Gay rights, or states rights?

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - ‪SA@TAC - Gay Rights or States' Rights?‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGfEKoYrNMQ)

[BlackTerrel]

All I know is when I went to the voting booth here in CA I voted on whether or not gay marriage should be legal in the state of California.

Now recently one gay judge overturned the ruling.

What the fuck is the point of voting if one gay judge has more power than the 17.3 million Californians who voted in 2008?

Just be honest and upfront with us and tell us that our views don't count and that gay marriage will be legal whether we like it or not. Will save us all the debate, time, effort and tens of millions of dollars spent on this issue. If you're going to steal my vote at least be fucking honest about it. Lying only makes it that much worse.

[Matt Collins]

All I know is when I went to the voting booth here in CA I voted on whether or not gay marriage should be legal in the state of California.

Now recently one gay judge overturned the ruling.

What the fuck is the point of voting if one gay judge has more power than the 17.3 million Californians who voted in 2008?

Just be honest and upfront with us and tell us that our views don't count and that gay marriage will be legal whether we like it or not. Will save us all the debate, time, effort and tens of millions of dollars spent on this issue. If you're going to steal my vote at least be fucking honest about it. Lying only makes it that much worse.Except that isn't something the government shouldn't be involved in, much less put up to a vote. :)

[Kludge]

All I know is when I went to the voting booth here in CA I voted on whether or not gay marriage should be legal in the state of California.

Now recently one gay judge overturned the ruling.

What the fuck is the point of voting if one gay judge has more power than the 17.3 million Californians who voted in 2008?

Just be honest and upfront with us and tell us that our views don't count and that gay marriage will be legal whether we like it or not. Will save us all the debate, time, effort and tens of millions of dollars spent on this issue. If you're going to steal my vote at least be fucking honest about it. Lying only makes it that much worse.

That's the price you pay when you have a republic instead of a democracy -- it does not always bow to the will of the majority.

[BlackTerrel]

Except that isn't something the government shouldn't be involved in, much less put up to a vote. :)

But it did. And 17.3 million Californians voted on it.

Then one gay judge said "fuck y'all.... you are wrong... screw your vote".

[BlackTerrel]

That's the price you pay when you have a republic instead of a democracy -- it does not always bow to the will of the majority.

No. It bows to the will of ONE gay judge. But that sounds more like a dictatorship than a Republic.

[Stary Hickory]

States rights all the way.

[Stary Hickory]

Ya it is amazing how things are, they have this referendum and then they don't like the results then they simply toss it out. And ask a friendly gay dictator to issue a decree. For those claiming democracy is a way to oppress the masses they certainly are not consistent. it's hypocritical and disgusting.

States should be out of the marriage business entirely. They should have a legal term for civil union and let the churches and the people determine what marriage is. The fact is any two people regardless of affiliation should be able to file jointly or enter into a civil union contract. Even if they are not doing each other.

There should be no penalties or benefits for being romantically engaged with another human being anyways. Just make it very clear and cut, for tax and legal reasons any two people may enter into a civil union contract for ANY reason.

However what we see in CA is the gay population trying to use the state as an instrument of force to attack those that do not accept them or respect their lifestyle. This is a tyrannical use of government power and puts me in direct opposition to that movement. Just because someone does not like or respect you does not make it just to use a man with a gun to attack others.

[AuH2O]

That's the price you pay when you have a republic instead of a democracy -- it does not always bow to the will of the majority.

Problem is, these homosexual activists (and for that matter, the pro-family activists) don't care about republicanism or anything like it. If they could win a majority vote (they can't) they'd happily take it even though they called it invalid here. And if a judge overruled their majority vote, they'd be screaming to high heaven about unconstitutionality.

The gay marriage issue is a tricky one, I just wish each side were a bit more intellectually honest.

[Southron]

They might has we'll have put only one choice on the ballot.

[silentshout]

Sorry, i just don't agree with people voting on the rights of a minority group. I find that sad and creepy tbh. Yes, the government should be completely out of the marriage business altogether, but as long as they are then gays and lesbians should have the same rights. No churches should be forced to marry whoever they don't want to, however some churches don't mind marrying gays and lesbians.

I just returned from an extended trip in France to see inlaws and while they don't and most likely will never have gay marriage, they have civil unions available and they are popular with not just the gay community, but straights too. Of course we are very different countries, but i don't see why civil unions aren't looked at more seriously as a compromise.

