenting adults. There's no reason to create another one. We just need to make the current one equal for both genders. There's no reason to have sex/gender discrimination in this day an age, despite what people such as you think and feel about it. I'm quite sure many people felt the same about the "unwelcome alteration" of marriage due to women not being the property of their husbands or of people to different races allowed to marry one another. But guess what? It didn't ****ing matter. This country is about equality and we will have gender equality in our government institutions.

__________________


To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller, is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbors. ~ John Stuart Mill

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks

Apparently I misunderstood your reference to a Constitutional amendment defining marriage. Sorry about that.

In the 2004 Presidential race a gay marriage amendment was characterized as a divisive wedge issue to attract values voters to vote Republican. Yet now the claim is that it would speed legalization of gay marriage. It cannot be both ways. In light of the unblemished success of one man, one woman referendums the weight of evidence contradicts the notion of a Constitutional amendment drive speeding up gay marriage legalization.

Previously the DOJ has abandoned defense of laws because they infringed on the Constitutional powers of the Executive branch. This constraint means nothing to the politicized Obama DOJ eager to subvert a law they do not like. If DOJ has carte blanche to decide which laws will be defended such as the DOMA then we have surrendered a key aspect of the seperation of powers.

Sanctimonious declarations of new rights and radical egalitarian interpretations of equality cannot mask the dictatorial power grab behind the efforts to regularize gay marriage via judicial decree. States are to be deprived of their power to regulate marriage by judicial social engineering in the name of progress. Referendums are trivialized in favor of the "greater good" as defined not at the ballot box but in the courtroom.

Who is actually claiming that a gay marriage amendment would "speed legalization of gay marriage"?

Methinks you are confused...
(Links would be nice for clarification instead of you just repeating what you think somebody said)

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

No problem. Sometimes quoting a post referring to another post referring to a different theme creates some problems...

Indeed, it was. But you would agree that eight years can make a huge different in perception and understanding. In that time marriage has become legal in six states, seven if you count California which violated it's own Constitution and the US Constitution on the whim of a small majority of voters, eight if you count Washington which is in the process of implementing their new marriage law. And then you have Oregon, Nevada, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Maryland which went the Civil Union route back when that was viewed as a "reasonable" compromise without consideration of the Constitution. Illinois as well can be counted amongst that group.

And even amongst the states that have banned marriage, you have the legislatures doing an end-run around the amendments, trying to equalize the law.

I believe so, yes. There are a plethora of Republicans who have come out against a federal amendment to define marriage. Virtually all the Democrats are against it. And when you look at how the support numbers have changed nationally from 2004 to today, you'd see that the numbers have reversed themselves. While in 2004 it would have been possible to pass and get it out and even ratify, you're not going to be able to ratify today.

Oh, it can. It can because what could be done in the past (actually getting it passed) can't be done today. That sort of failure only emboldens those who are against it. And the mere suggestion of bringing it up only makes those opposed to it fight harder.

A lot of psychology is reverse psychology...

And one does as well.

And find to be unConstitutional.

I disagree. The Executive cannot enforce laws that are unConstitutional. This law is unConstitutional with several courts ruling in that fashion.

There is no declaration of a new right. Just the enforcement of an old one...

That already happened. See Loving v. Virginia.

You don't get to vote away fundamental rights. It's contrary to the very fabric of this country and our Constitution.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

Ultimately, if a separate institution is created with the same largely mythical legal protections, it wold make it far easier for normal people to ignore it in their daily lives. This is a highly desirable result.

But as I have said, this is almost entirely an attempt by a behavioral minority
to compel validation from others.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

No dear. I realize that this may be a big blow to your self-aggrandizing mind to find out that your validation is NOT of utmost importance, but let me assure you... it's not. I don't seek, nor do I want or need your validation. Neither does anyone else. All we seek is gender equality within our legal system and that includes marriage laws. You are free to ignore it. We really don't give a ****. Your opinion isn't relevant on the matter.

__________________


To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller, is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbors. ~ John Stuart Mill

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks

I agree that one person's opinion counts little when compared to the majority of voters in 32 states. But gay marriage advocates want to thwart the will of the people claiming a higher authority thanks to a self declared right.

It's not a self declared right. It's a right declared by our Constitution and our Supreme Court.

The government cannot be allowed to discriminate based on gender. And our courts have decided that marriage is a right in this country.

__________________


To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller, is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbors. ~ John Stuart Mill

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks