You must be intentionally avoiding the point.

Fine - let them eat broccoli. Just call it broccoli.That's a very self-superior, grandoise view of your opinion being the enlightened one, while dismissing the concerns of others merely antiquated discomforts.

Because it MEANS a union between a man and a woman to a great deal many people. Ultimately that's what defines any word.

And so long as it means SOMETHING to those people, we should respect that rather than casually dismiss them as Frau does.

However, at the same time we can allow the same rights to be shared by all without prejudice.

You prove that it is not those for Prop 8 who are unreasonable and unwilling to compromise - it is yourself. You try to proclaim a word as practically meaningless, but you cannot do without that word. That makes no sense, and only serves to prove that the word DOES have a meaning, just not one you agree with.

By the way, there is no "harm" in calling it marriage. Neither is there a harm is NOT calling it marriage. Your argument defaults itself, and adds up to nothing more than "why not?"

Well, some people have a "why not". Fine - you don't agree with them. But if you want them to respect something THEY don't agree with, perhaps you can extend them the same courtesy (although, judging by your uncompromising approach, I suspect courtesy doesn't come easy to you).

I don't think we should make a big deal of trying to preserve any one traditional definition of the word, you know? Especially considering the fact that our notions of what "eating" consists of have already undergone so many permutations throughout the history of human gastric preferences.

In discussion, it's already referred to as "gay marriage", not just marriage. We don't use the terms "bride" and "groom", but partner.

Different labels are already being applied. We may as well use ones that are not an affront to those who wish their traditional labels to remain meaningful of their customs.

That's like saying we should make, say, Ramadan a national holiday. During that time we should all eat, drink, and be merry. We should just call it Ramadan but defile its meaning in every way, shape, and form ... hey, it's just a word we're using for a period of time, right?

I know that's a stretch of an analogy, but I'm sure you can understand how those who hold Ramadan sacred would find that as an affront to their sensibilities. Well, I can understand why the majority of Californians (some of the most liberal people in the US) find the term marriage referring to a gay couple as an affront to their sensibilities.

So why not compromise?

I take it, than, you raged and raged against Gore v Bush (or was it Bush v Gore)?

Don't be such a bitter Nancy. Your boy lost. You're just going to have to live with it...

I did call it broccoli.

Broccoli = same-sex spouse.

Spam = opposite-sex spouse.

You seem to think that the right to marry a person of the opposite sex should be considered something of equal value to everyone, and therefore as long as everyone has that right, it's all good.

But it's not something of equal value to everyone.

Something of equal value would be the freedom to marry the person of your choice, period. If the freedom to marry the person of your choice is a "special" right, then it's a special right that everyone would have, not just gays and lesbians. It's not giving "different" marriage rights to anyone, it's not taking away "marriage" rights from anyone. It's just expanding the existing right to include the people who are currently excluded from it.

Honestly I can't understand why anyone has a problem doing that when it takes nothing away from them. If it does, I'd like a clear and concise explanation of exactly what straight people are losing by it, other than the "right" to feel like they're somehow entitled above and beyond their fellow citizens.

Why not just agree that gays and lesbians have a right to be legally married? It's really that simple. What complicates the matter is when people get upset over the fact that gays and lesbians want to be legally, legitimately married. There is nothing wrong with them wanting a legal marriage. If we deny them that right, we should also deny ourselves that right in order to maintain equilibrium. Fair is fair.

Interracial marriage used to be illegal. Used to be. Not too long from now I'm sure this issue will used to be as well.

Well, my point's been adequately made. I have several of you who, in principle agree with me on everything but the word used. You unrelentingly come back again and again as to first how the word is not important to be concerned with but yet is somehow pivotal.

And just like most of the rest of the nation who's on the fence, I'm going to tune you out, screw compromise, and vote "no" when the term marriage appears on the ballot, thusly depriving others of certain "rights" because they refuse to respect the traditions of those who's assent they seek.

:|\\

And the fact that it means something else to other people means nothing?

Except the prejudice that comes with using a different word for the same situation, based only on some quality of the people involved.

I cannot do without that word, because it is the word used to describe a particular situation. That of two consenting adults joined into one life together.

"Marriage" comes out of the mouth quicker than "civil union". "Wife" is easier than "civil union partner". "Wedding" is a easier to say than "civil union ceremony". These words already exist in our language, and are quite sufficient to carry the meaning.

I don't care if they respect it or not. I just want them to extend the same rights to others. A lot of things happen or exist in the world that I don't respect, but that doesn't mean I get to rename them or deny their right to existence.

And we've come full circle. It's not your permission to give. Their rights don't exist because you allow it or asset to it. And that's why this garbage law got thrown out on its ear, and why it will receive the same treatment from SCOTUS.

Having consumed buckets of Internet popcorn reading every post on this thread, had to add $0.02. Living in a jurisdiction where marriage is legal between any two human beings past the legal minimums and without sharing too much of the same DNA it might surprise some to know that the world never came to a screeching halt when same sex marriages became the law of the land. The sun still appears to rise in the east and set in the west, families come together and bust apart as has been the norm for generations.

There is no "gay marriage" and "straight marriage", only one version for all, a legal marriage. The ball and the chain are now gender neutral.

Ministers of a church who object are not required to perform same sex marriages any more than a Catholic priest has a legal obligation to perform (for example) Jewish marriage rites. That should keep any existing gods happy even if it enrages some of their followers.

All are equal under the law and yet civil society has not imploded. Besides, now we're seeing some neat divorce cases with custody battles, property fights and hurt feelings to rival anything men and women have ever cooked up.

First off, I think you're being extraordinarily presumptive regarding how SCOTUS will rule.

Secondly, marriage is not a Constitutional right - that is why states are attempting to Constitutionally define it, whether you agree with it or not.

And finally, "why this garbage law got thrown it" has more to do with the interpretation of a single judge than it does any absolute, fundamantal moral answer to a question. The assert otherwise is absurd.

Because often that is not the case. Many civil unions do not enjoy the same benefits and even worse the courts may side with the family AGAINST the other when one dies meaning a angry family can put someone out on the street quickly.