I myself had a non religious wedding (not going into my beliefs here), but would have been fine with a civil union if it had the same benefits, or i guess i could have gone to a unitarian minister for a wedding.

[BuddyRey]

Individual right of contract and freedom of association is, to my mind, implicitly guaranteed under the 1st Amendment and not subject to state abridgement.

[silentshout]

Ya it is amazing how things are, they have this referendum and then they don't like the results then they simply toss it out. And ask a friendly gay dictator to issue a decree. For those claiming democracy is a way to oppress the masses they certainly are not consistent. it's hypocritical and disgusting.

States should be out of the marriage business entirely. They should have a legal term for civil union and let the churches and the people determine what marriage is. The fact is any two people regardless of affiliation should be able to file jointly or enter into a civil union contract. Even if they are not doing each other.

There should be no penalties or benefits for being romantically engaged with another human being anyways. Just make it very clear and cut, for tax and legal reasons any two people may enter into a civil union contract for ANY reason.

However what we see in CA is the gay population trying to use the state as an instrument of force to attack those that do not accept them or respect their lifestyle. This is a tyrannical use of government power and puts me movement. Just

others.

I agree to a point, but since we have freedom of religion, some churches will disagree about marrying gays and lesbians. Some actually will. Of ourselves many other religions consider that wrong, but in this country no religion can make rulings that other religions must follow.

And i also see the christian right using the state, and the tyranny of the majority, as an instrument of force attacking those who want to live their lives differently. I just don't get why people cant live and let live, if you think gays are going to hell or whatever, think that and that is fine, but you may or may not be wrong. I don't think it's right to make laws depriving them of rights based on religion. In the meantime, i think its best to just live one's own life according to their subscribed
principles or religion and leave it at that.

In the end i think civil unions are really the only compromise between the two camps.

[jmdrake]

Individual right of contract and freedom of association is, to my mind, implicitly guaranteed under the 1st Amendment and not subject to state abridgement.


Except that isn't something the government shouldn't be involved in, much less put up to a vote. :)

The marriage contract doesn't just affect two people. Currently it is binding on 3rd parties. There are ways around that which don't require ending government licensed marriage.

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2833959&postcount=63

And yeah, you might be a purist and say "The government has no business licensing marriage" but most folks on the street will interpret that as you being "anti marriage". However most folks on the street might be open to transferring the benefits of marriage from the marriage itself to the individuals involved in the marriage. Under those circumstances a marriage license becomes a mere formality. If two gay people (or three gay people) want to write a contract covering just about every aspect of marriage that only involves two people they can already do that in every state in the union including states that don't recognize civil unions.

[TonySutton]

The marriage contract doesn't just affect two people. Currently it is binding on 3rd parties. There are ways around that which don't require ending government licensed marriage.

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2833959&postcount=63

And yeah, you might be a purist and say "The government has no business licensing marriage" but most folks on the street will interpret that as you being "anti marriage". However most folks on the street might be open to transferring the benefits of marriage from the marriage itself to the individuals involved in the marriage. Under those circumstances a marriage license becomes a mere formality. If two gay people (or three gay people) want to write a contract covering just about every aspect of marriage that only involves two people they can already do that in every state in the union including states that don't recognize civil unions.

Why does the government get to pick winners and losers? They say on one hand we approve of you and will allow you certain benefits for free, while telling others we do not approve of you so if you want these same benefits you must spend money.

This is not equal under the law.

[jmdrake]

I agree to a point, but since we have freedom of religion, some churches will disagree about marrying gays and lesbians. Some actually will. Of ourselves many other religions consider that wrong, but in this country no religion can make rulings that other religions must follow.

And i also see the christian right using the state, and the tyranny of the majority, as an instrument of force attacking those who want to live their lives differently. I just don't get why people cant live and let live, if you think gays are going to hell or whatever, think that and that is fine, but you may or may not be wrong. I don't think it's right to make laws depriving them of rights based on religion. In the meantime, i think its best to just live one's own life according to their subscribed
principles or religion and leave it at that.

In the end i think civil unions are really the only compromise between the two camps.

Current laws against gay marriage do not prevent gays from living their lives the way they want. The only thing gays currently "lose" from not having the "right" to marry is: 1) having a set of default contracts that they could draw up for themselves anyway and 2) having the right to enforce their contract on third parties.

Really, if you want to see "restrictions" on marriage look at polygamy. Currently even if a person has an unofficial polygamy ceremony and doesn't see to use the arrangement in any sort of "contract" he or she can be arrested. So why don't you see a "polygamist rights" movement?

[jmdrake]

Why does the government get to pick winners and losers? They say on one hand we approve of you and will allow you certain benefits for free, while telling others we do not approve of you so if you want these same benefits you must spend money.

This is not equal under the law.

I'm not following you. If the benefits currently given to marriage people are transferred to individuals then who is being picked as a "winner"? How is that not equal under the law? And marriage isn't "free" by any stretch of the imagination. The marriage license costs money and for many people there is a tax penalty for being married. There's also nothing to prevent some altruistic gay law firm from putting a standard form "civil union" contract up on their website for free.

[ChaosControl]

Here is how I see "local rights" vs "civil rights".

It is all a matter of property. On your own property you can do as you wish as long as you harm no non-consenting party. On public property the public can set in place regulations of behavior. On other people's private property, it is their say that goes.

In terms of marriage, this would mean you can have your own ceremony and call yourself married, but the community doesn't have to recognize it as a valid marriage.

The only real issue is when tax funded benefits are involved. If tax funded benefits are involved a certain group shouldn't be able to be fully be discriminated against. So the solution is either. 1. Not have marriage recognized at all. 2. End tax funded benefits associated with marriage. 3. Allow/Recognize any combination of consenting individuals as eligible for marriage. And in the case of 3, it still doesn't mean individuals have to really recognize it as valid, it just means they have to be able to receive the tax-benefits like any other "married" combination of individuals.

And before anyone asks you cannot ban a characteristic, you can only ban an action on private property. So you cannot say ban people of a certain race or a sex from being on public property, but you can say they cannot engage in certain behaviors.

Edit: Further on option 3, third parties shouldn't be forced to recognize it as valid. This means a business who decides to give benefits to married persons. Such is a private business and it is their choice who they want to give benefits to. Of course for that matter I don't think a business has to even employ any person they don't want to either.

[TonySutton]

Really, if you want to see "restrictions" on marriage look at polygamy. Currently even if a person has an unofficial polygamy ceremony and doesn't see to use the arrangement in any sort of "contract" he or she can be arrested. So why don't you see a "polygamist rights" movement?

Exactly for the reason you stated, if they speak up they fear arrest and prosecution. If states starting allowing multiple partner civil unions I guarantee you would start hearing polygamists asking for the right to marry. Some would ask for this to gain societal approval while others would want it for the benefits.

[WhiteHaven]

Get ALL government out of marriage!

[erowe1]

Since there aren't any states that are violating gays' rights, I see this question as moot.

[AlexMerced]

I agree with the southern avenger in principal, but the legal institution of marriage has benefits from the federal government. No benefits from the federal government should be prohibited from taxpayers, it's why welfare if it's going to exist should be open to everyone. If you going to use everyones money to maintain these institutions, it should be open to everyone which would be very unsustainable.

Thus, these insititutions shouldn't exist funded by taxpayer dollars.

This isn't really about the definition of marriage, it's about tax benefits, and other benefits, and unless straight people are willing to rename their legal contract so these benefits are uniformly called something else for everyone and marriage just be term personally used by you and your church... then this was an appropriate decision.

While I think Marriage the legal insitution shouldn't exist, and neither should all the tax subsidies that go with it, to me it's unethical to prohibit use of publically funded institutions.

It's like funding a public park and saying only certain kids can play on it.

[RedStripe]

Boo hoo! A federal judge won't let us oppress a minority group! Boo hoo!

*pretends to be pro-freedom*

[ItsTime]

Don't worry you wont catch the gays.

YouTube - ‪gay homer‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omvKySSRa2Y)

[AlexMerced]

Boo hoo! A federal judge won't let us oppress a minority group! Boo hoo!

*pretends to be pro-freedom*

The case they are trying to make is that the states do have the power to legislate religon... which they do and the fedral government explicitly from the 1st ammendment doesn't. Although my issue is that this trancends the first ammendment because of the federal tax subsidies attached to marriage.

To me it's unconstitutional to grant federal tax subsidies to a public legal institution which all taxpayer can't participate in. Taxes are supposed to be uniform constitutionally... although the I think the income tax in general is unconstitutional and if was abolished would make a marraige a non-issue.

[osan]

All I know is when I went to the voting booth here in CA I voted on whether or not gay marriage should be legal in the state of California.

Now recently one gay judge overturned the ruling.

What the fuck is the point of voting if one gay judge has more power than the 17.3 million Californians who voted in 2008?

You should know the answer to that. The central issue is that of the definition of boundaries, which our Constitution does very poorly. On the one hand there is the Supremacy Clause and on the other the Tenth. Which takes precedent? Depends on the context, but those contexts are nowhere defined. We therefore have a very serious issue of metes and bounds. In this the framers screwed the pooch most gloriously.

Had those metes and bounds been even marginally defined we would not be facing these sorts of questions with the frequency and severity we so enjoy.

Is this a Tenth Amendment issue or one of Supremacy? I suspect it is the latter, and I suspect that it is well within that boundary, but what about those cases where the issues at hand are far less clearly delineated?

Forgetting the legal nitpicking regarding contracts that I myself have posited here, if we accept for argument's sake that the Constitution is indeed a contract between the several states that forms a federal government whose role is to serve whatever functions are specified, then the states are bound by the stipulations therein. The Bill of Rights comprises a set of such stipulations with which the member states of that club we call the "USA" must comply, including such basic rights as freedom of speech, religion, RKBA, and so on. The Ninth reminds us that the people retain rights not enumerated therein and the tenth reminds us that the people and the states retain rights not enumerated in the contract. That places very strict limitations on the federal government, at least in principle.

OTOH the supremacy clause says that federal law is the supreme law of the land and that every member state is compelled to comply. The problem with the Constitution is that the bounds of what constitutes properly binding federal law is left unstated or specified with insufficient clarity and completeness. That has been one of the root causes of our national decay. Congress passes some bullshit law, the states balk and it gets handed over to some judge who may or may not rule properly on legitimacy. Second Amendment cases are notorious for manifesting this profound and horrific flaw. Look at the McDonald case - Alito so very incorrectly loopholes for state tyranny by stating that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. Bull.shit. But the point here is that because the Constitution provides no means of effectively corralling and channeling judicial opinion, dumb ass or corrupt judges can basically do what they want. If a lynching issue came to the SCOTUS and they ruled, however narrowly, that it is indeed OK to lynch yo'self a boy come Frydy evenin', it would become law and the ONLY recourse we would have would be to accept it or turn to our arms. If that isn't fucked up, then I don't know what is.

In this case, I would say the ***** judge was right. The issue is one of the right to enter into contracts. Last I checked, the ***** hold equal claim as the rest.

The CA referendum is a good tool in some ways and a cluster copulation in others, and in this vote we saw the latter. Just because some majority, even a vast one, doesn't want *****s getting married, it does not follow that are within their rights to disparage the pansey prerogative to contract. It's one of those "tough shit, get over yourself" issues. My personal take on it is this: I have had some gay friends and many acquaintances of ***** persuasion. I cannot much say I care for the lifestyle - it is nothing I would ever want to be involved in. But that is just my choice. I have no right to prevent two rump rangers from doing what the rest of us expect to be able to do - tie the knot. I don't see the big issue here, and even if I did, it isn't my place to set such a restriction on someone else.

You are presumably displeased with this decision and feel that the ***** don't have a right to marry. Based on what? What objective moral imperative can you cite to support such a position? Note that an arbitrary definition of "marriage" is not a moral imperative, nor are arbitrary religious mandates and strictures, so you can forget about using those tired old saws to justify the position; they are catastrophically invalid. There must be an objective basis for concluding that *****s hold no claim to the right to marry. I assert that no such objective moral basis exists. Prove me wrong.


Just be honest and upfront with us and tell us that our views don't count and that gay marriage will be legal whether we like it or not. Will save us all the debate, time, effort and tens of millions of dollars spent on this issue. If you're going to steal my vote at least be fucking honest about it. Lying only makes it that much worse.

Don't talk nonsense. In this particular case it is not that views do not count, but that they are WRONG because they stand in violation of a fundamewntal human right.

As I wrote above, let us pass a "friday night lynch us a negro" bill and see where it goes. When it is decimated by the courts, who will say that they were wrong? The principle is EXACTLY the same, though the fundantal right in question be different. It is fairly clear that we hold claim to the right not to be strung up from a tree with piano wire. It is also clear that we hold an equal claim to the right to enter into contracts. Marriage is nothing more than a contract.

I'd have thought all this would be so very obviously crystal clear.

[RedStripe]

The case they are trying to make is that the states do have the power to legislate religon... which they do and the fedral government explicitly from the 1st ammendment doesn't. Although my issue is that this trancends the first ammendment because of the federal tax subsidies attached to marriage.

First of all, the 14th amendment incorporates basic protections from excessive government by extending the 1st amendment prohibition on religious establishment/regulation to the state government.

Here's the problem: the Constitution is open to interpretation. People like to claim that the court is just "making stuff up" when they don't like the result, yet have no problem when the court rules in their favor. Here's the bottom line: every decision involves making something up!

What's the point in making legal arguments? No legal argument is "objectively true" - they are just based on certain presumptions of how we "ought" to approach legal reasoning. People choose the presumptions they want (their legal/interpretive philosophy) based on the ultimate policy-goals they'd like to see. So to argue about legal reasoning is absolutely pointless when the real debate is ultimate policy.

And in this case, the ultimate policy question is whether states, through the tyranny of the majority, can oppress minority groups by depriving them of certain legal rights, thereby stigmatizing/ostracizing them.



To me it's unconstitutional to grant federal tax subsidies to a public legal institution which all taxpayer can't participate in. Taxes are supposed to be uniform constitutionally... although the I think the income tax in general is unconstitutional and if was abolished would make a marraige a non-issue.

Where is it unconstitutional to grant federal tax subsidies to particular people, groups, institutions? Or are you saying that prohibiting certain types of people from attaining such legal status (stat laws restricting marriage to certain classes of people) as required to receive that tax subsidy is unconstitutional? Because the latter seems more compelling to me.

Because right now, non-profits get special tax treatment - is that unconstitutional?

The marriage issue goes much farther than the federal income tax, just as black slavery didn't end with the 15th amendment.

[AlexMerced]

First of all, the 14th amendment incorporates basic protections from excessive government by extending the 1st amendment prohibition on religious establishment/regulation to the state government.

Here's the problem: the Constitution is open to interpretation. People like to claim that the court is just "making stuff up" when they don't like the result, yet have no problem when the court rules in their favor. Here's the bottom line: every decision involves making something up!

What's the point in making legal arguments? No legal argument is "objectively true" - they are just based on certain presumptions of how we "ought" to approach legal reasoning. People choose the presumptions they want (their legal/interpretive philosophy) based on the ultimate policy-goals they'd like to see. So to argue about legal reasoning is absolutely pointless when the real debate is ultimate policy.

And in this case, the ultimate policy question is whether states, through the tyranny of the majority, can oppress minority groups by depriving them of certain legal rights, thereby stigmatizing/ostracizing them.



Where is it unconstitutional to grant federal tax subsidies to particular people, groups, institutions? Or are you saying that prohibiting certain types of people from attaining such legal status (stat laws restricting marriage to certain classes of people) as required to receive that tax subsidy is unconstitutional? Because the latter seems more compelling to me.

Because right now, non-profits get special tax treatment - is that unconstitutional?

The marriage issue goes much farther than the federal income tax, just as black slavery didn't end with the 15th amendment.

I was making the latter argument, gays can start a non-profit, they ar't allowed to be married. No PUBLIC insititution should be allowed to discriminate, cause it'd be discriminating against the very people who fund it.

[RedStripe]

I was making the latter argument, gays can start a non-profit, they ar't allowed to be married. No PUBLIC insititution should be allowed to discriminate, cause it'd be discriminating against the very people who fund it.

What do you mean by public institution?

[jmdrake]

Boo hoo! A federal judge won't let us oppress a minority group! Boo hoo!

*pretends to be pro-freedom*

The polygamist minority remains just as oppressed in California as it was before. This ruling would be like ending slavery for black people but allowing it for Chinese. Reduce the state impact on marriage by individualizing benefits, continue the current practice allowed in all 50 states that people can draw up their own domestic partner contracts without any government involvement, don't force anybody's contract on any third party, and everybody wins.

[Brian Defferding]

As a Libertarian, fuck the state. Get it out of marriage completely. I don't think the federal government should pass any amendment in the Constitution recognizing marriage and I don't think the states should have power to recognize it either.

[Ricky201]

I had noticed that there was a picture in the video showing what states had civil unions, gay marriage, bans on gay marriage, and then there was one with "no law". So for the states that have no existing law on gay marriage...does that mean it's ultimately up to the churches and organizations whether to marry same-sex couples? Please enlighten me!

[AmericaFyeah92]

Gay marriage will be the worst thing to ever happen to gay people.

Why the fuck are they so desperate to be like everyone else? The "gay activists" clearly have no respect for the gay culture that has developed in America, which is completely anathema to traditional WASP family lifestyles. They're not trying to liberate homosexuals - they're trying to tame them.

[Vessol]

It's a personal issue.

The only reason there are marriage licenses to begin with was because they didn't want black people marrying white people.

[TonySutton]

I had noticed that there was a picture in the video showing what states had civil unions, gay marriage, bans on gay marriage, and then there was one with "no law". So for the states that have no existing law on gay marriage...does that mean it's ultimately up to the churches and organizations whether to marry same-sex couples? Please enlighten me!

most states had no law prior to Hawaii talking about civil unions in the late 90's. that riled up a bunch of religious folk who made it their mission in life to legislate the option away and in many cases to actually add it to the state constitution.

[eproxy100]

Boo hoo! A federal judge won't let us oppress a minority group! Boo hoo!

*pretends to be pro-freedom*

lol. While I really dislike male gays I agree with you. You'll notice these people who are pissed about this are religious zealots. Quite a few of them here.

[TonySutton]

lol. While I really dislike male gays I agree with you.

You dislike me? You don't even know me :confused:

[BlackTerrel]

Don't talk nonsense. In this particular case it is not that votes do not count, but that they are WRONG because they stand in violation of a fundamewntal human right.

Votes count. Unless they are wrong. In which case the votes don't count.

Who decides if they are right or wrong? One gay judge of course. If the 17 million Californians had voted the correct way he never would have had to intervene.

[RedStripe]

Gay marriage will be the worst thing to ever happen to gay people.

Why the fuck are they so desperate to be like everyone else? The "gay activists" clearly have no respect for the gay culture that has developed in America, which is completely anathema to traditional WASP family lifestyles. They're not trying to liberate homosexuals - they're trying to tame them.

That's unironically the best argument against homosexual marriage, IMO.

[RedStripe]

lol. While I really dislike male gays I agree with you. You'll notice these people who are pissed about this are religious zealots. Quite a few of them here.

Do you dislike straight males? Or do you like them?

[Golding]

Individual rights all the way. There isn't even a question about it. The state, California in particular, can go F itself when it comes to deciding peoples' livelihood. I wouldn't trust my liberty with 7 Californians, let alone 7 million. So when voters decide to use the state to restrict the choices of those around them, the state has no right to enforce it. "Morality" elections be damned.

[eproxy100]

Do you dislike straight males? Or do you like them?

What?? Of course I dislike them!! Who likes competition?!

[RedStripe]

What?? Of course I dislike them!! Who likes competition?!

So you dislike yourself?

CHECKMATE

[AmericaFyeah92]

That's unironically the best argument against homosexual marriage, IMO.

Thank you good sir. though to be honest I should point out that it was Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com, who is gay, that inspired me to look at the issue differently.

I used to be all about " let em marry - FREEDOM!!!" and "Get the government out of personal lives" until I realized that gay marriage would give the State a lot more power over gay people.

[Razmear]

"Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote. Those rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights and in our Constitution. Voters and politicians alike would do well to take a look at the rights we each hold, which must never be chipped away by the whim of the majority."

James Bovard

[osan]

Votes count. Unless they are wrong. In which case the votes don't count.

Who decides if they are right or wrong? One gay judge of course. If the 17 million Californians had voted the correct way he never would have had to intervene.

Again you appear to approach this issues irrationally.

If the ISSUE that is raised up for votes is ILLEGITIMATE, then yes, the votes do not count. You appear to cherry pick a bit here, obviously ignoring the lynch yo'self a negro hypothetical I posited. How about we focus on that so you will see the principle in question, OK? If by some means enough signatures were gathered to get the issue of a return to chattel slavery for some group - any group, it doesn't really matter - on the ballot for a vote and it passed, would you say that the vote was legitimate?

Answer me that question and confine yourself to it so that we might proceed. A simple yes or no will suffice. Thanks.

[RedStripe]

Thank you good sir. though to be honest I should point out that it was Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com, who is gay, that inspired me to look at the issue differently.

I used to be all about " let em marry - FREEDOM!!!" and "Get the government out of personal lives" until I realized that gay marriage would give the State a lot more power over gay people.

Yea, that plus the fact that the gay marriage debate basically focuses all of the attention onto a single issue instead of mobilizing support for larger gay/lesbian/trans liberation. It turns homosexuality into an issue solely related to marriage laws, when it is in fact an issue which relates to a lot of other cultural/social/political institutions.